Systematic Theology 1

Part I

Prolegomena

Introduction to Theology

8 2006

I.          Introduction to Prolegomena

A.         What is Prolegomena (the singular is Prolegomenon)

1.             It is from the Greek pro/ + le/gw, meaning to say beforehand (Random House Dictionary, 2nd Ed., 1547).

2.             It refers to "a preliminary discourse prefixed to a literary work; esp. a learned preface or preamble; chiefly in plural introductory or preliminary observations on the subject of a book" (OED, 1971, 2:2321/1446).

Prolegomena means literally Athings to be said in advance.”

It is commonly called AIntroduction to Systematic Theology.”

Protology (prwto-logi/a) refers to Athe first word.”[1]

It means Athe right of speaking first” (OED, 2237/1510).

Prolegomena refers to things which must be said first (Spykman, 40).

Both protology and prolegomena must be anchored in God’s AFirst Word” for the world which was given with creation (Spykman, 40).

3.         Prolegomena "simply means prefatory or preliminary remarks.  It furnishes the author with the opportunity to let his readers know something of the general plan he has in mind, both its extent and limitations, as well as some of the presuppositions of his thinking and the procedures he plans to use.  Prolegomena serve to orient the readers to what the author has in mind for the book" (Ryrie, Basic Theology, 13).

Spykman writes,” Show me your prolegomena and I will predict the rest of your theology.”

There is a close connection between Athe first things” and Athe last things.”

The fundamental starting points are enormously important in determining the entire shape of dogmatics (Spykman, 40).

B.         Definition of Theology

1.             Etymology

a.             The word "theology" comes from qeo/j (God) and  lo/goj (word, discourse, doctrine).

b.         In the narrow sense the term would mean the doctrine of God (Th, 24).

c.         Qeo-logi/a (theo-logia)

The term refers to a discourse upon one particular subject--God (Chafer, 1:3).

2.         Definitions Offered

a.             "At its most rudimentary, it [theology] is disciplined discourse about God . . ."[2]

b.             A. H. Strong--"Theology is the science of God and of the relations between God and the universe (Systematic Theology, 1).

c.             Charles Hodge--"Theology is the exhibition of the facts of Scripture in their proper order and relation, with the principles or general truths involved in the facts themselves, and which pervade and harmonize the whole"  (Systematic Theology, 1:19).

d.             Theology is "that discipline which strives to give a coherent statement of the doctrines of the Christian faith, based primarily upon the Scriptures, placed in the context of culture in general, worded in a contem­porary idiom, and related to issues of life (Millard J. Erickson,  Christian Theology, 1:21).

e.             "Systematic theology is the arrangement under appropriate divisions of the total witness of revelation to the truth respecting God and his relations to us men and the world.  Since the Bible is the principal source of revelation and since the Bible is the Word of God, systematics is the discipline which more than any other aims to confront us men with God’s own witness so that in its totality it may make that impact upon our hearts and minds by which we shall be conformed to his image in knowledge, righteousness and holiness of the truth"  (John Murray, Collected Writings, 4:21).

C.            Major Academic Divisions of Theological Studies

1.             Exegetical Theology--This type of theology involves a careful study of the sacred text and its interpretation (Th, 46).

a.             It especially scrutinizes the grammar and syntax of the text.

b.             It is the theology which issues from any given passage of Scripture.

2.             Philosophical theology--This type of study involves theologizing which draws heavily upon the input of philosophy rather than using merely biblical materials.

a.             Traditionally it utilizes metaphysics very heavily.

b.             In the twentieth century it has tended to utilize logic (in the broadest sense of that word) and has thus become more analytical than speculative or constructive.

c.             It is helpful in the scrutiny of the meaning of terms and ideas employed in the theological task, the criticizing of its arguments, and the sharpening of the message for clarity. (Erick, 1:27)

3.             Apologetical theology

a.             This type of theology is primarily defensive.

b.             It has to do with establishing the existence and knowability of God as well as sources of information concerning Him (Warfield, 9:91).

4.             Biblical theology (See Murray 4:9 and Frame)

a.             This type refers in the first place to a movement of the same name which arose in the 1940s, flourished in the 1950s and declined in the 1960s. (Erick, 1:23)

1)             It is described and evaluated in Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, 1970.

2)             The movement was made up of biblical scholars in North America and Europe who shared liberal, critical assumptions and methods in an attempt to do theology in relation to biblical studies.

3)             Its proponents tried to do justice to the theological dimension of the Bible which previous generations of liberal scholars had almost completely neglected.

4)             The movement reflected an interest of European neo-orthodox theologians of the 1920s and beyond.

5)             Karl Barth was the major impulse behind this movement.

6)             It puts stress on God’s acts in history (WDCT, 69).

7)             Its adherents wanted to understand the Bible as a fully human book to be investigated with the fully immanent historical-critical method and desired to see the Bible as a vehicle or witness of the divine Word.  (EDT, 149)

8)             It was a major attempt for a full generation in the 20th century to correct liberal theology from within itself.

9)             It failed because it ultimately remained a captive of the basic modes, thought patterns, presup­positions, and methods of liberal theology itself.  (EDT, 152)

b.             The term is used to refer to that approach which studies the theological content of the Old and New Testa­ments or the theology found within the Biblical books.

1)             Krister Stendahl (article in Interp. Dict. of Bible, 1:418-432) advocates a purely descriptive approach.

2)             The term is used in this context to refer to a presentation of the theological teachings of Paul, John, and other N.T. writers (Erick, 1:24).

3)             It attempts to reproduce the theologi­cal thought of each writer or group of writers in the form in which it lay in their own minds.

4)             It attempts to understand their mind and perspective (Warfield, 9:66).

5)             It produces Old Testament theology--the theology of the Jews at that time.

6)             It also produces Pauline, Johannine, Petrine theology.

7)             John Philip Gabler spoke of a "pure" biblical theology "which is the isolation and presentation of the unchanging biblical teachings which are valid for all times."

8)             Gabler saw this approach as more normative because the teachings of the Bible are purified of the contingent concepts in which they were expressed in the Bible.

9)             In neither of these senses (descrip­tive or normative) is there an attempt made to contemporize or to state these unchanging concepts in a form suitable for our understanding today (Erick, 1:24-25).

10)           Rather the theologian tries to enter the minds of New Testament people.

a)             What was their theology?

b)            What theology is reflected by their writings?

11)           Biblical theology is shaped from the point of view of the Biblical writers.

12)           It investigates part of the Bible, but rarely the whole.

13)           It is limited to what the Bible meant at the time of its composition (ZPEB, 1:598).

14)           It studies redemptive history as normative revelation from God and as a history addressed to our deepest needs (Frame, 208).

15)           Biblical Theology is not concerned with application (Frame, 211).

16)           Biblical Theology aims to be a descriptive science.

It "is organized around the chronological and cultural development of a given biblical writer’s own terms, categories, and thought forms in his historical and cultural context."  (I.T., 1:23)

Both Biblical theology and Systematic Theology have their own identity and integrity.

Each has its own object of study, its own organizing principles and methodologies.

There should be a unity between them.

AYet they are different in their areas of inquiry, in their tools of research, and in the outcomes of their respective studies” (Spykman, 9).

Biblical theology approaches the Scriptures as unfolding revelation while Systematic Theology views Scripture as completed revelation (Reymond, xxv).

c.             "Biblical theology" can refer non-technically to theology which is based upon and is faithful to the teachings of the Bible.

Systematic theology should be biblical in this sense (Erick, 1:25).

5.             Historical theology

a.             In this study there is the training of the development of doctrine throughout the church’s history.

b.             The theologian studies the experience of Christians in the past.

c.             He sees how those who have gone before have attempted to understand, define, systematize, and defend revealed truth (Warf, 9:64).

d.             He studies the systematic theologies held and taught by various theologians throughout the history of the church (Erick, 1:25).

e.             There are two approaches:

1)             Synchronic--in this approach the scholar examines sequentially the theology of each successive century or major period of time.

2)             Diachronic--in this approach the scholar traces the history of thought regarding a given doctrine (or series of them) down through the periods of the church’s life (Erick, 1:25).

f.              Historical theology shows how culture has influenced theological thinking in the past and warns us in the present.

g.             It gives us good models and inspira­tion.

h.             It provides a means of evaluating a particular idea.

i.              It shows how the implications of various teaching have been hammered out historically.

j.              "History is theology’s laboratory in which it can assess the ideas that it espouses, or considers espousing (Erick, 1:26-27).

6.             Systematic theology

a.             If Biblical theology is like seeing soldiers in terms of companies, regiments, corps, systematic theology combines them into a single army.  (Warf, 9:68)

b.             Systematic theology takes the knowledge of God supplied by the other types of theology and tries to discover the inner relations of its several elements and set it forth in a systematic presentation.

c.             Systematic theology "is Christian theology whose internal structure is systematic; i.e., it is organized on temporal principles of logic, order, and need, rather than on inductive study of discrete biblical corpora."  It is "concerned about how various parts of God’s gracious self-disclosure cohere" (D. A. Carson, DTTW, 45).

d.             It attempts to put it all into an organic whole, "so that it may be grasped and held in its entirety, in the due relation of its parts to one another and to the whole, and with a just distribution of emphasis among the several items of knowledge which combine to make up the totality of our knowledge of God."  (Warf, 9:92)

e.             It is concerned with all of God’s revelation and what we should believe today.

f.              Systematic theology is "a science which follows a humanly devised scheme or order of doctrinal development and which purports to incorporate into its system all the truth about God and His universe from any and every source" (Chafer, 1:5).

g.             "Systematic theology . . . aims to produce normative guidelines to spiritual reality for the present generation; it organizes the material of divine revelation topically and logically, developing a coherent and comprehensive world view and way of life."  (I.T., 1:23)

h.             "Systematic theology shows the unity of the teaching throughout the Scriptures, and ideally it does so without doing injustice to the differences at different stages in the progress of revelation."  (I.T., 1:45)

i.              "Systematic theology then relates the different doctrines to each other coherently."  (I.T., 1:46)

7.             Dogmatic theology

a.             "A dogma is, briefly, an established truth, authoritative and not to be disputed."  (War, 9:93)

b.             Dogmatic theology is an ambiguous term (War, 9:94).

c.             "Conventional usage often associates ‘dogmatics’ with high- and heavy-handed pronouncements which have the effect of forcefully silencing other points of view" (Spykman, 105).

d.             The expression is often used as a synonym for systematic theology.

e.             It stresses the authority of what is presented.

f.              Often it is the exposition of a par­ticular creed or doctrinal statement.

g.             It presupposes working from a system rather than to a system.

8.             Polemical theology

a.             This type of theology is more offensive than defensive.

b.             The word "polemical" is from the Greek polemikos, meaning "warlike, hostile."

c.             It has to do with attacking and refuting false teaching.

1)             It seeks to search out and to destroy the enemy.

2)             It involves eating, chewing, digesting the opponents.

3)             Examples

a)             Machen, Christianity and Liberalism.

b)            Josh McDowell, Walter Martin, John Warwick Montgomery, Norman Geisler.

II.         Is Theology a Science?

A.         Before the question can be answered one must determine what is science and what is theology.

In its classical definition science meant any clearly defined subject matter that yields valid knowledge communicable from mind to mind and from generation to generation (Henry, 1:202).

One definition of Ascience” in Webster is Aa department of systematized knowledge as an object of study . . .” (1045).

However, in the modern world Ascience” has come to be restricted to the objects of sense experience and verification to the scientific method (Erickson, 34).

AScience” is used to refer particularly to what are called the physical sciences.

B.         Is theology a science in terms of methodology (operational procedure)?

It is a science in that it deals with reality, not imaginary or fictitious entities, but the data may not rightly be treated arbitrarily or manipulated.

But there are differences in that the data of theology are secured from revealed facts of Scripture, the experiments are not repeatable, and one part may not necessarily imply another.

Some items in theology are what they are because a Person decided them.

From the standpoint of methodology, theology may be considered a science, but only with serious modifications.

C.         Is theology a science in terms of product?

It is a science in that theology is an integrated body of knowledge, focused in one particular area.

It deals with knowledge related to a particular area and organized in a systematic fashion.

But it deals with a different subject matter (God and His relationship to man and the world), and in the investigation the student must place himself in subjection to the primary Subject studied, rather than remain above that Subject.

There is also the need for the inward work of the Holy Spirit rightly to study and appreciate theology.

There is a difference in the amount of disagreement (the Law of Inverse Rationality).

III.        The Uniqueness of Systematic Theology

A.         The Purpose and Task of Systematic Theology

Theology is a human effort, requiring intellectual activity (hard thinking), dealing with knowledge of truth (in fact, the ultimate truth) with a method which is not arbitrary but open to scrutiny.

There is a human effort which deals with divine realities.

There is no perfect and ultimate systematic theology in this life.

Systematic theology seeks to discover and unfold in its application to and in its significance for all of life the teaching of Scripture.

B.         The Special Task of Systematic Theology

It attempts "to systematize and present as a unified whole the truth concerning God and his relationships to men and the universe as this is authoritatively revealed in the Holy Scriptures and to relate this truth to human thought and life"  (Kantzer, 2).

It is concerned with the relation of revealed truth to other human knowledge (integration).

It extends to the application of the truth (practical theology).

Two approaches to theological construction

Systematic theology can be Afrom below” when its statements are generated from the socio-historical situation (as in Pannenberg and Schillebeeckx).

Systematic theology can be Afrom above” when its statements are generated from an attempt to follow God in His revelation (as in Calvin).

AThe two approaches represent two epistemologies, the one beginning with mankind and attempting to get to God, the other beginning with God and attempting to communicate His self-revelation to mankind” (Gulley, 6).

We could add (a) the division of this truth "into appropriate categories" and (b) the demonstration of the inner coherence of the faith.

ASystematic” implies division (according to subject) and orderly arrangement.

Its primary purpose is not a defense of an inherited body of doctrine or to make better Christians, although these results will follow good theology.

Those who do not take the Scriptures seriously are usually weak in systematic theology.

Kenneth Kantzer stated, AEvangelical Christianity has been powerful when it has produced great systematic theologians.”

AThe inner-coherence and logical consistency between the various loci of theology enables one to penetrate to the essence of theology to appreciate each part in the light of the total picture (Gulley, 41).

C.         The Necessity and Importance of Systematic Theology

1.             Because of God’s unity

a.             God sees truth as a whole (B, 15).

b.             The theologian is to think the truths of God after Him (B, 15).

c.             The unity of systematic theology comes from God Himself (Forum, 2).

d.             Systematic theology is an affirmation and declaration of God’s unity (Rush, 12).

God is one.  He is perfectly consistent.  He is non-contradictory.

e.             It is important to know what kind of being God is (D, 112).

f.              Whenever God is being known by a systematically working mind, there is systematic theology (Warfield, 95).

g.             If God exists and can be known, theology is inevitable (Warfield, 95).

h.             Systematic theology seeks to offer an ordered presentation of what the Bible teaches about God (Van Til, 1).

i.              Systematic theology is never finished (Murray, 6).

It is a work which will extend throughout eternity (Ephesians 2:7).

2.             From the Nature of the Mind

a.             Theology is necessary to satisfy the mind (Davis, 63).

b.             The mind is not satisfied with chaotic bits of knowledge but wants to integrate God’s revelation (D, 63).

c.             In the human mind is an encyclopedia principle; the mind needs to bring order into the chaos of its knowledge (K, 26).

1)             "The ideal of systematic explanation and completeness was not simply borrowed by modern science from the great philosophers of the past or evoked by experience; its roots are far deeper in the very nature of man as a reflective being and in sustained constructive thought, and beyond that in the fact that mans as a distinctive creature of God stands continually in touch with revelation" (Henry, 1:239).

2)             Some thinkers like Francis Bacon have tried to order all the branches of knowledge.

d.             "There lies a majesty in the human mind by virtue of which it cannot rest until it has acquired full dominion in the world of thought."  (Kuyper, 15)

e.             "Such is the constitution of the human mind that it cannot help endeavoring to systematize and reconcile the facts which it admits to be true."

f.              "In no department of knowledge have men been satisfied with the posses­sion of a mass of undigested facts."  (Hodge, 1:2).

g.             Science is systematic; i.e. it is knowledge orderly arranged (K, 29).

h.             An atomistical science offends the unity-sense of the mind (Kuyper, 15).

i.              Everyone has some philosophy of life (K, 21).

j.              "Every man’s life is governed by an implicit systematic theology, by certain presuppositions which form a coherent whole and govern his thoughts and life."  (Rushdoony, NST, 27)

k.             The unity and organic character of our personality demands that we have unified knowledge as the basis of our action (VT, 5).

l.              The Christian consciousness feels an irrepressible urge to reproduce truth and to see it in its grand unity (B, 23). 

3.             Doctrinal beliefs are essential to the believer’s relationship with God (Erick, 1:28).

a.             Some say Christianity is not doctrine, but a life.

The expression has a pious sound and appeals to some.  But such is a dangerous falsehood.  Men partake of new life in the Spirit only by a proper understanding and a believing acceptance of the message of the gospel (Berkhof, 28).

b.             The Necessity of Faith

1)             Hebrews 11:6--"And without faith it is impossible to please Him.  For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek Him."

2)             Matthew 16:15--Jesus asks, "But who do you say that I am?"

a)             Jesus’ statements implied that His hearers should be engaged in systematic theology.

b)            Jesus approved of Peter’s response, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

3)             It is not enough to have a warm, positive feeling toward Jesus. 

4)             One needs a correct understanding and belief (Erick, 1:28-29).

a)             I John 4:2-3 speaks of the necessity of belief in the Incarnation.

b)            In Romans 10:9-10 Paul ties in a belief in the resurrection of Christ with the salvation experience.

c)             Faith has an object and a context in which it is directed.

5)             "Doctrinal or systematic theology has its origin in the N.T. epistles."

a)             We cannot respond in faith to the Word of God without trying to articulate it in meaningful terms (Jenkins, 101).

b)            Therefore, theology which is concerned with defining and establishing belief is important (Erick, 1:29).

c.             The simplest statements about Jesus are theological (D, 80).

1)             Some claim to worship a living Christ not the Christ of a dead book.

2)             R. C. Sproul, in The Necessity of S.T. (ed. by Davis), writes, "To say we don’t need to know theology, only Jesus, raises the immediate question, ‘Who is Jesus?’  As soon as we begin to answer that question we are instantly involved in theology."  (D, 16).

3)             How dreadful to hear these awful words, "Depart from me, for I never knew you."

d.             God’s revelation has impelled a scientific investigation in the hearts of his people which causes us to do theology (K, 330).

1)             "A theologian is a person who knows about God." (Gerstner in D, 19).

2)             No one can be saved without a knowledge of God, and theology concerns the knowledge of God (Gerstner in D, 21).

e.             Every Christian is a theologian (we know and speak holistically).

1)             As Christians we simply cannot avoid theology (Sproul, in D, 16).

2)             "The question is not will we be theologians, but will we be good theologians or poor theologians.  (Sproul, in D, 16). 

3)             The difference between laymen and ministers is a difference not of kind, but of degree (Gerstner, in D, 25).

4)             "A true theologian, therefore, is a person who knows the Person.  Everyone must be a theologian."  (Gerstner, D, 25)

5)             Every Christian should make a business of endeavoring to grow in knowledge and divinity (D, 103).

6)             There are universal elements in theology (Forum, 3).

7)             A universal dimension poten­tially exists in theology (Forum, 2).

8)             All who think rationally about the faith are theologians (Forum, 4).

9)             Theology is the privilege and responsibility of all believers (Forum, 5).

f.              The challenge of theology

1)             We need to demonstrate that each doctrine and text show relations to Christ and His redemptive work (Frame, 184).

2)             Theology’s work is also to question us, command us, and exclaim the greatness of God (Frame, 202).

4.             The Bible stresses truth.

a.             Scripture commands us to teach (Matthew 28:19-20). 

This command is a justification for theology (Frame, 81).

b.             Scripture presents truth as essential to Christianity. (B, 28)

1)             John 17:17--"Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth."

2)             II Timothy 2:15--"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."  (K, 21-25).

c.             The church reflects on truth and it takes definite shape in her doctrine (B, 23).

II Timothy 3:16-17--"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

d.             It is plain that we are required to know the revelation that God has given us (VT,  5).

1)             The putting together of truth and instruction is commanded.

2)             God does not consider this activity a waste of time (K, 22).

3)             Matthew 22:23-33--Jesus assumes that the Jewish leaders would have deduced the doctrine of the resurrec­tion from the O.T.

4)             John 3--Jesus is astonished that Nicodemus has not discovered the doctrine of the new birth from the O.T.

5)             Those who minimize the significance of Christian truth will soon have little Chris­tianity left (B, 29).

5.             As an aid to further Bible Study

a.             The comprehensive intent

1)             When one begins asking questions of the Bible, a "Dictionary of the Bible" comes into being (D, 81).

2)             Systematics is the attempt to answer whole-Bible questions, applying the sum-total of Biblical truth to life (Fr, 213).

3)             Systematic theology seeks to synthesize all aspects of Scripture (as a whole). (Fr, 212)

b.             The greater knowledge which is possible

1)             Charles Hodge maintains that there is a much higher kind of knowledge attained by studying the unifica­tion and interrelation of truths (1:2).

2)             Psychologists speak of the Gestalt theory of learning, which might be thought of as the magnetic field theory of learning.

3)             We do not adequately know God’s revelation if it is known only in several parts without bringing these into relation to each other. (V, 5)

4)             We do not know the separate truths of religion except as we know them systematized (War, 83).

5)             One can surely make a better exegesis of the parts of Scripture if he is sensitive to the overall teaching of Scripture as discovered by systematics (Fr, 213).

6)             Systematics is to revelation what homiletics is to a particular passage (Murray, 16).

Why do you preach instead of merely reading Scripture?

7)             Henry writes, "The content of revelation does indeed lend itself to systematic exposition, and the more orderly and logical that exposition is, the nearer the expositor will be to the mind of God in his revelation" (1:240-241).

c.             The Inner Coherence (unity, rationality) of Scripture

1)             Orthodox systematic theology rests on the presence of the unity of Scripture, the consent of all its parts (M, 20).

2)             Theology does not produce external systematization but allows the Christian faith to be seen in its own inner organic coherence (Nygren, 371).

3)             Dogmatics sees the whole of reality in such a way that all the particulars in this totality are mutually inter-related (Pann, 200).

4)             The truth of revelation must be sought behind the unity of the different testimonies (D, 83).

5)             The theologian attempts to see the one light of truth behind these refractions (D, 84).

6)             The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union came after much study and reflection on many Biblical texts, as did the doctrine of the Trinity.

d.             Increased Understanding

1)             Systematic theology is an aid to further Bible study.

The purpose of Calvin’s Institutes was to provide a greater understanding of holy Scripture.

2)             This purpose takes us away from a mere superficial Bible study.

3)             It makes us study the Bible for the great ideas it communicates (K, 22).

e.             We conclude that it is God’s will that we study theology.

He gives us in the Bible the truths which properly under­stood and arranged, constitute the science of theology. (Hodge, 1:3)

6.             It should increase our personal holiness

a.             The character of our religion is determined by the character of our theology (Warf, 81).

b.             Lack of precision in our Christian conceptions causes spiritual feebleness (Warf, 84).

c.             "To be satisfied with a simple faith that is maintained on a milk diet stunts your growth as a Christian."  (Sproul, in D, 17).

d.             Systematics confronts us with God’s revelation and causes us to be conformed to His image in character (M, 21).

e.             It involves truth about a person, and we should be moved to love Him all the more (K, 22).

f.              Truth and experience are related.

g.             In the long run, the truth will affect our experience (Erick, 1:29).

1)             Biblical truth must undergird our experience.  Otherwise we have false experience.

2)             "Missions cannot feed on missions."

3)             Carl F. H. Henry writes, "Neither inner devotion nor global evangelism nor social concern will long survive on a Christian basis where sound theology does not govern one’s commitments of truth and life" (1:199).

h.             If it deadens our spiritual life, it is only because the subject matter is treated as mere theory (Th, 29).

i.              Theology must apply Scripture, not just repeat its exact words (Fr, 211).

j.              Those who are "fanatical" about biblical theology sometimes lose a proper sense of the goals of theology and preaching (Fr, 211).

7.             For the unity of the Church

a.             The unity of the Church demands doctrinal agreement (B, 29).

b.             Theology demonstrates appreciation for the manifestation of the Spirit in the life and ministries of many of God’s servants (D, 64).

8.             For the purity of the Church

a.             Doctrine has often been formulated because of false teaching.

1)             Most classic formulations of doctrine have been set forth by way of contrast to some heresy. (Fr, 232)

2)             The church fathers did not formulate dogmas out of speculation (War, 81).

3)             Heresy has forced the Church to set forth the truth in opposition to heresy (Murray, 7).

4)             "Teachers and preachers never, I think, make it sufficiently clear that dogmas are not a set of arbitrary regulations invented a priori by a committee of theologians enjoying a bout of all-in dialectical wrestling.  Most of them were hammered out under pressure of urgent practical necessity to provide an answer to heresy."  (Sayers, in D, 36).

b.             Doctrine is necessary today because of false teaching.

1)             Dogmatics is necessary in the struggle against false doctrine (D, 79).

2)             This necessity is seen in Church History and the Reformation (D, 80).

3)             The refutation of false teachers requires theology (D, 93).

4)             Polemics is necessary (D, 94). 

5)             The book of Jude calls the Church back to the faith once-delivered for the saints.

6)             Sayers claims to meet daily "a magnificent crop of all the standard heresies."

She explains, "Nine out of ten of my heretics are exceedingly surprised to discover that the creeds contain any statements that bear on a practical and comprehensible meaning."  (in D, 36-37)

c.             Theology is necessary to preserve the truth.

1)             Theology is needful because of the large number of alterna­tives and challenges abroad at the present time.

We have to be able to recognize the truth in a world with great error and deceit.

2)             There are many secular alterna­tives (Erick, 1:29).

3)             The solution is for Christians to understand correctly the doctrinal teachings of Chris­tianity.

4)             "The Treasury Department trains agents to detect counterfeit money, not by having them study false bills, but by having them examine numerous samples of genuine money."  (Erick, 1:30)

d.             Consequences of Not Studying Theology

1)             One must clearly apprehend the truth to deal with error (B, 30).

2)             Preachers untrained in theology often preach error (VT, 5).

A real vulnerability is involved in not knowing theology.

3)             Non-indoctrinated Christians fall easily before heretical teaching (VT, 6).

4)             These are many one-text Christians who are seduced (VT, 6).

There may be many people in hell who can quote single Scripture verses too.

5)             The church will not be able to correct and rebuke error unless she has a clear apprehension of the truth and therefore a definite standard of judgment (B, 31).

e.             Theology is necessary for ethics.

1)             If there is to be purity in doctrine and conduct, there must be good theology.

2)             We must be able to distinguish truth from error.

a)             Jude 3

b)            I Timothy 6:3-5

9.             Theology is necessary for the Defense and Propagation of the Gospel.

a.             The Church must give clear expression to the contents of her faith.

1)             The Church cannot perform her function in the world unless she gives clear expression to the contents of her faith (B, 30).

2)             A church without dogmas would be a silent church (B, 31).

b.             The Importance of Proclamation

1)             Men are brought to Christ by an understanding and acceptance of a message (B, 28).

2)             The work of theology is to proclaim old ideas to a new generation (Fr, 340).

c.             We must teach the whole counsel of God.

1)             We are to teach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27); therefore theology should be studied (D, 92-93).

2)             The Great Commission involves "whatsoever things I have taught you" (Matthew 28:19-20).

3)             Systematics helps ministers preach the whole counsel of God (VT, 6).

4)             Kenneth Kantzer writes, "The heart of biblical preaching, therefore, ought to be the exposition of Scripture, not systematic theology.  But the best of such preaching must always be biblically informed, and to be truly profitable exposition of Scripture it must inform those who are being instructed" ("A Systematic Biblical Dogmatics: What Is It and How Is It To Be Done?," DTTW, 472).

d.             Theology is necessary for teaching (D, 63).

1)             Dogmatics is necessary for instruc­tion (D, 80).

2)             Dorothy L. Sayers--"Creed or Chaos?," in J. J. Davis, The Necessity of Systematic Theology (a powerful article), writes:

a)             "It is fatal to let people suppose that Christianity is only a mode of feeling . . . ."

b)            " . . . it is, on the contrary, a hard, tough, exacting, and complex doctrine, steeped in a drastic and uncompromising realism."  (30)

c)             "The brutal fact is that in this Christian country not one person in a hundred has the faintest notion what the church teaches about God or man or society or the person of Jesus Christ."  (30)

d)            Church goers are totally unprepared to defend the faith.  (31)

e)             "Theologically, this country is at present in a state of utter chaos, established in the name of religious toleration . . ."  (31)

f)             " . . . the reason why the churches are discredited today is not that they are too bigoted about theology, but that they have run away from theology."  (31-32)

g)            " . . . if we really want a Christian society, we must teach Christianity, and that is absolute­ly impossible to teach Christianity without teaching Christian dogma."  (32)

h)            Rather than theology being irrelevant she states that all relevance stands or falls on the central dogma of the Incarnation (34).

e.             Systematics strengthens the attack made by the Church.

1)             The minister must be a good apologist and such requires good systematic theology (VT, 7).

2)             Systematics better arms the man of God (R, 57).

3)             The individual who has a complete system of thought can mount a much more powerful attack than the one who does not (Th, 28).

4)             The best way to propagate the gospel is a clear exposition of Christian truth (Kantzer, 23).

f.              Theology is necessary for the overall ministry of the Church.

1)             To tell someone how to be saved is to employ theology.

2)             Counseling employs theology.

3)             Dialogue, apologetics and polemics employ theology.

10.           Theology is necessary to preserve a proper balance.

a.             We need to know what emphasis to give each doctrine.

1)             It is said that the cults are the unpaid bills of the church.

2)             Every heresy contains some truth. 

3)             Heresies only look at part of Scripture (K, 23).

4)             Kenneth Kantzer writes, "Most heresies in the past have started because people have failed to take into account the teaching of Scripture in its wholeness.  They latched onto a piece of truth in the Bible and became so enamored with their brand-new discovery that they never bothered to learn what else the Bible had to say on that same subject.  And when they did bother to look at the rest of the Bible, they twisted the other passages all out of shape to make them say just what the first passage said" (DTTW, 471).

5)             "A little knowledge is dangerous."

b.             Theology helps prevent wrongful appropriation of individual teachings.

1)             If we do not know a body of doctrine systematically, we will misconceive separate elements (Warf, 83; VT, 5).

2)             Theology helps to prevent a "cafeteria style" of using the Bible to select only what one wants  (see B, 60-61).

c.             Theology shows the relationships of doctrines.

Theology explores the relation­ship of meaning and logical interdependence among doctrines (Fr, 269).

d.             The Resulting Balance

1)             The theologian needs a synoptic view of Christian truth which enables him to see how his special interests are related to the rest (Jenkins, 109).

2)             The study of Systematic Theology will help us keep and develop spiritual balance (VT, 5).

IV.        Dangers Involved in Constructing a Systematic Theology

A.            It is possible to seek to construct a system of theology without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

1.             Theology is not just religious information--it involves a dynamic interaction and a personal relationship.

2.             A great moral temptation exists to evade the truth (K, 25).

3.             The one who ceases to be a man of the Spirit, furthers a diabolical theology (Thielicke, 36-37).

4.             We must not be crushed by theology and become a corpse on the battle field (Thielicke, 37).

B.            There is the danger of over-completeness (K, 25).

1.             There is a real temptation to speculate where the Bible is silent.

We want to tie the package together neatly.

2.             Deuteronomy 29:29 should be our guide. 

3.             Human logic cannot penetrate fully into the mind of God (Rush, NST, 13).

4.             Logic cannot play Peeping Tom into God’s hidden counsels (Rush, NST, 13).

5.             Theology cannot deliver where revelation does not (H. Thielicke, Little Ex., xiii).

6.             We must leave some questions unanswered.

7.             Our systematic theology will be perfected only when we are in Christ’s presence (War, 9:105).

We do not yet have a theology of glory.

Theology is a pilgrimage without an end in this mortal life.

The subject matter of theology (God) is infinitely more difficult to understand than is the subject matter of physical science (nature).

AComplete understanding is God’s not ours, and any one who regards his own ideas as final has confused himself with God, which is idolatry (Fisher Humphreys, Thinking About God, 11).

A[O]ur theological models and paradigms are but responses to revelation, and not themselves revelation.  Dogmatics is interpretation of God’s Word, and not the Word itself.  It is fitting therefore that we press our claims tentatively and with humility, however convincingly we seek to state our case” (Spykman, 96).

ANo theology has canonical status.  That belongs to God’s Word alone.”

There is a tentativeness to theology (Spykman, 110).

C.            We may develop an unbalanced system of theology.

1.             We are tempted to go off on doctrinal tangents (K, 25).

2.             We need to have a balanced view of the truth (K, 25).

D.            We may adopt a system on wrong grounds.

1.             We may choose on purely rational grounds. 

2.             We may also act only to please our audience (K, 25).

E.             Through pride of intellect we might become enamored of our system of theology.

1.             For some, theology has become a means of personal triumph, just the opposite of love.

2.             In such a case, it produces one who operates not to instruct, but to kill the church (Thielicke, 19).

3.             A snobbishness can develop, an arrogant sophistication.

4.             Faith must mean more to us than a commodity stored in lecture notes (Thielicke, 32).

F.             It can destroy the simplicity of faith, producing fruitless speculation and hurtful controversy, rather than a loving apprecia­tion of and fellowship with the Person of Christ (K, 24).  Some see theology as a military training exercise.

1.             James Henley Thornwell comments about Scholastic Theology.

a.             "It gave no scope to the play of Christian feeling; it never turned aside to reveren­ce, to worship or adore."

b.             "It exhibited truth, nakedly and baldly, in its objective reality, without any reference to the subjective conditions which, under the influence of the Spirit, that truth was calculated to produce."

c.             "It was a dry digest of thesis and propositions--perfect in form, but as cold and lifeless as a skeleton."

d.             "Truth must be exhibited warm and glowing from the fullness of the Christian heart."

e.             "There must be method, but a method without life is a skeleton."  (Collected Writings, 1:34-35)

2.             Helmut Thielicke, A Little Exercise for Young Theologians

a.             Thielicke speaks of the great gap between the intellectual knowledge of the young theologian and his actual spiritual growth (p. 10).

b.             "He has not yet come to that maturity which would permit him to absorb into his own life and reproduce out of the freshness of his own personal faith the things which he imagines intellectually and which are accessible to him through reflection."  (Thielicke, 12)

c.             Thielicke calls it "the problem of theological puberty." (15)

A snobbishness can develop, an arrogant sophistication.

d.             We must not forget that the church is our pastor.

e.             We must maintain a dialogue with the ordinary children of God (Thielicke, 26).

f.              We must watch that we do not lose the second person in our speech and lapse only into the third (Thielicke, 33).

V.         Hermeneutics and Doctrine

A.         Principles for the Doctrinal Study of Scripture

1.         The interpreter must approach the Scriptures with an open mind.

2.         Exegesis is prior to any system of theology.

A theological system is to be built up exegetically brick by brick.

3.         The interpreter must pay careful attention to the rules of General Hermeneutics.

There is no sound doctrine which does not rest upon a strict grammatico-historical interpretation of Scripture.

4.         No doctrine should be constructed from an uncertain textual reading.

5.         Base doctrine on plain statements rather than on obscure ones.

6.         Base doctrine primarily on didactic passages, rather than on historical ones.

7.         Base doctrines on all the relevant passages, not on just a few.

8.         The interpreter should always keep in mind the heart of the BibleBthe message about Christ and salvation.

There is a center of gravity in Christian theology.

9.         The interpreter should keep in mind the relationship of the O.T. and N.T.

10.        The theologian must use his proof texts with proper understanding of this procedure.

ASource texts” are necessary but need to be backed by sound exegetical work.

The context of individual passages must not be violated.

11.        There is a correct use of logic.

Unbiblical deductions must not be drawn from legitimate premises.

The theologian must use good argumentation.

Inferences must be handled carefully.

12.        The main burden of doctrinal teaching must rest on the literal portions of the Bible.

The literal must be the controlling agent of the figurative.

13.        The theological interpreter should take into account the development of doctrine throughout the history of the Church.

We must not ignore or disdain the theological struggles of the past.

AFresh creativity must be tempered by an awareness of the failures and successes of others” (Mick, 355).

B.         The Analogy of Faith (analogia fidei)

1.             Definition of the Term

a.             The analogy of faith is the rule that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

(1)           Sacra Scriptura sui interpres (Sacred Scripture is its own interpreter).

(2)           It means that Scripture is its own best interpreter.

(3)           "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."  ("The Westminster Confession of Faith," 1. 9)

b.             This means, quite simply, that no part of Scripture can be interpreted in such a way as to render it in conflict with what is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture. (Sproul, Knowing Scripture, 46)

(1)           This practice or principle is called "the analogy of faith" or "the analogy of Scripture."

(a)           In practice the principle of the analogy of faith has often meant that Scripture must be interpreted in harmony with the creeds and confessions of the church.

(b)           "Any interpretation that conflicted with confessions had to be rejected on the assumption that the creeds and confessions represented precisely the teaching of Scripture" (Kantzer, DTTW, 493).

(c)           Such a procedure is to set up the creeds as normative over the Bible.

(d)           It is possible for a particular confession or creed to be given a functional authority over the Bible.

(e)           In some respects, therefore, it is preferable to speak of the analogy of Scripture (Kantzer, DTTW, 493, note 78).

(2)           The terms "similarity" or "comparison" could be used (Compare McQuilkin, 175-202).

c.             J. Edwin Hartill, Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics (84), speaks of "The Agreement Principle."

It is "that principle under which the truthfulness and faithfulness of God become the guarantee that He will not set forth any passage in His Word which contradicts any other passage."

d.             It has been called "the principle of analogy" (Fairbairn, 127).

(1)           Fairbairn prefers "the principle of consistency" (127).

(2)           Fairbairn explains, "The faith, according to which the sense of particular passages is determined, must be that which rests upon the broad import of some of the most explicit announcements of Scripture, about the meaning of which there can be, with unbiased minds, no reasonable doubt" (Fairbairn, 128; also quoted in Terry, 579).

e.             This matter cannot be escaped in any serious study of hermeneutics (See Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, 579-581 and Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology, 134).

2.             Etymology of the Term

a.             Apparently the term was first employed by Origen who took it from Romans 12:6  (Kaiser, 134).

(1)           Romans 12:6--"And since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let each exercise them accordingly: if prophecy according to the proportion of his faith (kata\ th\n a)nalogi/an th’j pi/stewj) . . . ."

(2)           Some interpreters have understood the verse as referring to the rule, common agreement, the canon of faith--which results from comparison of one part of Scripture with another (Fairbairn, Herm. Manual, 122).

b.             However, this verse talks about a subjective faith, not an objective faith.

