Category Archives: Bibliology

Theophilus of Antioch: Inspired by Demons

12 Wednesday Jul 2017

Posted by in Ante-Nicene, Bibliology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Theophilus then proceeds to speak of the difference between the biblical and pagan understanding of the world: their inspiration:

And without meaning to do so, they acknowledge that they know not the truth; but being inspired by demons and puffed up by them, they spoke at their instance whatever they said. For indeed the poets,—Homer, to wit, and Hesiod, being, as they say, inspired by the Muses,—spoke from a deceptive fancy, and not with a pure but an erring spirit.

Now this is without question impolitic in contemporary culture: these poets spoke by demons or “deceptive fancy”.  It is interesting that we, at least in educated society do not believe in such things. And yet Shamans, Astrology, and any number of other such things are believes.  Unabashedly demonic merchandise and imagery is very common.  The culture is frankly gnostic.  A scientist on staff at an internationally known institution and respected institution told me, “My colleagues are quite superstitious”.

Theophilous contrasts this with the prophets:

But men of God carrying in them a holy spirit and becoming prophets, being inspired and made wise by God, became God-taught, and holy, and righteous. Wherefore they were also deemed worthy of receiving this reward, that they should become instruments of God, and contain the wisdom that is from Him, through which wisdom they uttered both what regarded the creation of the world and all other things. For they predicted also pestilences, and famines, and wars.

And they not only predicated, but their predications have come true:

and they all have spoken things consistent and harmonious with each other, both what happened before them and what happened in their own time, and what things are now being fulfilled in our own day: wherefore we are persuaded also concerning the future things that they will fall out, as also the first have been accomplished.

Theophilus of Antioch, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 97.

Infallibility and Inerrancy in the 17th Century

21 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Bibliology, Scripture, Thomas Goodwin, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

There is a contention that “inerrancy” is a bit of a new doctrine (something post-Hodge and Warfield) and is thus a bit of an invention:

The CSBI [Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy] goes on the defensive in article 16 when it affirms that inerrancy “has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history” and denies that it “is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.” There is a grain of truth here, but some palpable problems as well. First, Christian believers over the course of history have repeatedly affirmed that the Holy Scriptures come from God, they are to be read and studied in the churches, they are the inscripturated form of the rule of faith, they emit divine authority, they are without falsehood, and they are true and trustworthy. 8 However, to insist that the CSBI understanding of inerrancy is and always has been normative in church history is a bit of a stretch.

Michael Bird, “Inerrany is not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) Zondervan (2013-12-10) Kindle Locations 2448-2449. In response, I would like to note the following use of “infallibility” and “unerringness” (inerrancy) from the 17th Century Puritan Thomas Goodwin:

There is a contention that “inerrancy” is a bit of a new doctrine (something post-Hodge and Warfield) and is thus a bit of an invention:

The CSBI [Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy] goes on the defensive in article 16 when it affirms that inerrancy “has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history” and denies that it “is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.” There is a grain of truth here, but some palpable problems as well. First, Christian believers over the course of history have repeatedly affirmed that the Holy Scriptures come from God, they are to be read and studied in the churches, they are the inscripturated form of the rule of faith, they emit divine authority, they are without falsehood, and they are true and trustworthy. 8 However, to insist that the CSBI understanding of inerrancy is and always has been normative in church history is a bit of a stretch.

Michael Bird, “Inerrany is not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) Zondervan (2013-12-10) Kindle Locations 2448-2449. In response, I would like to note the following use of “infallibility” and “unerringness” (inerrancy) from the 17th Century Puritan Thomas Goodwin:

Apostleship was an office extraordinary in the Church of God, appointed for a time for the first rearing and governing of the Church of the New Testament, and to deliver the faith which was about wants to be given to the Saints (as Jude speaks), and the apostles are therefore entitled the foundation the church is built on, Eph. ii. 20; which office, accordingly, had many extraordinary privileges annexed to it, suited (as all the callings by God and his institutions are) to attain that and which was so extraordinary–as, namely, unlimitedness of commission to teach all nations, Matt. xxvviii.19. They likewise had an infallibility and unerringness, this, whether in their preaching or writing (2 Cor. i. ver. 13 and 18 compared), which was absolutely necessary for them to have, seeing they were to lay the foundation for all ages, although in their personal walking’s they might her, as Peter did, Gal. ii. 10.

Thomas Goodwin, “Exposition of Ephesians 1”, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, Volume 1,(Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 5.

Thomas Goodwin, “Exposition of Ephesians 1”, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, Volume 1,(Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 5.

The Spiritual Chymist: Upon the Bucket and the Wheel

01 Wednesday Feb 2017

Posted by in Bibliology, Scripture, Uncategorized, William Spurstowe, William Spurstowe

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

William Spurstowe, 1666:  MEDITATION XXXIX
Upon the Bucket and the Wheel

14598163079_59181a86ae_o

The saying of Democritus which he spoke concerning the philosophical truth that it did you hide itself and take up it’s about in and deep well may much more be affirmative theological truth when the whole doctrine of the gospel is called the mystery of Christ and the great mystery of godliness that there should be three distinct persons in one essence [the Trinity] and two distinct natures and one person [the Incarnation]. That virginity should conceive, Eternity be born; immortality die and mortality rise from death to life. Are not these, and many more of the like intricacies, unparalleled mysteries? Maybe not justly say, As the Samaritan woman did to our savior when he asked water of her, the well is deep, and who can descend into it, or fathom it?

And yet such is the pride and arrogance he of many men, as that, not contending themselves with the simplicity of believing, many make reason the sole standard where by to measure both the principles and conclusions of faith — for which it [reason] is is unapt as the weak of a bat hold the sun when it shines in its full strength; or the bill of a small bird to receive the ocean.

These high mysteries are not to be scanned, but to be believed; the knowledge and certainty of which does not arise from the evidence of reason from the revelation made of them in the Holy Scriptures; the mouth of God — who is truth itself and cannot lie, has spoken them, and therefore it cannot be otherwise.

But must then reason be wholly shut out as a useless thing in the Christian religion, are must it be confined to the agenda matters of duty and morality, In which you cannot be denied to be both of necessity and constant use? Surely even the creeds, also the doctrines and points which are properly of the faith, do not refuse to sober use of reason, so it be employed as a handmaid and not as mistress.

I have therefore thought that faith is as the bucket, which can best to send you this deep well of mystery and that reason is as the wheel, which stands ever the mouth of it, and keeps always its certain and fixed distance: but yet by its motion is instrumental both to let down the bucket and also to draw up again.

Faith discovers the deep things of God, then reason teaches us to submit ourselves and it to the obedience of faith that so it is. But never becomes more foolish and dangerous then when it busies itself and inquiries, and makes Nicodemus question, How can these things be? Then it turns giddy and loses itself in distracted and motions.

Alas, how unlike the ways and councils of God if they were no other but such as the wisest of men could trace out? How little glory with faith also give to God, if it did not pour forth its strength in asserting his power to affect greater things than can fall within the compass of natural disquisition? Yea, how could the Gospel be acquitted of the Jews stumbling at it, as dishonorable to their law? And the Gentiles derided as absurd in their philosophy, if that reason must be the measure of its mysteries?

Nature is so far from finding out what the gospel discovers, as that he cannot yield on to it, when it is revealed without a spirit of faith to assist it.

Be wise therefore, oh Christians, and set the bounds to your reason, beyond which it may not pass: as Moses did to the Israelites, while faith descends into the deeps of Gospel Mysteries, which angels with stretched out next have a more desire to pry into than ability perfectly to understand.

Now the boundary of reason is, confer and infer: to confer one scripture with another; and to infer conclusions, and to decide instructions thence, buy a clear logical discourse. But if you go further to gays, it may justly fear to be smitten of God, and like the pioneer or bold miner who digs into far for his rich vein of ore meet with a damp which chokes him.

My prayer therefore Shelby that of the apostles to Christ
Adde nobis fidem: Lord Increase our faith.

For if my faith do not exceed my reason, though advanced as high as a pitch as her Solomon had, yet might I well be numbered among those, whom St. Peter said are blind and cannot see far off.

B.B. Warfield on how God prepared the human authors to write inerrant Scripture

04 Sunday Dec 2016

Posted by in B.B. Warfield, Bibliology, Scripture, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

One argument made from a “conservative” position against the inerrancy of Scripture is that we must admit error in the Scripture if we take the human authorship seriously. Unless we we want to subscribe to a dictation theory of inspiration (the human authors merely copied what God or an angel said to them), human error is a necessary correlate of Scripture as we have it.

Warfield responded to that argument as follows. First, he explicitly rejected a diction model of inspiration:

[T]he gift of Scripture through its human authors took place by a process much more intimate than can be expressed by “dictation,” and that tit took place in a process in which the control of the Holy Spirit was too complete and pervasive to permit the human qualities of the secondary authors in any way to condition the purity of the product as the word of God. The Scriptures, in other words, are conceived by the writes of the New Testament 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.