(1)           Let the one who is gifted with the ability to prophesy, function in this way, giving forth rightfully (neither more or less) what He is given to communicate (Fairbairn, 122-123).

(2)           Paul refers not to a body of theological truth, but to the exercise of one’s spiritual gift in accordance with the appropriation of personal faith.  (Kaiser, 134)

(3)           As Paul says to Timothy, "Stir up the gift that is in you" (II Timothy 1:6).

a)             Paul means that Timothy is not to allow his spiritual endowments to slumber or be put to improper use, but to give them full and proper exercise.  (Fairbairn, 123)

b)            Terry (579) agrees with this interpretation by Fairbairn.

(4)           The expression "the analogy of faith" came from this misunderstanding of Romans 12:6  (Terry, 579; Fairbairn, 122; Berkhof, 164).

a)             It is a good concept.

b)            However, it was taken from the wrong passage.

3.             History of the Concept

a.             Some of the Early Fathers mention a regula fidei (rule of faith) to which all teaching in the Church was to be conformed (Fairbairn, 123).

(1)           Originally this term referred to the general principles of the faith.

(2)           Fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen gave summaries though they disagreed on some minor points (Fairbairn, 123).

(3)           Augustine expressly defines it as the sense of doctrine which is gathered from the plainer parts of Scripture ("Treatise on Christian Doctrine," 3.2).

(4)           He is speaking of the difficulties which the student of Scripture sometimes encounters in his efforts to ascertain the meaning; he states:

"Let him rule the sense of the more obscure and difficult parts of Scripture by such as are of plainer import, and the common faith held by the orthodox Church.  And should this prove insufficient, then let him carefully examine the connection, and endeavour to get light to the particular text from what goes before or follows"  (Quoted from Fairbairn, 123).

b.             However, the expression "the rule of faith" came by-and-by to be understood as the creeds publicly authorized and sanctioned by the Church.  (Fairbairn, 123; Ramm, 55; Berkhof, 164)

(1)           It came to form the all-embracing principle of conformity--"Quod obique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est."

(2)           The great criterion of truth and duty became universality, antiquity, and general consent.

(3)           Tradition was virtually exalted above Scripture (Fairbairn, 123).

(a)           But this result arose out of a mistaken use of the term.

(b)           "It is perfectly ridiculous to raise the confessions of the Church to the dignity of Regulae Veritatis, for it makes that which is derived from Scripture a test of the truth of Scripture."  (Berkhof, 164)

(3)           There is a proper sense of the term which is accepted by Protestants  (Fairbairn, 124).

c.             The Latin fathers referred to the Regula fidei: the analogy of doctrine or faith which rests upon the main points of Christian doctrine evidently declared in Scripture (Fairbairn, 124).

d.             The Church of Rome had issued the Glossa ordinaria, a commentary that enjoined uniformity in all matters relating to faith and practice.

e              But the Reformers objected to this regula fidei ("rule of faith") because it was held to be an authority independent of Scripture. (Kaiser, 134)

(1)           The Reformers argued that all faith and practice must be based on Scripture alone (sola Scriptura).

(a)           But the Scripture has to be interpreted.

(b)           The solution for the Reformers was that Scripture interprets Scripture. (Kaiser, 135)

(2)           The Reformers broke with Rome and claimed that the Bible was the sole and supreme authority of the Church (sola Scriptura).

(a)           They defined the hermeneutical principle of "the analogy of faith." (Sproul, Knowing Scripture, 46)

(b)           When faced with obscure passages, the RCC scholars looked to the traditions of the Church.

(c)           But Luther shut the interpreter up within the Scripture itself and made the obscure passage yield to a clear passage. (Ramm, 55)

4.             Presuppositions and Implications Involved

a.             Scripture is the inspired Word of God and is therefore trustworthy.

(1)           God cannot lie, deceive, or communicate non-truth.  We expect Him to communicate that which has no inherent contradictions or inconsistencies (He speaks from His own omniscience)  (See Sproul, 47).

(2)           Those who ridicule our effort to harmonize difficult passages, have no real respect for the Bible as divine revelation. (Sproul, 47)

b.             There is an organic, theological unity within the Bible. (see Ramm, 56)

(1)           One Holy Spirit inspired the various human authors.

(2)           "The Bible does not contradict itself.  The Bible is essentially one revelation, giving one message about God."  (Sterrett, 85)

(3)           "The books of Scripture were not handed down to us by chance or accident; neither are we to regard them only as a manual of sayings and examples, or as isolated relics of antiquity, from which no perfect whole, no comprehensive and finished plan can be educed; but as a matchless, regular account of God’s dealings with man through every age of the world, from the commencement to the end of time, even to the consummation of all things.  They indicate together one beautiful, harmonious, and gloriously connected system.  For each scriptural book is in itself something entire, and though each of the inspired penmen has his own manner and style of writing, one and the self-same spirit breathes through all; one grand idea pervades all."  (Quoted in Fairbairn, 125)

c.             Scripture, like all other books, ought to be interpreted consistently. (Fairbairn, 124)

(1)           This approach should be used in the interpretation of all literature.  (Sproul, 47)

(2)           "If I have the option of interpreting a person’s comments one of two ways, one rendering them consistent and the other contradictory, it seems that the person should get the benefit of the doubt." (Sproul, 47)

(3)           Illustrations

(a)           The President of a company says "I was not at the board meeting" to one person and "I was at the board meeting" to another.

Solution:  Instructions, recording, proxy.

(b)           A Sony executive quotes one price for a particular product to an American and another to a British subject.

Solution: Difference in duties and taxation and shipping.

(4)           "One part of Scripture should not be isolated and explained without a proper regard being had to the relation in which it stands to other parts." (Fairbairn, 124)

d.             "The whole Bible is the ultimate context of a passage."  (Sterrett, 85)

(1)           "The message of the Bible on a particular subject can be found only by studying all the passages relating to it" (T. Norton Sterrett, How to Understand Your Bible, 85).

(2)           If all the teaching on any given theme is true, each passage should be expected to throw light on that which is revealed in another part of Scripture.

(3)           All the relevant material on a given subject is to be gathered together so that the pattern of divine revelation concerning the subject would be apparent (Ramm, 56).

(4)           The whole Bible functions as its own commentary (Henrichsen, A Layman’s Guide to Interpreting the Bible, 23).

(5)           "Through one passage we are able to get at the meaning of another passage."

e.             The resolution of apparent conflicts through the comparison of Scripture with Scripture is necessary and legitimate.

(1)           The task of the interpreter is to compare various passages of Scripture and relate them in such a way as to resolve apparent inconsistencies  (cf. McQ, 175-202).

(2)           Evangelicals have a different attitude toward attempting to harmonize apparently contradictory passages than do non-evangelicals.

f.              This principle is the rationale and justification for systematic theology and doctrinal statements.

(1)           This dimension of study is designed to summarize the totality of Biblical revelation.

(2)           There is an absolutely essential and proper doctrinal use of the Bible.

g.             All of the teachings of Scripture are not everywhere announced with equal clarity. (Kaiser, 135).

(1)           See "The Westminster Confession" (1:7).

(2)           There are difficult matters which are well attested (e.g., original sin--all men in Adam sinned).

h.             We should not use this rule of the analogy of faith to deny the progressive unfolding of Biblical Truth.  (Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology, 136-140)

(1)           There is a theology that informs each Biblical text.

(2)           The theology in a given text has roots which were laid down antecedent to that text.  (Kaiser, 136; John Bright, The authority of the Old Testament, 143, 170)

(3)           Writers early in the historical unfolding of God’s truth do not have the same perspective as do later writers.

(4)           It is possible to treat an early passage illegitimately by trying to read later teaching into it. (Kaiser, 140)

i.              Hartill (Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics) mentions two other principles which have not been absolutely proven.

(1)           The First Mention Principle

(a)           It is "that principle by which God indicates in the first mention of a subject, the truth with which that subject stands connected in the mind of God." (70)

(b)           "The first time a thing is mentioned in Scripture it carried with it a meaning that will be carried all through the Word of God." (70)

(2)           The Full Mention Principle

(a)           It is "that principle by which God declares His full mind upon any subject vital to our spiritual life.  Somewhere in the Word, God gathers together the scattered fragments that have to do with a particular truth, and puts them into one exhaustive statement.  That is His full mind concerning that truth."  (Hartill, 76)

(b)           Illustrations: Love (I Corinthians 13); the tongue (James 3)

5.             Degrees of the Analogy of Faith

a.             There are two genuine and legitimate degrees which are distinguished in Hermeneutics texts (Cellerier, 173; Terry, 580; Berkhof, 164).

(1)           See especially Charles Elliott and William Justin Harsha,  Biblical Hermeneutics: Chiefly a Translation of the Manuel D’Herméneutique Biblique, Par J. E. Cellerier . . . .   (New York: Anson D. F. Randolph & Company, 1881).

(2)           See Terry, 581 and Cellerier, 175-77 for two inferior degrees.

(a)           Deduced--this degree rests upon the logical process by which it is attempted to prove a doctrine.

(b)           Imposed--this degree rests upon an authority which is assumed to inhere in the consensus of the creeds of Christendom.

(c)           These two degrees are unworthy of the name "analogy of faith."  (Terry, 581)

Both are without direct biblical warrant.

b.             Positive Analogy--this is the degree "in which the doctrine or revelation is so plainly and positively stated, and supported by so many distinct passages, that there can be no doubt of its meaning and value."  (Terry, 580)

(1)           The teaching of Scripture on certain points is so clear and definite that it is beyond all controversy.  (Cell, 174)

(2)           This degree would include the existence of God, Providence, future rewards and punishment, sin, forgiveness in Christ. (Cell, 174)

(3)           The person who reads the Scriptures with care can hardly fail to apprehend these great truths.  (Terry, 580)

c.             General Analogy--this is "the analogy which is deduced from the object, tendency, and the religious impression that the passages make upon the careful reader. (Cell, 174)

(1)           "It rests not like the first upon explicit declarations, but upon the obvious scope and import of the Scripture teachings taken as a whole."  (Terry, 580)

(2)           "The New Testament produced upon all attentive readers the general impression, and the mind instinctively declares against anything which is out of harmony with this general tendency."  (Cell, 174)

(3)           Illustrations are the condemnation of a number of practices:

Slavery (Terry, 81; Berkhof, 165)

Pure formalism in worship (Cell, 174; Berkhof, 165)

Smoking.

(4)           Obviously this is an inferior evidence.

(5)           The element of reasoning enters in and there is a chance of error in appreciating biblical tendencies. (Cell, 175)

d.             Berkhof states concerning these degrees:

"These two degrees of the analogy of faith constitute a standard of interpretation.  As a connoisseur, in judging a masterpiece of painting, fixes his attention, first of all, on the central object of interest, and considers the details in their relation to this; so the interpreter must study the particular teachings of the Bible in the light of their fundamental truths" (PBI, 165).

6.             Principles and Guidelines for the Use of the analogy of Faith

a.             The degree of evidence and authority of the analogy varies directly according to 4 basic factors.  (Cell, 177; McQuilkin, 194-197; Berkhof, 165)

(1)           Number

A frequent and constant repetition strengthens the authority of the teaching (Cell, 177).

(2)           Unanimity

"It is evident that the value of an analogy of Faith depends largely upon the constancy with which the same doctrine is presented under the same phrase by a number of passages.  From this point of view the universality of sin rests upon an analogy much stronger than that of the inability of man."  (Cell, 174)

(3)           Clearness

(a)           "It must be evident to everyone that the Analogy of Faith will have a value proportionate to the clearness of the passages upon which it is founded."  (Cell, 178)

(b)           "Doctrine built on obscure or unclear passages is not solidly based."  (McQ, UAB, 33)

(4)           Distribution

(a)           "The wider the distribution of passages the stronger will be the analogy of faith."  (Cell, 178)

(b)           There is a progressive revelation.

(c)           Though all passages from God’s revelation give strength, the N.T. revelation comes with greater authority than O.T. revelation. (McQ, UAB, 33)

(5)           Summary

"The basic idea of solving problems of related scriptural passages is to identify all passages of Scripture that deal with a particular subject and give greater weight to that which (1) appears more often (2) with greater clarity (3) with the authority of Christ or the Apostles." (McQ, UAB, 33)

b.             "A doctrine clearly supported by the Analogy of Faith, cannot be contradicted by a contrary and obscure passage."  (Berkhof, 181; Cell, 181)

(1)           "The seeming disagreement between the two can be reconciled only by careful study, if at all; but the preference must always be given to the truth supported by the Analogy of Faith."  (Cell, 181)

(2)           Example--John 3:6B"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not."

Other verses (including I John 1:8-10; 2:10) indicate that Christians are not impeccable and their depravity is not completely eradicated at present.

c.             "An isolated passage if it is neither supported nor contradicted by the Analogy of faith can, according to the circumstances of clearness, precision, and the context, be understood as positively teaching a doctrine, although that doctrine cannot have the force of one founded upon analogy."  (Cell, 181; Berk, 166)

(1)           Matthew 22:30 (Luke 20:35; Mark 12:25)--there is no marriage in the resurrection or among angels.

(2)           "Unless it be clearly contradicted or excluded by the analogy of faith, or by some other equally explicit statement, one positive declaration of God’s word is sufficient to establish a fact or a doctrine."  (Terry, 581)

d.             "When a doctrine is supported by an obscure passage of Scripture only, and finds no support in the analogy of faith, it can only be accepted with great reserve."  (Cell, 181; Berk, 166)

"Thus the Roman Church has no right to found upon James 5:14-16, two new sacraments, absolutely foreign to the rest of the N. T.  It is evident that if the writer were speaking of two real sacraments instituted by Christ, they would be mentioned elsewhere in the sacred volume." (Cell, 181)

e.             "In cases where the analogy of Scripture leads to the establishment of two doctrines that appear contradictory, both doctrines should be accepted as Scriptural in the confident belief that they resolve themselves into a higher unity"  (Berk, 166).

(1)           There may well be two opposite doctrines supported by exegesis and the analogy of faith.  (Cell, 182)

(2)           Some writers use the word "paradox."

(3)           Cellerier uses the word "enantiophany" which probably comes from two Greek words:

(a)           e)nantio/wBto place opposite

(b)           e)nantio/maiBto oppose, be adverse to, contradict (L & S, ab., 222).

(4)        A better word would probably be "antinomy.[3]"

This word means conflict (as of principles, ideas, or aspirations) insoluble in the light of available knowledge.

(5)        J. Robertson McQuilkin, in "Understanding and Applying the Bible" (an earlier, unpublished edition), (36-38), writes:

(a)        "Most problems of distortion do not arise from the plain meaning of biblical texts but rather from logical extensions of that meaning.  For example, if the plain teaching of Scripture concerning the sovereignty of God is extended to the point of pious fatalism in which the complementary teaching of man’s responsibility is ignored or distorted, the conflict is no longer between plain teachings of Scripture, but between a logical deduction from a biblical teaching on the one hand and the other teachings of Scripture on the other.  The same is true with the complementary teaching concerning man’s responsibility.  The Bible is clear in its teaching throughout that man is responsible for his choices and actions.  Therefore, it would seem reasonable that man has a free will.  If man has a free will, logically he is in some sense autonomous and God’s sovereignty is limited.  In this way, the theologian has deduced from Scripture, step by step, by logical extension that which is in clear and grave conflict with balancing teachings of Scripture.  Again, it is the logical deduction that is in conflict more than the teaching itself."

(b)        "In the light of this, what should the interpreter do?  I suggest that it is not our reasoning process, but Scripture that is inspired.  Therefore in the interpretation of Scripture and in building a systematic theology, the interpreter should go as far as Scripture goes.  When he comes to the boundaries of revelation, he would bow humbly in the presence of the mystery that lies beyond and acknowledge his finitude and fallenness.  In other words, both the meaning of individual passages and the overall construction of systems should be done with the biblical data alone.  Not to do this is an arrogance that can ill be afforded by the interpreter or the Church.  It is an arrogance that will certainly lead astray from the truth of God."

(c)        "After applying the ‘analogy of faith’ or comparing Scripture with Scripture (giving greater weight to the teaching which is based on clear passages, many passages, and New Testament passages) suppose two teachings are clear and strongly emphasized but irreconcilable to human logic?  The interpreter should candidly recognize God’s infinitude and his own finitude and hold both teachings as each revealing one aspect of God’s truth.  Given the nature of God and the nature of man, it should be expected that much of God’s immensity would lie beyond the bounds of our finitude.  The middle way of biblical tension may not be easy.  But certainly it is closer to the ultimate truth as it moves in perfection in the mind of God than could be any humanly devised logical extension of revealed truth."

(d)        "It seems unlikely that finite and fallen man would ever be able to put all the pieces of the puzzle together, to create a perfect systematic theology"  (McQ, UAB, 31).

VI.        The Methodology

A.         The Starting Point of Theology

1.             It is probably best to begin with both God (the object of knowledge) and the Bible (the means of knowledge).

If we begin just with the Bible, how do we know that it is revelation from God.

Non-evangelicals often want to start with the human subject (reason, feeling, aesthetics).

2.             "Rather than attempting to prove one or the other, we may presuppose both as part of a basic thesis, then proceed to develop the knowledge that flows from this thesis, and assess the evidence for its truth" (Erick, 1:33).

3.             The basic presupposition is God and his self-revelation.  We may begin with the self-revealing God (Erick, 1:33).

4.             Erickson expresses the starting point in this manner.

a.             "There exists one Triune God, loving, all powerful, holy, all-knowing, who has revealed himself in nature, history, and human personality, and in those acts and words which are now preserved in the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments."

b.             It will be possible then to validate the whole system from this point (Erick, 1:33).

c.             Some of the better apologetic systems set forth a set of propositions provisio­nal­ly, and then demonstrate these proposi­tions in the system.  There is a similar procedure in theology.

AThe basic axioms of the Christian religion are two.  The basic ontological axiom is the living God; the basic epistemological axiom is divine revelation.[4]“

B.         The Proper Method of Theology

1.         The Importance of Utilizing the Proper Method

a.         To adopt a false method is like a man who takes a wrong road which will never lead him to his destination.  (Hodge, 1:3)

b.         Charles Hodge says the true method is the Inductive one which comes to the study of theology as the scientist studies scientific data (1:9).

2.         We begin with certain assumptions.

a.         The scientist assumes the trustworthiness of his sense perceptions and his mental operations.  He also assumes certain axioms such as every effect must have a cause and that the same cause under like circumstances will produce like effects.  (Hodge 1:9)

b.         The theologian begins with certain innate truths, which are tested by universality and necessity (Hodge, 1:10-11).

(1)        The existence of God is a first truth.

(2)        Our own existence is another.

3.         The Collection of the Biblical Materials.

a.         "The duty of the Christian theologian is to ascertain, collect, and combine all the facts which God has revealed concerning himself and our relation to Him."  (Hodge, 1:11)

b.         Scripture is our great source for theology.

c.         The first step is to gather all the relevant Biblical passages on the doctrine being investigated (not just those favoring a particular emphasis) (Erick, 1:66).

(1)        Good exegesis is the starting point.

(2)        Exegesis involves a careful study of the individual passage with word studies, syntax with the use of dictionaries and grammars.

(3)        But the exegetical tools must be used critically--the grammarians and philologists have their own prejudices too.

d.         We must be careful about conclusions based on antisupernaturalistic presupposi­tions (Erick, 1:67).

e.         On the other hand the Bible must not be treated so reverently that the normal laws of language are not applied to its interpretation.  The Bible has both a divine and a human character (Erick, 1:67).

f.          The interpreter should attempt to see what was said, what was meant by the writer or speaker, and how the ancient message would have been understood by the readers or hearers.  (Erick, 1:68)

(1)        Good hermeneutics need to be employed.

(2)        Studies of words with theological significance are helpful.

(3)        What is said about the topic in the didactic portions is particularly important (Erick, 1:68).

(4)        Of great significance is a passage or passages where the subject is given a thorough systematic treatment (Erick, 1:69).

g.         Obviously the collection of facts must be done with diligence and care. (Hodge 1:11)

(1)        The collection of facts must not only be conducted carefully, but also comprehen­sively and, if possible, exhaustively (Hodge 1:11).

(2)        "An imperfect induction of facts led men for ages to believe that the sun moved round the earth, and that the earth was an extended plain."

We must not look at the data which support Christ’s deity and ignore the data which teaches His humanity. (Hodge, 1:12)

h.         We must not change the data to suit our own prejudices or desires.

i.          "We must take the facts of the Bible as they are, and construct our system so as to embrace them all in their integrity (Hodge, 1:13).

(1)        "There is no place for originality as such in theology, for its whole materials are contained in the actual statements of God’s Word; and he is the greatest and best theologian, who has most accurately apprehended the meaning of the statements of Scripture"  (Pinnock, BR, 135).

(2)        "The theologian does not create his data." (Pinnock, 135)

(3)        "The exegesis of Scripture thus has absolute priority over all systems."  (Pinnock, 135)

4.         The Unification of the Biblical Materials

a.         The attempt must be made to coalesce the various emphases into a coherent whole. (Erick, 1:69)

(1)        We assume and presuppose that there is a unity and coherence among the Biblical authors and books. (Erick, 1:69)

(2)        We normally would do the same with the works of a secular author.

ATheological method includes the inner coherence of the truths about God, so that each is understood in its relationship to the whole.  A theology that unfolds the trusts about God in a systematic way should help the whole pictures to be grasped rather than only a part.”

ATheological method involves a unitary system of beliefs because they derive from One God through one source (Scripture) for one ‘body of Christ’ (church)” (Gulley, 104).

b.         The Reformers spoke of the analogy of faith. 

(1)        The whole Bible is the ultimate context of every verse.

(2)        The Bible is its own best inter­preter.

(3)        "The whole Bible must be taken into account when we interpret Scripture." (Erick, 1:70)

5.         Analysis of the meaning of Biblical Teachings

a.         After the synthesis of the doctrinal material, the question is appropriate--"what is really meant by this statement or these statements?"

b.         Certainly we cannot communicate effec­tively until the meaning is clear to us. (Erick, 1:70)

6.         It is necessary to deduce principles from facts.

                                    a.         Scientists must make deductions from facts.

b.         Our concepts of sin, of responsibility, etc. must be derived from the Bible (Hodge, 1:13).

c.         We search for God’s system.  We must never press the facts of the Bible into our preconceived theories. (Hodge, 1:13)

(1)        We could assume that ability limits obligation and construct a theory accordingly.

(2)        We could deny that the innocent might be allowed to suffer the penalty in the place of the guilty and thus deny the atonement.

(3)        The theologian could begin with the preconception that the merits of one man cannot be the judicial ground of the pardon and salvation of other men and thereby deny the doctrine of justification. (Hodge, 1:14)

(4)        " . . . complete havoc must be made of the whole system of revealed truth, unless we consent to derive our philosophy from the Bible, instead of explaining the Bible by our philosophy."  (Hodge, 1:14)

d.         We begin with what Scripture teaches.

(1)        Charles Hodge states: "It would be easy to show that in every department of theology,--in regard to the nature of God, his relation to the world, the plan of salvation, the person and work of Christ, the nature of sin, the operations of divine grace, men, instead of taking the facts of the Bible, and seeing what principles they imply, what philosophy underlies them, have adopted their philosophy indepen­dently of the Bible, to which the facts of the Bible are made to bend."  (1:14)

(2)        But in all sciences, theory must be determined by the facts, and not facts by theory.

(3)        If such is not true in theology, theology is only human speculations without true worth.  (Hodge, 1:14-15)

(a)        What must be true for certain state­ments to be made? 

(b)        What is the inner rationality behind biblical statements?

7.         The formulation of various doctrines in history can be very helpful.

a.         It also helps to check our own formula­tion of doctrine. (Erick, 1:71)

                                    b.         We find models that can be adopted for modern doctrinal formulations.

c.         We see the consequences of doctrine worked out historically (Erick, 1:71).

The term Atradition” is used widely to refer to the voice of the historical church handed down to us through the past.

It is not prophetic or apostolic revelation.

But it is Athe church’s interpretation and application of the biblical teaching” (Kantzer, DTTW, 466).

AWhile it [tradition] is not infallible, it must be acknowledged as God’s guidance of his people in accordance with his promise to the church of all ages” (Kantzer, DTTW, 466).

To disregard tradition is to display sheer egotism and a proud independence.

AThe role of church tradition is like that of an elder brother in the faith.  It not only helps us interpret biblical passages but also shows how the Scriptures were applied to the historical and cultural situations of the past so the people of God could be obedient to God in their day (Kantzer, DTTW, 466).

Spykman writes, ATheologizing cut loose from tradition is like taking a leap in the dark.”

AThe theological traditions of the past accompany us into the present and sustain us as we move along into the future” (Spykman, 95).

8.         The identification of the essence of doctrine

a.         "We will need to distinguish the permanent, unvarying content of the doctrine from the cultural vehicle in which it is expressed."

b.         "In the Bible permanent truths are often expressed in the form of a particular application to a specific situation."  E.g., sacrifices in the O.T. were only an expression of one point in God’s history of an abiding truth that there must be vicarious sacrifice for the sins of humanity if there is to be salvation. (Erick, 1:71)

9.         Illumination from Sources Beyond the Bible

a.         If God has revealed Himself in nature, conscience, etc., "then at least in theory something can be learned from the study of God’s creation."

b.         "General revelation will be of value when it sheds light upon the special revelation, or fills it out at certain points where it does not speak."  (Erick, 1:72)

The contribution made to Christian theology by general revelation is necessarily limited.

Even what we think about general revelation is to be controlled by God’s revelation (Carson, DTTW, 43).

(1)        What does it mean that man is created in God’s image?

(a)        The Bible does not say much more than that the image is what distinguishes man from the rest of creation. (Erick, 1:72)

(b)        The behavioral sciences may help us in understanding something of the uniqueness of man and thereby give at least a partial understanding of the image of God.  (Erick, 1:72)

(2)        History may show us some of the specific outworkings of God’s provide­nce. (Erick, 1:72)

(3)        Here we must be careful--in trying to relate the Bible with other dis­ciplines.

(4)        While ultimately general revelation is in complete harmony, that harmony exists only as both are fully under­stood and correctly interpreted.

(a)        But in practice we always operate with an incomplete understanding of both sources.

(b)        So some friction may well exist. (Erick, 1:73)

10.        Contemporary Expressions of the Doctrine

a.         After determining the essence of the doctrine, we need to give it a contem­porary expression.

(1)        This necessity is clothing the timeless truth is an appropriate form. (Erick, 1:73)

(2)        But modishness is dangerous (e.g., getting "high" on Jesus).

(3)        Pop theology comes and goes.

b.         Yet an attempt should be made to find a model which makes the doctrine intel­ligible in a contemporary context (Erick, 1:74-75)

(1)        In the 17th Century, Scottish people spoke of "closing with Christ."

(2)        "The purpose of Christian theology is to translate the content of inexhaustible divine revelation into the most intelligible, coherent terms possible."  (Pinnock, BR, 137)

c.         The aim is not to try to make the message acceptable (and thus remove the offense of the cross) but to make it understood (Erick, 1:75).

Erickson distinguishes between (1) the transformers who think that the essence of the message must be updated to be in conformity to modern man’s maturity and greater sophistication and (2) the translators who insist that the basic content of the authoritative Word must not be compromised though it needs to be expressed in a manner understandable by modern man (Erickson, 113-119).

11.        Development of a Central Interpretive Motif

a.         "Each theologian must decide on a particular theme which, for him, is the most significant and helpful in approach­ing theology as a whole."  (Erick, 1:77)

(1)        Luther emphasized salvation by grace through faith.

(2)        Many think that Calvin’s emphasis was on the sovereignty of God.

Others consider it union with Christ and the vicarious humanity of Christ.

(3)        Barth’s emphasis is on the Living Word.

He is supposed to have suggested the Holy Spirit at a later date as an organizing motif.

(4)        Anders Nygren and Gustaf Aulen make the love of God central. (Erick, 1:77)

(5)        Reformed theologians use the covenant concept.

(6)        Erickson uses the motif of the mag­nificence of God, that is, God’s greatness seen in His attributes and His glory (Erick, 1:78).

b.         The central motif is the perspective from which the data of theology are viewed.

(1)        It gives a particular angle or cast to the way the data are seen (Erick, 1:77)

(2)        One must be careful, however, not to let the motif cause misinterpretation of passages.  (Erick, 1:77)

Good theological method does not allow a center to be forced upon Scripture from a priori thinking apart from Scripture.

AThe central focus chosen by a theological system must come form within the totality of Scripture, and represent the central focus of scripture” (Gulley, 97).

(3)        Theologians have often read their theology into Scripture and the writings of the Church fathers.

12.        Stratification of the Topics

a.         This stratification is the arranging the topics on the basis of their relative importance.

(1)        Outlining accomplishes this purpose.

(2)        It involves dividing topics into subtopics. (Erick, 1:78)

(3)        It makes sure that all the major divisions are covered.

b.         Organizing the material according to the importance of topics will help to prevent expending major amounts of time and energy on secondary matters. (Erick, 1:79)

VII.       Degrees of Authority of Theological Statements

"It is important to attribute to each type of statement an appropriate degree of authorit­y" (Erick, 1:79).

A.         Direct Statements of Scripture

1.         These are given the greatest weight.

2.         By direct statement is meant what the Bible clearly states (one must make sure that it is not just his own idiosyncratic interpreta­tion).

3.         An example is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved."

B.         Direct Implications of Scripture

1.         By direct implication is meant what is seen by logical inference from Scripture.

2.         Obviously this factor does not have as much weight as (A) since there is the possibility of error (Erick, 1:79).

3.         Examples

There is no second chance after death for the wicked.

God cannot forgive sin without a propitiatory sacrifice.

Those who have never heard the Gospel are lost.

The eternal, conscious suffering of the wicked.

C.         "Probable implications of Scripture, that is, inferences that are drawn in cases where one of the assumptions or premises is only probable. (Erick, 1:80)

1.         We must not base doctrine only on a logical deduction. (McQ)

2.         A properly derived deduction deserves respect but must be held somewhat tentatively. 

3.         Examples

The holy angels are confirmed in holiness.

The angels were created in the image of God.

Demons are certain fallen angels.

D.         "Inductive conclusions from Scripture vary in their degree of authority."

1.         The greater probability is with those which take into account the higher percentage of references (Erick, 1:80).

2.         One example is the notion that God providentially attempts to educate the world morally throughout history.

3.         Another example is the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

E.         Conclusions from General Revelation

1.         General Revelation is less particular and less explicit than special revelation.

2.         Data from General Revelation must always be subject to the clearer statements of Scripture.

3.         Examples

I Cor. 11:14--Nature tells us that men should not have long hair.

How often should we observe the Lord’s table?

The age a person marries.

At what age is a person an adult?

F.         Outright speculations, which frequently include hypotheses based upon a single statement or hint in Scripture, or derived from somewhat obscure or unclear parts of the Bible, may also be utilized by the theologians."

1.         Obviously much less authority is present. (Erick, 1:80)

2.         Examples

All who die in infancy are saved.

The universe is not infinite and limitless.

There will be remnants of human culture throughout eternity.

VIII.      A BIBLIOGRAPHY ON CURRENT EVANGELICAL SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY

A.            Anglicanism/Episcopalianism

Griffith Thomas, W. H.  The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine

Articles.  London: Church Book Room Press, 1956.

Neill, S.C.  Anglicanism.  Harmondsworth, 1960.

B.            Arminianism (Classical)

Forlines, F. Leroy.  The Quest for Truth: Answering Life’s Inescapable Questions.

Nashville: Randall House, 2001.

        .  Systematics: A Study of the Christian System of Life and Thought. Nashville: Randall House, Pub., 1975.

C.            Wesleyanism

Carter, Charles W., Gen. Ed.  A Contemporary Wesleyan Theology: Biblical, Systematic,     and Practical.  2 vols.  Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press (Zondervan), 1983.

Mickey, Paul A.  Essentials of Wesleyan Theology: A Contemporary Affirmation.  Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1980.

Oden, Thomas.  Life in the Spirit.  San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1992.

        .  The Living God.  San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987.

        .  The Word of Life.  San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1989.

Ralston, Thomas N.  Elements of Divinity.  Edited By T. O. Summers.  Nashville: Pub.          House M. E. Church, South, 1876.

Watson, Richard.  Theological Institutes.  2 vols.  New York: Carlton & Sanahan, 1840.

Wiley, H. O.  Christian Theology.  3 vols.  Kansas City: Nazarene Publishing House,

1940.

D.            Dispensationalism

Baker, Charles F.  A Dispensational Theology.  Grand Rapids: Grace Bible Pub., 1971.

Blaising, Craig A. and Bock, Darrell L.  Progressive Dispensationalism.  Wheaton,

Illinois: Victor Books, 1993.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry.  Systematic Theology.  8 vols.  Dallas, Texas:  Dallas Seminary

Press, 1947.

Ryrie, Charles C.  Dispensationalism Today.  Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

        .  Basic Theology.  Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1986.

Saucy, Robert L.  The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism.  (Grand Rapids: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1993.

E.             Lutheran

Empie, Paul C. and McCord, James, Eds.  Marburg Revisited: A Reexamination of

Lutheran and Reformed Traditions.  Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1966.

Kantonen, Taito A.  Resurgence of the Gospel.  Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1948.

Pieper, Francis.  Christian Dogmatics.  4 vols.  St. Louis: Concordia, 1950-1957.

F.             Pentecostal and Charismatic

Brewster, P. S., Ed.  Pentecostal Doctrine.  Chellenham, 1976.

Burgess, Stanley, and McGeee, Gary B., editors.  Dictionary of Pentecostal and

Charismatic Movements.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.

Duffield, Guy P. and Van Cleve, Nathan M.  Foundations of Pentecostal Theology  (Los

Angeles: L.I.F.E. Bible College, 1983.

Hollenweger, Walter J.  The Pentecostals.  Translated by R. A. Wilson.  Minneapolis:

Augsburg Publishing House, 1972.

Land, Steven J.  Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom (Sheffield, England:

Sheffield Academic Press, [August] 1993.[5]

McDonnell, K., Ed.  Presence, Power, Praise: Documents of the Charismatic Renewal.

3 vols. Collegeville, Minnesota, 1980.

Nicol, John Thomas.  Pentecostalism.  Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1966.

Pearlman, Myer.  Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible.  Springfield, Missouri: Gospel

Publishing House, 1937.

Williams, Ernest.  Systematic Theology.  3 vols.  Edit.  Frank Boyd.  Springfield,

Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1953.

Williams, J. Rodman.  Renewal Theology: God, the World, and Redemption.  Projected

3 vols.  Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1988-.

G.            Reformed

Berkhof, Louis.  Systematic Theology.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941.

Boettner, Loraine.  The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.  Philadelphia: Presbyterian

and Reformed Pub. Co., 1966.

Buswell, James Oliver, Jr .  A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion.  2 vols.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962.

Calvin, John.  Institutes of the Christian Religion.  Trans. Ford Lewis Battles.  Ed. John

T. McNeill.  Vols. XX, XXI of The Library of Christian Classics.  Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Coppes, Leonard J.  Are Five Points Enough? The Ten Points of Calvinism.  Manassas,

Virginia: Reformation Educational Foundation, 1980.

Dabney, Robert L.  Lectures in Systematic Theology.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975

reprint of 1878 edition.

Grudem, Wayne.  Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.  Grand

Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

Hodge, Charles.  Systematic Theology.  3 vols.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968 reprint

of 1871-1873 edition.

Murray, John.  Collected Writings of John Murray.  4 vols.  Edinburgh: Banner of Truth

Trust, 1976-1982.

Packer, J. I.  Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God.  Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1961.

Reymond, Robert L.  A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith.  Nashville:

Thomas Nelson, 1998).

Robertson, O. Palmer.  The Christ of the Covenants.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

Shedd, William G. T.  Dogmatic Theology.  3 vols.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969

reprint of 1888 edition.

Smith, Morton H.  Systematic Theology.  2 vols.  Greenville, South Carolina: Greenville

Seminary Press, 1994.

Warfield, Benjamin B.  The Plan of Salvation.  Rev. Ed.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975

(reprint).

H.            Baptistic

Conner, W. T.  Christian Doctrine.  Nashville: Broadman Press, 1937.

Erickson, Millard J.  Christian Theology.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983-1985.

Lewis, Gordon R. and Demarest, Bruce A.  Integrative Theology.  3 vols.  Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1987, 1990, 1994.

Mullins, Edgar Young.  The Christian Religion in its Doctrinal Expression.  Philadelphia:

Judson Press, 1917.

Strong, Augustus Hopkins.  Systematic Theology. Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson Press, 1967

reprint of 1907 edition.

I.              Mildly Dispensational and Baptistic

Geisler, Norman.  Systematic Theology.  4 vols.  Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2002-2005.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence.  Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology.  Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1949.

J.         Adventist

Gulley, Norman R.  Systematic Theology.  Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 2003.

Part II

Biblology

I.          Introduction to Bibliology

A.         The Importance of Bibliology to Theology

1.         J. I Packer writes, AThe problem of authority is the most fundamental problem that the Christian Church ever faces” (‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God, 42).

2.         Before theology can speak, it must establish its own basis of speaking.

AThe central problem for theology is its own epistemological base” (Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, 16).

This problem of the foundation-authority is the continental divine on which everything else hangs (Pinnock, 11).

AAt bottom every theology stands or falls ultimately with its appeal to some normative authority” (Spykman, 70).

3.         At the time of the Reformation Scripture (sola scriptura) was seen as the formal (i.e., formative) principle and sola fide as the material principle.

The Bible alone was seen to have unconditional authority.

All other authority (whether council, creed, or church) is subordinate to holy Scripture.

B.         Areas of Authority

There are three great authorities in religious matters to which appeal is often made (Packer, 46).

1.         Holy Scripture (the Evangelical position)

2.         Church Tradition (the position of the Roman Catholic Church)

The final authority for faith and life is the official teaching of the institutional Church (Packer, 49).

            Tradition has to supplement and rightly interpret the Scriptures.

            Faith is believing that which is stated by the Church.

The Council of Trent decreed

"Following then, the examples of the Orthodox fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession" (H. J. Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, St. Louis, Herder, 1941, p. 17; Cited in R.C. Sproul, "Sola Scriptura, Crucial to Evangelism," pp. 107-108 in James M. Boice, The Foundation of Biblical Authority).

3.         Subjectivitism (the individual himself).

This option assumes many forms, such as the mysticism of the Quakers or the rationalism of the Socinians and Deists.

I decide on the basis of my reason, my feeling, my intuition, or my discerning process what I ought to do or believe.

Such an attitude would wreck havoc in our secular society.

Packer, in ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God, writes:

"But all its many varieties spring from a single principle, namely, that the final authority for my faith and life is the verdict of my reason, conscience or religious sentiment (subjectivists vary in the way they put this) as I examine Scripture ‘with an open mind’ (i.e., without presupposing that its own account of itself is true), and measure it by what I have learned from other sources, historical, philosophical, religious and scientific.  What under these circumstances reason and conscience say, what I find that ‘I feel,’ that God says" (p. 50).

This approach leads to a selective belief in Scripture.