From his essay “Inspiration” (page 99 of volume 1 of the collected works). Warfield then explains how the work of God began well before the actual task of writing by creating and preparing the men who would be the authors to be the authors. This move by Warfield is brilliant, because it draws the fully natural act of normal men into relationship with the supernatural act of the Holy Spirit in inspiration:

And there is the preparation of the 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. When “inspiration,” technically so called, is superinduced on lines of preparation like these, it takes on quite a different aspect from that which it bears when it is thought of as an isolated action of the Divine Spirit operating out of all relation to historical processes. Representations are sometimes made as if, when God wished to produce sacred books which would incorporate His will—a series of letters like those of Paul, for example—He was reduced to the necessity of going down to earth and painfully scrutinizing the men He found there, seeking anxiously for the one who, on the whole, promised best for His purpose; and then violently forcing the material He wished expressed through him, against his natural bent, and with as little loss from his recalcitrant characteristics as possible. Of course, nothing of the sort took place. If God wished to give His people a series of letters like Paul’s, He prepared a Paul to write them, and the Paul He brought to the task was a Paul who spontaneously would write just such letters.

If we bear this in mind, we shall know what estimate to place upon the common representation to the effect that the human characteristics of the writers must, and in point of fact do, condition and qualify the writings produced by them, the implication being that, therefore, we cannot get from man a pure word of God. As light that passes through the colored glass of a cathedral window, we are told, is light from heaven, but is stained by the tints of the glass through which it passes; so any word of God which is passed through the mind and soul of a man must come out discolored by the personality through which it is given, and just to that degree ceases to be the pure word of God. But what if this personality has itself been formed by God into precisely the personality it is, for the express purpose of communicating to the word given through it just the coloring which it gives it? What if the colors of the stained-glass window have been designed by the architect for the express purpose of giving to the light that floods the cathedral precisely the tone and quality it receives from them? What if the word of God that comes to His people is framed by God into the word of God it is, precisely by means of the qualities of the men formed by Him for the purpose, through which it is given? When we think of God the Lord giving by His Spirit a body of authoritative Scriptures to His people, we must remember that He is the God of providence and of grace as well as of revelation and inspiration, and that He holds all the lines of preparation as fully under His direction as He does the specific operation which we call technically, in the narrow sense, by the name of “inspiration.” The production of the Scriptures is, in point of fact, a long process, in the course of which numerous and very varied Divine activities are involved, providential, gracious, miraculous, all of which must be taken into account in any attempt to explain the relation of God to the production of Scripture. When they are all taken into account we can no longer wonder that the resultant Scriptures are constantly spoken of as the pure word of God. We wonder, rather, that an additional operation of God—what we call specifically “inspiration,” in its technical sense—was thought necessary. Consider, for example, how a piece of sacred history—say the Book of Chronicles, or the great historical work, Gospel and Acts, of Luke—is brought to the writing. There is first of all the preparation of the history to be written: God the Lord leads the sequence of occurrences through the development He has designed for them that they may convey their lessons to His people: a “teleological” or “aetiological” character is inherent in the very course of events. Then He prepares a man, by birth, training, experience, gifts of grace, and, if need be, of revelation, capable of appreciating this historical development and eager to search it out, thrilling in all his being with its lessons and bent upon making them clear and effective to others. When, then, by His providence, God sets this man to work on the writing of this history, will there not be spontaneously written by him the history which it was Divinely intended should be written? Or consider how a psalmist would be prepared to put into moving verse a piece of normative religious experience: how he would be born with just the right quality of religious sensibility, of parents through whom he should receive just the right hereditary bent, and from whom he should get precisely the right religious example and training, in circumstances of life in which his religious tendencies should be developed precisely on right lines; how he would be brought through just the right experiences to quicken in him the precise emotions he would be called upon to express, and finally would be placed in precisely the exigencies which would call out their expression. Or consider the providential preparation of a writer of a didactic epistle—by means of which he should be given the intellectual breadth and acuteness, and be trained in habitudes of reasoning, and placed in the situations which would call out precisely the argumentative presentation of Christian truth which was required of him. When we give due place in our thoughts to the universality of the providential government of God, to the minuteness and completeness of its sway, and to its invariable efficacy, we may be inclined to ask what is needed beyond this mere providential government to secure the production of sacred books which should be in every detail absolutely accordant with the Divine will.

Benjamin B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Revelation and Inspiration, vol. 1, 101–103.

What sufficiency of Scripture means

21 Friday Oct 2016

Posted by in Bibliology, Scripture

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

Van Til a great summary of sufficiency: 

“The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. And it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or indirectly. It tells us not only of the Christ and his work but it also tells us who God is and whence the universe has come. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven”

Defense of the Faith 

They possessed perfect knowledge

19 Wednesday Oct 2016

Posted by in Ante-Nicene, Bibliology, Theology of Biblical Counseling, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge

Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” III.1.1, in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 414.

Thomas Watson: 24 Helps to Read the Scripture.10

04 Saturday Jun 2016

Posted by in Bibliology, Faith, Reading, Thomas Watson, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

In this section, Watson makes one argument: To read the Scripture profitably, we must believe that the Scripture comes from God.

He supports that direction with the contention that the assertion of divine origin is not a bare assertion, but one grounded in reason. Thus, it is an interesting mix of presuppositional and evidentiary apologetic.

First, the basic direction

Give credence to the word written; believe it to be of God; see the name of God in every line. The Romans, that they might gain credit to their laws, reported that they were inspired by the gods at Rome. Believe the Scriptures to be divinely inspired. 2 Tim. 3:16: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.”

Before going further with this argument, we must realize the importance of this direction. If we do not believe the Scripture to be sacred, we cannot read it with any profit. All good which we receive from God comes through the conduit of faith, of trust and belief. If we do not trust or believe the words of Scripture, the words can never do us good. It did the disciples no good to be told that Jesus had risen from the dead, when they did not believe the story related by the woman. Luke 24:11.

Watson then turns to his evidence: He sets up his argument by testing the presuppositions against evidence. His basic argument runs as follows:

If the Scripture is divine, then it will have quality X.
It has quality X.
Therefore, the Scripture is divine.

Who but God could reveal the great doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement of Jesus Christ for sinners, the resurrection? Whence should the Scriptures come, if not from God?

He then makes a second argument which supports and develops the first.  The structure of the argument is:

If the Scripture were from someone beside it God, it would lack quality X.
It does not lack quality X.
Therefore, it is from God.

However, to make it more rhetorically emphatic, he phrases the argument, It is not from someone beside God, because it has quality X.

Sinners could not be the authors of Scripture; would they indite such holy lines, or inveigh so fiercely against the sins which they love?

Saints could not be the authors of Scripture; how could it stand with their sanctity to counterfeit God’s name, and put “thus saith the Lord,” to a book of their own devising?

Angels could not be the authors of Scripture. What angel in heaven durst personate God, and say, “I am the Lord?”

Then re-asserts his primary contention and adds additional divine qualities: antiquity, profundity, purity, harmony, efficacy.

Believe the pedigree of Scripture to be sacred, and to come from the Father of light. The antiquity of Scripture speaks its divinity. No human history extant reaches farther than Noah’s flood; but the Scripture treats of things before time. Beside, the majesty, profundity, purity and harmony of Scripture, show it could be breathed from none but God himself.

Add to this the efficacy the written word hath upon men’s consciences; by reading Scripture they have been turned into other men, as may be instanced in Austin, Junius, and others. If you should set a seal upon a piece of marble, and it should leave a print behind, you would say there was a strange virtue in that seal; so that, when the written word leaves a heavenly print of grace upon the heart, it argues it to be of divine authority. If you would profit by the word, you must believe it to be of God. Some skeptics question the verity of Scripture; though they have the articles of religion in their creed, yet not in their belief.

He ends with the restatement

Unbelief enervates the virtue of the word and makes it abortive; who will obey truths he does not believe? Heb. 4:2: “The word did not profit them, not being mixed with faith.”

Thomas Watson, “How We May Read the Scriptures with Most Spiritual Profit,” in The Bible and the Closet: Or How We May Read the Scriptures with the Most Spiritual Profit; and Secret Prayer Successfully Managed, ed. John Overton Choules (Boston: Gould, Kendall and Lincoln, 1842), 25–27.

The NY Times: New Evidence on When the Bible Was Written

13 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Apologetics, Bibliology, Old Testament Background, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

New Evidence on When Bible Was Written: Ancient Shopping Lists

 

One of the longstanding arguments for why the main body of biblical literature was not written down in anything like its present form until after the destruction and exile of 586 B.C. is that before then there was not enough literacy or enough scribes to support such a huge undertaking.

But if the literacy rates in the Arad fortress were repeated across the kingdom of Judah, which had about 100,000 people, there would have been hundreds of literate people, the Tel Aviv research team suggests.

That could have provided the infrastructure for the composition of biblical works that constitute the basis of Judahite history and theology including early versions of the books of Deuteronomy to II Kings, according to the researchers.

Preparing for the ACBC Examination

04 Monday Apr 2016

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Bibliology, Scripture, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Certification for ACBC requires completion of a theology and a practical counseling examination. You can find the process for certification here.

The following are some draft notes I am using to help my students prepare to complete theology examination. The answers should be 1.5 pages or less. The purpose is not a comprehensive statement of theology but a brief statement of one’s theological commitment.

A second purpose of this study guide is to help students after they graduate by directing them toward additional relevant resources:

Questions Concerning Scripture and Revelation:

 

  1. Describe the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture as well as the relationship of each one of these issues to one another.