                        A high percentage of modern scholarship employs the higher critical method (Packer, Fund, 51).

                        Scholars who follow this method assume it is valid and anyone who does not accept it is hopelessly out of date.

                        They look to Evangelicals as "funny mentalists."

                        They treat the biblical documents in a way which would be congenial to the atheist or to the agnostic (Morris, I Believe in Revelation, 95).

                        Conservative evangelicals are declared in an uncomplimentary fashion to be "pre-critical" or "pre-scientific."

As a result there is a real loss of confidence.

                        We hear the word of men, not the word of God (Morris, 103)

                        J. V. L. Casserley states, "We are confronted with the paradox of a way of studying the word of God out of which no word of God ever seems to come" (Morris, 92).

Clark H. Pinnock, in Biblical Revelation, writes:

"Modern theology of almost every shade is in crisis.  While there is no lack of religious verbosity, a sure word resonant with divine authority is scarcely to be heard" (p. 9).

Contemporary theology is almost entirely descriptive rather than normative.

It is relativistic and hesitating (Pinnock, 9).

Increasingly we are confronted with a theology in motion (Pinnock, 129).

C.                 The Need for an External Authority

Proverbs 14:12BAThere is a way which seemeth right unto man, but the end thereof is the way of death.

Outside of God’s transcendent Word, there is no solution to our universe.

Life is Avanities of vanities” (Ecclesiastes).

II.         Revelation

A.         The Importance of the Doctrine of Revelation

This doctrine is foundational and determinative for all that follows.

The proper doctrine of revelation is the gateway to proper theological thinking and all sound doctrine.

B.         The Necessity of Revelation

1.         There is a fundamental distinction between mythology and theology.

If there is not, theology becomes self-worship; it becomes a creative enterprise.

2.         If there is no revelation from God, then man must discover truth about God on his own.

3.         God is inaccessible to the creature by means of his own investigation.

a.         God is transcendent.  He is ontologically above and beyond man.

Isaiah 55:8-9

I Timothy 6:15-16

b.         Sin has separated man from God and produced spiritual blindness and ignorance.

Ephesians 2:1

II Corinthians 4:4

4.         Unlike all other religions, Christianity is a revealed religion.

C.         The Meaning of Revelation

1.         Biblical Vocabulary

a.         (O.T.) hflfG (galah) means:"to uncover (nakedness); to reveal (as a statue is

uncovered); to remove, disclose; make known" (BDB, 162-163).

Amos 3:7--"Surely the Lord does nothing except He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets."

Deuteronomy 29:29--"The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever . . . ."

II Samuel 7:27; Proverbs 29:18

                "When applied to revelation, it [galah] seems to hint at the removal of obstacles to perception or the uncovering of objects to perception."  (Warfield, 97).

                Literally galah means "an unveiling to sight"--sometimes the emphasis is on the objective side of the unveiling, sometimes on the subjective aspect.

Objective--the truth is revealed.

SubjectiveBI am made to see.

b.             (N.T.)  a)pokalu/ptw  (apokalupto) means "to reveal, disclose, bring to light;

uncover" (BAGD, 92).

I Corinthians 2:10--"For to us God revealed them through the Spirit . . . ."

Matthew 11:25; Galatians 1:16

a)poka/luyij  (apokalupsis)

Revelation 1:1--"The Revelation of Jesus Christ." 

Romans 16:25--"according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past . . . ."

The root meaning of both galah and apokalupto is to make apparent to external sight (of objects) or to mental awareness (of truths).

c.             There are many other words and expressions used to refer to God’s revelation (NBD, 1090).  These include:

to speak (Isaiah 43:19)

to show, indicate (Daniel 2:6,7,9,10; 5:12)

to answer (Psalm 119:172; Job 15:2)

to show clearly (Acts 1:24)

to manifest (II Peter 1:14)

to show inwardly, clearly (Romans 2:15; Ephesians 2:7; Titus 2:10).

2.         Definition of Revelation

"Revelation is that act of God whereby He discloses Himself or communicates truth to the mind, whereby He makes manifest to his creatures that which could not be known in any other way"  (Thiessen, 2:7).

                                "The process whereby this communication of divine truth takes place is specifically labeled revelation"  (Kantzer, in Tenney, 61).

"Revelation" denotes in its active sense "the act of God by which He communicates to man the truth concerning Himself in relation to His creatures, and conveys to him the knowledge of His will: and in the passive sense, it is a designation of the resulting product of this activity of God" (Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 117).

3.         Revelation presupposes both the capacity of God to reveal Himself and the capacity of man to know God (whether it is natural or supernaturally restored).

D.            The Character of Revelation

1.             God’s revelation is obligatory on man (NBD, 1090).

                                It is not given on a casual, take-it-or-leave-it basis.

                                It is not intended to be received as information.

                                Man is responsible and will give an account.

2.             God reveals Himself and facts about Himself.

                                Revelation is both personal (relational) and propositional (grammatical).

How would you relate to someone of whom you knew no propositions or facts?

I Samuel 3:7--"Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, nor had the word of the Lord yet been revealed to him."

                                Both aspects are involved.

The words for "reveal" in both the O.T. and the N.T. show both aspects. 

                The usage is about 50% for each aspect.

The object of revelation may be a thing, an object, a proposition, a person.

3.             The Bible sets forth the mighty acts of God mainly for a saving purpose, not a revelatory purpose.

The Incarnation is for the purpose of delivering man from sin, not just to reveal God (Kantzer, Tenney, 57).

4.             Events must be accompanied by an inspired interpretation. 

Man would have to guess otherwise (like a pantomime).

Those who saw Jesus die would not know the significance of that great event, apart from revelation (Kantzer, Tenney, 58).

Christ died (event).

Christ died for our sins (event and interpretation).

Biblical revelation involves a blend of both act and interpretation (Kantzer, in Tenney, 58).

Inspired interpretation involves propositional revelation  (as opposed to personal revelation).

                                God interprets His own mighty acts, in a revelatory word--not just deeds (Kantzer, Tenney, 62).

Interpretation must be in propositional form.

5.             God has given His revelation progressively in history (Warfield, 79).

He did not give the totality of His revelation all at once.

God prepares mankind for the final revelation in His Son.

Theonomists go astray here, confusing progressive revelation with God’s unchanging character.

Greg Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (mentioned in Geisler, Inerrancy, 149).

E.             Types of Revelation

Beegle speaks of primary and secondary revelation (pp. 69-70).

Psalm 19:1--"The heavens are telling of the glory of God, And the firmament is declaring the work of His hands."

General Revelation "refers to those communications available for all mankind, not merely to the chosen people of God" (Kantzer, Tenney, 62).

This type is sometimes called Fundamental Revelation.

Natural Revelation is "that which comes through the world of physical and human bodies through ordinary processes."

Natural revelation is "that revelation of God given to all men either innately or in physical nature which brings everyone to an acknowledgment of God" (Helm, The Divine Revelation, 20-21).

It is a revelation in res (things, objects) rather than in verba (words) (Berkhof, IST, 128).

It is a revelation which God continuously makes known to all people (Warfield, 73).

It is addressed to all intelligent creatures, and accessible to them (Warfield, 74).

Psalm 19:7--"The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul."

Special Revelation is "that revelation which relates specifically to the redemptive program of God given to a particular people (Kantzer, Tenney, 62).

This type is called Redemptive Revelation.

It is given to God’s chosen people.

He makes known His saving grace (Warfield, 73).

Something supernatural is involved.

Both are necessary to know God.

General Revelation gives the framework in which special revelation fits.

Man could not understand the program of redemption without the knowledge of General Revelation.

Special Revelation completes the General Revelation. 

It would be frustrating and depressing to have general revelation without special revelation.

Special revelation brings the saving message to man (Warfield, 75).

While we do distinguish between nature and grace, nature is an expression of grace.

There is no absolute dichotomy between the two.

We may distinguish between natural theology and revealed theology.

"Natural theology" refers to what can be learned about God through nature.

"Revealed theology" refers to what can be learned through the special supernatural revelation of God. (K, 49)

Nature and grace stand opposed only temporarily.

There will be a time of glorified nature (Kuyper, PST, 369).

There will be a restoration of the natural one day (Kuyper, 369).

Special revelation is a "glass" which gives temporary aid.

It reflects God’s truth.

But one day that glass will belong to the past (Kuyper, 371).

There is a unity between the general and special revelation.

"The special knowledge is, indeed a new and proper principium, but this principium joins itself to the vital powers of our nature with its natural principium; compels this principium to let its life-sap flow through another channel; and in this way cultivates ripe fruit of knowledge from what otherwise would have produced only wood fit for fire."  (Kuyper, PST, 375-376)

In Scripture we find special revelation grafted upon the natural (Kuyper, 377).

"For as a result, you obtain but one ‘knowledge of God,’ the content of which has flowed from both sources, whose waters have mingled themselves."  (Kuyper, 377)

"Both principia are one in God, and the beam of this light is only broken when the soundness of our human heart is broken by sin" (Kuyper, 378.)

God enters our hearts first by nature, and then by grace (Kuyper, 379).

"In special revelation no single means is used which was not already present by nature in or about man" (Kuyper, 379).

Sometimes when breathing is obstructed, it is necessary for the windpipe to be slit--then the lungs can breathe.

"In this sense it can be said, that the normal entrance, which in creation God had unlocked for Himself to our heart, had become inaccessible by sin, and that for this reason, by an act of heroic grace, God has temporarily opened for Himself another entrance to our heart, to reveal Himself as the same God to the same creature, only now with the aid of a different principium of revelation"  (Kuyper, 380).

F.             General Revelation

1.         New Testament teaching

Four passages are of particular importance for understanding general revelation.

a.         Romans 1:18-32; 2:14-16

In this passage Paul, dealing in particular with the guilt of the Gentile world, shows that God’s wrath is directed against godlessness and wickedness.

Men fail to measure up to God’s standard.

These people do not like the truth which God makes known.

They do everything of which they are capable to oppose it.

God’s invisible attributes, particularly His power and His divinity, are made known through His creation.

There is put before mankind a clear declaration that the visible creation which is God’s handiwork makes manifest the invisible perfections of God as its Creator.

Order in the heavens bears witness to God as well as order on the earth.

AThis whole mighty universe has always reflected its Creator” (Morris, 81).

Men should recognize in the works of power in the infinite series of means and ends which are revealed in them, the undeniable traces of benevolence and intelligence (Godet, 103).

This revelation leaves men without excuse.

Men are inexcusable because they possessed the knowledge of God which ought to have caused them to glorify God and give Him thanks, but they did not act rightly on this knowledge.

God gave them up to uncleanness and perversion (1:24).

Men exchanged the truth of God for a lie (1:25).

Men not only damage themselves, but also congratulate others in doing those things which they know will bring damnation (1:32).

God’s law is engraved within manBhis conscience bears witness to the fact that the law is written in the heart (2:15).

There is a distinction between right and wrong in all cultures and peoples.

b.         Acts 14:16-17

Paul declares that God’s works of creation and providence, especially the orderliness and graciousness of His governance, show God to be the living God who supplies the needs of men and therefore the worship of other gods should be recognized as false and be terminated (Bruce, 293).

God’s ordering the seasons to feed mankind ought to have caused men to be made mindful of Him.

God gives the rainfall and the harvest.

c.         Romans 13:1-2

God has instituted, authorized, and prescribed the civil magistrate as His instrument for maintaining order and punishing of criminals who violate that order.

The judgment performed by the magistrate is an expression of God’s judgment (Murray, 149).

The existence of a civil authority points to a higher authority in the universe.

There is a supreme Judge before Whom we must give account.

d.         John 16:7-11

In this passage Jesus teaches that the Spirit will act as prosecutor and bring about the world’s conviction(Morris, John 697).

The Spirit accuses men of sin and brings them to an inescapable sense of guilt so that they realize their shame and helplessness before God (Tenney, EBC, 9:157).

The passage points to a work of the Holy Spirit in all men.

It is connected with common grace and has a number of functions.

Through this revelation every soul is confronted personally and individually by God to convict him of his sin and of God’s righteous judgment and condemnation upon him, and to call all men everywhere to repentance and decision (Kantzer, Bible, 67-68).

2.         The Sources (Media, Channels) of General Revelation

a.             Nature-Creation

Psalm 19

Psalm 8:3-4-"When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained, what is man that Thou dost take thought of him?"

The existence of the created order in its vastness and complexity bears witness to God the Creator.

b.             Nature-Providence

Acts 14:17--"and yet He did not leave Himself without a witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness."

The regulation and control of the creation by an intelligent hand points to the sovereign God.

c.             Conscience--the sense of "oughtness" within man.

                                                Romans 2:15--(Gentiles) "in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or defending themselves.

                                                Man knows right and wrong (He knows that theft and murder are wrong).

                                Or he is insane.

                                                This fact shows that there is a supreme Lawgiver who embodies the Law (Th, 35).

                                                People all over the world are haunted by a need of expiation or atonement (Pache, 17).

d.             Man himself--a huge gap exists (bio-cultural gap) between mankind and all other parts of the visible world.

This gap is seen in human culture and civilization, harnessing of energy, aesthetics, architecture, art and medicine.

Genesis 1:26--"Then God said, Let us make man in our own image, according to our likeness . . . ."

Romans 1:19--"because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them."

Psalm 139:14--"I will give thanks to thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are thy works, and my soul knows it very well."

e.             Human Reason--This source and fact is largely assumed in Scripture because it is possessed by every rational creature.

                                Its existence and viability can be traced back to God.

                                The fact that there is the possibility of logical argumentation ultimately points to God’s existence.

All argumentation is based on a distinction between right and wrong.

Deuteronomy 13 & 18--the necessity of weighing empirical evidence.

Isaiah 1:18--"Come let us reason together . . . ." (K, 50)

f.              Human Authority - pictures a higher government.

Romans 13:2--"for there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God." (Th, 33)

g.             History--The study of history provides vivid illustrations of sin being punished.

Psalm 75:7--"But God is the judge; He puts down one, and exalts another."

Proverbs 14:34--"righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people."

The Old Testament shows God’s dealings with nations such as Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Medio-Persia, Greece.

Augustine wrote The City of God in which he contrasted the two kingdoms.

God’s activity is especially seen in the history of the nation Israel (Th, 34).

God created and preserved the nation.

                                                He judged her and brought her back.

God’s activity is also seen in subsequent history.

Every time wickedness is judged (veneral disease, AIDS) and righteousness rewarded, God’s activity is demonstrated.

                                The ancient Greeks declared that the wheels of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.

h.             General Religious Experience

John 16:7-11--"And He (the Holy Spirit) when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness and judgment."

                                The Holy Spirit is active in the consciousness of every person.

                                This activity may be intermittent.

                                It can be misinterpreted.

                                "Through this revelation every soul is confronted personally and individually by God to convict him of his sin and of God’s righteous judgment and condemnation upon him (John 16:8,9), and to call all men everywhere to repentance and decision ([I] John 1:9)"  (Kantzer, Bible, 67-68).

3.             The Recipients of General Revelation

Psalm 19:4--"Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their utterance to the end of the earth."

Romans 1:14-15 shows the universal scope of this revelation.

It is addressed to all intelligent creatures and is therefore accessible to all men (Warfield, 74).

It is catholic, promiscuous, and unrestricted.

4.             The Contents of General Revelation

What specifically about himself does God reveal to mankind through General Revelation?

Romans 1:20--"for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power, and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made . . . ."

                                                God reveals His eternal power and Godhead (Kantzer, Bible, 65).

                                Those who heed the light which has been given them will be given more light.

Romans 1:18-19 makes it clear that there is a truth or knowledge about God which is being repressed or held down (Classical Apologetics, 43).

                                What is known of God is plain.

                                "There is no defect in divine pedagogy" (C.A., 43).

                                The effect is that people are "without excuse" (C.A., 46).

                                "This is the basis of universal human guilt."

                                It is dishonest and vain to appeal to ignorance.

                                "No one can lightly claim "insufficent evidence" for not believing in God" (C.A., 46).

In his deepest "gut," man is programmed to believe in God.

                                The problem is not a lack of knowledge, or a lack of evidence, or a lack of cognitive equipment.

                                It is a moral deficiency (C.A., 46).

Specific Content--OBJECTIVELY--what man ought to perceive.

a.             God’s existence

b.             That we are responsible to God

c.             That we are sinners standing under the judgment of God.

d.             That we need to turn to God for more light (K, 67).

The one who responds becomes a candidate for further light.

Specific Content--SUBJECTIVELY--man’s actual perception.

a.             Sin has so blinded and perverted man that he does not live up to the light God has given him.

                                                Man does not want to see (Kantzer, Bible, 64).

Psalm 14:2-3

Romans 1:18-19

b.             Man is spiritually blinded and dead.

c.             Man’s mind is corrupted and depraved.

                                                An irrational principle is now in operation in man (Pache, 15).

Our human race, once fallen in sin, can have no more supply of pure or sufficient knowledge of God from the natural principium."  (Kuyper, P.S.T., 361).

We must distinguish between what this revelation can do theoretically and actually (there are two types of possibility).

Mankind is like a bird with a broken wing.

5.             The Significance of General Revelation

a.             For those without Special Revelation

(1)           It explains why he is religious (heathen religions).

(2)           It renders him without excuse; this fact is the great effect.

                                Romans 1:20--"so that they are without excuse."

(3)           It leads him into consciousness of sin and his need of Christ and thus brings him toward Christ.

                                Acts 17--Paul moves from the general revelation to the special revelation.

(4)           General Revelation is inadequate to lead a man to salvation.

                                The right knowledge of God within a man is the product of a divine creation worked upon the soul by a miracle of God.

                                There is therefore the necessity of missions and evangelism.

                                "That faith, which leads individuals and whole circles to conscious worship, not of the ‘Unknown God’ at Athens, but of the known Father who is in heaven, is not found, except where the Scriptures have been the Divine instrument, in God’s hand, of that knowledge" (Kuyper, PST, 368).

b.             For those in Christ

(1)           It serves as a point of contact or of common ground between the Christian witness and the unbeliever.

We share the same world and many common experiences.

                                                There is the possibility of apologetics.

The parables show spiritual truth by means of analogies.

(2)           It confirms faith.

                                                This is my Father’s world. (K, 69)

God is not something we encounter only in our religious experience.  He has created and rules all things.

                                                This fact has implications for science.

Science should be an act of worship.

There is an ultimate personal explanation.

                                                It leads into the traditional arguments for God’s existence.

(3)           It provides a part of the Biblical ‘system’ by which the picture of the whole of God’s dealings with man is seen in its proper perspective (K, 69).

                                                General and Special Revelation are supplementary.

                                                They form a unitary whole so that each is incomplete without the whole (Warfield, 75).

G.         Special Revelation

1.         Old Testament Development of Special Revelation

God has given His revelation in a variety of forms and media (Hebrews 1:1).

a.         Historical Stages Through Which O.T. Revelation Developed

(1)        The Primeval Period (up to Abraham)

Revelation during this period was on a simple person-to-person basis.

God reveals the covenant of works set up in Eden and the redemptive covenant which came after the fall (J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament, 44).

God’s revelation is designed to produce an active response on the part of its hearers (e.g., Noah was to prepare the ark).

God’s actions are explained by verbal communications (e.g., God’s word explained the significance of the rainbow).

(2)        The Patriarchal Period (Abraham to the birth of Moses)

Revelation is generally restricted to the patriarchs and to those associated with them (Payne, 4).

God reveals Himself by theophany, by vision (Genesis 15:1) and by dream (Genesis 28:12).

God uses three classes of human media for giving revelation: (a) the prophet, (b) the priest, and (3) the wise men.

Also to some of the patriarchs God granted special revelations of a predictive character when they were near death (Genesis 49:1, 2; cf. 27:4; 50:24 (Payne, 43-46).

(3)        The Mosaic Period

The Creation account shows God’s power and goodness, the Fall and its results show man’s sin and the ineffectiveness of general revelation.

God reveals Himself in great providential acts, especially the Exodus.

The great single manifestation of God was His spectacular appearance upon Mt. Sinai (Payne, 46).

The Israelites asked that God no longer speak to them directly (Exodus 20:19).

God’s glory is equated with a number of realities in this period: (a) the pillar of cloud and fire [Exodus 24:16], (b) His panim (face) [Genesis 32:30], (c) His name [Numbers 6:25-27], (d) God’s angel [Exodus 14:19].

Moses was the outstanding media for God’s revelation in this period, but the priests became the official teachers of the Law (Leviticus 10:11) and could inquire of the Lord (Numbers 27:21).

Illegitimate means of obtaining revelation(such as astrology and spiritism) are condemned (Leviticus 19, 20, and Deuteronomy 18).

There is an absolute incompatibility between prophecy from God and heathen superstition.

Deuteronomy 18 records the origin of the office of prophet.

(4)        The Period of Consolidation (Joshua through Saul).

There was little revelation between Moses and David except for the official priestly oracles (I Samuel 3:1; 23:9-12) (Payne, 49).

The most significant feature of this period was the rise of the prophets into an organized class for regular use by God.

Samuel was the founder of the school of the prophets.

Prophets were both forth-tellers (preachers of righteousness) and fore-tellers (predicting the future) (Payne, 51).

God communicated His will to the prophet by bringing him under the personal influence of the Holy Spirit so that he then conveyed the Word of God.

(5)        The Davidic Period (Psalms, some statements in I Samuel and I Chronicles).

David was Athe man after God’s own heart” (I Samuel 13:14), and the wonders of his tongue were those of God’s own heart (II Samuel 23:2).

In the writings of David the distinction between general and special revelation first comes to conscious expression (Psalm 19 and 119) (Payne, 53.

(6)        The Disruption Period (Solomon until the appearance of the inspired writing prophets).

(Song of Solomon, Psalms 45 and 72; Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes; parts of I and II Samuel and I and II Kings)

Under Solomon Athe wise men” rose to prominence and their writings in the Wisdom Literature.

Wisdom literature as a whole is ethical in character (Payne, 55).

                Wisdom embraces all the best in life (Prov. 3:16-18) and reveals God’s answers to such great problems as retribution and theodicy (Job) or the purpose of life (Ecclesiastes).

                The wise men of Israel drew their conclusions from observation and reflection (Job 8:10; 12:3; Proverbs 2:1; Eccl. 12:9) rather than from the type of direct revelations which God granted to the priests and prophets.

                Nevertheless, they spoke absolute truth (Proverbs 22:21).

During this stage the reformed prophets, Elijah, Micah, and Elisha, also appear.

The words of the true prophet had to conform to what was already revealed in the Word of God (Deuteronomy 13:1-3; Isaiah 8:20) (Payne, 57).

(7)        The Period of the Eighth Century Prophets

(Isaiah and the first six minor prophets [Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah], some material from II Kings and II Chronicles).

This is the time of the first prophets who wrote down their messages and whose books constitute holy Scripture (Payne, 57).

God directed His messengers both in speaking and in writing the redemptive message (Payne, 58).

The prophets proclaimed the word of God authoritatively, and the people are held responsible for the message preached to them.

There was in these prophets a dominating conviction that God had communicated to them an all-important message that they must relay to their fellow men (Joel 1:1; Micah 1:1) (Payne, 59).

(8)        The Later Prophetic Period (to the fall of Jerusalem under Babylon in 586 B.C.).

(Nahum, Zephaniah, Habbakuk, Jeremiah, part of II Kings and II Chronicles).

As far as the mode of revelation is concerned, "the fellowship of Jeremiah with God serves as the highest example of the objectivity and yet of the personal nature of the way in which God communicated with the prophets" (Payne, 60).

(9)        The Exilic Period (the time of the fall and deportation of Judah).

(Daniel, Ezekiel, Lamentations, Part of II Kings, Psalm 137)

Ezekiel had visions, and Daniel had revelation in the form of visions.

In Daniel there is the elaborate symbolism of apocalyptic literature.

(10)       The Post-Exilic Period

(From the decree of Cyrus, 538 B.C., authorizing the return of the exiled Jews to Palestine, to the completion and close of the O.T. canon shortly after 423 B.C).

(Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, parts of I & II Chronicles; Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; Psalms 146-150) (Payne, 62)

This period marked the end of God’s pre-Christian redemptive activity in special revelation.

 The priests were admonished to teach the already-revealed law (Malachi 2:7).

Their duties were more and more restricted to the performance of temple rituals.

                                The scribes began to assume the teaching responsibility       (Payne, 62).

Prophecy was known to be at about its end (Zechariah 13:5).

O.T. revelation ceased with Malachi in the 5th century. (Payne, 62)

                                Revelation was not given again until the events connected with the births of John the Baptist and Christ.

b.             Features of Revelation in the Old Testament

(1)           Receipt of revelation is a great privilege.

Deuteronomy 5:26--"For who is there of all flesh, who has heard the voice of the living God speaking from the midst of the fire, as we have and lived?"

Romans 9:4--"Who are Israelites to whom belong the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises . . . ."

With privilege comes responsibility too.

(2)           Without God’s revelation of Himself, man could not know God.

Moses has to ask God what His name is (Exodus 3:13).

There is a hiddenness about God.

Isaiah 45:15--"Truly, Thou art a God who hides Himself . . . ."

Man’s unaided search for God is fruitless.

God’s self-disclosure is absolutely necessary.

There is something sovereign about revelation.

It is all of grace.

                In revelation God discloses truth to man.

(3)           Revelation involves both acts and interpretation.

God’s acts are seen in such events as the Flood, Exodus, Exile.

But these are explained.

                Their meaning and significance are given verbally.

(4)           God reveals both Himself (personally) and propositions about Himself.

Deut 4:24--God is a jealous God.

Numbers 14:18--"The Lord is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression."

1 Samuel 3:21--"the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the Lord."

Psalm 76:1--"God is known in Judah."

                                When God sends men His word, He also confronts them with Himself.

                                Revelation is not just the broadcasting of information, but is God’s personal coming to individuals to make Himself known to them (Gen. 35:7; Ex. 6:3; Num. 7:6-8).

                                This reality is seen in the theophanies and in "the angel of the Lord."

                                In one sense God is His own messenger.

                                                When a person meets God’s word, God meets that man.

                                God addresses the man personally, calling for a personal response to God as the author of that word (Packer, NBD, 1070).

(5)           The O.T. assumes the knowability of God and the capacity within man for knowing God.

                There is no philosophical or existential impossibility for God to reveal Himself.

                There is a moral problem--man is sinful.

(6)           Man’s knowledge of God is at best only partial.

It is not comprehensive and exhaustive.

God is transcendent.

We cannot know God fully as He is (Thomson, O.T. View of Revelation, 18).

Isaiah 55:8-9--"‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,’ declares the Lord.  ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.’"

Deut. 29:29--"The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law."

                                This is a very important verse.

                                In the context it has to do with future things not being known, but it has broader implications.

                                There is an area where we in our finiteness cannot penetrate.

                                God has not given us total knowledge even of the universe, much less of Himself.

                                He has revealed His law to us that we might know Him.

                                Our responsibility is to be obedient to what He has revealed.

Obviously there is a selective principle at work in all of Biblical revelation.

                                God has sovereignly chosen what to reveal and what not to reveal.

                                There are silences inspired in the Bible.

                                We must beware of speculating in areas which are beyond our comprehension.

(7)           The knowledge of God has a saving purpose.  (it is not given merely for

information).

Genesis 3:15--God provides salvation.

What God reveals is not just information, but it leads to a relationship with the living God.

Psalm 98:2--"The Lord has made known His salvation . . . ."

Isaiah 52:10--"The Lord has bared His holy arm in the sight of all the nations; That all the ends of the earth may see the salvation of our God."

(8)           The written Word was considered God’s Word even though it was given through mortal men.

Hosea 8:11-12--"Since Ephraim has multiplied altars for sin, they have become altars of sinning for him.  Though I wrote for him ten thousand precepts of My Law, they are regarded as a strange thing."

                                Though Moses was the human author of the Law, God claimed to have written it. (Packer, NBD, 1092)

Psalm 119--The author constantly refers to God’s Law.

(9)           Once the Law was written, it was regarded as a definitive and permanently valid disclosure of God’s will for His people’s life.  (Packer, NBD, 1092)

Joshua 1:8--"This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it . . . ."

Deuteronomy 31:9-13--Moses commands the Israelites to be assembled periodically for the public reading of the Law.

2.             Theological Features of Special Revelation

a.         Definition of Special Revelation

Special Revelation refers to "Those acts of God whereby He makes Himself and His truth known at special times and to specific peoples."  (Th, 35)

"Special revelation is God’s word in a concrete form to a specific person or group." (Ramm, Special Revelation and the Word of God, 17)

Kuyper described it as cosmic in that it must truly enter our world and take the forms of our world in order to be represented by us."

Barth referred to it as sacramental in that the elements of this world are called into the service of revelation to serve as signs of revelation.

It could also be called anthropic in that it is accommodated to man--his language, his culture, his powers (Ramm, SR, 33).

b.             The Source of Special Revelation.

AThe fundamental fact in all revelation is that it is from God” (Warfield, 84).

God in graces takes the initiative.

c.             The Need for Special Revelation

Special Revelation is needed because of the inadequacy of General Revelation.

God has to republish, correct, and interpret the truths which man could originally learn from nature.

The noetic effect of sin remains.

General Revelation makes no provision for its removal (Berkhof, IST, 133).

d.             The Object of Special Revelation

It is addressed to man as sinner (Warfield, 74).

e.             The Purpose of Special Revelation

Special revelation is redemptive and remedial.

f.              These two types of Revelation are complementary.

General Revelation gives the basic framework for Special Revelation.

"It is special revelation that gives us the key to general revelation."  (Morris, Revelation, 42)

"Without special revelation we would not know how to interpret general revelation."  (Morris, 43)

Man in his sin distorts the intelligible revelation and caricatures it, whether in terms of polytheism, atheism, or some other perverse alternative.

"Sin so warps the divine image in man that fallen man is no longer able to ascertain reliable derivative propositions merely by psychological analysis of general revelation."  (Henry, 3:460)

"Special scriptural revelation normatively sets forth the propositional content of general revelation and does so as the framework of God’s saving revelation."  (Henry, 3:460)

God’s salvation would be unintelligible or not credible apart from General Revelation.

g.         The subject of Special Revelation

Special revelation is given to God’s chosen people exclusively.

h.         The Progressive Quality of Revelation

The mode is more inner all along (Pache, 21).

The content is also progressive.

The revelatory process is cumulative.

Instead of conflicting with the earlier revelation, the later revelation builds on it at each stage (Packer, God Has Spoken: Revelation and the Bible, 82).

i.          By what is this revelation conveyed?

Acts--God has acted in history.  (II Kings 17:36)

God has accomplished something.  (BDT, 457)

Words--But these acts must be interpreted.  (BDT, 457)

Interpretation may be before or after the event.  (BDT, 457)

We could never understand a bare act. (W, 80)

It is necessary that there be an explanatory word added (W, 80).

                The explanation is in terms of propositions (propositional revelation).

                Inspiration is possible only if God reveals words.

                The revelation of the mighty deeds of God without revelation of the meaning of those deeds would be like a TV without sound--we would have to guess what God is doing (Pinnock, BR, 33).

Propositional revelation is necessary.

j.          The Modes of Special Revelation

(1)        Theophanies

A theophany is an external and temporary manifestation of God.

(2)        Direct communication of God to people

This direct communication through the lot, the urim thummim, deep sleep, the dream, the vision, or angels.

Many times we are not told the manner in which God spoke to prophets (Jonah 1:1).

(3)        Miracles

A miracle is a direct act of God, accomplishing some useful (benevolent) work and revealing the presence and power of God (Th, 35).

It is above the ordinary course of events.

Genuine miracles demonstrate the existence, presence, concern, and power of God (Th, 36).

This is Athe one occasion on which God, as it were, comes forth from His hiding place and shows to man that He is a living God, that He is still on the throne of the universe, and that He is sufficient for all of man’s problems” (Th, 36).

(4)        Scriptural Prophecy

This mode is the foretelling of events, not by virtue of human insight or prescience (foreknowledge), but by virtue of a direct communication from God (Th, 38).

Especially important are O.T. prophecies concerning Christ.

(5)        Christian Testimony or Experience

Genesis 5:21-24; 6:4BEnoch and Noah walked with God.

Matthew 5:13-16--"You are the salt of the earth . . . Let your light so shine before men . . . ."

I Peter 2:12--"Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evil-doers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation."

II Corinthians 3:2-3--"You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts."

The life of a Christian is a living epistle which may be read and known of all men indirectly.

(6)        Jesus Christ.

He is the perfect, complete, and final revelation of the Father.

Hebrews 1:1-3

Colossians 2:9

John 14:9

The whole New Testament is the explanatory word accompanying Him (W, 96).

After the definitive interpretation is given, revelation ceases (Morris, 43).

Christ is one substance (homo-ousios) with the Father.

John 10:30BAI and the Father are one.”

(7)        Scripture

The Bible is an embodiment of other types of revelation.

Special revelation has found incorporation in Scripture.

Psalm 119:105

II Timothy 3:16-17

k.             The Relationship between the Living Word and the Written Word

(1)           Both are necessary.

(a)           Christ is our ultimate authority.

Colossians 3:24--"It is the Lord Christ whom you serve."

(b)           We know Christ only through the Scriptures.

John 20:31--"but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God . . . ."

We have no secular accounts of the life of Christ.

We must be careful not to worship a Christ which is only of our own imagination.

(c)           The basic purpose of the Scripture is to lead us to Christ.

Luke 24:25-27--"And He said to them, ‘O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!  Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?’ And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."

John 5:39-40--"You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life."

(d)           To study the Scriptures without coming to Christ is to miss the whole point.

John 17:3--"But this is life eternal that they may know Thee, the only true God . . . ."

(2)           To posit all authority exclusively on the Living Word leads to                                                                      while  to  posit all authority exclusively on the written Word leads to                                                                                   (Horatius Bonar, Catechisms of the Scottish Reformation, 1866,  pp. XIV-XV).

AIt is consequently impossible to speak of an authoritative Christ apart from Scripture in which He is set forth; for we cannot know Christ at all if we do not know the Scriptures, and we do not know the Scriptures at all if we fail to find Christ.  The authority of Christ is, then, one and the same with the authority of Scripture” (H. D. McDonald, in Challenges to Inerrancy, ed. Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest, 107).

(3)           Both the Living Word and the Written Word are absolutely essential.

A helpful editorial is found in Christianity Today  (Oct. 7, 1983, pp. 10-13), written by Kenneth Kantzer.  He contrasts two basic positions:

(a)           Fundamentalists stress Biblical authority--"it is written."

(b)           "Liberals" or neo-evangelicals stress God’s communicating directly to the believer through the Bible.

God is active.

He transforms human words of Scripture into contemporary speech of the living God.

Kantzer argues that both are true.

(a)           The danger for the fundamentalist is that he will respond to the Bible as a legalistic code.

He might react to it only as one would to propositions in geometry (p. 10).

He might value the Bible as a relic from the past.

But he does not allow the Bible to bring him sharply into immediate contact with God (p. 10).

(b)           The danger for the "liberal" evangelical is that he seeks to separate that which is the word of God in the Bible from that which is the word of man.  (p. 10)

The ancient words are only the instrument which God uses to reveal Himself to us today.  (p. 11)

This understanding often leads to a looseness with the text.

The liberal commonly considers that the Bible has errors and mistakes.

l.              The Missionary and Evangelistic Responsibility Involved in Being a Receiver of Special Revelation.

Psalm 105:2--"Oh Give thanks to the Lord, call upon His name; make known His deeds among the people."

Special revelation is given as a treasure to be shared with the whole world (Th, 35).

Luke 2:10--"Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which shall be for all the people."

Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 1:8

Privilege and responsibility go together.

III.           Inspiration

A.         The Importance of Inspiration

Inspiration is the connecting link between revelation and its permanent embodiment.

It is a pivotal and determinative doctrine.

B.         The Progressive Writing of O.T. Sacred Literature

1.         The Law of Moses

We find no mention of the writing of Scripture until the time of Moses.

In Exodus 17:14 Moses is commanded to write in a book that God would utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.

In Exodus 31:18 it is stated that God wrote the law on two tables.

Exodus 34:27BAThen the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and Israel.”

God commanded Moses to write these words concerning the covenant.

As Moses began to publish his instruction to Israel, his written words appear with the same canonically binding authority as do God’s words.

The words of Moses were to be read before the people, including the children, every 7 years (Deuteronomy 31:10-13; cf. Nehemah 8:18) and were to be diligently taught (Deuteronomy 6:6-9), especially by the priests (Leviticus 10:11; Deuteronomy 17:18) (Payne, 64).

2.         Joshua

Joshua is charged to meditate on the Law and to do it (1:8).

Joshua 24:25-26 indicates that Joshua before his death recorded some of his own words as a designed edition in Athe book of the law of God.”

Joshua probably adds Deuteronomy 34 which tells of the death of Moses.

3.         David and Solomon

David was made to understand the plans of the temple in writing from the hand of the Lord (Payne, 68).

David was conscious that the Lord had spoken through His psalms (II Samuel 23:1-2).

The words of the wise came to be treated as of equal authority with the commandment of the Law.

The term lf$fm (mashal or "proverb") (which means in its root "comparison") comes to identify not only a maxim or a parable, but also a specifically infallible dictum of God, as compared with a changeable opinion of sinful man.

Mashal may mean an authoritative statement (Job 27:1; 29:1; cf. 28:28)  (Payne, 66).

4.             Historical Books

Shortly after the death of Solomon, a prophet, whose identity we do not know, compiled I & II Samuel as a historical supplement to the growing canon. 

In the coming years evil kings would neglect the written word, but the righteous ones stressed its authority. (Payne, 66)

5.         The Prophets

a.             The period of the O.T. prophets (beginning in the 8th century) is the most significant era for the O.T. doctrine of inspiration.

The writing prophets give details of their actual experiences with God and these details apply to their recording of the revelations as well as to their receiving of them. (Payne, 66)

b.             It is taught that the prophets did not write their own ideas.

Amos 8:11-12 says that when God sends a famine of His Word, men may seek it, but will not be able to find it. (Payne, 66).

Ezekiel 7:26 states that there will be a time when men will seek revelation but will not be able to find it. 

Isaiah 55:8-9--A‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My             ways,’ declares the Lord.  ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.’"

It is implied that just as the distance of the heavens above the earth is too great to be measured, so also are God’s ways and thoughts so above those of man that they cannot be grasped by man in their fullness.

God’s ways and thoughts are incomprehensible to us in their fullness. (Young, 3:383)

c.             The experience of the true prophet involved something more than just the natural course of intellectual and social life.

Their revelation or wisdom did not come from themselves (Payne, 67).

The prophets sometimes reacted emotionally or with surprise even to what they saw or heard (Isaiah 21:3-4; cf. I Peter 1:10).

d.             They were fundamentally men that had God’s spirit (Hosea 9:7), being "full of power by the Spirit of Yahweh"  (Micah 3:8).

Isaiah 48:16--"And now the Lord God has sent Me and His spirit."

However the verse is understood, the objective reality of the Spirit is clear.  (Payne, 67)

The Spirit conveyed His message to the prophets in different ways.