 

  1. Describe the sufficiency of Scripture. Relate the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture to the practice of biblical counseling.  Research and respond to the arguments of at least one integrationist or Christian Psychologist regarding the insufficiency of Scripture for counseling.

 

  1. Describe your position on the nature of continuing revelation (i.e., prophecy, tongues, words of knowledge). In particular explain whether you believe prophecy is a present gift in today’s church.  Explain the relationship between your understanding of the gift of prophecy and the sufficiency of Scripture.

 

  1. Define general revelation and special revelation and describe the nature of their authority as well as their relationship to one another.

 

Overview of Issues:

 

These three questions require you to demonstrate an understanding of the source and status of Scripture.

 

Introduction (by Francis Schaeffer):

 

A Watershed

 

Not far from where we live in Switzerland is a high ridge of rock with a valley on both sides. One time I was there when there was snow on the ground along that ridge. The snow was lying there unbroken, a seeming unity. However, that unity was an illusion, for it lay along a great divide; it lay along a watershed. One portion of the snow when it melted would flow into one valley. The snow which lay close beside would flow into another valley when it melted.

Now it just so happens on that particular ridge that the melting snow which flows down one side of that ridge goes down into a valley, into a small river, and then down into the Rhine River. The Rhine then flows on through Germany and the water ends up in the cold waters of the North Sea. The water from the snow that started out so close along that watershed on the other side of the ridge, when this snow melts, drops off sharply down the ridge into the Rhone Valley. This water flows into Lac Leman—or as it is known in the English-speaking world, Lake Geneva—and then goes down below that into the Rhone River which flows through France and into the warm waters of the Mediterranean.

The snow lies along that watershed, unbroken, as a seeming unity. But when it melts, where it ends in its destinations is literally a thousand miles apart. That is a watershed. That is what a watershed is. A watershed divides. A clear line can be drawn between what seems at first to be the same or at least very close, but in reality ends in very different situations. In a watershed there is a line.

A House Divided

What does this illustration have to do with the evangelical world today? I would suggest that it is a very accurate description of what is happening. Evangelicals today are facing a watershed concerning the nature of biblical inspiration and authority. It is a watershed issue in very much the same sense as described in the illustration. Within evangelicalism there are a growing number who are modifying their views on the inerrancy of the Bible so that the full authority of Scripture is completely undercut. But it is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be so very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart.

What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world. It makes all the difference, as we might expect, in things pertaining to theology, doctrine and spiritual matters, but it also makes all the difference in things pertaining to the daily Christian life and how we as Christians are to relate to the world around us. In other words, compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life.[1]

 

The Importance of the Issues:

 

Just as a definitional issue, “biblical” counselors must those who rely upon the Bible.

Indeed, everyone who makes any claim to being a Christian must have an understanding of the Bible, what it is and how it works.

While many will claim some sort of allegiance to the Scripture, there are a myriad of challenges which are made to the inspiration, inerrancy, authority, sufficiency and stability of Scripture.  For instance, you may find yourself challenged by the clear teaching of Scripture when it comes to some issue which puts you in conflict with other people — particularly if there is a press from outside the church.

A notable example of a church which purportedly holds to a high view of Scripture is the City Church of San Francisco, which in March 2015 reversed its position on same sex relationships.  In the letter to the congregation, the elders stated that they made their decision:

How did we seek to answer our questions?

  1. As a church within the Reformed Tradition we go directly to Scripture to find counsel and to reengage the verses that talk about same sex activity.

For so long this has been a “case closed” kind of issue for evangelicals. But in recent years, multiple respected evangelical scholars and theologians have begun to wrestle with this and a healthy debate is underway. Asking questions about what the Scriptures say on this issue must always be coupled with asking why the Scriptures say what they do and what kind of same-sex activity is being addressed. Scholars and leaders who have previously been united in their interpretations are coming to different conclusions. This does not mean that your view must change, but it does counsel humility with how we each hold our views. Given the status and variety of these opinions, what has become clear to us is that there is no longer clear consensus on this issue within the evangelical community.[2]

As Robert Gangon wrote in First Things[3]

As a church inspired by Tim Keller’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City and founded in the Reformed tradition, City Church is supposed to give preeminence to Scripture. Instead, on the matter of homosexual practice, the Pastor and Elder Board gave preeminence to their judgment regarding what conduces more to human flourishing and, oddly, to a scripturally misguided book written by former Vineyard pastor Ken Wilson called A Letter to My Congregation. The letter recommends it to church members for showing, “great empathy and maturity to model unity and patience with those who are in different places on this conversation, all the while dealing honestly with Scripture.”