They saw something (Isaiah 2:1).

They were given a vision (Amos 7:7; 8:1).

They heard something audibly (Isaiah 21:10; 1:20; 58:14).

Something came so quietly that only they understood it (I Kings 19:12; Isaiah 5:9; 22:14; 28:22) (Payne, 67).

But the result was that their words were, at the same time, God’s words.

Amos wrote and spoke in the first person as if he were God (e.g., 3:1).

Isaiah referred to his own book as "the book of Yahweh" (34:16) (Payne, 67).

e.             The prophets wrote in order that "the word" which the Spirit had conveyed to them might be preserved.

Isaiah 8:16--"Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples."

The passage could refer to the writings or to the putting upon the heart.

Habakkuk 2:2-3--"Then the Lord answered me and said, ‘Record the vision and ascribe it on tablets, that the one who reads it may run.’"

Verse 1 shows the prophet’s preparation to receive the Word of God.

Something internal would happen.

Clearly God will speak within the prophet and this speaking is different from his own speaking (K & D, 69).

God commands that the prophet write the vision upon tables so that men might read it easily (K & D, 67).

If it were not written, it would fall into oblivion (K & D, 70).

The words of this prophet were transferred to writing by the express command of God.

f.              When a prophet of God wrote, his written words were accepted with the same authority as his spoken words.

The written works of the prophet were accepted as God’s word and were included in the developing canon of Scripture as rapidly as they were written. (Payne, 67)

"The written words are seen as God’s words in every way that direct speech by God and God’s speech through the mouths of people are seen as God’s words."

"The form of communication differs, but the character, authority, and truth status of the words do not.[6]"

Joel 2:32 quotes Obadiah 17 with the identification "as Yahweh has said"  (Payne, 67).

g.             Jeremiah claims to have truth from God.

Jeremiah 23:16--(Concerning false prophets).  "Thus says the Lord of hosts, Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you.  They are leading you into futility; they speak a vision of their own imagination (literally’heart), not from the mouth of the Lord."

A similar thought is expressed in Ezekiel 13:2.

A real distinction is implied between the true prophet and the false prophet.

h.             Jeremiah at times had to pray to God for information or enlightenment (Jeremiah 32:16; 42:4).

Sometimes Jeremiah and his colleagues had to wait for answers (Jeremiah 42:7; Habakkuk 2:7) (Payne, 67).

Habakkuk 2:1-2--"I will stand on my guardpost and station myself on the rampart;                and I will keep watch to see what He will speak to me, and how I may reply when I am reproved.  Then the Lord answered me and said, Record the vision and inscribe it on tablets . . . ."

The prophet’s own ideas are very clearly distinguished from what he finally wrote (Payne, 67).

i.              Sometimes God actually compelled them to speak and to write what was contrary to their own judgment and wishes (Jeremiah 17:16).

Jeremiah 20:7-8--"O Lord, thou hast deceived me and I was deceived; thou has overcome me and prevailed.  I have become a laughingstock all day long.  Everyone mocks me.  For each time I speak, I cry aloud; I proclaim violence and destruction, because for me the word of the Lord has resulted in reproach and derision all day long."

Verse 9 says the message is such he cannot hold it in. 

In his initial call Jeremiah said he did not know how to speak (1:6).

But God responded to Jeremiah (1:7-9).

A‘Because everywhere I send you, you shall go, and all that I command you, you shall speak.  Do not be afraid of them, . . . .’  Then the Lord stretched out His hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me, ‘Behold, I have put My words in your mouth.’"

Touching Jeremiah’s mouth is an emblematic token that God frames in his mouth what he is to speak.

It is a tangible pledge of inspiration, the embodiment of that influence exercised on the human spirit by which holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (K & D, 41).

God consecrated Jeremiah as His prophet and set Him as a prophet over the people (K & D, 41).

j.              But why did Jeremiah put his prophecies in a book?

Jeremiah 30:2--"thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Write all the words which I have spoken to you in a book’"  (Grudem, in S & T, 26).

Jeremiah 36:2--(God says to Jeremiah) "Take a scroll and write on it all the words which I have spoken to you concerning Israel, and concerning Judah, and concerning all the nations, from the day I first spoke to you, from the days of Josiah, even to this day."

God gave a clear command to Jeremiah twice to put his prophecies into writing.

Jeremiah 36 furnishes the most complete Biblical description of the pro-

duction of a part of one of its own books.

36:2--God speaks to the prophet.

36:4--Jeremiah dictates to the scribe.

36:4--the scribe writes the words in a scroll.

36:32--the words are reproduced (because the king had burned the original copy) (Payne, 68).

In these passages God spoke through the prophet’s own thought forms and vocabulary.

(1:5) God had formed Jeremiah’s whole personality (Payne, 68).

k.             God accepted full responsibility for the written words of His prophets.

He "signed His name" to them.

They were equal to His own words and fully authoritative (Payne, 68).

Jeremiah 25:13--(God says)  "And I will bring upon that land all My words which I have pronounced against it, all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah has prophesied against all the nations."

Jeremiah twice validated the inspiration of the earlier eighth century prophets.

In Jeremiah 26:18 he quotes the written content of Micah 3:12 as being God’s own prophecy.

In Jeremiah 49:14-19 he quotes from Obadiah (1-4) as tidings from the Lord (Payne, 68).

6.         The Close of the Canon

Daniel in the exilic period possessed the prophetic gift of God’s spirit (Daniel 4:8; Matthew 24:15).

His writings evidence a supernatural origin.

During this same period an unnamed prophet produced the final compilation of I & II Kings (Payne, 69).

With the lack of direct revelation there arose an increased study of God’s written revelation given in the past.

Men understood "by the books" (Daniel 9:2).

This tendency became more pronounced as the O.T. canon neared its completion.  (Payne, 69)

After the return from exile, the priestly author of Chronicles (probably Ezra) described the Pentateuch as "the book of the law of the Lord by Moses."

The description points to both the divine and human elements (Payne, 69).

Tradition assigns the work of closing the canon to Ezra and Nehemiah

(Apocryphal books of II Esdras 14:45 & II Maccabees 2:13)  (Payne, 69).

Ezra was a priest but primarily a scribe.

Ezra’s life purpose was to understand God’s Law, to do it, and to teach it in Israel.

In 444 B.C., after the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, Ezra and Nehemiah and the Levites read the law, explained it, and re-established it as it had not been since the days of Moses himself (Nehemiah 8) (Payne, 70).

C.         New Testament Texts Demonstrating Inspiration

1.         II Timothy 3:15-17

a.         In the context Paul is warning Timothy of impostors, false teachers, who will try to deceive the church.

Instead of being taken in by these false teaches, Timothy is to continue in what he has been taught.

He is to give heed to the Scriptures which can make one wise unto salvation.

An exclusiveness is implied.

These writings are unlike any other.

But they must lead to faith in Chrsit.

b.             The word for "inspired of God" is  qeo/pneustoj  (theopneustos).

This term is from qeo/j (God) and pne/w (breathe) (EBC, 11:409).

Paul means by this word that there is a divine quality present in Scripture which distinguishes it from all human utterance.  (Scott, 127).

Does this mean merely that there is something inspiring about Scripture?  No.

Does it mean merely that God breathed into the Scriptures so that there is an unusual quality about them?  No.  (Warfield, 133)

The word has nothing to do with the subjective effect of the Scriptures on us.

Scripture is inspired regardless of whether or not I accept it.

The word means that the Scriptures are "breathed out" by God (Warfield, 133).

As man owes his distinctive essence to his breath (Henry, GRA, 4:131).

They are the product of His creative breath.

The word means "spiration" or "spiring."

The word refers to the blowing on a window pane.

The breath of God has to do with the irresistible outflow of His power.

We do not see the wind.

Likewise, we do not "see" the process of inspiration at work in man--no man can see God’s breathing activity.

But the result is manifest--the Scripture.

With as much energy as he can employ, Paul asserts that Scripture is the product of a specifically Divine operation (Warfield, 133).

The Spirit did not suppress the personality of the human writers, but raised it to a higher level of activity (John 14:26).

The doctrine of inspiration means that Aman’s word and God’s Word have become one, so that the human literal sense is in truth God’s message, and the way into God’s mind is via the human author’s expressed meaning” (J. I. Packer, Inerrancy and Common Sense, 198).

And because the individuality of the Biblical writers was not destroyed, we find a wide variety of style and language (Hendriksen, 302).

Because Scripture is the product of the creative breath of God and because of its Divine origin, it is of supreme value for all holy purposes (W, 134).

Here Paul deals with the product of inspiration, not its process (EBC, 11:409).

There is a living utility about Scripture because God’s Spirit breathes through the whole of it (Plummer, 481).

Because of its inspiration the Scriptures are unique and without parallel in the literature of the world (Plummer, 482).

Plummer (The Expositor’s Bible, 482) writes concerning the character of the Scriptures:

"It lies rather in their lofty spirituality; their inexhaustible capacities for instruction and consolation; their boundless adaptability to all ages and circumstances; above all, in their ceaseless power of satisfying the noblest cravings and aspirations of the human heart."

Other writings are profitable for knowledge, for advancement, for amusement, for delight, for wealth.

But these "make wise unto salvation." 

They are of eternal benefit.

c.         The usefulness (profitableness) of Scripture.

Its profitableness lies in its inspired character (Guthrie, 164).

Paul asserts the permanent validity and value of the inspired writings (Henry, 4:131).

They are not given for idle speculation, but for holy purposes. (Calvin, 10: 330)

There are four specific spheres in which its usefulness can be seen (Guthrie, 164).

(1)        DoctrineBdidaskali/an (didaskalian) refers to positive teaching.

                                (Guthrie, 164)

Doctrine involves sound instruction (Fee, 229).

Paul puts this instruction first.

Some groups are anti-doctrine, but not Paul.

(2)           For reproofBe)legmo/n (elegmon) refers to the negative aspect of

teaching.  (Guthrie, 164)

Scripture shows up heresy and misstatements.

The refutation of false teaching is implied (Scott, 127).

The context shows that rebuking of error is intended (Fee, 129).

(3)           CorrectionBe/pano/rqwsin (epanorthosin) means "restoration to an upright position or a right state."  (EBC, 11:411) 

It refers to setting straight those who have fallen (Kent, 290-291).

The word emphasizes the behavioral, ethical side of things (Fee, 230).

Ethical conduct is judged and improved.

Scripture rebukes sin and convicts.

(4)           Instruction in righteousnessBpaidei/an th\n e)n dikaiosu/n$.

Paideia refers to the rearing of a child  (EBC, 11:410).

Scripture gives instruction for right living (Fee, 230).

It provides positive training in the ethical sphere (Guthrie, 164).

It is interesting how doctrine and life are related in the N.T.

False doctrine leads to sinful living.

Good theology leads to the curbing of the flesh.

d.             The end is that the man of God may be perfect.

This is the most important skill for the Christian worker.

"Man of God" may refer to the Christian worker particularly (Guthrie, 165;  Scott, 128).

He is complete--perfectly adapted and equipped for his task. (Guthrie, 165).

The Christian worker with many demands upon him, finds a powerful tool in the Word of God.

One must be trained in the Scriptures to be properly qualified for the Lord’s work.  (Scott, 128)

The man of God, with the Scriptures, is like a soldier equipped for battle.

"By continually nurturing his own life in the Scriptures that he is to use in his ministry, Timothy will be fully qualified (‘able to meet all demands,’ BAGD) and equipped ‘for every good work,’ which here means not only Christian behavior but the ministry of the gospel as well . . . ." (Fee, 230)

There is nothing defective in the man who can use the Scripture well.  (Calvin, 10:331)

2.             II Peter 1:19-21

This text concerns the method or process of inspiration.

a.         The context

Peter assures his readers that his teaching (and that of the apostles’) regarding Christ is not skillful fables.

He points to a two-fold evidence of the truth of the Gospel:

(1)        Christ has been highly approved by the solemn declaration of God and

(2)        All the oracles of the prophets have this same end in view.

Though we live in a world of great darkness, God has graciously provided us with a lampBthe Scriptures.

If we neglect the Scriptures, we will be overtaken by darkness.

b.         Verse 20

Peter tells us something about his lamp which God has given.

e)pilu/sewj (epiluseos) is found only here in the LXX and N.T. (Kelly, 323) and appears in this context to have the more unusual meaning of investigation.[7]

Scripture comes not from man’s investigation, ingenuity, creativity, efforts, thinking, cleverness, brilliance (see Warfield, 136).

Scripture did not originate due to any human initiative (Henry, 4:132).

c.             Verses 21 shows how Scripture did originate.

Holy men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

They were selected and especially prepared by God.

The Holy Spirit bore them along.

fe/rw  (phero) is used four times in four different forms in II Peter 1:17-21.

The verb means "to bring, to carry, to bear, to drive as by the wind, to produce, to utter (as a word) or to make (as a speech)."

It is used in Hebrews 1:3--The Son of God bears up the universe by His mighty Word.  (Henry, 4:132)

It is not just guiding, controlling, or directing.

"What is ‘borne’ is taken up by the ‘bearer’, and conveyed by the ‘bearer’s’ power, not its own, to the ‘bearer’s’ goal, not its own.  The men who spoke from God are here declared, therefore, to have been taken up by the Holy Spirit and brought by His power to the goal of His choosing" (Warfield, 137).

Calvin--"They did not blab their own inventions of their own accord or according to their own judgments."

Prophecy makes known what never could have entered into the mind or understanding of men.

The prophetic words which have come down to us were not written because men wished to publish views and imaginations of their own (EB, 735).

3.             John 10:34-36

Jesus accepted the legal force of all the O.T. (Henry, 4:133).

Jesus adds, "the Scripture cannot be broken."

"He attaches divine authority to Scripture as an inviolable whole."

The authority of Scripture cannot be annulled; it is indestructible (Henry, 4:133).

The authority of God’s written Word is set in concrete; it is permanent.

It cannot be overruled, made inoperative, or set aside.

Is Jesus referring merely to this passage?

(No) He refers to the entire O.T. Scriptures.

Jesus declares that the entire corpus of Scripture is an authoritative document.

4.             I Corinthians 2:6-16

(Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., "A Neglected Text in Bibliology Discussions: I Corinthians 2:6-16,"  Westminster Theological Journal,  43: 301-319,  Spring, 1981).

2:10-13--It is through the Holy Spirit that the impenetrable wisdom, the deep things of God, were brought to the apostle.

APaul is not talking about the Spirit that animates believers, but about the Holy Spirit’s operation in delivering the Scripture to this apostle" (Kaiser, 315).

The same Spirit who lifted the veil to reveal, takes possession also of the mouth of the interpreter who is to speak (Kaiser, 316).

"Taught" excludes the idea of mechanical dictation.

"Paul clearly declares that he experienced the work of the Holy Spirit all the way up to the point of verbalizing that message and that these were not at all dictated words, but truth that became part and parcel of his own person, style, vocabulary as a living assimilation of his style, vocabulary, words, and Divine truth took place--they were ‘taught words from the (Holy) Spirit’" (Kaiser, 316-317).

D.         Definition of Inspiration

Graphic (written) inspiration is the activity by which that portion intended by God of His special revelation was put into permanent, authoritative, written form by the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit, who normally worked concurrently and confluently through the spontaneous thought processes, literary styles, and personalities of certain divinely-selected men in such a way that the product of their special labors (in its entirety) is the very Word of God (both the ideas and the specific vocabulary), complete, infallible, and inerrant in the original manuscripts.

E.         Presuppositions and Implications of the Doctrine of Inspiration

1.             The Providence and Sovereignty of God in the process of inspiration.

Inspiration is the ultimate effect of many processes cooperating through long periods of time  (Warfield, 154).

Certain men were chosen and prepared all their lives for writing a book or certain books.

Their whole lives and ancestral lines were under God’s complete control.

"And there is the preparation of men to write these books to be considered, a preparation physical, intellectual, spiritual, which must have attended them throughout their whole lives, and, indeed, must have had its beginning in their remote ancestors, and the effect of which was to bring the right men to the right places at the right times, with the right endowments, impulses, acquirements, to write just the books which were designed for them" (Warfield, 155).

Inspiration is not merely a one-moment act of God.

2.             Does inspiration refer to everything which the chosen men wrote or may have written?

Inspiration was not necessarily a permanent and continuous mater tied inseparably to the office of a prophet and apostle.

It could be intermittent.

Evidently a few of Paul’s epistles were lost.

We need not consider any list or scribbling to be inspired.

Note II Samuel 11:14-15.

David writes to have Uriah killed.

David’s letter in this instance was hardly inspired.

3.             There are no degrees of inspiration.

Some matters admit no degrees (marriage, life, death).

Inspiration is always perfect and complete (Pache, 55).

Either what is said and written is from God, or it is not.

There are degrees of illumination which must be distinguished from inspiration. (Pache, 55)

One literary genre is not more inspired than another.

There are different purposes and uses for the different genre of Scripture.

"Inspiration is present irrespective of immediate applicability" (Erickson, 1:219).

4.             The Confluency of Scripture

a.             The Meaning of confluency[8]

"By confluency is meant the dual authorship of Scripture, the fact that the Bible is at one and the same time the product of the divine breath and a human pen."  (Pinnock, 92)

The term does not refer to a divine-human compromise or a 50%-50% division.

There was a concursive operation whereby the thinking and writing were free and spontaneous on the human author’s part, but divinely elicited and controlled so that what he wrote, was what God designed (Pinnock, 92).

God produced a man who would write spontaneously just what God desired.  (Warfield, 155; Pinnock, 93)

God and man so cooperate that the product was God’s Word in human language.  (Feinberg, Inerrancy, 282)

b.             The divine nature of Scripture.

It is the very word of God.

"Thus says the Lord."

c.             The human nature of Scripture

We see the human traits of the authors in vocabulary, style, grammatical constructions.

There are a variety of styles in Scripture.

II Timothy 4:13--"When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments."

No violence was done to the mind and will of the human authors.

There was no coercion.  The human authors were not robots.

Yet there were no errors included in that which was written.

We may allow the possibility of drafts and revisions as is common on the part of modern writers.

Such a procedure would not have been as common when writing materials were scarce and expensive.

It is evident that Luke did much research in the writing of his two books.

Human motivations for writing are evident.

(1)           Luke (1:1-4)--wants to record a historical account of recent events of supreme importance.

(2)           Jude (v. 3)--the author’s purpose is strong, but is changed.

(3)           Revelation (1:19)--author commanded to write.

(4)           Philemon (v. 10)--Paul writes for the sake of Onesimus.

(5)           I Corinthians (5:1)--Paul hears a report of evil.

(6)           I John (1:3)--writes for fellowship.

(7)           John (20:31)--writes that we might know, believe, and have eternal life.

We can well appreciate the authentic human character of the Scriptures.

But this fact does not mean that we must admit the existence of error       (Pinnock, 94).

To err is human, but the Holy Spirit can communicate absolute truth.

d.             Is there a proper parallel between the two natures of Christ and the dual character of the Bible?  Is there a linguistic Incarnation?

The analogy holds good (true) to a certain extent but must be used with caution (Warfield, 162).

We might use it as a secondary illustration of how humanity does not necessarily mean error.

The parallel can be sustained only to a limited degree. (Chafer, 1:73)

There is no hypostatic union between the Divine and the human in Scripture.

In the Bible the Divine and human cooperate to form a Divine-human work.

In Christ the two natures are united to form a Divine-human person.

In the Bible the human is only employed by the Divine.

The human does not work in full conjunction with the Divine as in the person of Christ.  (Warfield, 162-163)

The Bible is an impersonal entity and one which is trustworthy (See Chafer, 1:73).

Christ is personal and sinless.

e.             How should we react to the following statement--"The liberal denies the divinity of the Scriptures, while the Evangelical denies the humanity of the Bible"?

Therefore, the Neo-Orthodox claims to be in the center of theological tension.

Liberals do deny the divinity (divine nature) of the Bible.

But good evangelicals do not deny the humanity of the Bible.

It is not the humanity of Scripture we are reluctant to believe, but its alleged errant "sinful" humanity.

Critical theories, which propose deceitful literary forms and historical blunders do indeed manifest belief in the humanity of Scripture, but explicitly repudiate its divine authorship.  (Pinnock, 94)

The fall is not necessary to humanness.

Error is not essential to true human expression when a writer spoke under the determining influence of the Holy Spirit.

Human courts assume a near inerrancy.

The multiplication table is an example of a human document which seems inerrant.

f.              Conclusion

The Scriptures are conceived by the writers of the N.T. as through and through God’s book, in every part expressive of His mind, given through men after a fashion which does no violence to their nature as men, and constitutes the book also men’s book as well as God’s in every part expressive of the mind of its human authors (Warfield, 153).

F.         Properties of Scripture Resulting From Inspiration

1.         Authority

The Reformers held to sola Scriptura, which was the formal (or formative) principle of the Reformation.

Scripture judges us, the church, our lives, doctrine, and thoughts.

We do not judge it.

Davis, in The Debate About the Bible, admits that reason is his ultimate authority (p. 71).

2.         Sufficiency

Sufficiency means that everything a believer needs to know about salvation and the Christian walk is contained therein (Pinnock, 96)

"Scripture contains enough truth to lead men to Jesus Christ, and enough to ensure the doctrinal, spiritual and ethical welfare of the people of God.  (Pinn, 96)

The sufficiency of Scripture involves two implications:

(1) We do not need further private revelation.

There is providential guidance, conviction, etc.

(2) The canon is closed.

If Scripture were not sufficient for bringing us to salvation, it could not stand as our sole authority.

It would have to be supplemented by something else (Pinn, 97).

Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.21.3) writes:

"For Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which as nothing useful and necessary to be known has been omitted, so nothing is taught but what it is of importance to know"  (Pinn, 97).

Although there is a legitimate Christian tradition, it is based on and derived from Scripture.

It does not equal (or surpass) the authority of Scripture (Berkhof, IST, 169).

3.         Clarity (Perspicuity)

To the Roman Catholic Church the Bible is obscure and is badly in need of interpretation, even in matters of faith and practice.

The RCC sees the Bible as containing deep mysteries and being liable to being misunderstood.

The Church therefore supplies an infallible interpretation (Berkhof, IST, 167).

As evangelicals we insist that Scripture must be clear if it is to be our authority (Pinn, 97).

Otherwise something else would be necessary so that we might be made (enabled) to understand the Scripture.

The "Westminster Confession" states that "all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all." (1.7)

But in the clear passages of Scripture, everything is found that pertains to faith and life.

The "Westminster Confession" continues,

"[Y]et those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may obtain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

Is clear because it is God’s book.  (Pinn, 99)

"A denial of perspicuity is a denial of the sola scriptura principle itself."

"Denial of clarity reflects a refusal to be bound by Scripture and a determination to follow one’s own inclinations" (Pinn, 99).

Believers do disagree on many non-essentials, but Scripture is clear on the essentials.

No one can take refuge on the day of judgment that Scripture was not understandable.

The Reformers contended that "the knowledge necessary unto salvation, though not equally clear on every page of Scripture, is yet conveyed to man throughout the Bible in such a simple and comprehensible form that one who is earnestly seeking salvation can, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, by reading and studying the Bible, easily obtain for himself the necessary knowledge, and does not need the aid and guidance of the Church and of a separate priesthood"  (Berkhof, IST, 167).

4.             Efficacy

Isaiah 55:11BThe Word does not return void.

Jeremiah 23:29Cthe Word is a hammer.

Jeremiah 20:9CGod’s Word is a fire in the bones.

Hebrews 4:12BThe Word of God is a sharp, two-edged sword.

Ephesians 6:17CAthe sword of the Spirit which is the word of God.”

It is a powerful, potent word.

The Holy Spirit employs the Word as His instrument in the convernsion of sinners.

5.         Eternity

Psalm 119:89BAForever, O Lord, Thy Word is settled in heaven.”

Isaiah 4:8BBut the Word of our God stands forever.

I Peter 1:23-24CAFor you have been born again not of seed which is perishable, but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding Word of god.”

6.         Unity, Coherence

Psalm 12:6BAThe words of the Lord are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.”

Psalm 93:5BAThy testimonies are fully confirmed.

7.         Infallibility and Inerrancy

a.         The Meaning of the Terms

AInfallible” means incapable of teaching deception or error.

AInerrant” means not liable to be proven false or mistaken.

The Bible makes no false or misleading statements on any topic.

AInerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical or life sciences (Feinberg, in Inerrancy, 299).

The dictionary really considers the two terms as synonymous though certain theologians do try to distinguish between the two terms.

Davis holds that the Bible is infallible, but not inerrant (23).

The Bible is infallible because it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice.

Outside of faith and practice he holds that there are errors in the Bible.

b.         Necessary Preliminary Qualifications to Inerrancy

(1)           Biblical passages must be interpreted in their context.

"There is no God."  These are the words of a fool.

(2)           Biblical passages must be understood in terms of scientific, historical exegesis.

There are symbolic language, figures of speech, and idioms in the Bible.

"The four corners of the earth."

There are poetry and special literary forms.

(3)           Is the Bible trustworthy when it speaks of matters touching history, geography, zoology, botany, etc.?

The Bible is not primarily a secular textbook.

Biblical authors do not always use technical vocabulary.

AThe Scripture gives accurate and truthful information about science and history, but in a form appropriate to its own purposes” (John Jefferson Davis, Inerrancy and Common Sense, 159).

But where the Bible does speak, it is true.

The first operation is reported to have been prompted by Scripture’s teaching that God removed a rib from Adam.

The "paths of the sea" have been documented.

There has been much archaeological verification of Biblical names, places, and events.

Obviously we must carefully ascertain just what it is to which the Biblical author commits himself.

Just because a statement is included does not mean the human  author agrees or condones it.

(4)           We must distinguish between "difficulties" and "errors" in Scripture (Pinnock, 19).

Most problems can be adequately explained with careful analysis of all pertinent factors.

But we do not always have sufficient data to resolve every possibility of difficulty.

There are problems with every view of Scripture.

Thinking persons make use of an intellectual icebox.

They await more information before coming to a final decision.

(5)           Inerrancy does not imply omniscience on the part of the Biblical authors.

Their declarations are true, though incomplete.

"The Scriptures were written by men who were kept from error, but who were not endowed with the perceptive faculties which belong to God alone" (Pache, 127).

(6)           The Biblical authors always operate with a selective principle (Pache, 127).

John 20:31

The authors do not tell us everything which they do know.

(7)           Inerrancy refers only to the original manuscripts.

Transmission is not inerrant.

There is an interesting treatment of this point by Greg L. Bahnsen (pp. 149- 193 in Inerrancy).

c.         The Case for Biblical Inerrancy

(1)        Scripture is God’s Word.

God by definition is infallible and fully trustworthy (Numbers 23:19), and it is inconceivable that what God says should not fully reflect His character (Helm, 56).

Inerrancy is an necessary inference and entailment from the Biblical teaching concerning inspiration.

God is omniscient, omnipotent, truthful, and eternal.

He never has to correct or retract His statements.

God’s word is unlike man’s word.

ADivine truthfulness is the rock beneath Biblical infallibility” (Pinnock, 10).

(2)        Jesus’ Use of Scripture, particularly the O.T.

The Lordship and deity of Christ are at stake.

(3)        Logical Consistency

Limited inerrancy introduced the necessity of a subjective criteria for determining what is true and what is not true.

Davis, in The Debate About the Bible (p. 71), states:

"It is true that no Christian who believes that the Bible errs can hold that the Bible alone is his authority for faith and practice.  He must hold to some other authority or criterion as well.  That authority, I am not embarrassed to say, is his own ability to reason."

He admits that he himself is the final judge of what he will and will not believe (Davis, 75).

Davis’ methodology is dangerous and opens the door to disaster.

Once an error is admitted, the basic integrity of the text is undermined.

Limited inerrancy ultimately introduces a subjective criteria for truth.

AInspiration without inerrancy is an empty term.  Inerrancy without inspiration is unthinkable.  The two are inseparable related.  They may be distinguished but not separated” (R. C. Sproul, Inerrancy and Common Sense, 134).

(4)        Historical Consequences

"I will contend that embracing a doctrine of an errant Scripture will lead to disaster down the road.  It will result in the loss of missionary outreach; it will quench missionary passion; it will lull congregations to sleep and undermine their belief in the full-orbed truth of the Bible; it will produce spiritual sloth and decay; and it will finally lead to apostasy"  (Lindsell, Battle for the Bible, 25).

Feinberg says it is not necessarily true, but there are numerous examples (in Inerrancy, 269).

It is true that some people may hold to something which is illogical out of a sheer act of the will.

Many people do not follow through with the logical implications of their predecessors.

But we must distinguish between what is true on an individual level and what is true on an institutional level.

Institutional fellowship implies a sanction (endorse-ment) which personal fellowship does not.

Both a comity and a comradery are involved.

(5)        Scriptural Teaching

The way the apostles use Scripture, demonstrates belief in inerrancy (II Timothy 3:16-17; II Peter 1:21).

(6)        The Position of the Church Throughout History

Harold O. J. Brown, in "The Arian Connection: Pre-suppositions of Errancy," in Challenges to Inerrancy, Ed. by Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest, 400-401, writes:

"It is apparent that the inerrancy of Holy Scripture, if not explicitly taught, has been assumed and taken for granted ever since the earliest days of the church" (394-395; compare 400-401).

Lindsell in chapter 3 shows that the Church has always held to Biblical inerrancy until the 19th and 20th Centuries (p. 41).

Rogers and McKim try to demonstrate that inerrancy has not been the historic teaching of the Church.[9]

John Woodbridge shows   how Rogers and McKim operate with an unfair and arbitrary selection of data.

He states that their book lacks historical reliability.

Practically speaking, acceptance of the Rogers and McKim proposal would mean that Athe infallible ‘saving message’ material can shrink or expand in accordance with the latest givens in higher biblical criticism, cultural anthropology, or findings from other disicplines.”[10]

d.             Objections to Biblical Inerrancy (put forth by the Erantists).

(1)           Inerrancy is not important enough to fight and divide over.

A number of writers think that inerrancy should not be the subject of any further controversy (Rogers, Biblical Authority--Pinnock, 68, Mickelsen, 87, Ramm, 113-114, 115, Hubbard,

153, 178).

Lindsell has already destroyed their argument.

Historically, a disbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture has led to ruin.

Paul Jewett, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, wrote that Paul was wrong in his statements regarding women.

(2)           There is no essential difference between a qualified inerrancy and a limited errancy (Davis, p. 29).

Pinnock states that it is only a problem of terms and definitions (p. 69).

Bahnsen in Inerrancy well argues against this position.

Really there is all the difference in the world.

The question is whether the Bible is an absolutely trustworthy book or not.

(3)           Some say that at the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church put its

authority in the Pope, and the Protestants in the Bible (Pache, 132).

Beegle identifies the method of the RCC and the evangelical. (pp. 269, 280, 281)

He thinks that the Bible was made into a paper pope by the Scholastic Calvinists.

Historically the Calvinists did not worship the written Bible.

Inerrancy was implicit within the theology of Calvin and Luther.

A charge of bibliolatry is often made against the Evangelical (Pache, 133).

It is said that the Evangelical puts all his emphasis on the Bible rather than the living Christ.

We do not worship the Bible, but through it we come to know Christ.

Otherwise we worship a Christ of our own imagination.

(4)           The argument for inerrancy is circular (See Beegle, 217).

The charge is made that the Evangelical holds that the Bible is inerrant because it claims to be inerrant (Davis, 49).

Davis distinguishes between two forms of the argument:

(1) The simple formCthe bible claims to be inerrant; therefore, the Bible is inerrant.

(2) The more complex formCAThe Bible claims to be inspired by God, and a book cannot be inspired by God unless it is inerrant; therefore the Bible is inerrant (Davis, 49).

The Bible does in effect claim inerrancy.

The argument of B. B. Warfield is composed of two syllogisms:

Syllogism A--Major Premise: Whatever Deity teaches is true.

Minor Premise: The historical, logical and experimental evidences prove that Jesus Christ is divine.

Conclusion: Therefore, whatever Jesus Christ teaches is true.

Syllogism B--Major Premise: Whatever Jesus Christ teaches is true.

Minor Premise: Jesus Christ teaches the complete divine authority of Scripture and the explanatory corollary of this authority is the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

Conclusion: Therefore verbal inspiration and inerrancy are true.

We begin not with inerrancy or the claims of Scripture.

We start with the Lordship of Christ.

Therefore, the argument is not circular.

(5)           One can have genuine Christian faith and believe the Bible is errant on non-essentials.

Davis describes this statement as "The Epistemological Argument" (chapter 3).

However, this position is most inconsistent.

It is illogical, and dangerous.

It results from "an act of the will."

It could be compared to entrusting a huge amount of money to a convicted thief, embezzler, and extortioner.

(6)           One cannot hold to modern science and inerrancy.

True science has not destroyed belief in the accuracy of the Bible.  (Pache, 128)

"The very fact that men today are willing to consider the relationship of Genesis to science is in itself evidence of the uniqueness of Genesis."  (Young, in Tenney, p. 109).

An article in Time (February 5, 1979, pp. 149-150; also Reader’s Digest, July 1980) shows how some scientists are beginning to accept something of the Biblical perspective.

(7)           We must respect the intentions and results of modern Biblical criticism.

It is stated that inerrancy is not academically respectable.

Hubbard (Rogers, Biblical Authority, pp. 175-177).

Hubbard accuses inerrantists of putting rigid systems of apologetics before openness to true Biblical scholarship.

However, how can the errantists rightly accuse conservative evangelicals of not being open to truth, if by truth is meant the unbelieving presuppositions of the modern critics?

Davis writes, "I believe that the historical-critical study of the Bible ought to be welcomed and encouraged by evangelicals" (p. 117).

The unpardonable sin of evangelicals, in the eyes of non-evangelicals, is that they do not respect the method and findings of the higher critics.

It is stated in the Cambridge History of the Bible (3:308) that

It is very difficult for the Conservative Evangelical "to understand that religious truth is not primarily a matter of verifiable propositions about God and human destiny, but is rather an existential awareness of man’s situation as over against God and the world, which can be expressed and communicated only under the forms of imagination and symbol."

Krabbendam’s article in Inerrancy (contrasting Warfield and Berkouwer) implies that Berkouwer’s shift was because of the "apostate methodology" of higher criticism. (445-446)

It came because of a division between Scripture and the Word of God (the two are no longer identified).

Does Bultmann approach Scripture with an open mind?

(8)           There are errors in the Bible.

Beegle thinks that the evidence demonstrates errors (p. 267).

One’s starting point presupposes his conclusions.

Beegle thinks that evangelicals will not let the evidence speak (p. 270).

However, evangelicals insist on asking if the critic can adequately demonstrate that errors actually do exist?

Does he have enough knowledge and evidence to make such a claim?

Davis in chapter 5 discusses such small, insignificant problems.

The force of his case is like that of a child with a cap pistol.

Each problem can be adequately explained.

e.             Why is Inspiration Important if We Do Not Have the Autographs?

Inspiration has reference to the autographs.

The texts of both the O.T. and the N.T. are well preserved.

Fully 99.5% of N.T. words are unquestioned.  (K, 129)

Christ accepted the text of the O.T.

"There is a major difference between a reliable text with minor transcriptional errors, and a Bible with the texture of fallacy in copy and original"  (Pinnock, 10).

An infallible original moves the question of truth from the realm of the subjective to the realm of the objective  (K, 127).

Otherwise we must extract truth from error in our texts.

Moving truth from error in text is always a subjective process. (K, 128)

"Errors in transmission are, in principle, correctable by textual criticism"  (Bahnsen, Inerrancy, p. 183).

"Therefore it is of the greatest theological and practical importance to insist on the infallibility of the autographs" (Pinnock, 15).

G.            Proofs or demonstrations of the Doctrine of Inspiration and Inerrancy

From where is this doctrine derived?

1.             The two areas of evidence

a.             What these two areas are

They are described by Paul Feinberg in Inerrancy (Chapter 9, pp. 267ff).

(1)           The phenomena of Scripture

This is the inductive argument (K, 86).

It is working toward (working "from below") the doctrine.

It is concerned with the observed characteristics of the Bible (Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, 201, 204).

One observes the facts existing on the surface of Scripture, usually after a shallow investigation of the Biblical doctrine of inspiration (Warfield, 202-203).

Often these phenomena are arbitrarily used to try to correct or modify the Bible’s own teaching.

It notes a number of matters:

"Facts" about the Bible (W, 207).

The origin of Scripture as tested by archaeological evidence.

How the New Testament quotes the Old Testament.

Everett F. Harrison, "The Phenomena of Scripture" in Revelation and the Bible, edited by C. F. Henry (chapter 15).

AThere is a growing body of opinion, particularly among younger evangelical scholars, which demands that we must now dispense with (not minimize as formerly) a deductive approach to Scripture, and employ an inductive one exclusively.  (The stance has become a position!).  This claim means that the orthodox position regarding Scripture can no longer be established by an appeal to Scripture’s witness to itself, and to a study of the Scriptures in the light of this statement (deductive).  We must rather begin at the other end with a painstaking study of all textual variants and difficulties, exegetical problems, contradictions (soBcalled), and our conclusions from the above must be allowed to determine whether we can assent to the age-old doctrine or whether it needs an academic face lift.  This is indeed a dangerous course to adopt because the kind of methodology we employ determines the conclusions we can make.  It is impossible to try and salvage biblical (evangelical) conclusions from anti-biblical presuppositions.”[11]

(2)           The Doctrine of Scripture as exegetically established (Warfield, 201)

This is the deductive argument.

Erickson calls this dimension "the didactic material" (1:204).

It is working Afrom above” to construct the doctrine.

It is concerned with what Scripture claims about itself.

In this mode, because of the overpowering claims made by Scripture one is willing to suspend the final answer to how the phenomena of Scripture are to be adjusted to the doctrine of Scripture (Warfield, 210).

b.             Warfield’s claim

Warfield asserts that we can divide thinkers into two areas in which they worked; we can always tell by their conclusion which area they used to support it. (See Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, p. 225;  see Feinberg, in Inerrancy, p. 269; K, 86)

(1)           Those who choose the phenomena of Scripture end up with a low view of Scripture, i.e. a human book.  (K, 86; see Phillips and Brown, 125, note 68)

This result occurs because the self-teaching is disregarded and one constructs his own doctrine. (W, 202)

The scholar or student approaches the Bible with no firm commitment and is willing to correct the self-teaching of the Bible if necessary.  (W, 205)

He assumes that all problems have to be ironed out before the inspiration and authority of Scripture may be accepted.

(2)           Those who choose the doctrine of Scripture end up with a high view of  Scripture.  (K, 86)

"When we emphasize . . . that the state of the case being as we have found it, we approach the study or the so-called ‘phenomena’ of the Scriptures with a very strong presumption that these Scriptures contain no errors, and that any ‘phenomena’ apparently inconsistent with their inerrancy are so in appearance only: a presumption the measure of which is just the whole amount and weight of evidence that the N.T. writers are trustworthy as teachers of doctrine." (Warf, 215)

We in confidence accept the teaching of Scripture as to the nature of its own inspiration prior to a full understanding of how all the phenomena of Scripture are to be adjusted to it.