This was a notable contemporary example. But what we want you to see is that one can hold to a weakened view of Scripture and still claim in some way to be faithful.  The trouble with chiseling away at the stability of Scripture is that soon you will lose your way. As Thomas Brooks wrote in 1652:

Ah! how many in these days have fallen, first to have low thoughts of Scripture and ordinances, and then to slight Scripture and ordinances, and then to make a nose of wax of Scripture and ordinances, and then to cast off Scripture and ordinances, and then at last to advance and lift up themselves, and their Christ-dishonouring and soul-damning opinions, above Scripture and ordinances. Sin gains upon man’s soul by insensible degrees: Eccles. 10:13, ‘The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness, and the end of his talking is mischievous madness.’[4]

And although many think that their weakness on the matter of Scripture will somehow save their Christian witness and protect Christ, yet as Martyn Lloyd-Jones explains, and as the history of the Church teaches,

[I]f you begin to play fast and loose with the authority of the Scriptures, and with the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, you are of necessity involved in difficulties about the person of the Lord Himself.[5]

You will be pressured in your work as a biblical counselor to soften or amend your biblical stand in some place and at some time. Now, you may think though others fall I will never fail. And so the Enemy will not come in the same way on every occasion. While he may just pressure one, he will seek to trick another. You cannot be firm and remain firm in your conviction on Scripture unless you both have a high view of Scripture as the very words of God and know what such a view entails.

Another attack upon Scripture can come from adding to the Scripture new information which lessens the authority of what has been said

ACBC Standards of Doctrine

  1. The Doctrine of Scripture. 

The 66 books of the Bible in the Old and New Testaments constitute the completed and inscripturated Word of God.  God the Holy Spirit carried along the human authors of Scripture so that they wrote the exact words that he desired them to write.  The words in Scripture penned by human authors are thus the very words of God himself.  As inspired by God the Bible is completely free from error, and serves as the inerrant, infallible, and final rule for life and faith.  The Bible speaks with complete authority about every matter it addresses.  The words of Scripture concern issues of life and faith before God, and because counseling issues are matters of life and faith, the Bible is a sufficient resource to define and direct all counseling ministry. Acts 1:16; 2 Timothy 3:1-17; 2 Peter 1:3-21; 2 Peter 3:15-16

XII.  The Doctrine of Revelation.  God discloses himself to humanity in two ways.  Special revelation is God’s disclosure of himself to his people in the pages of Scripture.  General revelation is God’s disclosure of himself to the entirety of humanity in the things that have been made. General revelation and special revelation each come from God and so are of equivalent authority, though they differ in content.  Special revelation discloses detailed information about the character of God and how to live all of life in a way that honors him.  General revelation is a disclosure of the beauty and power of God, which leads to judgment. The subject matter of general revelation is the character of God, and not mere facts about the created order.  General revelation requires special revelation to be properly understood and applied.

Psalm 19:1-6; Romans 1:18-23

 

Overview of the Doctrines:

Inspiration refers to the creation of Scripture: it is the Spirit of God working upon the prophet who the Scripture. This applies to the original texts, only. Neither translations nor copies are inspired or inerrant.

Inerrancy: The words in the Scripture are precisely what God intends, and, thus, all of the words are true.

Authority:  This refers to the manner in which the human must respond to the Scripture. If God has spoken truly, then the words spoken (and written) have authority.

Sufficiency: The Scriptures are sufficient for the end intended. This does not mean that the Scripture is encyclopedic: it does not contain all information about every topic. But it does contain all that is necessary to achieve its determined end.

Revelation: The disclosure by God to a human being. Revelation may be either general – in that it is given to all human beings; or special in that it is conveyed through the Scripture.

When it comes to the question of general and special revelation, the issue often centers on the slogan, “All truth is God’s truth.”  Does that mean that everything which is the consensus among some school of psychologists is “general revelation” and therefore on a plane with Scriptural revelation?  Jay Adams discusses this issue as follows:

There are Christians today who are so caught up in the views and practices of unbelievers that in their writings they spend more time attacking those who attempt to set forth biblical positions that those who oppose them. They often go to great lengths to defend ungodly counsel.14

This might seem incredible if we did not understand how it comes about. The progression of compromise tells us. No Christian sets out to pervert and deny God’s truth; the process is gradual. It happens in stages, not all at once. That is the warning of Psalm 1. Such compromise with ungodly counsel, therefore, can happen both to counselors and (sadly) to those who are counseled by them.15

It is important to note that neither Genesis 3 nor Psalm 1 leaves any room for a third, neutral counsel. One of Satan’s ruses (as an angel of light) is to convince those who claim theological sophistication to accept error under the slogan, “All truth is God’s truth.” Under that banner nearly every error in the book has been blamed on God!