The self-teaching of Scripture is clear.  The Bible is the very word of God.

c.             If Warfield’s claim is only half true or merely a tendency, then it behooves us to examine our method closely since the method implies the result.  (K, 87)

This is the point of crucial decision.

d.             The two tendencies are to elaborate either the phenomena or to elaborate the self-teaching of Scripture, without reference to the other.

The conservative when asked if the Bible has divine authority, has turned to the theology of the Biblical text and answered, "Yes."

The liberals see the conservative as ignoring the phenomena like an ostrich who hides his head in the sand.

The liberals when asked what the true nature of Scripture is, have elaborated the phenomena.

The liberals have thereby concluded that the Bible is a human book with a divine aspect. (K, 87)

They characteristically treat the Bible in an agnostic or atheistic manner.

e.             The Proper Approach

Each body of evidence is necessary.

The proper use of both areas is sometimes called "abduction," "retroduction," or "adduction."  (Feinberg, in Inerrancy, 273)

Each alone is incomplete.

AThe crucial question is, which type will be interpreted in the light of the other.  Perhaps the most significant differences among evangelical theories of inspiration occur at this point” (Erickson, 204).

Those who emphasize the supreme authority of the Bible place the major emphasis on the didactic material and make the phenomena secondary.

Thus the phenomena will be interpreted in the light of Scripture’s self-teaching (Erickson, 208).

We cannot hold as true what cannot be fitted into either body of evidence.

Either body of evidence may point to a different conclusion, but they cannot point to contradictory conclusions.  (K, 87)

The phenomena lead us to view the Bible as a human product, though perhaps containing a certain element of the divine.

The Bible is a human book.

The doctrine of Scripture leads us to conclude that the Bible is a divine book and only incidentally suggests that it is a human book.

The dominating assertion of Scripture is that it represents God’s authority.

The Bible is a divine book.  (K, 87)

Hebrews 11:3--"By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible."

If we look at both aspects of the evidence and do not exclude either area, we must conclude that the Bible possesses a dual nature--it is a divine and a human product.

It is human through and through.

It is divine through and through.

Both are essential.  (K, 88)

f.              Observations

The starting point is the main problem with Davis’ methodology (The Debate About the Bible) and the entire Fuller Theological Seminary perspective.

The evangelical enters the discussion with a faith in the truthfulness of God.

He wants to distinguish between difficulties and proven errors.  (W, 225)

He feels a commitment to what the Bible teaches, not what men teach.  (W, 226)

So much hinges on one’s attitude, perspective, and presuppositions.

2.             The Supernatural Characteristics of Scripture

These characteristics are sometimes called "the phenomena reflecting divine authorship." (K, 4)

Thiessen considers this question under the credibility of the books of the Bible  (pp. 98, 102).

These factors are helpful in answering the very important question, Why do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God?

a.             The Majesty of God’s standards throughout the book show that it must be from God Himself.

b.             The Truthfulness and Integrity of Scripture.

c.         The Mysteries of God Revealed in the book

d.         The Bible is always relevant and contemporaneous with man’s needs.

e.         The Bible speaks universallyBto all personalities, cultures, races, nations, and ages.

f.          The Superiority of the Bible to religious works of other faiths.

g.         The Fact of Fulfilled Prophecies in the Bible

h.         The Perfection of the Teaching of the Bible

i.          The Manner of Speech in the Bible

j.          The Power of Scripture in moving hearts and transforming lives.

k.         The Enduring Quality of the Bible

l.          The Remarkable Harmony of the Parts of the Bible, particularly the O.T. and the N.T.

m.        The Inner Testimony of the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion: "The Bible is a very remarkable book.  It is not explainable as a product of human reason and powers.  But, it rather is a book in whose production God has a hand"  (K, 104).

3.         The Self-teaching of Scripture (the witness of Scripture to its own authority or claims made by Scripture to its own authority; the doctrine of Scripture) (The Didactic Approach).

a.         Concerning the Old Testament

(1)        God is said to reveal Himself through the prophets (Jeremiah 30:2).

AThus saith the Lord” is the common refrain of the prophets.

The many passages which speak of God’s communicating to His people never view human language as a barrier to effective communication by God (Grudem, 20).

(2)        Biblical authors claim to have been given revelation directly from God (Hosea 1:1; Zechariah 1:1).

(3)        The Biblical authors claim authoritatively to have a word from God for their audience (Isaiah 1:24; Jeremiah 10:1-2).

(4)        The distinction given the Word of God

(a)        God has highly exalted His word (Psalm 138:2).

(b)        God’s Word is perfect, right, pure, of righteousness (Psalm 19:7-8; 33:4; 119:14, 140).

(c)        The Word of God is eternal (Psalm 119:89; 12:6-7).

(5)        The Dynamic Quality of the Word of God

(a)        The Word of God is effectual (Isaiah 55:10).

(b)        The Word gives wisdom and understanding (Psalm 19:7; 119;98-99 105, 130).

(c)        The Word keeps from sin and error (Psalm 119:9, 11; 104; 37:31).

(d)        The Word gives new life to the soul (Psalm 19:7; 119:24, 50, 93).

(e)        The Word gives comfort and peace (Psalm 119;165).

(6)        Blessings are promised to the one keeping the Word of God (Psalm 94:12; 119:18).

(7)        The Godly love the Word of God (Psalm 1:2; 119:16, 24, 47).

(8)        Christ’s View of the Old Testament

(a)        Christ quotes the O.T. authoritatively, without any hesitancy or equivocation.

Matthew 4:4

Mark 14:27

AJesus never corrected the Scriptures, nor did He rebuke His disciples or even His enemies for their adherence to Scripture, not only as truth but as a shared source of authority for faith and practice in the present” (Phillips and Brown, 107).

AScriptures that are not explicitly given Jesus’ imprimatur also partake implicitly of the same characteristic of authority. A scientist checking a pond for purity does not have to test every drop; a sample is sufficient because what is true of the parts reflects what is true of the whole” (Phillips and Brown, 126).

(b)        Christ referred to the O. T. as the Word of God

John 10:34-35

Mark 7:11-13

Matthew 19:4-5

(c)        Christ believed the O.T. to be a revelation of God

Matthew 22:31-32

(d)        Christ believed the O.T. to have been given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 12:36

(e)        Christ believed in the authority of the O.T.

Matthew 22:29

John 10:35

Luke 16:31; 24:46-47

AFrom the manner in which Christ quotes Scripture we find that he recognizes and accepts the O.T. in its entirety as possessing a normative authority as the true Word of God, valid for all time” (Marcel, in Henry, Revelation and the Bible, 133).

(f)         Christ believed in the eternal quality of the O.T.

Matthew 5:17

Luke 16:17

(g)        Christ believed all the O.T. to be authoritative.

Luke 24:25

Matthew 23:35

Jesus quotes from the Law (Matthew 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3), the Poetic books (Matthew 4:6; Psalm 91:11-12), and the Prophets (Mark 7:6; Isaiah 29:13).

(h)        Christ believed the very words of Scripture to be inspired.

Matthew 5:18; 22:31-32CAtill heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

The jot was the Hebrew letter yod.

The title refers to the slight stroke made by a pen which could make a difference between two letters; the reference is to something even more intimate than single letters.

In Matthew 24:44-45 (Mark 12:36-37; Luke 20:42-44) Jesus cites Psalm 110:1.

AHere Jesus’ argument depends on the reliability of one letter of the written O.T.” (Grudem, Scripture and Truth, 41).

John 10:34-35

(i)         Christ accepted the claimed authorship of O.T. books.

Exodus             (Moses)            Mark 7:10; 10:5

Leviticus            (Moses)            Matthew 8:4

Deuteronomy     (Moses)            Matthew 19:8

The Law            (Moses)            John 7:19

Psalms             (David)  Luke 20:42

Isaiah                (Isaiah)  Mark 7:6; John 12:38-41

(j).        Christ accepted the O.T. history as true.

Matthew 12:3; 23:35

Mark 12:26

Luke 11:31-32; 17:26-32

Jesus consistently treats the O.T. historical narratives as straightforward records of fact (Wenham, in Inerrancy, 6).

AIn the Savior’s view the indisputable authority of Scripture attaches to the very form of expression of its most casual clauses” (Warfield, Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, 140, in Henry, 3:30).

(k)        Christ accepted the miracles as recorded in the O.T.

Matthew 12:40

John 3:14

Luke 4:25-27

(l)         Christ accepted the O.T. prophecy.

Matthew 11:10-13; 13:14; 2426:54

Mark 7:6; 14:49

Luke 4:21; 21:20-22

(m)       Christ accepted O.T. characters as historical figures (not part of myths and legends).

Abel                  (Matthew 23:35)

Abraham           (John 8:56)

David                (Matthew 12:3)

                                                                                    Isaac                (Matthew 22:32)

Isaiah                (Matthew 13:14)

Elijah                (Luke 4:26)

Elisha               (Luke 4:27)

Jacob                (Matthew 22:32)

Jonah                (Luke 11:29-32)

Lot                    (Luke 17:28-29)

"When Jesus speaks solemnly of a coming final judgment in which his contemporaries would be condemned by the Ninevites who repented under Jonah’s preaching, one can hardly regard an imaginary repentance by imaginary persons listening to imaginary preaching as carrying to impenitent hearers literal conviction and condemnation as their prospect (Matthew 12:41)."  (Henry 3:33-34)

"That the judgment will more severely deal with Jesus’ unrepentant contemporaries than with devastated Sodom loses force if we are contemplating only an imaginary past" (Matthew 11:23-24).

"The likening of the sudden return of the Son of Man to the unexpected and catastrophic Noahic Flood loses its solemnity if one must reduce its reference to the past (Matthew 24:31) to a literary fiction and mere oratorical device, since the reference to the future is then not exempt from similar depletion."  (Henry 3:34)

Lot’s wife                             (Luke 17:32)

Men of Ninevah                    (Luke 11:32)

Moses                                  (John 3:14)

Naaman the Syrian                (Luke 4:27)

Noah                                (Luke 7:26-27)

Queen of Sheba                   (Luke 11:31)

Solomon                             (Luke 11:31)

Widow of Zarephath               (Luke 4:26)

Zacharias                       (Matthew 23:35)

(n)        Christ accepted O.T. ethics and standards of conduct as normative.

Matthew 5:27-28; 19:3-5

Mark 10:18-19

(o)        Christ stated that the O.T. Scriptures were to reveal Him.

Luke 24:27, 46

John 5:39, 45-46

(p)        Christ severely denounced those who did not believe the O.T.

Luke 24:25

(q)        Christ regarded the O.T. as a unity.

Matthew 12:42Bwords from a single author are introduced as coming from the Scriptures.

John 6:45BHe combines words from different prophets

Matthew 22:29; 26:56

(r)         ConclusionBJesus’ position is very clear.

"Jesus Himself describes and employs the O.T. as an infallible authority" (R. Seeberg, Textbook of the History of Doctrines, 1:82).

(9)        The Apostle’s Regard for the O.T.

(a)        The N.T. writers (apostles) refer to the O.T. as the Word of God.

Matthew 1:22-23

Acts 1:16

(b)        The Word of God is described as powerful

Hebrews 4:12

(c)        The Word is said to give wisdom and understanding

II Timothy 3:15

(d)        The Word is said to give comfort and peace

Romans 15:4

(e)        All of the O.T. is described as inspired.

II Timothy 3:16-17

When Paul affirms the usefulness of every part of Scripture, he means that all of Scripture is truthful.

AUntruthful statements would be unprofitable and bring dishonor to God by portraying Him as one who at times speaks untruthfully, and they would serve as an encouragement to people to imitate God and sometimes speak untruthfully as well.”

AIn order to be fully and perpetually profitable, and in order always to bring glory to God, all statements in God’s written words must be trustworthy” (Grudem, 44).

(f)         The very words of Scripture are inspired.

Galatians 3:16 (from Genesis 22:17-18).

Hebrews 1:5; 8:8-12

Ephesians 4:8-9

Romans 4:17-18

When New Testament writers cite the O.T., Ahow attentively they weigh every word; with what a religious assurance they often insist on a single word, in order to deduce from it the most serious consequences, and the most fundamental doctrines” (Gaussen, 72).

b.         Concerning the New Testament

(1)        The New Testament Apostle

The books of the N.T. were written either by the Apostles or close associates of the Apostles (Mark, Luke).

a)po/stoloj can mean "messenger," "delegate," "ambassador" or "envoy."

But its predominant use is for "a group of highly honored believers, who had a special function" (BAGD, 99).

It refers to a group of men who held the supreme dignity in the primitive church (NBD, 48).

Acts 1:21f lays down the qualifications of an apostle.

He  had to have been with Jesus from John’s baptism to the Ascension.

He had to be a witness of the Resurrection (ZPEB, 1:218).

Thus they can be called the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:14) or pillars (Galatians 2:9).  (NBD, 49)

"The primary function of the apostles was witness to Christ, and the witness was rooted in years of intimate knowledge, dearly bought experiences, and intensive training."  (NBD, 48)

"The preaching and writing of the apostles and their companions taken together therefore provide both the basic historical evidence and the norm of interpretation through which alone future generations could reach the facts about Christ."  (A. H. Leitch, ZPEB 1:218; see Pinnock, in Tenney, pp 148-149)

This was a unique office, not transmitted or passed on.  (ZPEB 1:219; Dictionary of N.T. Theology, 1:135; NBD, 57)

In a strict sense these men could not have successors.

Their association with Jesus, His teaching of them and commissioning them, gave them a special office in the Church.

Implied in apostleship is the commission to witness by word and sign to the risen Christ and His completed work. 

This witness, being grounded in a unique experience of the incarnate Christ, and directed by a special dispensation of the Holy Spirit, provides the authentic interpretation of Christ, and has ever since been determinative for the universal Church.  In the nature of things, the office could not be repeated or transmitted . . . .

. . .there is no hint of the transmission of the peculiar apostolic functions to any part of that ministry . . . .   No renewal of the office or its special gifts has been called for.

It was a foundational office: and Church history ever since has been its superstructure  (A. F. Walls, Apostle, NBD, 50).

There is apostolic succession only in doctrine.

(2)        Christ’s Teaching

(a)        Christ believed in the power of His words

John 6:63; 15:3; 17:17

(b)        Christ stated that His words would not pass away.

Mark 13:31

(c)        Christ taught the responsibility for hearing His words.

Matthew 5:21-22; 7:24

John 5:24; 8:31-32

(d)        Christ chose certain men to be His disciples.

Matthew 4:19

Mark 3:14

Luke 5:27

John 17:6, 8, 14, 26

(e)        Christ promised that He would speak more plainly in the future.

John 16:25

Acts 1:1

(f)         Christ gave His disciples a special commissioning of the Holy Spirit.

John 20:21-22

Since no mortal is fit for such a difficult office, Christ imparts the Spirit to His disciples  (Calvin, 204).

This breathing has special reference to the dignity of the apostolic order (Calvin,  205).

(g)        Christ commanded His disciples to go and teach with His presence and His authority.

Matthew 28:18-20

John 20:21

Acts 1:8

(h)        Christ promised that the apostles would be guided by the Holy Spirit in a special sense.

In the Upper Room Discourse (John 13-17) Jesus is not addressing all Christians, but the narrow group of the twelve (Phillips and Brown, 110).

John 14:26--"But the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things; and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

"Christ declares that it is the peculiar office of the Holy Spirit to teach the apostles what they had already learned from His own mouth . . . ."  (Calvin, 2:88)

John 15:26-27--"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning."

John 16:13-14--"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak of His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.  He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you."

Tenney--Commentary on John 16:13:

The last clause of 16:13 constitutes the warrant for the inspiration of the N.T.  The Spirit was empowered to add to what Jesus had said in person to His disciples, and to predict the future discernment which the Spirit could generate and the definite knowledge which He could impart became the basis of the gift of prophecy and the creation of the authoritative canon which composes the N.T.  (pp 238-239)

Calvin--Commentary on John (16:12f)

The Spirit whom Christ promised to the apostles is said to be the perfect Master of Truth (Magister veritatis).  And why was He promised but that they might hand on the wisdom which they had received from Him?  There was given to them the Spirit by whose leading they discharged the office laid upon them.

The Spirit led them into all truth when they committed to writing the substance of their teaching.  Whoever thinks that anything ought to be added to their doctrine, as if it were imperfect and incomplete, not only accuses the apostles of dishonesty, but blasphemes against the Spirit . . . .  But, since their writings may be regarded as perpetual records (tabulae) of the revelation promised and given to them, nothing can be added to them without terrible injustice to the Spirit."  (5:119)

R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of The Bible.

Harris comments on John 16:13 (the Spirit of truth "will guide you into all truth . . . ."):

"This is not a promise for Christians in general.  It is a promise of revelations by the Holy Spirit.  Again John 14:26 declares that the Comforter is sent to ‘teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you.’  In this specific setting it is clear that the work of the Holy Spirit was to reveal truth to the apostles and also to remind them of things that Christ had already told them.  This is a work of revelation, and is not applicable to Christians in general (p 232).

"The Lord Jesus did not, in prophecy, give us a list of the twenty-seven New Testament books.  He did, however, give us a list of the inspired authors.  Upon them the Church of Christ is founded, and by them the Word was written" (pp 234-235).

Henry, in God, Revelation and Authority, writes:

". . . Jesus in principle committed his apostles to the enlargement and completion of the O.T. canon by their proclamation of a      divinely inspired and authoritative word interpreting the salvific significance of his life and work" (3:44).

". . . what is implicit in the teaching of Jesus is, rather, the enlargement of the sacred writings to exhibit Jesus as the center as God’s saving revelation in terms of both promise and fulfillment" (Henry, 3:46).

Donald Guthrie maintains that the promise of John 14:26 is of special importance in the formation of the N.T. (New Testament Theology, 532).

The traditions of Jesus’ teaching were not left to chance or allowed to develop in an uncontrollable way.

Although there is a sense in which this promise has a continued relevance, in the special sense it could apply only to the apostles (532).

The promise of John 16:13 (the Spirit guiding into all truth) accounts for the authority of the epistles.

The Spirit would prevent haphazard development and ensure the preservation of truth (Guthrie, 532).

Jesus preauthenticated the teachings of the apostles for the early church and ensured respect for their authority (Pinnock, 64).

(3)           The Claims and Testimony of the Apostles

(a)           The Call (Appointment) of the Apostles

[1]        Paul calls himself an apostle, a herald, a witness, and an ambassador

Romans 1:1-5; Galatians 1:8, 9; I Thess-alonians 2:13; I Timothy 2:7

In 9/13 of Paul’s epistles the author begins with APaul an apostle of Jesus Christ.”

There was something distinct and particular about this office in Paul’s mind.

The office of apostle gives Paul a unique authority and position.

He was so appointed by Jesus Christ.

[2]        Paul calls himself a foundation layer.

I Corinthians 3:5-16

[3]        Paul puts himself on an equal (if not higher) plane than Moses.

II Corinthians 3:6-15

AThere is, in the N.T., a consciousness among the authors as a whole that the authority of their own writing is on a par with that of the O.T. and that the content of the revelation given to them is, in some sense, superior to it, not in terms of inspiration, but in the clarity and progress of the revelation recorded” (Ferguson, in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic, 51).

[4]        Other N.T. writers make claims to divine appoint-ment.

James 1:1

I Peter 1:1

Revelation 1:1

(b)           The Authority of the Apostles in the Early Church

[1]           Acts 15:24-28--There is a confidence that the judgment of the apostles, elders and whole church is the mind of the Holy Spirit.  (Wenham, 120)

[2]           Paul makes commands to the Churches.

I Corinthians 7:17--"Only as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk.  And thus I direct in all the churches."

I Thessalonians 4:2--"For you know what commands we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus . . . ."  (Wenham, 116-117)

I Thessalonians 5:27; II Thessalonians 3:4-14; I Corinthians 11:34.

I Corinthians 5:1-13--Paul commands that a certain individual be put out of the Church because of his grievous sin.

(c)        The Source of Apostolic Teaching

[1]        Eyewitness Experience

II Peter 1:16

I John 1:1-2

[2]        Association with Christ

I Corinthians 11:10, 23; 14:27

Revelation 1:1-2

[3]        New Testament writers claim to have new revelation from God.

I Corinthians 2:10

II Corinthians 12:7

Galatians 1:11-12

I Thessalonians 4:15

Hebrews 1:1-2

(d)        The Authority of the Written Documents of the Apostles

[1]           I Thessalonians 2:13--"And for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God’s message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is,  the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe."

What Paul communicated was not a merely human message.

[2]           I Corinthians 14:37--what Paul writes is the command of the Lord.

[3]           Paul commands that his letters be read in the churches.

Colossians 4:16; I Thessalonians 5:27  (Wenham, 118).

In the synagogues there was the public reading of the O.T.--Paul’s writings were to be read publicly in the Churches (Geisler, 51).

[4]           Revelation 1:3--Believers are instructed to read and obey what John writes.

[5]           II Corinthians 13:10--"For this reason I am writing these things while absent, in order that when present I may not use severity, in accordance with the authority the Lord gave me . . . ."

His writings are as authoritative as  his personal presence.

[6]           II Thessalonians 2:15--"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

His words will be an inspired foundation for the Church (Mont, 223).

[7]           John 20:31--"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

See Revelation 22:7

(e)        Warnings are given those who misuse the Scripture.

II Corinthians 2:17

II Peter 3:16

Revelation 22:18

(f)         Man is responsible for knowing the teaching of Scripture

Acts 17:11

James 1:22

II John 10

II Thessalonians 3:6, 14

(g)        The Dynamic Quality of the Word of God Described by the Apostles

[1]           The Word of God is powerful.

Ephesians 6:17

I Thessalonians 1:5

[2]           The Word of God cleanses.

Ephesians 5:26

I Timothy 4:5

[3]           The Word keeps from sin and error.

II Peter 1:4

Galatians 1:8

I Timothy 6:3-4

[4]           The Word gives life and salvation.

James 1:18, 21

Romans 10:17

[5]           The Word causes Christian growth and maturity.

Acts 20:32

I Peter 2:2

[6]           The Word of God is eternal.

I Peter 1:23

(4)           The Apostle’s Regard for Each other’s Writings (fellow Apostles)  (Blum, in Inerrancy, pp 51-53).

A[I]n the New Testament we also notice that some sources express a sense not only of their own canonical character but of the existence of a class of literature sharing that status.”[12]

(a)           Paul’s link

I Timothy 5:18--"For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,’ and the laborer is worthy of his wages."

Paul quotes from Deuteronomy 25:4 (O.T.) and Matthew 10:10  (Christ)  (Luke 10:7).

"Paul considers both Deuteronomy and Luke to be Scripture."  (Geisler, 52)

(b)           Jude’s Exhortation

Jude 17--"But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Jude quotes from II Peter 3:3.

"We have here (I Timothy 5:18) and in Jude 18 the first quotation of the N.T. as Scripture, imbedded in Apostolic writings"  (Harris, 228).

(c)           Peter’s Link

II Peter 3:2--"That you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles."

He puts as parallel the words of the prophets and the commandments of the apostles of Christ.

Peter equates the N.T. teaching and O.T. writing (Harris, 227; see Pache, 231; Wenham, 119).

New Testament writings exercise the same rank and the same authority as Old Testament writings (Gaussen, 58).

The writings of N.T. apostles are coupled with the writings of the O.T.  (Gaussen, 58)

I Peter 1:11-12--"seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.  It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven."

(d)           How did Peter regard the writings of Paul?

II Peter 3:15-16--". . . just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Peter places Paul’s letters with Scripture (Pache, 231).

The Canon already was being formed during the lifetime of the apostles (Pache, 231).

Peter puts Paul’s writings on the same level as the O.T.  (Geisler, 53)

He calls Paul’s writings "Scripture" (Geisler, 53).

(e)           Conclusion:  Therefore, it is seen that the apostles place their writings on an equal plane with the Old Testament Scriptures.

4.         The Biblical Phenomena Reflecting its Human Authorship

This section concerns difficulties with and objections to the doctrine of the full inspiration of Scripture.

a.         Introduction.

(1)        All of God’s truth is coherent and forms a unity.

(2)        Ultimately there is no conflict between what is known through general revelation and what is known through special revelation.

However, all scientific knowledge is partial and imperfect while our theological understanding is also imperfect.

It can be argued that special revelation can be considered more basic because it provides the higher-level descriptions of all human activity (Helm, 117).

(3)        Within special revelation there are apparent contradictions or surface inconsistencies.

As Evangelicals we view these phenomena as difficulties or problems and think that if all facts were known, they would be compatible.

However, since rarely are all facts known, we need a grid by which to view and to analyze these difficulties.

b.         Necessary Principles in Regard to Inspiration

(1)        If the Bible is written in human language (Athe lip of Canaan” and Hellenistic Greek), it must partake of both the positive and negative sides of languages.

There are limitations and inadequacies involved in language.

(2)        Language is a means of communicating ideas from one mind to another through the use of conventionalized signs or symbols.  These signs may be patterns of sound (or words) or patterns of written marks (writing).

Inspiration involves a pattern of symbols expressing thought symbols for the transfer of thought from one mind to another.

One of the common denominations of good, skilled, or gifted writers, is sensitivity to the different nuances of words.

(3)        In the use of any word-symbol the idea meant by the author is relative to him and is slightly different from the idea meant by others even by the same symbol.

Different words have different associations in each person’s mind (e.g., Adog”).

A word may well have different connotations and denotations.

The denotation is the direct, specific dictionary definition of a term.

ACheap” denotes what is inexpensive.

The connotation is the meaning which is suggested apart from what is explicitly named.  It is the emotional value or impact of a particular word.

ACheap” connotes what is of inferior quality.

(4)        The ideas signified by an author must be ideas known to the author and for which he has symbols.

The greater the distance between the known and the unknown, the greater is the problem in communicating and the greater is the need for analogy or symbolism.

An example is the attempt to describe a computer to a primitive tribe.

We proceed from the known to the unknown by comparison.

A bridge is constructed conceptually.

An author has some freedom to change signs, but when he does so, he must clarify the meaning of the changed sign, as sa/rc ("flesh") by Paul and pi/stij ("faith") by John and other New Testament writers.

(5)        The Bible as any book must be interpreted by bearing ideas across from one culture to another.

To understand the symbols and ideas of a particular Bible author we have to study the historical background.

There is a principle of relativity involved in all languages, but the symbols are close enough to allow for activity and communication.

(6)        The problem of translation when languages do not have precisely equivalent words.

Jesus usually spoke in Aramaic, but the Gospels are written in Greek.

Often no word in Greek would get exactly the idea of the Aramaic across; and if each writer chose a different word, the words might easily suggest a contradictory idea never intended by the author.

Inspiration does not guarantee that the Greek language must have an exact equivalent of the Aramaic or God will coin a new word, but only that it is a fair translation that meets exigencies  [necessities] of Aramaic in so far as the author’s Greek can do so and in so far as it is the inclination or intent of the author to be specific.

(7)        Words or patterns of thought when synonymous

Words may be employed either so that a slight variation brings out shades of meaning or only for literary variety.

It is possible to be overly analytical in our study of a Biblical author.

We can read in nuances which the author never intended (this procedure is called overexegeting).

Sometimes an author may intend a subtle difference.

(8)        Words must never be considered atomistically, but rather in context.

Atomistically means "divided into unconnected or antagonistic fragments."

The same word may in one context mean something very different from what it does in another context.

It is the whole set of symbolsBwords in a contextBthat conveys meaning.

(9)        The Principle of Limited Commitment

The human author does not necessarily commit himself to every human opinion cited in his book.

Inclusion of an event does not necessarily indicate moral sanction.

As any human author, the Biblical writer always exercises his sovereignty over the words of the character he introduces into his work.

To the truth of what he repeats from them he may commit himself (1) Completely, (2) Generally, (3) Partially, (4) Not at all.

Illustration: the conduct of Lot’s daughters

A preacher often cites quotations or incidents for the sake of illustration.

(10)         The problem of Personal Editorship (tendency and writing habits).

(a)           Each author may employ his own unique language habits.

A non-standard or less scholarly style may communicate more effectively.

(b)           Concerning chronology and order

Each writer is free to organize his material according to his purpose and to use his own scheme of organ-ization (whether topical or chronological).

In recording the temptations of Jesus Matthew (4:1-11) probably gives the chronological order and Luke (4:1-13) what appeared to him as the logical order.

(c)           The Problem of Variant Reports

This matter is of great importance in the study of the Gospels.

[1]           Details may differ because of the differing per-spectives from which two reports are made.

[2]        One passage may be exact and another offer an approximation.

There are degrees of precision which vary according to the different kinds of purpose, subject matter, historical setting, and literary type (Gr,  52).

How long were the Israelites in Egypt?

Genesis 15:13............................... 400 years

Galatians 3:17............................... 430 years

Exodus 12:40................ sojourning 430 years

Acts 7:6....................................... 400 years

Acts 13:19.................................... 430 years

Different "generalizations" may all be true, though each may be relatively more or less accurate.

Details may vary because of the differing perspectives from which the report is made.

[3]        An account relating only one part of an incident may be radically different from another account.

Each account tells only the part in which the author is interested or what he happened to know.

An example is the death of Judas recorded in Matthew 27:5 (Judas hanged himself) and in Acts 1:18 (Judas fell headlong).

[4]        A single incident excerpted from the whole may vary from a summary of the whole.

An overview might seem quite different from the one small segment discussed in detail.

[5]        A summary may vary from a detailed account.

This matter is complicated because one account from its viewpoint may summarize some aspects of the situation and greatly amplify other details.

A second account may summarize where the first has been detailed and vice-versa.

One of the best examples of this sort of literary phenomena in the Gospels is represented by the combination of summaries and of miscellaneous details in the four accounts of the calling of the twelve disciples: John 1:35-42, Matthew 4:18-22, Mark 1:16-20, and Luke 5:1-11.

[6]           A summary from one point of view may differ from a summary from quite a different point of view.

An example are the accounts of the healing of Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46, Matthew 20:29-30, Luke 18:35).

[7]           The same story may be told twice by our Lord and thus recorded in different forms.

The Lord’s Prayer

The Sermon on the Mount

The Parable of the Sower.

(d)           The Problem of Quotations

Quotations may be direct or indirect.

In vivid recounting of narratives, we frequently put into the form of direct quotes what is really not such, but our summary of what was said by the individual quoted

When we quote, we often summarize, give the gist, and interpret, trying to show what someone meant.

A quotation (direct or indirect) may be partial, full or a summary of what was originally stated.

(e)           The Problem of Personal Standards of Preciseness

[1]           A N.T. writer may paraphrase an O.T. writer rather than give an exact citation.

Isaiah 40:3 and Matthew 3:3

Psalm 40:6 and Hebrews 10:5-6

[2]           A N.T. author may quote from a text of the O.T. with a variant.

Stephen (Acts 7:14) states that 75 persons went down into Egypt while Genesis 46:27 says that 70 persons came down into Egypt.

It may be that Stephen merely quotes from the LXX text which says 75.

It may be that both numbers are correct according to the method of counting.

The LXX (of Gen 46:26-27, LXX, Bagster, 64)--"And all the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, who came out of his loins, besides the wives of the sons of Joseph, even all the souls were 66.  And the Sons of Joseph who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; and the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls."

This version states that there were 66 souls who came with Jacob into Egypt, who issued from him, apart from the wives of his sons.  Also 9 sons were born to Joseph in Egypt.  Therefore 75 souls entered Egypt.

Explanation--Apparently Joseph’s two sons (Manasseh and Ephraim) had 7 sons between them, not by the time of Jacob’s migration (1876 B.C.) when they would have been no older than 5 & 7, but later on after a 17 year stay in Egypt by Jacob.

The LXX added the 7 grandsons of the prime minister and omitted Jacob and his wife from

the tally.

Both the 70 and the 75 are correct, depending on whether Joseph’s grandchildren are included (Archer, Ency, 379).

[3]           A N.T. author may use an O.T. text or O.T. language to state a truth, rather than quote the text.

Paul cites Eliphas (I Corinthians 3:19 from Job 5:13).

Hebrews 10:37-38 cites Habakkuk 2:3-4.

[4]           A N.T. author may draw a teaching from all of the O.T., not from any particular passage.

James 2 contains a broad summary rather than a direct quote.

[5]           A N.T. author may cite an O.T. text for the sake of illustration, rather than for authority.

Matthew’s phrase Athat it might be fulfilled” might often mean Athat the idea may be filled out” rather than that there is a specific fulfillment of a particular prediction.

[6]           Concerning personal standards of interest or view-point with respect to figures, chronologies, etc.

"Pedantic precision is an artificial standard of infallibility" (Pinnock, 186).       

"Incompleteness and selectivity in historical writing do not negate truthfulness"  (Pinnock, 186).

[a]           There are four accounts of the triumphal entry (Matthew 21:2-11, Mark 11:2-11, Luke 19:30-36, John 12:13-15).

Matthew refers to a donkey and a colt while the other accounts refer only to a colt or young donkey.

Jesus actually rode on the colt while the mother of the colt accompanied her offspring, going on ahead.

[b]        At what hour was Jesus crucified?

Mark 15:25 describes the time as the third hour while John 19:14-18 says that the crucifixion took place after the sixth hour.

It may have been that Mark uses the Jewish method of numbering (with the hours beginning at approximately 6:00 a.m.) and John uses the Roman system (which  numbered the hours beginning after midnight).

Or it may have been that time was not exact in the ancient world.

[c]        The Problem of Dating O.T. kings

Dates and years often seem overlapping and incongruous.

However, there were co-regencies due to various factors (note Daniel 5:7, 16, 29).

There are probably textual problems such as in II Kings 24:8 which says that Jeoiachin began to reign at 18 year of age while II Chronicles 36:9 says he began to reign at 8 years.

(11)       Other Supposed Errors

(a)        Mark (1:2-3) quotes from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 and assigns the quote to Isaiah.

It was common to assign quotes to the more prominent author when two authors are cited together.

There is also the possibility of unwritten prophecy  (Th, 114).

(b)           Who incited David to number the people?

II Samuel 24:1--God incited David to number the people.

I Chronicles 21:1--Satan incited David.

Satan acts only with God’s permission.

Both verses show an aspect of the truth (Pache, 149-150).

(c)           How many times did the cock crow?

Mark 14:72--the cock crowed a second time.

Matthew 26:74--the cock crowed only once.       

Luke 22:60--the cock crowed once.

John 18:27--the cock crowed once (Robertson, #156).                                              

Broadus, in his Commentary on Matthew writes:

"The cock was apt to crow about midnight, and again a few hours later.  The second crowing was the one more apt to be observed as indicating the approach of the morning; and so this alone is mentioned by Matthew, Luke and John."

If Peter is the influence behind Mark’s Gospel, it is only natural that Peter would remember the small matter of the first cock’s crowing (Broadus, 534).

(d)           Peter’s Denials

It is possible that each denial was made before a group and each biblical writer chose a different representative from the group.

Another alternative is to posit several denials (some suggest that there were as many as six or even nine denials).

c.         Conclusions and the Proper Approach When Facing These Problems

(1)           There are problems, but the fact that there are problems ought not to surprise us.

(a)           Virtually every doctrine in Scripture creates some problem for us.

(b)           We do not know everything there is to know about anything.

(c)           Other views of inspiration create greater problems.

(2)           By a careful analysis of what Scripture really teaches about itself, its inspiration, and its inerrancy, we can reduce the area of problems by sizeable proportions.

(3)           A right view of inspiration makes it possible to understand the phenomena of Scripture.

(a)           A right view of both inspiration and the phenomena leaves the authority and inerrant inspiration of the Scripture believable.

(b)           A wrong view of either means that we must ignore the phenomena and hold to the doctrine or that we give up the doctrine.

(4)           In many cases these problems are of such a nature that it is impossible for us to attempt to solve them by showing the true harmony of discordant passages.

(a)           From the nature of the situation it is unreasonable to expect an absolute resolution of every difficulty.

(b)           We live 2,000 years too late.

(c)           To try to discover the harmony frequently puts the evangelical in an awkward position.  It is dangerous to try to force the evidence to fit in order to attempt a harmony. ("Implications of Inerrancy," 4-5)

(d)           The stronger position by far is to insist that it is not incumbent upon us to show the harmony.

(e)           As long as there is no logical contradiction affirmed by two passages of Scripture, it is reasonable for us to put our trust in the Scriptures.

(5)           It is not at all necessary that every problem regarding the phenomena of Scripture must be cleared up before we can commit our own ministry to this doctrine.

Rather, we must check to be sure that our convictions rest on adequate substantial grounds of their own and that there are no logical obstacles such as proved contradictions to destroy them.  (K, 125)

Brown writes, "‘The Scriptures are without error in the original writings’ is essentially a confession of faith in nature and character of God and consequently in the nature of Scripture or God’s Word."

"We contend, therefore, that the doctrine of inerrancy is essentially a doctrine pertaining to the character of God, and only secondarily a bibliological one, pertaining to the nature of the Bible."

"It is doxological in the sense that it is an expression of praise to the Lord whom we know as the author of Scripture" (Brown, 389.)

Those who deny inerrancy, say in effect, "to err is human."

Therefore error and perhaps even sin are necessary attributes of humanity and no human can be free of all error (Brown, 389).

It is possible for humans, within a limited frame of reference, to produce something that is free of error.

The multiplication table (1 to 144) is an example.  (Brown, 390)

To say that there are errors in the Bible, is to say that the power of God did not preserve that which is both divine and human from the defects of humanity.

By analogy, Jesus must have sinned (Brown, 390).

It would also mean that man could not have been created good.

Thus the problem of sin is changed from a moral dilemma to an ontological one.  Man does not sin because he wills to, but because he is finite.  (Brown, 400)

There are also implications for man’s future state.

In order to be perfect, man must be something other than human.  (Brown, 400)

(6)           We must learn to cultivate the principle of a mental icebox in which to store problems temporarily.

(a)           No one at present can solve all the problems.

(b)           A careful reassessment of first one problem and then another enables us to think intelligently and the use of a mental icebox enables us to ‘store’ problems until we have data and opportunity to think each through.  (K, 126)

(c)           A mental icebox is a part of mental maturity.  ("Implications of Inerrancy," 4; K, 126)

(d)           ATo insist on reconciling all the problems by utilizing the currently available data, however, appears to me to lead to forced handling of the material” (Erickson, 258).

(e)           AWe must not attempt to give fanciful explanations which are not warranted by the data.  It is better to leave such difficulties unresolved in the confidence, based upon the doctrine of Scripture, that they will be removed to the extent that additional data become available” (Erickson, 263).

d.             Objections to Plenary-Verbal Inspiration.

(1)           Various texts make it impossible for all to be true.

(a)           We teach that only the autographs were inspired. 

(b)           If one says "Shakespeare says," he does not mean that every copy of every edition of his work that has ever been produced says exactly what he says, but this before us is what he really wrote.

Inerrantists claim that our best Bible texts correspond very closely to the original.

"Such a claim is a matter of practical necessity if the doctrine of inerrancy is to have any functional value.  Although existing texts are not the inerrant autographs, we can consider them, ‘for all practical purposes,’ to be inerrant and entirely reliable."  (Harold O. J. Brown, "The Arian Connection: Presuppositions of Errancy," in Challenges to Inerrancy, Ed. by Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest, 385)

"To abandon the definition ‘inerrant autographs, virtually inerrant copies’ would also be a step of tremendous magnitude; it would undermine the basic structure of biblical authority with its principle that the Scripture is the Word of God."  (Brown, 387)

He illustrates: "Unfortunately the even more poisonous coral snake closely resembles harmless snakes and is frequently mistaken for them with grave consequences."  (Brown, 387)

He adds, "Inasmuch as inerrancy is unverifiable a posteriori, on the basis of evidence gathered from the existing, non-autographic texts, it must be defended a priori, on the basis of things we already know or to which we are committed by faith."  (Brown, 388)

(2)           Verbal inspiration necessitates a mechanical Bible. (note Beegle, 239)

(a)           The Holy Spirit controlled the men who wrote the Biblical books without doing violence to their thought processes.

(b)           The Biblical view of man and the providence of God are in complete harmony with the Biblical view of inspiration. 

(c)           God produces the kind of man he wishes and prepares him through the experiences of life so that he will freely produce just such a book as God intends Scripture to be.

(3)           The Bible contains errors.

(a)           This is an easy statement to claim but difficult to prove.

Carl F. H. Henry, in God, Revelation, Authority (Vol. 4), states:

"The list of supposed biblical errors has shortened year by year while the list of critical errors lengthens year by year."  (4:354)

Henry means that the critics keep having to revise their criticisms.

He quotes Roger Nicole who writes, "The case for errors in Scripture apparently has not changed much since the days of H. P. Smith (1895)."  (4:354)

"Scripture has recovered from ailment after ailment that existed only in the internal prejudice of critical scholars."  (4:355)

It is amazing how slippery a subject the matter of errors in Scripture becomes when one asks for particulars (cites Pinnock, 4:357).

(b)           The issue of errors in Scripture involves these questions:

[1]           Is the error really in the autograph? 

[2]           Is it the only unambiguous meaning to the autograph?

[3]           Does it contradict an alleged fact of science?

[4]           Is there proof that the alleged fact is really a fact?

(c)           The Evangelical procedure involves a number of steps:

[1]           Look carefully at the problem from all perspectives.

[2]           Is there an apparent or possible solution?

[3]           If not, admit that at present there is no solution.

[4]           We believe that ultimately there is a solution.   (K, 132)

There is a difference between a problem and an error (or contradiction).

"The fact that it is still possible today to claim the autographs were inerrant is an indication that no one has yet succeeded in showing there is even one substantial, undeniable error or contradiction in our present copies"  (Brown, 389).

"Too hasty a surrender is sometimes based on the false assumption that the inerrancy position is untenable in the light of modern knowledge about the Bible"  (Brown, 393).

(4)           The Bible is not precisely accurate.

(a)           The Bible is not precisely accurate, but it is true.

(b)           It deals in round numbers and gives generalizations and personal viewpoints.

(c)           The Biblical doctrine of inerrancy is simply that every word of the Scripture is given in the sense that it was produced under the control and care of God and conveys the ideas that God wishes to be conveyed.

(d)           All the concepts of judgments symbolized by the Biblical symbols are true.

(e)           The Bible is true as to universal principles when it intends to state universal principles.

(f)            It is true with respect to minute details when it intends to be expressing truths with respect to minute details. (K, 133)

(g)           An Illustration of this Perspective

[1]           A man standing on a railroad looks at the two lines and states that the railroad tracks converge.

This statement would be true from his point of view--they seem to converge.

[2]           A man flying overhead of the tracks may say that the tracks are exactly parallel to each other and from his point of view this judgment would be correct.

[3]           A scientist looking at these same tracks may say, the tracks are neither curvy, running together, nor exactly parallel, but they are extremely jagged and uneven.

From his viewpoint with a micrometer this statement would be entirely correct.

(h)           The question is:  Precisely to what is the Bible committing itself?   (K, 133)

(5)           What about the immoralities in the Bible?

(a)           God gives a progressive revelation to mankind.

(b)           God suits his exhortations to the spiritual condition of its hearers.

One tells a baby to eat with a spoon.

One tells an adult to eat with a fork.

(c)           We must distinguish between what God tells a people in one social milieu from what He will tell people in another social milieu. (K, 133)

(d)           What the Bible teaches is always right for the people living under the conditions for whom the Bible intends to give a particular injunction.  (K, 134)

(e)           We must also distinguish O.T. civil law from the eternal moral principle of Scripture.

(f)            Does the statement that something happened, mean that the author is committing himself that the event was a good act?

(6)           Plenary-Verbal inspiration establishes a legalistic authority of the letter; that is, it creates a Paper Pope.

(a)           But the Holy Spirit enables us to interpret and apply the Scriptures and its teaching to ourselves.

(b)           The Bible is not just a book written thousands of years ago, but one used today by the Holy Spirit.

(7)           Plenary-Verbal Inspiration Induces Bibliolatry.

(a)           This accusation could be true in practice, but it is not so in theory.

(b)           We worship God alone, but we know Him only in and through the book.

(c)           If we love Him, we will keep His commandments which we know through Scripture.

Our primary zeal is the proclamation and honor of Christ.

Scripture is not the central doctrine.

Though Scripture does proclaim Him inerrantly (Brown, 391).

(8)           The argument is circular since it is derived from the self-testimony of Scripture. (K, 100)

(a)           We do not practice this wrong kind of reasoning.

(b)           All factors convince us that Christ is Lord.  We begin with His Lordship.

(c)           What does He believe about Scripture?

All worldviews operate with nonprovable assumptions.

There are competing sets of assumptions.

The thinking person will make sure his assumptions fit three criteria:

[1] They are coherent (there is an internal

logical fit).

[2] They are consistent with reality (there is

an external factual fit.

[3] They are satisfying (there is an existential

psychological fit).

C. S. Lewis wrote, AI believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”[13]

(9)           One can be a genuine born-again believer and not hold to Inerrancy.

Yes, but such a person would hold views which are inconsistent with biblical faith.

"Wittingly or unwittingly, the unabashed advocacy of the errancy of Scripture rests upon alien philosophical assumptions that inevitably jeopardize the canonical authority of Scripture."  (Henry 4:358)

Archer states (EBD, 23):

"In any court of law, whether in a civil or criminal case, the trustworthiness of a witness on a stand is necessarily an important issue if his testimony is to be received."

"If the Biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested."

IV.           Illumination

A.         Is correct exegesis, knowledge of grammar, geography, etc. sufficient to enable one to understand the Scriptures?

1.         Matthew 11:27--"All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

2.         1 Cor. 2:7-16 (especially 2:14)BABut a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.”

a.         There are a number of factors which are undisputed and definite in this regard:

(1)        Human reason is finite; it is not omniscient.

It cannot disclose by itself all there is to know about God.

(2)        Human reason is affected by our sinfulness.

Romans 1:20-23 tells us how sin corrupted human minds.

As a consequence men turn to idolatry and immorality.

(3)        Reason is involved in the initial salvation experience, but salvation is more than just mental activity.

(4)        One of the goals of the Christian life is the renewing of the mind (Romans 12:2).

As a person grows in Christ, his reasoning becomes increasingly captive to the Spirit of God."

As a result the effects of sin on reason are removed, and the person’s thinking processes are more closely linked to Jesus Christ both in cognition of divine truth and in moral perceptions"  (W. Corduan, "Reason," EDT, 916).

b.         The Work of the Holy Spirit is necessary for the right perception of divine truth.

Sin blinds man to the beauty of divine things.

His inward state must be changed before he can apprehend the truths of God (Hodge, 44).

There must be congeniality between the perceiver and the thing perceived (Hodge, 44).

"It is the office of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth, to open our eyes to discern it in its true nature, and to feel its power" (Hodge, 45).

The Holy Spirit "works, creating that inner receptivity by which the Word of God is really ‘heard’" (Pinnock, 215).

The proof that the rulers of this age did not understand God’s wisdom is that they crucified the Lord of glory.

It was a deed of inconceivable blindness and wickedness.

All of the things of God must be taught by the Holy Spirit.

The natural man does not understand them.

They are foolishness (mwro/j)) to him.

To the man devoid of the Spirit, his views of everything is from the bottom up, twisted, and distorted (Fee, 116).

AIt is the office of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth, to open our eyes to discern it in its true nature, and to feel its power” (Hodge, 45).

3.         Matthew 13:10-16--Jesus explains why He speaks in parables.

4.         Romans 8:7--"Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so."

The carnal mind cannot be subject to the Law of God.

It has no ability to change itself (Hodge, 256).

It is impotent and hopeless.

The Amind set on the flesh” refers to the fallen nature and sate of man apart from any redeeming grace on the part of God (Hodge, 257).

5.         Proverbs 1:7--"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge . . . ."

Psalm 14:1---AThe fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”

6.         Ephesians 1:16-23--Paul prays that the Ephesian believers might be given the Spirit of wisdom.

7.         II Corinthians 4:3-4--"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

The sun keeps on shining, but a blind man cannot appreciate it (Hodge, 85).

Satan controls the minds of the unbelieving (Hodge, 85).

Satan directs all his energies toward keeping men from viewing the glory of Christ.

B.         (True or false) Because Scripture is given in human language, both a believer and an unbeliever should see the same meaning in any given passage.

It is the same facts.

Some seminaries accuse Bible colleges of being mystical (as though something mysterious has to be added to the text).

Bible colleges see some seminaries as very scholastic and rationalistic (the text itself is enough with vocabulary and syntax when studied carefully, to produce understanding).

There may possibly be a certain type of intellectual understanding apart from the Spirit, but no true change (Pache, 208).

It is a knowledge which is in the head, not in the heart.

The Holy Spirit must enable us to understand, to grasp, and to apply spiritual truth.

It would seem that more is involved than just language and hermeneutics.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, in Systematic Theology (1:113), writes:

"There is not the slightest possibility that the most educated and brilliant mind can make one step of progress in the understanding of spiritual truth apart from the direct, supernatural teaching to the individual heart by the indwelling Spirit."

One pastor said (somewhat crudely):

"If you have the Bible without the Spirit, you will dry up."

"If you have the Spirit without the Bible, you will blow up."

"If you have both the Bible and the Spirit together, you will grow up." (Erickson, Ch. Th., 1:252)

"Our subjective disposition does affect the results of our exegesis" (Pinnock, 216).

AThere is an external, objective meaning to Scripture that can be understood by any interpreter, pagan or Christian.  There is the internal significance of personal application and love that is not discovered apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.  This is the ‘spiritual discernment’ about which Scripture speaks.”

AThe external-internal distinction protects two flanks.  On the other hand it recognizes that there is some revelation which is not fully grasped apart from the Spirit’s work of illumination.  On the other hand it speaks against the idea that the Bible can be interpreted only by mystics.”[14]

C.         Scriptural Support for Illumination.

Psalm 119:18--"Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Thy law."

Psalm 119:34--"Give me understanding that I may observe Thy law, and keep it with all my heart."

Luke 24:45 (Jesus)--"Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures . . . ."

Ephesians 1:18--Paul’s prayer for the believers.

The darkness can be overcome by the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit.

The Scriptures are His primary instrument (Rom 10:17) (Chafer, 1:108).

John 16:7-15--Jesus’ Upper Room Discourse points to the ministry of the Spirit in the heart of the disciples.

These truths cannot be gained by the usual didactic methods (Chafer, 1:110).

D.         Definition of Illumination (the term is not often defined).

Illumination is "the supernatural help granted by the Spirit of God to the reader of holy Scripture, to enable him to lay hold on the divine message" (Pache, 199).

Carl F. H. Henry, in God, Revelation, and Authority (2:15), writes:

"The Spirit illumines persons by reiterating the truth of the scriptural revelation and bearing witness to Jesus Christ.  Spirit-illumination centers in the interpretation of the literal grammatical sense of Spirit-breathed Scripture."

R. A. Finlayson, in "Contemporary Ideas of Inspiration," in Revelation and the Bible, ed. by Carl F. H. Henry, states:

"By illumination is understood the divine quickening of the human mind in virtue of which it is able to understand the truth so revealed and communicated" (p. 222).

E.         Why must inspiration and illumination be distinguished?

Not to separate the two leads to the error of putting ourselves on the same plane as the authors of Scripture (Pache, 204).

The Neo-orthodox mean by revelation approximately what we mean by illumination (Erickson, CT, 252).

"Unless priority is given to the objectively inspired content of Scripture, Spirit-illumination readily gives way to private fantasy and mysticism" (Henry, 2:15).

There is the danger of readers being "illumined" mystics rather than genuine interpreters (Pache, 205).

We must not add or subtract from Scripture (Rev. 22:18-19) (Pache, 205).

Questions:        Is the Bible inspired whether or not I understand it?

Does God speak today?

Yes (illumination)

No (revelation and inspiration).

F.         The Nature of Illumination.

1.         It is growing and increasing.

There are different degrees of illumination.

There are no degrees of inspiration.

Some believers are more illumined, or have more understanding than others.

2.         The opposite of illumination is the blinding of the heart (Pache, 210).

"The unregenerate man cannot experience illumination in this sense for he is blinded to the truth of God" (I Cor. 2:14) (Ryrie, BDT, 277).

John 9:39; 3:19

                        Men loved darkness.

                        It is a criminal, reprehensible blindness.

II Corinthians 4:3-4--the god of this world has blinded men of this age.

Isaiah 6:9-10--"lest they see and turn."

A judicial sentence of punishment is involved as well as a consequence of their blindness.

3.         There can be a retrogression, or going backward for the carnal Christian (Pache, 207).

One Bible college graduate could not tell someone how to be saved.

Matthew 13:12--"For whoever has, to him shall more be given and he shall have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him" (cf. Mark 4:25; Luke 8:18;19:26).

This statement is made in the context of spiritual understanding

"While those who listen to Him with a believing, surrendered and obedient heart, will be given a deeper and more intensive insight into the spiritual life and into His Word, the indifferent and disobedient ones will lose even the little measure of spiritual knowledge and joy which they possess.  Their hearts and lives will become darker and poorer" (Geldenhuys, Luke, 248).

The Parable of the Sower (Matt. 13:1-9; 18-23; Mark 4:3-9; 13-20; Luke 8:5-8; 11-15).

Much of the seed was stolen by the birds, strangled by the thorns, or scorched by the sun.

Hebrews 5:11-14--". . . since you have become dull of hearing . . . ."

Sin or unspiritual ways in the life of the Christian may greatly hinder this awakening ministry of the Spirit (Chafer, 1:109).

Carnality hinders illumination.

Illumination is to a certain extent dependent on the walk of the believer for full realization (Ryrie, BDT, 277).

"The believer must himself be maturing and in fellowship with the Lord to experience this full perception of truth, for carnality in his life will hinder the ministry of the Spirit (I Cor. 3:1-3)" (Ryrie, EDT, 545).

It is dangerous to quench and grieve the Holy Spirit.

James 1:8--"the double-minded man is unstable in all his ways."

G.         How is one illumined?

1.         It is never automatic.

It does not just happen without cause or desire.

2.         It is a gift of God to the believer.

Ephesians 1:17-18--"That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . may give you a spirit of wisdom . . . ."

Ephesians 3:9.

It is something God desires to do for us.

3.         Necessary attitudes on the part of the believer.

a.         An attitude of faith is required.

Hebrews 11:3--"By faith we understand . . . ."

James 1:6-7--"But let him ask in faith without any wavering, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the wind.  For let not that man expect that he will receive anything from the Lord."

Luke 11:13--"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him."

Hebrews 11:6--"And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."

b.         An attitude of willing obedience.

John 7:17--"If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself."

I Corinthians 3:1-2 distinguishes between spiritual men and carnal men who are unable to receive spiritual truth.

Matthew 13:12--"To whoever has, to him shall more be given . . . ."

J. I. Packer. Beyond the Battle for the Bible.

"To ‘use’ the Bible is not so much a matter of dealing with it as of having it deal with us." (p. 71)

"For the Bible is not an entertainment . . . ."

"The Bible was not meant to be read as literature."

"Every right use of the Bible will respect and seek to realize the end for which it was all written."

Our approach to the Bible must be one of worship (p. 75).

"For the Bible is not primarily a book for the speculative thinker, the scientific investigator, or the literary critic, but it is rather for the man who, having learned from the world around him and from his own heart something of God and his own need, now seeks to know God and to find salvation" (p. 76).

c.         Prayer for Illumination

James 1:5--"But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given him."

Psalm 119:18--"Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Thy Law."

d.         Meditation on Scripture.

Joshua 1:8

Psalm 119:19-20; 47-48; 97; 123; 148 (Pache, 212).

We can greatly benefit from those who have and are using the gift of teaching (Romans 12:6-7).

That benefit may be gained from hearing or reading (or perhaps other media).

"But ultimately it is the Spirit who is the direct connection between the mind of God as revealed in the Scriptures and the mind of the believer seeking to understand the Scriptures" (Ryrie, EDT, 545).

Is there a contradiction between trusting the Spirit and using commentaries and other human resources?

H.         Is there a difference between the testimony of the Spirit and the illumination of the Spirit?

1 Corinthians 2:10-15 refers to illumination concerning spiritual truths.

Galatians 4:4-6--The Spirit cries "Abba Father" within us.

Romans 8:15-16--"The Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God . . . ."

He testifies that we are in Christ.

He testifies concerning our salvation.

In one sense it is difficult to separate the illumination of the Spirit from the Spirit’s testimony.

But there is a difference (especially the content).

Illumination concerns the truths revealed in Scripture.

Testimony (witness) concerns my own assurance of the truthfulness of Scripture and my own standing before God.

Lutherans see a power in the Word.

                                    Most other Protestants see the power residing in the Holy Spirit who speaks through the Word.

V.         Canonicity

A.         Definition of Canon

1.             "Very broadly, a  kanw/n provides one with a criterion or standard (Latin norma) by reference to which the rectitude of opinions or actions may be determined" (Metzger, 289).

                                                Its basic meaning is that of a level or rule, culled from building procedure.

                                                Such a tool must be of unbendable material, and must be dependable for its straightness.

                                                                Deviations would cause serious structural defects.

                2.             A derived meaning of "canon" is a list or catalogue.

"Ecclesiastical writers during the first three centuries used the word  kanw/n  to refer to what was for Christianity an inner law and binding norm of belief (‘rule of faith’ and/or ‘rule of truth’)."

"From the middle of the fourth century onward the word also came to be used in connection with the sacred writings of the Old and New Testaments" (Metzger, 293).

                                Books included were regarded as canonical (Guthrie, ZPEB, 1:732).

3.             In Biblical usage, "canon" refers to "the list of books regarded by the Church as authoritative and divine" (Harris, ZPEB, 1:709).

                                "It means those books which have been measured, found satisfactory, and approved as inspired of God" (Th, 102).

B.            Why is a Concept of the Canon Important?

                                We must have some way of determining what is Scripture from what is not.

                                                 Otherwise, everyone would create His own Bible.

                                 There would be therefore no ultimate authority for the Christian and the Church.

"The absolute normativity of a binding text demands a carefully differentiated and integrated number of books" (Henry, 4:406).

"This emphasis on a uniquely inspired literature leads in turn and inevitably to the idea of a canon of sacred books" (Henry, 4:406).

"Only those who hold firmly to the doctrine of biblical inspiration draw a sharp line between nonapocryphal and apocryphal books" (Henry, 4:408).

C.         Concerning the Old Testament

1.         The Difference Between Evangelicals and Non-Evangelicals

a.            Conservative scholars realize that full information is not available, though they use all which is available.

"The very fact that the canon exists at all in its present form is a striking testimony to human activity and cogitation under divine guidance."

"Unfortunately it is virtually impossible to be more specific than this about the processes by which the O.T. canon, or parts of it, became acknowledged as authoritative."

The O.T. says little "about the manner in which holy writings were assembled, or the personages who exercised an influence over the corpus during the diverse stages of its growth" (Harrison, 262).

“The lengthy process by which the canon of the O.T. arrived at its present form cannot be traced with anything approaching exactitude, and only the most general principles can be enunciated reasonably satisfactorily” (Harrrison, 286).

Conservatives are heavily influenced by the teaching of Jesus.

It appears that by the time of Christ the O.T. existed as a complete collection.

N.T. writers referred to the O.T. as a whole as "the Scripture" or "the Scriptures."

Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51 imply simply that during the time of Christ the belief was held that the canon terminated with Chronicles.

Harrison thinks that we cannot be absolutely sure of the contents of the canon in Jesus’ time (Harrison, 276).

                                                Very important to the conservative is the belief "that the O. T. is what it says it is, and that it arose in the way it claims."

                                                The claimed authorship is accurate.

                                Events were recorded at a time roughly contemporaneous with the events concerned.

b.            While there is wide diversity in the liberal views, there is an agreement that "the historic Christian view of the O. T. and its canonization is wrong."

"The liberal position in all its varieties holds that the O. T. canon is a list of non-inspired books agreed upon by men and mistakenly accepted as divine.  Liberals differ as to why the particular books were elevated to such eminence" (ZPEB, 1:710).

Modern critical scholarship "assumes that the several books or collection of books that make up the canonical O. T. gradually acquired an ‘attributed’ sacredness that was not originally theirs"  (Fisher, in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 1:385-386).

Robert H. Pfeiffer wrote, "Every sentence in the O. T. was profane literature before it became canonical scripture" (IDB, 7:499, in Fisher, 386).

"Classic modernism had to justify the selection of the canon as an essentially human decision that grew out of the religious experience of the Christian community and had no basis either in divine inspiration or in apostolic authorship."

"Those who divorced the origin of the N.T. writings from the principle of unique inspiration also discarded the operation of any special, divine providence in the perpetuation of the books" (Henry, 4:418).

2.         General Principles of Canonicity Held by Conservative Evangelicals

Inspiration is the ultimate test of canonicity (Pache, 159).

AThat which determines the canonicity of a book, therefore, is the fact that the book is inspired of God” (Young, in Revelation and the Bible, 156).

The O.T. biblical books are of a self-authenticating character.

They do not derive their authority from individual human beings or from corporate ecclesiastical pronouncements.

The various books possessed and exercised divine authority long before man ever made pronouncements to that effect.

Human councils did not give the books their authority; they merely recognized that the books had and exercised authority.  (Harrison, IOT, 263)

The people of God learned to distinguish the wheat from the chaff.

A[T]here can be no human authority outside of and higher than the canonical books themselves which could confer upon them the essential quality of being the Word of God.  In some undefined manner, certain books imposed themselves upon the Jewish community as the inspired oracles of God” (Metzger, Apocrypha, 10).

"Theologically speaking, the canon exists as soon as the inspired Scripture does."  (Pinnock, 104)

The Church never created the canon.

The Church recognized those books inspired by the Holy Spirit. (Pinnock, 105)

The Holy Spirit actively guided the church in the recognition of the canonical books (Pinnock, 105).

"Canonicity is demonstrably inherent in the nature of the material from the time of its first  appearance" (Fisher, 388).

3.         Specific Principles

a.         The Pentateuch

The text constantly says, AThe Lord said unto Moses.”

The Pentateuch was accepted because of Mosaic authorship.

What Moses wrote, was accepted as the Word of God.

b.         The Prophets

In Deuteronomy 13:1-3 Moses gives the test for a prophet, and in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 he indicates that others would carry on his work.

AThose who refuse to accept the idea that there were prophets who delivered supernatural revelations from God find it hard to believe that a prophet’s word would have been accepted by his contemporaries” (Harris, ZPEB, 1;715).

Many of the prophets committed their words and prophecies which God has given them for the people to writing.

There are indications that prophets accepted each other’s words as inspired (Jeremiah 26:18 quotes from Micah; Daniel 9:2 alludes to Jeremiah 15:11 ff.).

c.         Other Books

(1)           Inspired men wrote, some of whom are called prophets, such as David (Acts 2:30).

All books outside the Law are referred to as "the Prophets" without any attempt to elevate some over others in authority.

God spoke to men who can be considered prophets-Samuel, Solomon, Joshua.

(2)           Books of Samuel and Kings

Apparently these books were written by successive prophets (Harris, ZPEB, 1:716).

There are hints that these were the official court records of Judah and Samaria.

One indication is that no records are made of the final kings of each kingdom who were carried away captive (Harris, ZPEB, 1:716).

They were written by the succession of writing prophets who carried the history of God’s people from the judges to the exile.

The Books of Samuel could have been written by Samuel, Nathan, and Gad and combined by an author-editor (ZPEB,  5:260).

They are designated as prophetic books in all the Jewish classifications (Harris, ZPEB, 1:717).

(3)           Chronicles

The author uses Samuel-Kings as one of his sources.

The author knew and used some of the court records (Harris, ZPEB, 1:716).

Historical literature was written by a succession of prophets.

Isaiah and Jeremiah were cited as contributing to this history.

Ever since the completion of the Hebrew Bible the canonicity of Chronicles has never been questioned (ZPEB, 1:812).

Chronicles was included in the count of 22 books listed by Josephus (ZPEB, 1:812).

Parts of their books parallel in interesting ways the appropriate parts of the history books (ZPEB, 1:717).

d.             Books over which there was controversy are sometimes called the Antilegomena.

Literally antilegomena means "the books spoken against."

It is helpful to remember that the N.T. often classifies all of the O.T. after the Pentateuch as "Prophets."

This association is seen in the common N.T. expression "The Law and the Prophets" (Harris, ZPEB, 1:721).

(1)           Esther--objection is made because the name of God does not appear.

The Council of Jamnia (c. AD 100) gave special consideration as to whether Esther should be considered canonical.

Roger Beckwith, in The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, states that there were thee possible objections to the inclusion of Esther:

(a) SecularityBthe name of God does not appear (283,

288).

(b) Esther’s marriage to a pagan foreigner, which is

recorded without criticism (288).

(c) The addition of a feast (289).

The chief argument was that it instituted a new festival as obligatory.

It was believed that the Law of Moses had laid down all the festivals (ZPEB, 2:378).

Beckwith concludes,

AAll in all, the canonical position of Esther seems to have been very secure in the first century A.D.  It was one of the 22 canonical books of Josephus, and presumably one of the 24 of 2 Esdras (4 Ezra), and Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, as cited in the Talmud, denies that anybody at this date questioned it” (315).

It was recognized at Jamnia that the book claimed to be an accurate historical account of a time when the Jews were saved from almost certain extinction (Whitcomb, Esther, 15).

"The book of Esther has always formed a portion of the Hebrew canon." (K & D, Ezra, Neh, Esther, 313)

The providence of God is very strongly seen in the book (Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 62).

"Probably all that can be said by way of answer is that in His providence God brought it about that this particular book was produced in the midst of His people and became intimately associated with their religious life where they would accept it as canonical" (Young, in Revelation and the Bible, 167).

(2)           Proverbs--a few surface inconsistencies caused problems.

Proverbs 26:4-5--"Answer not a fool according to his folly . . . . Answer a fool according to his folly." (Archer, 62)

The Talmud says that the school of Shammai questioned the canonicity of Proverbs because of contradictions like Proverbs 26:4-5 though it was Aa trifling exception.”

It contains the writings of Solomon (ZPEB, 1:718).

Proverbs contains only 800 verses.

But according to I Kings 4:32, Solomon spoke 3000 proverbs.

In the passage of the Talmud which records the most ancient opinion of the Jews on the formation of the O.T. canon (Baba Bathra, p. 14), its recognition is fixed much earlier; Proverbs is included with Isaiah, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes in the memorial word Jamshak, specifying the book as Awritten”Ci.e., reduced to writing by Hezekiah and his learned men (M’Clintock and Strong, CBTEL, 8:700).

(3)           Ezekiel

There are problems in its details between the latter day temple and ritual and those of the tabernacle of Moses and temple of Solomon.

But Ezekiel points to a future temple.

These are differences only in minor details (Archer, 62).

Some Jews thought that the inconsistencies made the book undesirable for use in public worship (ZPEB, 2:462-463).

Apparently it was part of the Jewish canon (accepted), but later questioned.

"There is no clear evidence that there was an attempt to remove Ezekiel from the canon." (ZPEB, 2:462)

(4)           Song of Solomon

There were objections because of its explicitness (erotic nature of its contents) (Archer, 62; ZPEB, 5:489).

There were debates among the Jewish rabbis over its canonicity.

At one of the debates Rabbi Aqiba declared:

"In the whole world there is nothing to equal the day in which the Song of Songs was given to Israel:  all the Writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies." (ZPEB, 5:489)

It was accepted because of its authorship by Solomon and allegorical interpretations which were made.  (ZPEB, 5:489)

(5)           Ecclesiastes--the book is associated with authorship by Solomon (Harris, ZPEB, 1:718-719 and Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible).

AThe criticism of Ecclesiastes was based upon its alleged pessimism, Epicureanism, and denial of the life to come.  But thoughtful students of the book came to the conclusion that none of these charges was justified when the work was interpreted in the light of the author’s special technique and purpose” (Archer, Survey of O.T. Introduction, 62).

Early church fathers, such as Herman, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, quote or cite the book, and it had a relatively wide use in early Christian circles (H. Bullock, An Introduction to the O.T. Poetic Books, 200-201).

4.             When was the O. T. canon completed?

The View of Kimchi and Levita (13th and 16th Centuries A.D.) was that the final collection of the O. T. canon was completed by Ezra and the members of the Great Synagogue in the 5th Century B. C. (Thiessen, 103)

The "men of the Great Synagogue" are referred to in the Talmud.

But it is not clear precisely who these men are (Harrison, IOT, 277).

Young (in Revelation and the Bible) disagrees.

"Neither Ezra nor Nehemiah nor the men of the Great Synagogue nor the Council of Jamnia ‘canonized’ the Old Testament nor any part thereof" (p. 162).

Jamnia (or Jabneel or Jabneh) was a town on the western boundary of Judah, between Joppa and Gaza, near the coast.

It was the headquarters of the exiled Sanhedrin from the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 to the Second Revolt (ZPEB, 3:382-383).

It is not clear that there was ever a Council or Synod of Jamnia in the strictest sense (Harrison, OTI, 277).

Little is known about the supposed Synod of Jamnia (Harrison, 278).

After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, Jamnia became an established center of Scriptural study.

There from time to time were discussions relating to the canonicity of specific O.T. books.

Probably nothing of a formal or binding nature was decided in these discussions.

The conversations were strictly academic.

The most that was done was to confirm public opinion, not form it.

R. K. Harrison concludes, "No formal pronouncement as to the limits of the O.T. Canon was ever made in rabbinic circles at Jamnia." ( OTI, 278-279)

What the "men of the Great Synagogue" and the Council of Jamnia did (assuming that the latter was a properly constituted body) "was to approve as canonical works that which had for long been venerated as authoritative."

"Even though doubts had arisen concerning Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon, the weight of tradition was such that they were included in the corpus of Scripture without undue difficulty."  (Harrison, OTI, 283)

"Rather, all the evidence supports the position that the books of the Old Testament, being of divine inspiration, were consequently authoritative, and were recognized as such from the time of their first appearance" (Young, in Revelation and the Bible, 162).

Josephus lists 22 books which are the same as our 39.

I and II form a single book in his counting.

The Minor Prophets also form a single book.

He states that after 424 B.C. no more canonical books were composed.

F. F. Bruce (Tradition Old and New, p. 133) thinks that the O.T. "Writings" were not agreed as closed until after A.D. 70.

Floyd V. Filson, Which Books Belong in the Bible? A  Study of the Canon.

Filson states that it is hard to answer the question definitely.

He agrees that the "Writings" was the last closed section. (pp.46-47)

He admits that there were debates in rabbinical circles about certain books (47).

Filson writes: "Did these first century debates, which persisted over a number of generations, precede a basic agreement to accept these books as canonical?  Or did they follow such a decision, so that they were in fact an echo of the issues debated when the decision was first made?

We can make no absolutely certain choice between these alternatives.  A trace of uncertainty lingers on, as though to remind the Christian that his final certainty is not in a book but in God.

But while absolute certainty is not attainable, it is probable, as a considerable number of scholars hold that the basic decision as to the canonical list of the Writings had been made before the ministry of Jesus.

A more official settlement of the issue appears to have followed about A. D. 90 at the Jewish council at Jamnia, a city on the coastal plain of Palestine." (48)

Milton C. Fisher states:

"There is little direct extrabiblical witness to the origin of the O. T. books or the actual manner of their recognition and accumulation into a fixed body of writings or canon.  Thus we can do no more than draw inferences from the sizeable amount of data available both inside and outside the Bible." (EBC, 1:386-387).

R. K. Harrison writes, "In all its essentials the canon was most probably complete by about 300 B.C., and while discussion concerning certain component parts was continued well into the Christian era, the substance of the canon as it existed a century-and-a-half after the time of Ezra and Nehemiah remained unaffected by these controversies" (IOT, 287).

5.             Different orders of the Biblical books.

a.             Masoretic edition of the text (MT)--500-1000 A.D.

Torah

Prophets (Nebiim)

Former Prophets--Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings

Latter prophets (major)--Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Minor Prophets (the 12)

Writings (Hagiography or Kethubim)

Poetry and wisdom--Psalms, Proverbs, Job

Rolls (Megilloth)--Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations,

 Ecclesiastes, Esther

Historical--Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, I and II Chronicles (Pache, 170-171).

This division appears to have been a later division for apologetic purposes (see Archer, O. T. Introduction, p.60).

There is no evidence for this arrangement before A.D. 400 (ZPEB, 1:722)

b.             Greek Version (LXX).

This version has almost the same arrangement as is found in our contemporary English Bibles with the Law, History, and Prophets.

Some of the prophets have a slightly different order (Archer, 59-60).

6.             The Question of the Apocrypha.

a.             Apocrypha (meaning "secret," or "hidden") is the name given to the Jewish religious books of obscure origin, dating from the 2nd Century B. C. to the 1st or 2nd Century A. D. (Pache, 171)

AThe word apocrypha is a Greek neuter plural of the singular apokryphon, and signifies books that are ‘hidden away.’  It was originally a term applied to those books that were held to be so mysterious and profound that in the opinion of some Jews they were hidden from ordinary readers.  Since only the initiated could understand them, they were to be withdrawn from common use” (David Ewert, A General Introduction to the Bible, 73).

Early Christians used the term Aapocryphal” for those books that were withheld from general circulations, not because they were so profound but because of doubts about the authenticity (Ewert, 74).

The term Aapocrypha” generally is used to refer to Aa nucleus of fourteen or fifteen documents, written during the last two centuries before Christian the first century of the Christian era.”[15]

Both the definition and the limits of the Apocrypha are confused and confusing (Metzger, 6).

There is also a body of Jewish books composed by writers between 200 B.C. and A.D. 200 which fall outside the Hebrew canon and the Apocrypha.

They are usually called the Pseudepigrapha (Ewert, 809).

These Aoutside books” were banned at the Jewish Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90 (Ewert, 82).

AIt is usual among Roman Catholics to apply the term Apocrypha to the books which others commonly designated as pseudepigrapha” (Metzger, 6).

b.             Particular books

I Esdras

II Esdras 

Tobit      

Judith    

The Rest of Esther

The Wisdom of Solomon

Ecclesiasticus

Baruch     

The Song of the Holy Children

Susanna

Bel and the Dragon

I Maccabees

II Maccabees  (Pache, 172)

c.             The Literary Character of the Apocrypha

(1) Several books are historical in character.

First Esdras is a variant version of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah.

I Maccabees is our principal source of information on the Jewish struggle for independence under the Hasmoneans (Ewert, 75).

(2) A number are religious fiction.

The book of Tobit is a moralistic novel.

Judith is more like a modern detective story (Ewert, 76).

There are additions to Esther and Daniel.

(3) Didactic Treatises or wisdom literature

Ecclesiasticus is also called the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach.

The Wisdom of Solomon (Ewert, 76).

(4) Apocalyptic

2 Esdras (Ewert, 76).

d.             These books are accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as canonical.

AJust how these books crept into the Septuagint originally, no one knows.  It has been suggested that these book rolls were kept on the same shelves with biblical books, and that with the change to the codex form of the book, they were incorporated with the canonical books” (Ewert, 77).

After the fall of Jerusalem and the advent of Christianity, the Apocrypha (as well as the Pseudepigrapha) fell into disuse (Edwert, 77).

Jerome refused to translate the Apocryphal books into Latin for his Vulgate (c. A.D. 391) but yielded to pressure from his bishops and allowed them to be included in the Old Latin form (Ewert, 78).

During the Middle Ages these books enjoyed almost undisputed canonicity.

At the Protestant Reformation they were set off from the O.T. which we recognize.

Luther wrote that they were not to be regarded as sacred Scripture even though they could be read with profit.

The Roman Catholic church responded at the Council of Trent in 1546 with the declaration that all the Apocrypha (with the exception of 1 and 2 Esdras to the Prayer of Manasseh) was canonical (Ewert, 78).

The Council of Trent in A.D. 1546 decreed that "any one who receives not these books is anathema" (Pache, 173).

The RCC bases its doctrine of purgatory on II Maccabees 12:39-45 (Ewert, 80).

"Roman Catholicism usually applies the term apocrypha to some books that others classify as pseudepigrapha; most apocryphal books are in fact attributed to fictitious authors, although Ecclesiasticus is not."

"A radical, critical view of authorships would dismiss most canonical books as pseudepigrapha." (Henry, 4:412)

"Most scholars who view the pseudepigrapha as a biblical supplement have abandoned the biblical view of the exceptional divine inspiration of the prophetic-apostolic writings." (Henry, 4:412-413)

e.             Why we do not accept the Apocryphal Books

(1)           They are old and are of value, but are not canonical.  They are merely the words of men (Harris, 180).

AFrom a historical and cultural point of view they are really invaluable” (Ewert, 79).

(2)           They were all composed after the period when prophecy was recognized to have ceased in Israel. (Harris, 181)

"While certain books were the subject of periodic discussion in this regard, there was no controversy at all in connection with the books of the Apocrypha, for everyone was agreed that they were non-canonical."

"The reason appears to have been that the works themselves simply gave no evidence whatever of having been divinely inspired."

Some contain egregious historical, chronological, and geographical errors, quite apart from justifying falsehood and deception and making salvation dependent upon deeds of merit (Harrison, IOT, 286).

(3)           They are all anonymous except two.

Ecclesiasticus and Maccabees make no claim to prophetic authorship. (Harris, 181)

(4)           These writings were known, but not accepted as canonical in the pre-Christian era in Palestine. (Harris, 182)

APersistent uncertainty about the apocryphal books also suggests that they did not have the stamp of God on them, as did the canonical books that were eventually recognized as having divine authority” (Ewert, 79).

All attempts at compromise, at giving the Apocrypha an intermediate position, are inconsistent (Ewert, 79).

(5)           They were not accepted by Christ or the Apostles.