Of course all truth is God’s truth. But there is only one touchstone for determining whether a given statement claiming to be true is, indeed true: Does it square with God’s standard for truth—the Bible?

And, when compromisers talk about all truth as God’s truth, they call it “common grace.” They abuse this concept too. They mean by such use that God revealed truth through Rogers, Freud, Skinner, etc. God does, of course, restrain sin, allow people to discover facts about His creation, etc., in common grace (help given to saved and unsaved alike), but God never sets up rival systems competitive to the Bible. And God doesn’t duplicate in general revelation (creation) what He gives us by special revelation (the Bible). That is not common grace.16

You can be sure that it is not the result of common grace that two rival ways of counseling exist side by side! God cannot be charged with such contradiction. His common grace is not responsible for false teachings by Freud (man is not responsible for his sin), Rogers (man is essentially good and needs no outside help), or even Skinner (man is only an animal, without value, freedom or dignity). It is nearly blasphemous to claim (as a number do) that such systems, full of errors, falsehoods and anti—Christian teachings, are the product of God’s common grace! Imagine God, in common grace, through these systems, leading people to believe that their problems can be solved apart from Christ! Systems designed to do (apart from the Scriptures) what the Scriptures themselves claim to do are not the product of common grace. This theological language cover is but another of Satan’s distortions.[6]

 The questions here on revelation are also relevant to the matter of common grace.

 

Scripture:

In addition to the Scripture cited in connection with the ACBC Standards of Doctrine:

On the doctrine of Scripture see also: 1 Corinthians 14.37; Hebrews 4.12; 1 Peter 1.22-25 and the Psalm 119.

On the truthfulness and authority of Scripture: Since God speaks where Scripture speaks, the character of God is at issue in Scripture. God is infallibile and unchangeable: Isaiah 14.24, Malachi 3.6, Hebrews 13.17, James 1.17; God cannot lie Titus 1.2, Numbers 23.19; Hebrews 6:18. God’s revernce for his Word: John 10.34, Matthew 5.18-19, Psalm 119.4 and 105.  God has ultimate and complete authority:

Genesis 1, Job 36-42, Revelation 20-22 . The Word has authority: John 1.1-4, Matthew 24.34-35, John 17.17, 1 Peter 1.23

 

Specific Study:

There is an enormous literature on these issues. You will find entire books and journal articles which will discuss this topic or some aspect of the topic at length. You find sections of other books, such as systematic theologies, which will provide you with detailed discussed. You will also find relevant discussion in commentaries and sermons on relevant biblical passages. Finally there are church confessions on this issue.

 

Resources:

Plainly these resources are far more comprehensive than you will need to complete the ACBC Theology Examination questions. But, the purpose of this list is  not merely to prepare you for the examination, but to give you a series of resources to begin to study the theology at greater length. Moreover, you will find some ideas in certain resources which will be challenging. You need to be aware of challenges to your positions before they arise in the context of your ministry.

 

Internet Resources:

The Inerrancy Summit of the 2015 Shepherd’s Conference has four days of sermons and lectures on the doctrine of Scripture, particularly on the question of inerrancy: https://www.gracechurch.org/sermons/events/321

The website http://www.defendinginerrancy.com has a great many resources on issues specifically relating to the question of inerrancy.  On the site you will find the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy which is the current “gold standard” for a discussion of inerrancy.

Michael J. Kruger, President and Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC. , has written the best books on the matter of the New Testament Canon, Canon Revisited and The Question of Canon. His website often contains materials relevant to the doctrine of Scripture: http://michaeljkruger.com.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Article I, Of the Holy Scripture.

On the question of continuing revelation, there was the Strange Fire Conference held by Grace Community Church in 2013, together with an accompanying book. The lectures and sermons may be found here, http://www.gty.org/resources/sermon-series/325/. John Piper responded here, http://www.christianpost.com/news/john-piper-talks-john-macarthurs-strange-fire-conference-pursuing-gifts-of-prophecy-and-speaking-in-tongues-109022/

The Masters Seminary Journal: Fall 2004, a series of articles on the doctrine of Scripture: http://www.tms.edu/m/msj15.2.pdf

Thomas, Robert L.. “Correlation of Revelatory Spiritual Gifts and NT Canonicity.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 8, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 5-28:      http://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj8a.pdf

Mack, Wayne A.. “The Sufficiency of Scripture in Counseling.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 9, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 63-84. http://www.tms.edu/msj/msj9.1.4/

“Does God Still Give Revelation?.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 14, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 217-34. http://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj14h.pdf

Thomas, Robert L.. “General Revelation and Biblical Hermeneutics.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 9, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 4-23. http://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj9a.pdf

Systematic Theologies

Jay Adams, A Theology of Christ Counseling, pp. 16-37.