The evidence is plain that Christ accepted the common Jewish canon which is determinative to this day for Protestants. (Harris, 182)

Neither Jesus nor the Apostles appealed to the apocryphal books as authoritative. (Henry, 4:414)

"None of the Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha is ever cited by name, much less accorded the status of Scripture . . . ."   (Harrison, IOT-269)

The witness of Jesus Christ settles once and for all the question of the O.T. canon. (Young, in Revelation and the Bible, p.164; Harris, ZPEB, 1:710; Filson, 49)

"Jesus’ affirmations by statement and use of the unqualified divine authority of the O.T., do certify to us its canonicity" (Fisher, 1:390).

There are 600 quotations of the O.T. in the N.T. and other allusions. (Harris, 183)

The sermons in the book of Acts indicates how the apostles regarded the Apocrypha.

The sermon summaries usually span O.T. history, beginning with Abraham or David, and ending with the fulfillment of God’s promises in Christ.

However, they completely ignore the 400-year intertestamental period (Ewert, 79).

Ewert concludes that Athe apostles did not think that the books written in this period were a continuation of divine revelation” (Ewert, 79).

All the O.T. books are quoted in the N.T. except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon. (Harris, 183)

The Apocryphal books are never quoted in any way.

The N.T. writers did not hold the Apocryphal books as authoritative. (Harris, 183)

Jude 14-15 refers to a quote from Enoch which may be from an Apocryphal book.  But Jude does not sanction the book any more than Paul does a heathen writer (Acts 17:28; I Corinthians 15:33). (Harris, 183)

(6)           Some Evangelicals have suggested that the Apocryphal books are included in the LXX probably because of extra space left on expensive leather.  This inclusion seems to have been only in the later editions of the LXX.  It does not prove their authority (Harris, 186; Pache, 172).

(7)           The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christ gave infallibility to His Church and His Church has given us the Bible and commanded us to heed it. (K, 146)

(8)           Certainly there is a great difference in the doctrinal value and quality of the canonical books when compared to the Apocryphal literature (Harris, 194).

Metzger writes, AWhen one compares the books of the Apocrypha with the books of the O.T., the impartial reader must conclude that as a whole, the true greatness of the canonical books is clearly apparent” (Metzger, Apocrypha, 172, in Ewert, 80).

"Writers of the apocryphal books, moreover, lay no express claim to divine inspiration and did not impose their writings upon their recipients as inspired." (Henry, 4:414).

The Apocryphal books Ado not claim for themselves the same kind of authority as the O.T. writings” (Grudem, 59).

Other Biblical writers really "lay down the law."

It would be very difficult to defend the historicity and full accuracy of books like Tobit and Judith.

These are striking differences which separate apocryphal and canonical books (Henry, 4:415).

They are not worthless books.

Yet these are not inspired Scripture (Henry, 4:414).

7.             Bibliography

a.             The Old Testament Canon

Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985).

F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988).

R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study, enlarged and rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969).

b.             The Apocrypha

Bruce M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957).

R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913).

James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983 and 1985).

D.         Concerning the New Testament

1.         Factors Involved in the Growth of the Concept of the Canon in the Early Church

a.             Early Christians believed the O.T. to be the inspired Word of God (ZPEB, 1:732; Bruce, New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney, 6; Filson, 101).

b.             The O.T. was the authoritative collection of sacred books held by the Jews, Jesus and Christians (ZPEB, 1:732).

c.             This canon was interpreted in the light of the words and works of Jesus, as transmitted by apostolic witness (Bruce, NDNTS, 7).

d.             Oral testimony was very important in the earliest days of the Christian Church (ZPEB, 1:733).

e.             Certainly the sayings of Jesus were soon regarded as of equal authority as the O. T. (ZPEB, 1:733).

Paul on various occasions appeals to "the words of the Lord"  (I Cor. 9:14; I Thess. 4:15) (Metzger, 3).

For the Apostolic fathers, the words of Jesus are taken as the supreme authority (Metzger, 73).

f.              As the eyewitnesses of Christ (especially the apostles) began to be removed by death, the need for written forms (or sources) became more and more apparent (ZPEB, 1:733).

Facts and interpretation both were needed (Filson, 103).

g.             The four written Gospels were given great honor first since they told of Jesus’ earthly life (ZPEB, 1:733).

Already in the time of the Apostolic Father Papias there is the beginning of a movement, unconscious at first, which will tend to subordinate the authority of the words of Jesus to the warranty arising from their preservation in specific books which merit the reader’s confidence (Metz, 73).

h.             Shortly also the epistles of the apostles came to be treasured almost as highly (ZPEB, 1:733).

The apostolic interpretations of the significance of the person and work of Christ for the lives of believers, were soon parallel to the circulation of Jesus’ teachings (Metzger, 3).

Christian congregations grew accustomed to regarding the apostolic writings as, in some sense, on a par with the older Jewish Scriptures.

A new Christian canon sprang up alongside the old Jewish canon without in any way displacing it (Metz, 6, 7).

i.              Paul encouraged the interchange of his letters (Colossians 4:16).  Probably a collection of his epistles and those of other apostles was made at a very early date.  (ZPEB, 1:733)

The circulation of Paul’s letters began in his lifetime  (Metz, 4).

j.              Impetus from heretical elements 

(1)           There were Gnostic and other sects which claimed support for their doctrines from secret sources and secret books.  The Gnostics claimed that the Lord had revealed certain truths to trusted disciples.

These truths were incorporated in a number of gospels.

The Gnostic gospels often deal with the period between the resurrection and the ascension, about which the canonical gospels say little.

The Gnostics also produced other texts in which the apostles report what the Lord had secretly communicated to them (Metz, 77-78).

The Christian Church needed to make clear what constituted a true gospel and a genuine apostolic writing (Metz, 77-78; ZPEB, 1:733, 734).

(2)           Marcion (c. AD 140)

Marcion wrote Antitheses (contradictions); though the book has not been preserved, there are indications of its contents in fathers like Tertullian.

Marcion rejected the Old Testament and distinguished between the Supreme God of goodness and an inferior God of justice who was the God of the Jews.

Only Paul among the apostles was thought rightly to understand the significance of Jesus Christ as the messenger of the Supreme God.

Marcion accepted as authoritative the nine epistles of Paul to 7 churches (not the Pastoral Epistles) and Philemon though a few passages judged by Marcion as interpolations were removed from the epistles (e.g. Gal. 3:16-4:6; II Thess. 1:6-8)  These epistles were the source and norm of true doctrine for Marcion.

He also accepted Luke’s Gospel, though everything which implied a contact with the O. T. was expunged (Metz, 91-93; Bruce, NDNTS, 11).

The publication of Marcion’s canon (the first official canon) accelerated the process of fixing the church’s canon.

He forced orthodox Christians to examine their own presuppositions and to state more clearly what they already believed (Metz, 99).

(3)           Montanism

Montanism was an enthusiastic and apocalyptic movement which broke out in the second half of the second century.

Montanus spoke with tongues and announced that he was the inspired instrument of a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit promised in the Gospel of John.  Two women, Prisca and Maximilla, left their husbands and joined themselves to the mission of Montanus. (Metz, 99-100)

The fundamental conviction of this movement (the New Prophecy) in its earliest form was that the New Jerusalem would soon descend to the earth and be located at the small town of Pepuza.

The three settled at Pepuza and began to utter prophetic oracles.

Their pronouncements were recorded and gathered as sacred documents similar to the words of the O. T. prophets or the sayings of Jesus (Metz, 100).

In refuting Montanism, the Church emphasized the final authority of apostolic writings as the rule of faith.

The first step was taken toward the concept of a closed canon (Metz, 100).

Some in the Church came also to mistrust apocalyptic literature, even the book of Revelation (Metz, 102).

k.             Other Factors Involved in the Development of the Concept of the Canon

(1)           Persecutions--when imperial police demanded that sacred books be handed over, a distinction was made between what was Scripture and what was not. (Metz, 106-107, 229)

(2)           Adoption by Christians, at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century, of the codex or leaf book in the place of the scroll.

Several rolls were necessary for containing the N.T. books.

But the entire N.T. could be assembled in one codex book form.

"Furthermore, such a format would, in the course of time, promote a degree of fixity in the sequence of documents included in the collection." (Metz, 109)

(3)           There were lists of "canonical" authors drawn up by both Jews and pagans during the early centuries of the Christian era.

These lists provided a model for Christians (Metz, 109-111).

l.              A slow process was involved in canonicity.

Communication was slow (Westcott, 4).

There was probably also a strong eschatological expectation. (Filson, 103)

Metzger, in The N.T.: Its Background, Growth and Content (p. 276), states that "[T]he slowness of determining the final limits of the canon is testimony to the care and vigilance of early Christians in receiving books purporting to be apostolic" (cited in Henry, 4:434).

"It is quite likely that informal collections of certain N.T. books existed quite early" (Henry, 4:434).

"God’s governance of the world and special providence toward his church secured the preservation of the writings as a separate collection" (Henry, 4:447).

"It cannot be denied that the Canon was fixed gradually" (Westcott, 4).

"Instead of being the result of a deliberate decree by an individual or a council near the beginning of the Christian era, the collection of New Testament books took place gradually over many years by the pressure of various kinds of circumstances and influences, some external and others internal to the life of congregations" (Metz, 7).

m.            For a good while the outer limits of the N.T. canon remained fluid, but by the last quarter of the 2nd century the shape of the Catholic canon was fixed.  No fresh revelations were admissible (Bruce, 11).

There were two early lists of N.T. books drawn up.

(1)           The Muratorian Canon

This canon was named for L. A. Muratori, the discoverer and original publisher of the manuscript.  It was published in 1740 from an 8th Century manuscript (Metz, 192).

The codex contains a collection of several theological treatises of Eucherius, Ambrose, and Chrysostom and concludes with 5 early Christian creeds.

Its author is unknown.

It is a synopsis of the writings recognized as belonging to the N.T. in the Roman Church.

He discusses Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 13 genuine epistles of Paul (rejects an epistle to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians), Jude, Two Epistles of John, the book of Wisdom written by friends of Solomon in his honor, the Apocalypse of John and the Apocalypse of Peter, and then other books which are to be rejected.  The author states that while the Shepherd of Hermas is to be rejected, it is to be read privately.

Those books which are canonical are to be "recognized" or "received" (recipere).

Books not mentioned are I, II Peter, James, Hebrews. (Metzger, 191, 201)

(2)           The Classification by Eusebius of N.T. Books

Eusebius (c. A. D. 260Cc. 340) has been called "the Father of Church History." He had a unique instinct for historical research and had at his disposal the large library at Caesarea built up by Origen.

He carefully discusses the history of the Christian Bible up to his time.

He divides the Christian Bible into 3 + 1 categories.

a)             Homolegumena (o(molegou/mena)--the books universally acknowledged by the churches and the authors consulted (Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 203).

Eusebius cites 22 books--the four Gospels, Acts, Pauline epistles, I Peter, I John.

He suggests that The Apocalypse of John should be placed in this category.

b)            Rejected Books  (Spurious [notha]; Illegitimate).

Acts of Paul

Shepherd of Hermas

Apocalypse of Peter

Epistle of Barnabas

Teachings of the Apostles

Gospel According to the Hebrews

Eusebius also inconsistently places The Apocalypse of John here and says some have counted The Gospel According to the Hebrews.

c)             Antilegomena (a)ntilego/mena)CDisputed books, but ones familiar to most people of the Church (Metzger, 203).

James, Jude, II Peter, II, III John

d)            Books put forth by heretics under the names of the apostles [Pseudepigrapha].

The Pseudepigrapha were writings which circulated under false titles (Metzger, Apocrypha, 6).

Gospel of Peter

Gospel of Thomas

Gospel of Matthias

Acts of Andrew and John, and the Other Apostles

Metzger suggests that as a historian Eusebius recognizes that the Book of Revelation has been widely received by the Church, but as a churchman he is annoyed by the extravagant use made of the work by some like the Montanists so he is happy to report that some in the Church have doubted it.

Metzger thinks that though the book of Hebrews is not mentioned by name, Eusebius includes it under the epistles of Paul, which are not identified one by one.

Eusebius gives an accurate statement of the general opinion of the orthodox Church of his day regarding the number and names of the books which it considered holy Scripture (Metzger, 201-207).

n.             The N.T. canon grew together with the Church (Bruce, NDNTS, 17).

"The history of the formation of the whole canon involves little less than the history of the building of the Catholic Church" (Westcott, 3).

o.             By A.D. 180 the idea of canonicity was closely dependent on the concept of apostolicity.

The usage of the churches was sufficiently settled to make an official list unnecessary (ZPEB, 1:736).

We do not have full information from the earliest Christian writers (Westcott, 11).

"The biblical writings were recognized from the very beginning as a literature bearing transcendent authority, and were not discriminated as divine by the Church at some late date"  (Henry, 4:430).

"The Church never for a moment lacked a canonical Scripture." (Henry, 4:435)

"The apostolic letters were treasured by their recipients as inspired writings from the very first."

"From the outset the Church shared a sense of transcendent divine imposition in the reception of these letters." (Henry, 4:439)

"We cannot assign too much importance to the fact that no church council felt it necessary to sanction the canonical books." (Henry, 4:440)

"The N.T. writings were accorded complete compliance from the first, a circumstance that is intelligible only in view of an apostolic imposition of such letters as divinely authoritative" (Henry, 4:440).

p.             Saint Athanasius in the Thirty-ninth Festal Epistle of A. D. 367 gives a list of books which are "handed down and believed to be divine."

He states that the 27 books he lists are the only canonical ones.

The letter of Athanasius represents a clarification of an established usage. (ZPEB, 1:739)

q.             Augustine in his De doctrina christiana (2:13) gives our present list of New Testament books, though with a slightly different order (Metz, 237).

r.              Not until the middle of the 4th Century was it considered necessary for any general pronouncements on the subject of the canon to be made at church councils.

But by this time nearly three centuries of church usage had virtually fixed the canon.

Three synods were held at Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397), and Carthage (A.D. 419) which declared that the debate was over (Metz, 237- 238).

A canonical list was articulated which comprised our present 27 N.T. books (ZPEB, 1:740).

There was no more real questioning at all until the Reformation.

"The outlines of the N.T. canon were fixed throughout Western history by the time of Athanasius and Augustine, and stayed fixed from the 4th century to the 18th."

"It was modern higher criticism that raised doubts about the content of the canon and the character of the writings" (Henry, 4:434).

s.             Sources of Information

(for an analytical survey of the literature, see Metzger, 7, 11-36.).

(1)           Bruce, F. F., "New Light on the Origins of the New Testament Canon."  In New Dimensions in New Testament Study, pp. 3-18,  Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney  (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974).

(2)           Bruce, F. F., The Canon of Scripture  (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1989).

(3)           Filson, Floyd V., Which Books Belong in the Bible?  A Study of the Canon  (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957).

(4)           Harris, R. Laird, Inspiration & Canonicity of the Bible, Rev. Ed. (Zondervan, 1969).

(5)           Westcott, Brooke Foss,  A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the N. T.,  2nd Ed. (London:  Macmillan and Co., 1866 [4th Ed., 1875]).

(6)           Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 1975,  "Canon of the New Testament," by Donald Guthrie.

(7)           Metzger, Bruce M., The Canon of the N.T.:  Its Origin, Development, and Significance  (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).

2.             All of the divisions of Christianity--Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox-- agree on the N.T. canon.

3.             Principles Involved,

a.             Apostolicity.

(1)           The apostles under Christ were the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20) (Harris, 229).

(2)           Qualifications of an Apostle (Acts 1:21-22):

(a)           He had to be an eye-witness of the resurrection of Christ.

(b)           He had to have first-hand knowledge of the Lord Jesus and His ministry.

Sometimes "apostle" is used in a more general sense (Harris, 229); the specific use refers to one of the twelve called by Jesus.

(c)           Paul was an apostle by virtue of his supernatural vision and call by Christ (I Corinthians 15).

(d)           There is no apostolic succession (except in doctrine).

(3)           The Early Church fathers clearly distinguished between themselves and the apostles (Harris, 231; Kistemaker, 10).

Apostolic origin provided a presumption of authority (Metz, 253).

(4)           The Apostles claimed to have revelation from God.

(5)           Jesus did not give us a future list of 27 books.  He gave us a list of the inspired authors.  Upon them the Church is founded, and by them the Word is written (Harris, p. 235).

"He who accredited the O.T. retrospectively accredited the N.T. prospectively." (Bruce, Books and Parchment, 105)

(6)           The Holy Spirit guarantees the apostolic testimony to be valid and authoritative, and this testimony gives the Gospel of Christ.  (Bruce, 6, 18)

"Immediate certitude rested upon the inspired books quickened by the Spirit."

"The principle of internal evidence therefore held a vital place in the Reformation doctrine of Scripture"  (Henry, 4:419).

(7)           The N.T. is the sum of the treasures of Apostolic teaching  (Westcott, 5).

(8)           What was not apostolic was not accepted. (Filson, 123)

Irenaeus (A.D. 180) says that apostolicity was a very important factor.

Irenaeus mentions that the writing had to be by an apostle or by men so closely associated with the apostles that their teaching was apostolic.  (Henry, 4:437)

However, apostolicity is broader than apostleship.

What the Christian community sought primarily was assurance that the writings came from or were vouchsafed by an inspired authorship, so that the books themselves could be received as authoritative.

"The major source of such books would obviously be the apostolic leaders, and in the broad sense no books would come from outside this apostolic circle" (Henry, 4:437).

Apostolic Certification is what is meant in the broadest sense of apostolicity (Henry, 4:446). 

"While the N.T. cannot be said to contain only apostolic writings, it does not contain any writings which lacked the apostles’ sanction" (Henry, 4:446).

b.             Orthodoxy--Were the contents of adequate spiritual character?

The contents must not be contradictory to received doctrine (Irenaeus--A.D. 180) (Henry, 4:437).

A basic requirement for canonicity was conformity to what was called the "rule of faith."

There must be congruity between a document and the basic Christian tradition recognized as normative by the Church (Metz, 251-252).

c.             Universality--Was the book universally accepted and received in the Church?

Irenaeus-the document must be vouched for by one or more of the leading churches (Henry, 4:437).

An important test of authority for a given book was continuous acceptance and usage by the Church at large.

It was expected that there would be consensus among the churches concerning a given book.

"Universally accepted apostolic origin was the basic test."  (Filson, 123)

d.             The final question was inspiration; it was the ultimate test (Thiessen, 270).

Inspiration and apostolicity were blended into one ultimately.

There was no apostolic writing which did not measure up (Harris, 270).

"The early Christians were not exceptionally intelligent people, but they did have the capacity to recognize divine authority when they saw it" (Bruce, Books and Parchments, 111).

The Church recognized the inherent authority in the apostolic writings; the Church never created that authority by its collecting and classifying the books as canonical.

The authority of the N.T. books resides not in the circumstances of their inclusion, but in the source from which they came.

Therefore the N.T. was in principle complete when the various elements coming from the source had been written.

It was in principle complete when the various elements coming from the source had been written.

Metzger distinguishes between the grounds of canonicity (the province of theology) and the grounds for the conviction of canonicity (the domain of the historian).

It can be said that Athe N.T. books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so.”

The Church did not create the canon, but Acame to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church.”

Scripture has the quality of self-authentication (autopistia).

Those with spiritual discernment in the early Church were able to recognize sacred writings through the inner witness of the Spirit (Metzger, 282-288).

4.             Specific Books and Problems

a.             Mark--Why is the book included if the author (Mark) was not an apostle?

There is an unbroken tradition within the Church which affirms that Mark was intimately associated with Peter and that the contents of this Gospel depend significantly upon the preaching of Peter. (Lane, 7)

The earliest statement of this tradition is from Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, who wrote Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles (about A.D. 140).

The book is now known to us only through quotations made by Eusebius.

                He quotes one whom he calls "Elder," seemingly an older contemporary (Lane, 131).

Some scholars think that the elder was John (Harris, 239).

And the elder said this also: "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of the things said and done by the Lord, but not however in order."

"For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow him, but afterwards, as I said, Peter, who adapted his teachings to the needs of his hearers, but not as though he were drawing up a connected account of the Lord’s oracles."

"So then Mark made no mistake in thus recording some things just as he remembered them."

"For he took forethought for one thing, not to omit any of the things that he had heard nor to state any of them falsely." (Lane, 8)

It seems probable that Papias has preserved a tradition which can be traced at least as far as the beginnings of the second century. (Lane, 8)

There is a recognition of the content being from Peter, but still of the existence of some initiative and independence on Mark’s part. (Lane, 8)

The Anti-Marcionite Prologue is attached to the Gospels in many Old Latin MSS (about 160-180 A.D.).  The preface to Mark, though fragmentary, states:

"Mark declared, who is called ‘stump-fingered,’ because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body.  He was the interpreter of Peter.  After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy." (Lane, 9)

Irenaeus (about A.D. 175) states that

And after the death of these Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter. (Lane, 9)

Justin Martyr also lends weight to the argument (Westcott, 130-131).

The outline of the Gospel of Mark is already suggested in Peter’s sermon in Acts 10:36-41  (Lane, 10-11).

b.             Luke--a companion of Paul and "the beloved physician."

Irenaeus says that Luke recorded in a book the Gospel preached by Paul (Harris, 249).

Justin speaks of Luke’s having written for Paul (Harris, 256).

Tertullian  referred to this book as "Paul’s Gospel written by Luke" (Harris, 256).

Origen wrote that Luke "composed for Gentile converts . . . the Gospel commended by Paul." (Harris, 256)

Luke was an amanuensis (in the first century sense) of Paul (Harris, 257).

Paul needed an accurate, faithful and trustworthy historian for the life of Christ and for the history of the early Church.

Luke served that purpose.

c.             Revelation was widely accepted in the early days, was later questioned, but was soon given its place and has been fully accepted since A.D. 400. (Harris, 257)

The book is not mentioned by Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp.

Obviously it was a later N.T. book.

Justin mentions it by name (Harris, 257).

Irenaeus clearly accepts the book as having been written by John the Apostle, putting it at the end of Domitian’s reign (96 A.D.)  (Harris, 257).

Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria also quote from it frequently attributing authorship to John. (Harris, 257)

Between 100 and 180, Revelation was highly regarded in the Churches of Asia. (Harris, 258)

Between 170-200 the book was circulated and accepted in all parts of the Greek and Latin Church as the work of John (Harris, 258).

After this period, the book was questioned because of two factors:

1)             An increasing departure from the premillennial expectations of the Early Church

2)             The influence of the Alogi (Harris, 259).

This heretical group assigned all the Johannine Writings to Cerinthus.

They denied the apostolic authorship and therefore the canonicity of the book was called into question.

Athanasius in 367 (Festal Epistle) reverted to the older tradition and included the book in its list, and it has been considered canonical ever since. (Harris, 259)

d.             II Peter.

An excellent study of the canonicity of II Peter was done by T. J. Herter (thesis entitled, "The Canonicity and Authorship of Second Peter," Westminster Theological Seminary, 1962) (ZPEB, 4:729).

(1)           The external testimony was weak and caused some uncertainties until the 4th Century (Harris, 260).

Origen (about A.D. 240) says that the authorship is disputed (Harrison, 386).

Irenaeus seems to be strongly influenced by II Peter in his writings (Harrison, 387).

Eusebius classified the book as a disputed one, not in the list of spurious writings (Harrison, 388).

The book was accepted as canonical by Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius and Augustine and Jerome (Harrison, 389).

In the post-apostolic period we have no record of the book’s being rejected as spurious (Harrison, 390).

It was disputed and suspected but few rejected it (ZPEB, 4:728).

It seems to have been venerated as apostolic (Harrison, 390).

"The church councils after the Nicene Creed (A.D. 325) give evidence of the widespread acceptance of II Peter in the Canon." (ZPEB, 4:728)

II Peter has been in the canon since the late 4th Century in all but certain oriental systems of organizing the Biblical books.

Obviously these Church fathers felt the evidence was sufficiently impressive to overcome the doubts expressed against the book. (Harrison, 390)

(2)           The problem of internal evidence.

The book seems to have a difference in style and content.

The difference could be explained by a different secretary or by being written from prison.

e.             II and III John

These are very short epistles, but there is sufficient testimony to their genuineness (Harris, 260-261).

They are not referred to as commonly as is I John.

They are brief, more personal, and less doctrinal (E. F. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament, 422).

Origen mentions that there were some doubts about these two books, but he does not reject them. (Harrison, 422)

Some thought that the title "John the Elder" referred to a John other than the Apostle (Westcott, Epistles of John, liv).

But there is nothing inconsistent with the belief that the presbu/teroj was John the Apostle (Westcott, Lv).

The term was used by Irenaeus concerning those who held the highest office in the Church.

Internal evidence confirms the general tenor of the external authority.

"The second Epistle bears the closest resemblance in language and thought to the first" (Westcott, Lv).

f.          James and Jude

The problem of canonicity concerns which James and which Jude (there are two or three of each) (Harris, 263).

They are thought to be the half brothers of Jesus and the cousins of the apostolic brothers James and Jude  (Harris, 261).

James--Origen quotes the book.

Eusebius accepts it and states that it was used publicly in the churches along with the other epistles  (Harrison, 360).

It was endorsed by Jerome and Augustine in the early church.

It was included by the Third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397.

The book gave Luther some problems at the Reformation (doctrinal)  (Harrison, 360).

Jude--Evidence of its existence and knowledge of it is found in the last quarter of the second century.

The Canon of Muratori includes it.

Clement of Alexandria commented on it.

Origen was impressed by the book (Harrison, 403).

Those who questioned it were largely concerned about its reference to extra-biblical literature.

The matter was not settled until the 4th Century (Harrison, 403-404).

g.         Hebrews

Approximately 1700 years ago Origen said that only God knows the identity of the author of this epistle (Harris, 264).

This is referred to numerous times by Clement of Rome (95 A.D.) though not by name and also likewise by Justin Martyr (Harris, 264).

Eusebius quotes Clement as saying that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Paul’s, but that it was written in the Hebrew dialect and carefully translated by Luke.  (Harris, 264)

Tertullian gives us the first clear recorded testimony from the West.

He associates the book with Barnabas a companion of the Apostles, especially Paul (Harris, 265).

It is unclear how he regarded the book.

No apostle other than Paul is ever mentioned in association with the book  (Harris, 266).

The book claims (Hebrews 2:3-4) to be the work of a second generation writer.  (Harris, 266)

There is real debate as to authorship.

It was received in the East as Pauline, though with a translator involved.

It was received in the West very early, though the authorship is not stated.  (Harris, 268)

It is interesting that Hebrews was accepted in those places (and only in those places) where it was considered a genuine work of Paul.  (Harris, 268)

The Early Church associated the book with the Apostles  (Harris, 270).

A Pauline influence is evident within the book.

Late in the 4th Century, it was accepted by the Western Church.

It was given full canonical status. (Harrison, 345)

E.         Is the Canon Open or Closed Today?

1.         The Question

To say that the canon is open implies that the Church may add books to the canon or remove books which have hitherto been considered canonical (Metz, 271).

2.         Many Neo-Orthodox and Liberal scholars insist that the canon is still open.

Religious works of value could be added.

In 1968 a group of ministers seriously proposed that Martin Luther King’s "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" be added to the N.T. (1964)  (Metzger, 271).

"In the end, modernism could adduce no ground for the canon other than the growing religious experience of the community as a whole."

"This meant that the question of the canon, while historically closed, was still theoretically open."

"Since liberal theology ridiculed miraculous aspects of the Bible as myth and legend, it could no longer maintain a sharp distinction between canonical and apocryphal books" (Henry, 4:418).

3.         Evangelicals insist that the canon is closed.

a.         The nature of the N.T.

The canon is not merely an anthology of inspirational literature.

Rather, "it is a collection of writings that bear witness to what God has wrought through the life and work, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and through the founding of his Church by his Spirit" (Metz, 271).

There are no living witnesses of Christ’s earthly life.

b.         The distinction between canonical and non-canonical books marked the boundary between the time of the laying of the foundation by the apostles (apostolic tradition) and the building on that foundation by the Church (ecclesiastical tradition) (Kistemacher, 12-13).

To remove any book from the N.T. canon would cut off important historical roots of the Church and greatly impoverish her (Metz, 274).

c.         God led the Church in the recognition, collection, and preservation of our present 27 books (Kistemacher, 12-13).

God was not wrong in His direction.

The Church has recognized God’s voice speaking through the accepted body of books (Metz, 275).

We see God’s sovereignty at work in the giving of the canon.

d.         What would the Church do if an unknown epistle of Paul (or another inspired author) were to be found? (See Grudem, 54-69).

It would be impossible to prove its authenticity at this late date in history.

It is virtually certain that the contents would add nothing essentially new to what is available in the present canonical books.  (see Metz, 272)

"Only those letters which the Spirit of God so intended were preserved in the canon because of their permanent importance for the life of the Church."  (Henry, 4:408)

"If archaeologists were to unearth an early letter that was indubitably Pauline, we would not be compelled either to infer that it was uninspired or that a place must now be made for it in the canon.  As a matter of historical fact, the canon is closed."  (Henry, 4:409)

"If any letter were found today that came indisputably from an apostle, the canon would not need to be reopened to accommodate it."  "To do so would add nothing essential to the present books, but would only reinforce their import for faith and morals."  (Henry, 4:409)

"The fact remains, however, that no vast apostolic literature existed, and there is little probability that early manuscripts that the Christian community felt unobliged to copy and to circulate widely will now be received."  (Henry, 4:409)

Eusebius reports that Paul "committed nothing more to writing than a few very short epistles."

Of the 70 disciples only Matthew and John left us recorded comments and tradition says that they did so by necessity (Henry, 4:409).

F.         Is There a Canon Within the Canon?

1.         To posit a canon within the canon means that one finds in Scripture a hermeneutical principle which allows a sharp distinction between what is authoritative in the canon and what is not (Metz, 276).

2.         We must respect the rich diversity in the N.T.

There are Greek and Jewish insights preserved.

We need the message of both Paul and James.

To find a canon within the canon prevents all the elements in the N.T. from being heard and studied.

God has something unique to say to us through each N.T. author and each N.T. book.

We must hear the Word of God in all of its breadth and depth.

"The effort to erect any one principle or any one doctrine as the only valid rule by which to estimate the authority of this or that book within the canon has been a notorious source of imbalance and one-sidedness in the Church" (Metz, 279).

3.         A canon within the canon shifts from age to age and person to person.

Subjectivity is the result.

A canon by its nature is fixed, not vacillating (See Metz, 275-282).

Part III

Theology Proper

(The First Person of the Trinity)

I.          A DEFINITION OF GOD

A.         The Importance of the Question

1.         If we claim to worship one supreme God, is it not necessary to be able to define, or circumscribe this one we worship?

2.         For Christian thought an accurate conception of God is indispensable (J. J. Van Oosterzee,  Christian Dogmatics, 1:243).

3.         We need some parameters or limits with which to categorize or describe this One.

4.         Albert C. Knudson.  The Doctrine of God.

"The fundamental problem of theology is, therefore, to determine, if possible, what is the true conception of God." (p. 204)

B.         Is it Possible to Define God?

C.         Does the Bible give us a definition? (no)

1.         Herman Bavinck.  The Doctrine of God.

"God’s being in the abstract is nowhere discussed." (p.113)

2.         But there are many Biblical statements about God.

These furnish the raw material which can be used to seek a definition (Examples are "God is good" and "God is love").

D.         The Barthian or Neo-Orthodox perspective is opposed to seeking a definition.

1.         Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God.

a.         "God is only Subject, He is not also Object; He is the absolute Subject, subject in the unconditional, unlimited sense." (p. 140)

b.         God is not a "substance" or an object of thought.  He is the Subject who as "I" addresses us as "thou." (p. 139)

c.         We cannot think that a Supreme Object gained by a process of abstraction is a more worthy conception of God than the concept of Person. (pp. 139-140)

d.         There is great confusion created when the doctrine of God starts from a neutral definition of Being, rather than from the disclosure of His personal Being as Subject.

e.         "True theology, therefore, must not only begin with the knowledge of God as the absolute Subject; its one, its sole task, is to make this clear." (p. 141)

f.          The Neo-Orthodox basically deny propositional revelation.  There is only personal truth.  We know God in an encounter.

g.         The real problem with this view is how spiritual reality is distinguished from indigestion.

2.         Albert C. Knudson, The Doctrine of God  (p. 205)

a.         "If God is real and if he means anything to us, it must be possible to form some more or less definite conception of his being.  If it were not, religion would degenerate into an amorphous feeling, and for the mass of men would lose both its credibility and its worth."

b.         The indefiniteness and indefinability of God appeals to the Neo-orthodox. (Knudson, 205)

E.         What defining God does not mean

1.         It does not mean that we can know all that is proper to God--that we can make an exhaustive statement about Him.

2.         No creature could understand God in this way. (Hodge, 1:366)

3.         Illustration--I may not be able to say everything there is about "ocean" or "truth" but at least I can circumscribe them.  This means articulating their distinctiveness to other nouns.

If we could not define something in any sense, how could we think about it?

F.         What defining does mean.

1.         To define is simply to bound, to separate or distinguish so that what is defined may be discriminated from all other things.

2.         Defining may be done in four ways:

a.         By stating its characteristics.

b.         By stating its genus and its specific difference.

c.         By analyzing the idea as it lies in our minds.

d.         By an explanation of the term or name by which it is denoted (Hodge, 1:336).

3.         All these methods really amount to the same thing.  "When we say we can define God, all that is meant is, that we can analyze the idea of God as it lies in our mind; or that we can state the class of beings to which He belongs, and the attributes by which He is distinguished from all other beings." (Hodge, 1:366)

4.         Bavinck states, "In religion and in theology we need a description of him in order that we may be enabled to distinguish him from whatever is not God."  (p. 124)

5.         We certainly are not trying to put God into a test tube.

G.         Thiessen states that our definition of God is made in two senses: (1)  An enumeration of the essential attributes or predicates of any being, substance, or thing, and (2) the logical definition, which consists in giving the genus and differentia of any subject.

1.         Our definition is exact but not complete. 

2.         Thus we can say that God is a being, and then indicate the ways in which He is different from other beings. (Th, 54; 2:25)

H.         Strong writes, "God is actually limited by the unchangeableness of his own attributes and personal distinctions, as well as by his self-chosen relations to the universe he has created and to humanity in the person of Christ.  God is therefore limited and defined in such a sense as to render knowledge of him possible" (p. 9).

I.          Probably there is no perfect definition of God (in Heppe, 52).

"No definition of God can be adduced, which completely covers His nature" (in Heppe, 53).

J.          What we mean by "being."

1.         "Being" designates God as having a real, objective existence.

a.         "Being" is equivalent to "substance" or "essence"

b.         It was called ousia (ou)si/a) by the Greeks.

1)             substance, state, condition

2)             being, substance, essence (L and S, Ab, 507)

3)             "It is opposed to what is merely thought or mere force or power.

(Hodge, 1:366-367)

c.             Certain words like "substance" are "logical primitives."

d.             They are undefinable terms which we use to define other terms (John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 220).

2.             God really exists, not just in our minds, but in a manner entirely independent of us.

a.             To speak of God as a Being, is to deny that He is an abstraction (Van Oost, 1:244).

b.             He is different from and distinct from us and the world (Hodge, 1:368).

3.             God is the sum-total of all essence.

Any quality in creatures which is admirable, is in God to perfection. (Bavinck, 123)

4.             The being and the attributes exist together.

They cannot exist independently of the other. (Knudson, 206)

K.            To the divine essence there belong certain perfections, also known as attributes.

1.             These attributes are known through revelation.

2.             Without these perfections (or attributes) God would cease to be God. (Hodge, 1:368-369)

3.             A substance without attributes would have no real existence (‘nothing) (Hodge, 1:371).  It would be like a circle without the rim.

L.             Erroneous or Inadequate Definitions of God

1.             Secular

a.             Plato--God is the eternal mind, the cause of good in nature (Th, 51).

b.             Aristotle--God is "the first ground of all being," The Unmoved Mover (Th, 51; 2:23).

c.             Spinoza--God is "the absolute, universal Substance, the real cause of all and every existence; and not only the cause of all being, but itself all being, of which every special existence is only a modification." (Th, 51)

d.             Leibniz--the final reason of things is called God.

e.             Kant--God is a Being, who, by His understanding and will, is the cause of nature; a Being who has all rights and no duties; the moral Author of the World. (Th, 51)

f.              Kirtly F. Mather (a geologist)-God is a spiritual power, immanent in the universe, Who is involved in the hazard of his creation. (Th, 52)

g.             Edward S. Ames (was professor at University of Chicago)--God is "the idea of the personalized, idealized whole of reality." (Th, 52)

2.             Theological or Religious Attempts

a.             J. B. Phillips, in Your God is Too Small, gives 12 views of God which are commonly in people’s minds but are improper (pp. 1-64).

b.             Henry Sloane Coffin--God is to me that creative Force, behind and in the universe, who manifests himself as energy, as life, as order, as beauty, as thought, as conscience, as love." (Th, 52)

c.             John A. T. Robinson in Honest to God  (following Paul Tillich), states that

(1)           We can no longer speak of God "up there."

(2)           God is the infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of all being, of our ultimate concern.  (Erickson, 1:324)

(3)           God is not deus ex machina--a supernatural Being to whom one can turn away from the world and who can be relied upon to intervene from without. (Erickson, 1:325)

(4)           "God" denotes the ultimate depth of all our being, the creative ground and meaning of all our existence." (1:325)

(a)           Many have seen this view as pantheism.

(b)           It led the way for God-is-dead and other radical movements in

theology.

(5)           Theological statements do not relate to a particular Being called "God," but ask ultimate questions about the meaning of existence.  (1:326)

d.             One young man at his ordination exam was asked to give a definition of God.  He responded, "He’s the greatest."

M.           Legitimate Attempts at a Definition of God

1.             Modern

a.             Ebrard--"the eternal source of all that is temporal." (St, 52)

b.             Kahnis--"the infinite Spirit." (St, 52)

c.             Andrew Fuller--"the first cause and last end of all things." (St, 52)

d.             Miley, in Systematic Theology, writes that God is an eternal personal Being of absolute knowledge, power and goodness. (Th, 55)

2.             Some early fathers such as Origen, Athanasius, and John of Damascus conceive of God as the One, as Essence.  He is the One who transcends all essence, as he who has being, he who has the source of his existence in himself, that which has being." (Bavinck, 115)

3.             Augustine speaks of God as "supreme essence, supreme goodness, truth, beauty." (Bavinck, 115)

a.             Such a statement does not confess His personality.

b.             It may not have been intended as a definition.

4.             Strong in Systematic Theology writes that

a.             "God is the infinite and perfect Spirit in whom all things have their source, support, and end." (St, 52)

b.             Thiessen thinks that this is the best as far as brevity and comprehensiveness are concerned. (p. 55; 2:25)

c.             However, it really does not discuss His attributes.

d.             It is limited to creation and providence.

e.             The biblical data allow for a more comprehensive statement.

5.             Bavinck, in The Doctrine of God (p. 126), writes:

"God is the real, the true essence, the fulness of essence, the sum-total of all reality and perfection, the totality of essence, to which all other essence owes its origin, an ocean of essence, unbounded and immeasurable, the absolute Being, the only Being who has the ground of his existence in himself."

Could this not be taken as equivalent to Tillich’s definition?

6.             Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics.

a.             "God is the one, simple, absolute, purely spiritual, personal Being of infinite perfections, wholly immanent in all the world, yet essentially transcendent in relation to all things." (p. 60)

b.             This description is not in terms of specific perfections.

c.             It speaks of God as One who is both immanent and transcendent.

7.             Berkhof, Systematic Theology  (p. 56)

"God is one, absolute, unchangeable and infinite in His knowledge and wisdom, His goodness and love, His grace and mercy, His righteousness and holiness."

8.             "The Shorter Catechism " (Westminster documents) (Question 4)

Question:               What is God?

Answer: "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth" (Thiessen, 54; 2:25; Buswell, 1:30; Hodge, 1:30).

a.             This definition encompasses the attributes of God.

b.             "Infinite, eternal, and unchangeable" apply to all seven words given (describing specific qualities or attributes).

c.             This statement does not mention Creation and Providence.

d.             Biblical support for the Shorter Catechism definition.

(1)           God is a Spirit (it also means that He is personal).

God has no physical body, but He is living and personal.

John 4:24--"God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."

Numbers 16:22--"O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh."

(2)           God is Infinite.

Job 11:7--"Canst thou by searching find out God?  Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?"

I Kings 8:27--"Will God indeed dwell on the earth?  behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee . . . ."

(3)           God is Eternal.

Psalm 90:2-"Before the mountains were born or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God."

I Timothy 1:17--"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever.  Amen."

(4)           God is Unchangeable (immutable).

James 1:17--"Every good and perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

Malachi 3:6--"I am the Lord, I change not."

9.             "The Westminster Confession of Faith," 2.1-2 (cf. Question 7 of "The Larger Catechism").

"There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty."

"God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them.  He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth.  In His sight all things are open and manifest, His Knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.  He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.  To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them."

II.            THE IMMANENCE AND TRANSCENDENCE OF GOD

A.            Introduction

1.             "Theological thought has swung between the two opposing ideas of Immanence and Transcendence" (H. M. Hughes, The Christian Idea of God, 58).

2.             These two terms have to do with God’s relation to the created world (Erickson, Christian Theology, 1:301).

3.             Both words are difficult to define, and there have been abuses of both concepts.

4.             These have been very involved discussions of both concepts.

This area branches into the area of Philosophic Theology.

B.            The Immanence of God

1.             Scripture.

Acts 17:27-28--". . . that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist; as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His offspring.’"

Psalm 139:7-10

Jeremiah 23:23-24--"‘Am I a God who is near,’ declares the Lord, and not a God far off?  ‘Can a man hide himself in hiding places, so I do not see him?’ declares the Lord.  ‘Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?’ declares the Lord."

Colossians 1:17--"And He is before all things and in Him all things hold together."

Hebrews 1:3--". . . and upholds all things by the word of His power . . . ."

Matthew 10:29--"Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father."

2.             Definition

a.             The term "connotes an indwelling of God within the world and its processes." (BDT, 280)

b.             It means that God indwells the world and man.  God acts directly in Nature and man.

AImmanent” means Aremaining in creation” (Grudem, 267).

c.             "His Will sustains the universe.  He indwells man in the sense that He enters into communion with him, guides him, teaches and inspires him from within, without impairing his freedom, and imparts to him His own life without becoming identified with him." (Hughes, 58)

d.             Borden P. Bowne  (The Immanence of God [Boston:  Houghton-Mufflin, 1905]) writes, "God is the omnipresent ground of all finite existence and activity.  The world, alike of things and of spirits, is nothing existing and acting on its own account, while God is away in some extra-sidereal region, but it continually depends upon and is ever upheld by the ever-living, ever-present, ever-working God. (in Millard Erickson, [ed], The living God, 336)

3.             Implications

a.             The system of nature is not in ontological reality in and of itself (Erickson, 369).

b.             The smallest event, even the fall of a leaf, is of supernatural causation as much as a miracle.  All things are determined by a Living Will.

c.             Nature and its orderliness is "but the fixed form of the divine causality."

(1)           Events can be natural in their mode of occurrence but supernatural in their causation (Erickson, 370).

The physical world is not controlled by a world of lumps or any impersonal principle, but by a living will which works actively and forever (Bowne, The Immanence of God, 18).

AAnd nature being but the fixed form of the divine causality, we must say that events in general are at once natural in the mode of their occurrence, in that they come about according to the rule, and supernatural in their causation” (Bowen, 18).

We are in God’s world, and all things continuously depend upon Him.

AThe cosmic order is no rival of God, but is simply the continuous manifestation and product of divine activity” (Bowne, 27).

(2)           God’s immanence means that He is not limited to working directly to accomplish His purposes.

(3)           God can heal through the skill of the physician (Erickson, Christian Theology, 1:311).         

d.             "God is the ever-present agent in the on-going of the world, and nature is but the form and product of his ceaseless activity" (Bowne, 24, in Erickson, The Living God, 372).

e.             We are in God’s world, and "the ultimate reason why anything is, or changes, or comes to pass, must be sought not in any mechanical necessity, nor in any natural antecedents, nor in any impersonal agency of any kind, but in the will and purpose of God in whom all things live and move and have their being." (Bowne, 25, in Erickson, 372)

f.              Nature is not a rival of God, but "is simply the continuous manifestation and product of the divine activity"  (Bowne, in Erickson, 373).

(1)           Nature is the method and contents of God’s work.

(2)           There is an immanence of goodness, wisdom, and law.  (Bowne, in Erickson, 373)

g.             There is a Supreme Rational Will, which forever founds and administers the order of the world"  (Bowne, Erickson, 374).

h.             God is also immanent in the lives of His people.

(1)           He accomplishes His redemptive grace in them.

(2)           He indwells them. (EDT, 458-459)

4.             Cautions

a.             To identify God with the world, as in pantheism, is wrong (BDT, 280).

God is over the universe and in the universe, but the universe is something distinct from God (St, 102).

Creation can be neither identical with God or a mere form of God.

There is a sense in which the universe can be understood as a manifestation of God and dependent on God (St, 102).

b.             In the religious liberalism of this century, it was taught that while God was separate from His Creation, His activity takes place within the normal course of nature.  It was also taught that His "creative" operations are discernible in the natural development of new organic forms in the supposed evolutionary process.

c.             Therefore, "divine action is viewed as being from within rather than from without, as natural rather than supernatural” (BDT, 280).

d.             The end result would be the denial of miracles, the efficacy of prayer and "personal" religion.

e.             But we are not frightened by scientific investigation.  (see Ramm, A Handbook of Cont. Theology, 64)

C.            The Transcendence of God

Ray S. Anderson. Historical Transcendence and the Reality of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 1975

1.             Definition

a.             The transcendence of God means that "God is not part or even the whole of the world; nor is the world part of Him, nor is He dependent on the world."  (Hughes, 58)

AWhen theologians say that God is transcendent, they mean that he is related to the world as prior to it, apart from it, and exalted above it.”

By prior to the world we do not mean that He is on a point of some line extended into an infinite past.

By apart from the world we do not mean that He is separate in a deistic sense unconcerned and unabsorbed, like Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover.

ARather, he is apart from the world in that he is not to be identified with the sum total of created reality (pantheism) nor with any creature in the world (idolatry).”[16]

b.             It refers to the difference and distance between God and man.

(1)           There is a distinction between God and man.

(2)           God is uniquely other than everything in creation.

(3)           He does not experience our limitations and frailty. (EDT, 458)

2.             Scripture

Isaiah 40:12-26

In chapter 40 of Isaiah the prophet celebrates the awful transcendence of God, the awful separateness between God and the world.

The sovereign Person is Lord of both mankind and of all nature (Machen, God Transcendent, 17).

In 46:5 God asks, ATo whom then will ye liken Me, or shall I be equal?”

This verse expresses his incomparability.

AThere is an ultimate mystery before which the knowledge of the wisest men is dumb” (Machen, 17-18).

Isaiah 57:15--"For thus says the high and exalted One who lives forever, whose name is Holy, I dwell on a high and holy place . . . ."

Isaiah 55:8-9--" ‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.’ "

I Kings 8:27-(Solomon’s Prayer of Dedication) "But will God indeed dwell on the earth?  Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain Thee, how much less this house which I have built."

John 1:18--"No man has seen God at any time . . . ."

I Timothy 6:15-16--". . . He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords; who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see.  To Him be honor and eternal dominion!  Amen.

Ephesians 1:20-22

3.             Man’s need for the Transcendent

Norman L. Geisler, Philosophy of Religion.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1974.

a.             Most of the definitions of religion have one common element, "the fact that religion involves an awareness of the Transcendent." (p. 29)

b.             Geisler argues that "man is the being who is characterized by his need for self-transcendence."  (Geisler, 32)

c.             "Religious experience involves two basic factors: an awareness of a transcendent Other and a commitment to it as having ultimate worth."  (Geisler, 42)

d.             Geisler shows how religious experience has searched for transcendence in at least seven different directions. (Geisler, 63)

e.             "The history of mankind, sacred or secular, supports the thesis that by nature man has an irresistible urge to transcend himself."

f.              "And even those who see no ultimate meaning or religious significance in their form of transcendence admit, nonetheless, that they too seek to transcend fundamental nihilism."  (Geisler, 63-64)

g.             Geisler uses this need for transcendence as an argument for the existence of God  (67-82).  The same type of argument is used in connection with the innateness of the knowledge of God.

4.             Implications

a.             There can be no visible representation of God. (Erickson, 383)

(1)           We cannot see God.

(2)           He is incorporeal.

b.             There is a hiddenness about God.

(1)           He is not directly discernible.

(2)           It is as though He hides His presence. (Erickson, 385)

(3)           Luther spoke of Creation as the mask of God.

c.             There is a "dimensional beyondness" about God.

He is of a different order than we.

(1)           He has no beginning or end.

(2)           He is totally outside of time.

(3)           He has no spatial or geographic limitations.

(4)           He is totally free of all restrictions due to space or location.

(5)           "God is in a different dimension from ours" (Erickson, 389).

d.             Martin Heinecken, The Moment Before God. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1956)

(1)           "God, therefore, is not just nonspatial and untemporal, but in his dimension He is the Lord of all space and time, He encloses it and enfolds it as an ocean does an island. 

(2)           He is the infinity that limits the infinity of the world that is itself infinite in both space and time, for we can set no limits to either space or time."

(3)           A merely ‘supernatural’ God, therefore, must be replaced by a God who really stands clear of entanglement with the created world and who is really Lord and not just a superman" (in Erickson, 390-391).                    

(4)           "That God is transcendent and beyond our full comprehension is emphasized both in the Old and New Testaments"  (Hughes, 59).

(5)           Something of mystery will always be part of our conceptions of God.

e.             This difference calls for our worship.

(1)           A sense of awe, wonder, reverence, and adoration should proceed from us.  (See Erick, 378)

(2)           It would be hard to worship a man with weakness and limitations common to mankind.

(3)           We must approach God in humility and confession.

(4)           We take off our shoes in His presence.

f.              H. M. Hughes, in The Christian Idea of God, writes:

"The value of this assertion of the transcendence of God lies less in its contribution to theology than in its influence upon the theologian himself, in creating a modest reserve, an attitude of reverence, even of awe toward this Reality of realities."  (p.59)

5.             Cautions

a.             Karl Barth reacted against the complacent liberalism of his day by restating Kierkegaard’s insistence upon the absolute qualitative distinction between God and man (Erickson, 377).

God is described as "wholly Other" (Hughes, 63).

b.             But if this were true in an absolute sense, we could not know God, or even speak of Him.

But Barth and Kierkegaard write volume after volume about God (Erick, 378).

c.             It is wrong to deny that God can reveal Himself or that man is in God’s image, creating a point of contact.  Barth went to an extreme on this concept.

This denial was characteristic of the Neo-Orthodox theologians.

d.             John Baillie, Our Knowledge of God, 237.

e.             H. M. Hughes, The Christian Idea of God, 78

"This over-emphasis will fulfill a useful purpose if it serves to reverse the swing of the pendulum from the direction of pure immanentism, without, however, sending it the whole way in the opposite direction; if it restores the ideas or the Majesty and Sovereignty of God to their proper place in Christian thought"  (78).

f.              The Bible does point to a communion between man and God.

g.             The lopsided emphasis on either divine transcendence or immanence will eventually lead to attempts to redress the imbalance by moving too far in the other direction (Grenz and Olson, 311).

Ephesians 4:6CAone God and Father of us all, who is above all and in all.”

Both God’s transcendence and immanence are affirmed here (Grudem, 267).

III.        THE NAMES OF GOD

A             Significance of Personal Names in the Bible

1.             In the Bible a person’s name stands for the person in his individuality.

a.             Adam named the animals in accord with their individuality.

b.             Parents chose a name which they hoped would characterize their child.

2.             When natures changed, often names were changed accordingly. (K, 26)

Jacob  6  Israel

3.             The significance of names is hard to understand in our culture; the closest to it we have is our nicknames.

B.            The Significance of Divine Names in the Bible

1.             The name of God is His revelation of Himself.

a.             It is He Himself, as He reveals Himself.  (K, 26)

(1)           The names of God are "those appellatives which designate God and by means of which we address him as an independent, personal being" (Bavinck, 98).

(2)           "All that which can be known of God by virtue of his revelation is called by Scripture: God’s name."

b.             "Our name stands for our honor, our worth, our personality, our individuality" (Bavinck, Doctrine of God, 83).

(1)           There is a close connection in Scripture between God and His name.

(2)           This is not an arbitrary connection, but one established by God Himself (Bavinck, 84).

c.             In Scripture "to be" and "to be called" indicate the same idea, though viewed from different angles (Bavinck, 85).

d.             "By means of his name God places Himself in a very definite relation to us"  (Bavinck, 86).

(1)           "Although in himself God is ‘anonymous, i.e., without name,’ never-theless, in his revelation he is ‘polyonymous, i.e., possessing many names’" (Bavinck, 88).

(2)           We have a poverty of expression since we can suggest no perfect name for Him (Bavinck, 88).

e.             The names of God in the Bible do not describe Him as He is in Himself, in his inner essence.

Our language about God is anthropomorphic (Bavinck, 91).

(1)           The names of God describe Him in language borrowed from the Creation. (Bavinck, 94)

(2)           Hymn, "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded," Line 3--"What language shall I borrow, to thank Thee, dearest friend . . . ."

(3)           "It is proper for us to speak of God in language derived from the sphere of the creature, for God is related to his creatures." (Bavinck, 95)

(4)           We have no satisfactory alternative to anthropomorphism. (Bavinck, 92)

(5)           "We have the right to anthropomorphize God because He himself theomorphized when he created man." (Bavinck, 97)

f.              There is an analogical character to our knowledge of God. (Bavinck, 98) (See also Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, 86)

g.             In the New Jerusalem, believers have God’s name on their foreheads. (Rev. 3:12; 22:4)

They are marked by the "sign" of God as His possession.

2.             Exodus 20:7--"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain . . . ."

a.             God holds His name very dear.  The entire pattern of names was to be held in respect as a vital part of God’s revelation of Himself.

b.             No aspect of His nature revealed by His names was to be taken frivolously. (ZPEB, 2:760)

3.             The etymology of the names is relevant, but is not definitive for understanding the meaning of the divine names. Some names used for God were current in the ancient world (ZPEB, 2:760).

C.            The Primary Names for God in the Old Testament

1.             Elohim (El, Elim, Eloab, Elah)  (Th, 52; ZPEB, 2:761)

a.             Originally, Elohim was  a Canaanite word which was taken over by the Hebrews.  (K, 27)  It is a common name for deity in the O.T.

El is one of the oldest designations for deity in the ancient world.

"El forms the basic component for the general term for God in Babylonia and Arabia, as well as with the Israelite people" (ZPEB, 2:761)

b.             {yiholE)  (Elohim) is first found in Genesis 1:1 and seems to denote power, greatness, height. (ZPEB, 2:761)

l") (‘hl) is first found in Genesis 14:18 (Englishman’s Hebrew & Ch. Concordance, 76).

c.             The original meaning could have been:

(1)           to be strong

(2)           to have extended sphere of control

(3)           to possess binding force  (ZPEB, 761).

Certainly, whichever is adopted, there is a stress on the distance between God and man.  Fear and trembling are felt in the face of an overwhelming majesty. (ZPEB, 761)

d.             The name has the connotation of power and of transcendence.

(1)           "It expresses the idea of absolute transcendence with respect to the entire universe."  (Bavinck, God, 100)

(2)           It is a general or classificatory word.

(3)           God is not a thing, a man, or an animal, but is of that class of beings called God, there is only one God.  (K, 27)

2.             Yahweh or Jehovah (hwhy or hfwh:y)

a.             This name first occurs in Genesis 2:4.

However, it is explained in Exodus 3:13-15 (to Moses).

Here God revealed the significance of the name. (Bavinck, 106)

J. A. Motyer, The Revelation of the Divine Name  (London: Tyndale Press, 1959), p. 12.

b.             The original meaning and derivation of this name are unknown. (Th, 52)

(1)           It seems to have originally been "He which Is" or "He who is truly present."  (ZPEB, 761)

(2)           The name is from the word "to be" (hfyfh)  hayah) (Th, 53).

c.             This is a specifically Israelite name for God (ZPEB, 761).

(1)           This one was definitely the God of Israel (Judges 5:3-4).

(2)           The uniqueness of this name is testified to also by the Moabite Stone. (Bavinck, 104)

d.             It is the personal name of God par excellence   (Bavnick, 107; Th, 52).

(1)           It is the personal name of God.  (K, 27)

(2)           God gave this name of Himself.

It was the most sacred and most distinctive name for God. (Berk, 49)

(3)           It is the covenant name.

In this name God reveals Himself as the God of grace. (Bavinck, 103)

(4)           It presents God as entering into an intimate, saving relationship with His people.

(5)           God wants us to know Him as a person.

e.             Sometimes the variation "Jah" in used in the Psalms.

"Jah" is one syllable for Yahweh (K, 27).  It is also the concluding syllable of "Halleujah."

f.              The original vowels and the pronunciation of this name are uncertain.

(1)           In Hebrew, consonants were written, but vowels had to be passed on by oral tradition.

The name of God was written hwhy, but never pronounced.

(2)           The Jews were terribly afraid of taking the name of God in vain.

Leviticus 24:16 was read by the Jews as "He that nameth the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to death."  (Berk, 49)

(3)           We do not know what the original vowels were.

The vowels in our present Hebrew text were inserted by the Masoretes   in about A.D. 800. 

(4)           The Jews substituted the word "Lord" for "Yahweh."  The original name was probably "Yahweh", but we are not sure.

}Odf) (Adonai)  Gen. 15:2,8 (see BDB, 10).

(5)           These vowels (for "Lord") were put with hwhy which together are rendered "Jehovah."  (Langenscheidt’s, p.123)

(6)           The four consonants hwhy are called the tetragram (ZPEB, 761) or tetragrammaton (Payne, Theology of the O. T., 148).

(7)           This name means that God will be everything for His people (Bavinck, 105).

(8)           His self-existence is basic to the name, but is not its direct meaning (Bavinck, 106).

(9)           This name "implies and guarantees that God is and remains the God of his people, immutable in his grace and faithfulness"(Bavinck, God, 106).

(10)         "Jehovah describes Him as the One whose grace and faithfulness endure forever"  (Bavinck, 108).

3.             "The Lord"  (Adonai)  (Joshua 3:11)

a.             This name is used frequently in the O. T.

b.             It refers both to God and to man.

Only context can distinguish.

English versions capitalize "Lord" (i.e. "LORD") when the translators think that it refers to God. (K, 28)

c.             The primary meaning of the term is "Master."

d.             The name denotes:

(1)           The right of ownership and possession the master has of the slave.

(2)           The right of implicit obedience the master has from the slave (K, 28).

4.             Various Combinations of These Names

a.             Genesis 22:13-14   Jehovah-Jireh                       "The Lord will provide"

Exodus 15:26                         Jehovah-Rapha                    "The Lord that healeth"

Exodus 17:8-15                      Jehovah-Nissi                       "The Lord our banner"

Judges 6:24                           Jehovah-Shalom                   "The Lord our Peace"

Psalm 23:1                              Jehovah-Raah                       "The Lord is my shepherd"

Jeremiah 23:6                         Jehovah-Tsidkenu               "The Lord our       righteousness"

Ezekiel 48:35                          Jehovah-Shammah               "The Lord is present" (Th,                 53)

b.             Jehovah Elohim    "the Lord God"

Adonai Jehovah   "the Lord God"  (KJV)

Jehovah Sabaoth "the Lord of hosts" (K, 28)

Elohim Sabaoth    "God of hosts" (I Sam 4:4; II Sam 6:2)

("Hosts of angels" is the best interpretation) (Bavinck, 108).

c.             "Jehovah Sbha’ôth characterizes him as the King in the fulness of his glory, surrounded by organized hosts of angels, governing the entire universe as the Omnipotent One, and in his temple receiving the honor and adoration of all his creatures."  (Bavinck, God, 108)

(1)           This name indicates God’s role as the One who controls all created agencies and beings. (ZPEB, 763)

(2)           It expresses exaltedness, transcendence and omnipotence (ZPEB, 763).

d.             El ShaddaiB"Almighty God"  (KJV)

(1)           Genesis 17:1; 28:3; 35:11

(2)           There is the concept of power and invincible strength in the background when the word is used.  (Bavinck, God, 101)

(3)           God who is not only the creator and sustainer of the universe, but also the initiator and keeper of covenants.  (ZPEB, 763)

e.             El ElyonB"Most High" or "Most High God" (K, 28)

(1)           Genesis 14:18; Numbers 24:16

(2)           It denotes God as the highest, the supreme Being.

(3)           It pictures the exclusiveness and the supremacy of Israel’s God. (ZPEB, 763)

f.              El OlamB"Everlasting God"   (K, 28)

(1)           Genesis 17:7; Genesis 21:33

(2)           This name calls attention to God’s eternal duration, His agelessness and His perpetuity amid the changing tides of natural and human events.  (ZPEB, 763)

5.             Other Minor Names

a.             "Rock"  (Deut. 32:4,15,18,30,31; Also Psalms and Isaiah)

God is described as a fortress or shield. (ZPEB, 763)

b.             "Holy One"--Psalms and Isaiah (over 30 times)

This name implies separation from all that is unworthy and unrighteous, and carries the connotation also of power, distance from man and the world, and in a certain sense aloofness and inaccessibility" (ZPEB, 764).

c.             There are a few other minor names which also occur.

Biblical authors refer to God as: King, Tower (high tower), Father, Lawgiver, Deliverer, Husbandman (caretaker, gardener), Judge, Husband (K, 29).

D.            The Primary Names for God in the New Testament

The designations in the N. T. are simpler. (ZPEB, 2:764)

1.             Theos (qeo/j, "God")

a.             This name occurs more than 1,000 times.

b.             It denotes names El and Elohim and their compounds.

c.             In general, it takes for granted O. T. designations (in general) (ZPEB, 764).

d.             It emphasizes self-sufficiency, self-determination and absolute righteousness.

e.             In the background is the transcendent God, though He is no stranger to the world.  (ZPEB, 764)

2.             Kurios (ku/rioj, "Lord")

a.             This name gathers together the names Yahweh and Adonai from the O. T.

b.             It is applied to both the Father and the Son.

c.             At times the term could be used in the sense of master, but usually in the sense of "supreme deity." (K, 29)

3.             The N. T. also refers to many divine titles in "more or less" figurative ways and in compounds using these two other names for God.

Abba                                      Holy Father

Father                                     Righteous Father

Heavenly Father                   Father of Lights

Father of Spirits                    Father of Glory

4.             The most distinctive development in the use of the divine names in the N. T. is the introduction of the name "Father" (path/r) (Matthew 10:20; John 5:17) (ZPEB, 764).

a.             The term was used in other religions (TDNT, 5:951ff).

b.             Berkhof admits that "Father" was not a new name for God introduced by the N. T. (pp. 50-51).

c.             The idea of Father was foreshadowed in the O. T., particularly in the relationship existing between Yahweh and Israel; it remained for Christ to make the usage concrete and intimate (ZPEB, 764).

d.             The term "Father" was very natural to Christ (ZPEB, 764).

e.             God was Father to Christ in a unique sense, yet the Fatherhood of God was something to be shared (ZPEB, 764).  Christ’s use of language was filial, not philosophical.

f.              "The name Father gave dimensions to the understanding of the Deity which neither the name Theos nor the title Kurios could afford" (ZPEB, 765).

g.             The name "Father" becomes fully significant in the context of Christian redemption (ZPEB, 765).

h.             The name "Father" is used only occasionally in the O. T. in a religious sense.   "Father" is used far more in a religious sense in the N. T. (NIDNTT, 1:617-618).

i.              "The concordance alone tells us that in the concept of the Fatherhood of God we see one of the central ideas of primitive Christian theology" (NIDNTT, 1:619).

j.              Jesus linked the Fatherhood of God to men’s relationship to himself.  "Your Father" was used only when Jesus speaks to the disciples (NIDNTT, 1:620).

IV.           THE PERSONALITY (PERSONHOOD) OF GOD

A.         Is God a personal being?

Though He is incorporeal, He is a personal Being.

This truth is important both for our overall understanding of God and our worship of Him.

B.         What is personality?

1.             Albert C. Knudson (The Doctrine of God_ defines personality according to a three-fold division of the psyche (will, intellect, emotions).

a.             Personality in its essence "is selfhood, self-knowledge and self-control; or, more concretely, a person is one who thinks and feels and wills."

b.             Such a being by his very nature seeks communion with others. (p. 299)

2.             A. H. Strong--"By personality, we mean the power of self-consciousness and of self-determination" (252).

3.             Stanley E. Lindquist, (Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 404 [Article "Personality"]) writes:

"This word is derived from the Latin word persona, with the following psychological meaning:  the fluid and changing mental organization within an individual (and as observable to others)  of all the thinking, emotional, and physical characteristics which have enough consistency to establish him as a unique person."

4.             J. O. Buswell, Jr., in A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, writes:

"From the Biblical point of view, a personal Being is one who is capable of self-consciousness and self-determination, a being to whom the pronouns ‘I’, ‘thou’ and ‘he’ can be meaningfully applied.  In the language of Descartes, a person is res cogitans, a thinking being " (1:33-34).

5.             "In modern psychology the idea of personality is greatly broadened to include many or all of the characteristics listed."

a.             God is personal in an enlarged sense.

b.             There is much debate in modern psychology over personality theory.

c.             It is interesting to note how Chafer puts it (1:185):

(1)           Those elements which combine to form personality are intellect, sensibility, and will; but all of these acting together require a freedom both of external action and of choice of ends toward which action is directed.

(2)           Intellect must direct, sensibility must desire, and will must determine in the direction of rational ends.

(3)           There can be no personality, either human, angelic, or divine, apart from this complex of essentials.

C.         How do we know that God is a person?

1.         Man, who is created in God’s image (Genesis 2:7), is a person.

2.         Jesus Christ, the highest revelation of God is fully personal.

This is the conclusive reason.

John 14:3CAHe who has seen Me hath seen the Father.”

Colossians 2:9CAFor in Him dwells all the fullness of God in bodily form.”

3.         The Bible presents God as having all the characteristics of personality.

a.         He is and has life (Deuteronomy 5:26; Psalm84:2).

b.         He has intelligence (Isaiah 11:2-3; Romans 11:33).

c.         God has conscious purpose (Isaiah 14:26; Ephesians 1:11).

He constructs a future pattern and works in relation to that pattern.

d.         God is active (John 5:17).

e.         God has freedom or self-determination (Daniel 4:35; Romans 9:18).

f.          God has self-consciousness.

"Self-consciousness is, first, the power which a rational spirit has of making itself its own object, and, secondly, of knowing that it has done so"  (Shedd, 1:179).

This quality of self-consciousness is what Buswell means when he speaks of personal pronouns being appropriate when used of a personal being.

g.         God has emotional capacity.

Wrath (Romans 1:18)

Love (I John 4:16)

Pity (compassion) (Psalm 103:13).

Hate (Romans 9:13)

Sympathy (Isaiah 63:9)

Grief (Judges 10:16; Ephesians 4:30)

Jealousy (Deuteronomy 5:9)

Rejoicing (Isaiah 62:5; Psalm 16:11)

4.         God performs the activities of personality

a.             He speaks and communicates.

b.             He has a personal presence.

(1)           Though the term "person" is not in the Bible, the Hebrew {yinfp  (panim) and the Greek pro/swpon come close to expressing that idea (Berkhof, 65).

(2)        pro/swpon means face, countenance, appearance, surface, person (Gal. 2:6; II Cor. 1:11; 2:10; Mark 12:14; Matthew 27:16) (BAGD, 720-721).

(3)        God’s presence which is described in both Testaments, is clearly a personal presence (Berkhof, 65).

(4)        Prayer assumes God’s personhood.

c.         He fellowships with men.

I John 1:3--"and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ."

(1)        "The invitation to such communion presupposes and necessitates a likeness of nature between those who participate" (Chafer, 1:186),

(2)        ". . . the great doctrines of mercy, grace, forgiveness, imputation, and justification can only be meaningful if God is genuinely personal"  (EDT, 452).

V.         THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

A.         The Unity of God

1.         His unity means that there is but one God and that the divine essence is undivided and indivisible (Th, 134).

a.         Scripture

Deuteronomy 4:35--"To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him."

Deuteronomy 6:4--"Hear, O Israel!  The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!" ("Shemah Israel").

I Timothy 2:5--"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

John 17:3--"And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."

Isaiah 45:5--"I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God."

b.         In the Divine Being there is but one indivisible essence.

(1)        The terms "ousia," "essence," and "substance" are used interchangeably though slight distinctions can be made between them (Berkhof, 87).

(2)        God is the only God; there is only one infinite and perfect being.(Th, 134).

c.         God is a unity, but not a unit.

A unit, like a stone, or a stick, is marked by mere singleness.  It admits of no interior distinctions, and is incapable of that inherent trinality which is necessary to self-knowledge and self-consciousness (Shedd, 1:254; Th, 134).

2.         Why is God’s unity taught first in the Bible?

a.         Mankind had fallen into idolatry.

Isaiah 37:12; Psalm 115:1-9

b.         Even Israel was continually going after strange gods.

I Kings 11:2,4

Jeremiah 2:11

3.         The significance of this truth.

a.         He is God of heaven and earth, not just of Israel.

Deuteronomy 4:39

b.         He cannot give His glory to another.

Isaiah 42:8

c.         God must come first in our allegiance and love.

Exodus 20:3; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:4-5

B.         The Formulation of the Doctrine of the Trinity

1.         From where is this doctrine derived?

a.         It does not come from natural theology.

(1)        It is derived from special revelation (Th, 135; Berk, 85).

(2)        "The doctrine of the Trinity is peculiar to the religion of the Bible." (Hodge, 1:442-443)

b.         It is not a speculative or abstract truth. 

c.         It is not a doctrine formed by an arbitrary decision on the part of the Church or her teachers.  (Hodge, 1:442-443) 

2.         Does the word "Trinity" occur in the Bible?

a.         There is no explicit formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible. (Th, 135; Th, 2:190; K, 86) 

b.         The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be proved from any one passage. (Hodge, 1:446)  We must look at the Bible carefully.  The Bible is our authority.  (Th, 136)

(1)        Why does the Bible make certain statements?

(2)        What is the great reality underlying these statements?

c.         The Doctrine of Trinity seems to have been first formulated in 317, but the teaching goes back much earlier, even to the Bible itself.    

(1)        The Greek Trias was used in A.D. 181 by Theophilus of Antioch. (Th, 2:90)

(2)        Tertullian first used the term "Trinity" and formulated the doctrine. (Berk, 82)

(3)        The Latin trinitas was first used by Tertullian (ca. A.D. 220) (Th, 2:90), though he was deficient with his unwarranted subordination of the Son.    

(4)        Tertullian deals with an "economic Trinity."

(a)        All of his formulations are set within the works of creation and redemption.

(b)        He hardly addresses at all a Trinity within the divine nature quite apart from God’s activity.

(c)        He sees God as active rather than abstract (NDT, 677).

3.         The Doctrine of the Trinity is a great mystery. (Th, 136)

a.         It is, however, a mystery which sheds a marvelous light on God, on nature, and on man.

b.         "The doctrine is, therefore, not a mere burden on our credulity, but a practical necessity to a true world and life view." (Th, 136)

c.         Is beyond the comprehension of man. (Berk, 89)

(1)        Man cannot comprehend it and make it intelligible.

(2)        The Church "has never tried to explain the mystery of the Trinity, but only sought to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity in such a manner that the errors which endangered it were warded off" (Berkhof, 89).

d.         This aspect of God’s being should be regarded as a mystery which goes beyond our reason rather than a paradox which is contrary to reason (Erickson, 338).

4.         What is the meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity?

a.         "That there are three eternal distinctions in the one divine essence, known respectively as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  These three distinctions are three persons, and so we may speak of the tripersonality of God."  (Th, 135; Th, 2:90)

b.         The Athanasian Creed states, "We worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons, nor separating the substance." (Th, 135; Th, 2:90)

c.         Trinity means "three-oneness," "threefoldness," or "Triunity."

d.         The Council of Constantinople (A. D. 381) declared that there is "one ou)si/a in three u(posta/seij  (Erickson, 335).

e.             Luther stated, "God is one in essence, but in the one essence there are three distinct persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost."

f.              "In this one divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Berk, 87)

(1)           It is difficult to find the most appropriate term.

(2)           Calvin tried not to use "persons" but eventually came back to the term.

(3)           The Greeks used "hypostasis" (hupostasis).  (Berk, 87)

(4)           It is inaccurate to say that 1/3 of the divine essence belongs to each member.

g.             "The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons."

(1)           The divine nature can exist wholly and indivisibly in more than one person.  (Berk, 88)

(2)           Illustration: 1 + 1 + 1 ‘ 1.

(3)           There are three Persons--first (Father), second (Son), third (Holy Spirit).

(4)           The Son is eternally begotten (generated).

(5)           The Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son (spiration or procession). (Berk, 96-97)

h.             Scripture, when speaking of the members of the Godhead, often states that all things are

e)k  (out of)           the Father

dia/  (through)      the Son

e)n  (in)  the Holy Spirit  (Berk, 89).

C.            The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament

1.             The major teaching in O.T. concerns the unity of God, but there are a number of intimations of a plurality of persons in the Godhead.  (Th, 136; Th, 2:90)

These intimations (hints) prepare the way for the later revelation of the doctrine.  The seed or germ is planted in the O. T.

2.             The use of the plural name for God in the O.T.

a.             Elohim ({yiholE)), the most frequent name for God, appears over two thousand times.  (Genesis 1:1)

b.             The plural ending is used with a singular verb.  Many scholars understand this phenomenon to indicate only a reflection of the majesty and fulness of God.

c.             It is unwise to build a strong case on this word alone.

(1)           Thiessen considers this case to be dubious (2:90).

(2)           Bavinck states, "It is rather to be regarded as a plural of abstraction (Eswald), or of quantity (Oehler), or as an intensive plural, serving to indicate fulness of life and power (Delitzsch) (The Doctrine of God, 100).

3.             The use of plural pronouns referring to God.

Genesis 1:26--"Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our

likeness.’"

Genesis 3:22--"Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold the man has become like one of

Us, knowing good and evil.’"

Isaiah 6:8--"Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and

who will go for Us?’"

a.             The Jews understood these pronouns as referring to angels.

b.             Some try to explain this usage as a plural of majesty or the editorial ‘we.’

c.             There is no contemporary evidence, however, for this usage.

d.             Only the doctrine of the Trinity adequately explains this use of plural pronouns.

4.             The name of God seems to be applied to more than one person in the same passage.

Genesis 18:1-2 and 18:22-33--God appears to Abraham and Sarah.

Psalm 45:6-7--This is the strongest passage in which God’s God is addressed as

‘thy God.’

"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; A sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

It is cited in Hebrews 1:8 as referring to the Son of God.

Psalm 110:1--"The Lord says to my Lord: Sit at My right hand . . . ."

Isaiah 48:16--"Come near to Me, listen to this: from the first I have not spoken

in secret, from the time it took place, I was there.  And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit."

Three persons are involved in the communion.

This is the most significant passage suggesting the Trinity in the whole O. T.

Isaiah 61:1--"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord has

anointed Me to bring good news to the afflicted . . . ." (applied by Christ to Himself).

5.             The deity of the Messiah.

Isaiah 7:14--the name Immanuel is introduced.

Isaiah 9:6--"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the

government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

Jeremiah 23:6--The One predicted will be called "the Lord our righteousness."

Daniel 7:13--One is referred to as the "Son of Man."

6.             Jehovah has a Son.

Psalm 2:7--"I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord; He said to Me, ‘Thou art

My Son, Today I have begotten Thee.’"

7.             The Spirit is distinguished from God.

Genesis 1:2--"And the Spirit of God (axUr) ruah) was moving over the surface of

the waters."

Psalm 51:11--"Do not cast me away from Thy presence, and do not take Thy Holy

Spirit from me."

Zechariah 7:12; Ezekiel 2:2

8.             The Angel of the Lord (probably the pre-incarnate Christ). (Th, 137)

a.             The angel is called God  (Genesis 16:13; 48:15-16; Judges 13:20-22)

b.             He is distinguished from God; He is a third party.

Genesis 22:11-12

I Chronicles 21:15-27

c.             Malachi 3:1Bthe angel will come to His temple.

d.             Judges 13:20-22--"We have seen God."

9.             The tendency to consider Wisdom as a Person.

a.             We must be careful at this point because of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

(Proverbs 8:24 speaks of wisdom as being brought forth.)

b.             Wisdom is often spoken of a something objective to the being of God.

Proverbs 8:14-36--"I, wisdom, dwell . . . ."  (5:17, 30)

Proverbs 1 and 8 particularly objectify wisdom.

10.           Summary of the Old Testament

a.             There are hints of the doctrine of Trinity, but not a clear revelation as in the N.T.

b.             There are certainly phenomena in the O. T. which are peculiar in the light of the rigid monotheism of the Jews.

D.            The Doctrine of the Trinity in the N. T.

1.             General Statements and Allusions

Matthew 3:16-17--"And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him; and behold a voice out of the heavens, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’"

John 14:16-17--"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever."

Matthew 28:19--"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

2 Corinthians 13:14--"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."

I Peter 1:2--"According to the fore-knowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood" (Th, 138).

2.             The Father is recognized as God.

Galatians 1:1B"God the Father."

Colossians 1:3B"We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

3.             The Son is recognized as God.

This fact is of the greatest possible significance for Christianity.  (Th, 138)

a.             He is said to possess divine attributes. (Th, 2:92)

(1)           He is eternal.