Daniel Akin, ed. A Theology for the Church

Section 1: Theology of Revelation

Chapter 1: Theological Method

Chapter 2: General Revelation

Chapter 3: Special Revelation

 

John Frame, Systematic Theology

Part 4: The Doctrine of the Word of God

 

Wayne Grudem, Systematic  Theology, Part I, The Doctrine of the Word of God, pp. 47-140.

 

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Part Two, Knowing God, Chapter 8, “Universal Revelation”; Chapter 9, “God’s Particular Revelation”; Chapter 10, “The Preservation of Revelation: Inspiration”; Chapter 11, “The Dependability of God’s Word: Inerrancy”; Chapter 12, “The Power of God’s Word: Authority”; pp. 177-285.

 

Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, Chapter Three, The Source of Theology: Revelation; Chapter Four, Scripture as Covenant Canon; Chapter Five, The Bible and the Church: From Scripture to System, pp. 113-219.

 

Robert Duncan Carver, Systematic Theology, Chapter 6, How God has Revealed Himself to Mankind (pp. 44-52).

 

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Part One, The Doctrine of God, Chapter One, “The Existence of God”; Chapter Two, “The Knowability of God”; Part Five, The Means of Grace, Chapter Two, “The Word as a Means of Grace”.

Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Part Three, The Scriptures as Revelation From God, chapter 1, “Preliminary Considerations”; chapter 2, “Positive Proofs That the Scriptures are Divine Revelation”; chapter 3, “Inspiration of the Scriptures”.

 

Books:

 

BB Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, volume 1 in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield.

 

John MacArthur, ed., The Scripture Cannot be Broken, ed.

 

John Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God

 

J.C. Ryle, Is All Scripture Inspired?

Merrick, Stephen M. Garrett, eds. Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, particularly, “When the Bible Speaks God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy” by R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Steven B. Cowan, Terry L. Wilder, eds. In Defense of the Bible

Vern Sheridan Poythress, Inerrancy and Worldview

Stuart Scott and Heath Lambert, eds., Counseling the Hard Cases, chapter one, “Introduction: The Sufficiency of Scripture, the Biblical Counseling Movement, and the Purpose of this Book”.

Bob Kellemen and Jeff Forrey, eds., Scripture and Counseling

Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster

Scripture and Counseling, Bob Kelleman and Jeff Forrey eds.

2: “Sufficient for Life and Godliness” (sufficiency)

Paul Tautges and Steve Viars

3: “Where do we Find Truth?” (general revelation, common grace)

5: “Scripture is Sufficient, but to do What?” (sufficiency of Scripture)

Jeremy Pierre

D.A. Carson, ed. The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures

The Word of God in the Child of God, George J. Zemek

Thomas Manton, Sermons on Psalm 119.

 

 

[1] Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, “The Great Evangelical Disaster” vol. 4 (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 327–328.

 

[2] You may find the entire letter here: https://www.citychurchsf.org/A-Letter-From-The-Elder-Board

[3] http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/03/why-san-franciscos-biggest-megachurch-is-wrong-about-sex

[4] Thomas Brooks, The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, “Precious Remedies for Satan’s Devices,”vol. 1 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1866), 20.

 

[5]

[6] Jay Edward Adams, A Theology of Christian Counseling: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling (Grand Rapids, MI: Ministry Resource Library, 1986), 8–9.

Thomas Watson: 24 Helps to Reading the Scripture.1

24 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by in Bibliology, Reading, Scripture, Thomas Watson, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

I. If you would profit by reading, remove those things that will hinder your profiting.

First, “remove the love of every sin.” Sin will make us unfit to profit from the Scripture. Sin makes us stupid and confused. Start with the extreme example, someone intoxicated by drugs or lust has no ability to concentrate or think straight: The Scripture prescribes excellent recipes, but sin lived in, poisons all. The body cannot thrive in a fever, nor can the soul under the feverish heat of lust.”

Watson’s proposition can be taken further. Even seemingly “lesser” sins will hurt our ability to profit from the Scripture. Sin, at heart, is irrational (what could be more irrational than to rebel against the Creator of the Universe and the one who judge my life). To engage in irrationality cannot but make one more irrational.

This does not mean that one will not be logical: “logic” in its most pared down form refers to following a set of rules for thinking (and I grant that logic should mean a great deal more than this). I have known many who can think with logical ability and yet be utterly irrational: their premises, their facts are simply wrong. Someone can be utterly delusional and be logical (to an extent).

But sin is more subtle, it does not always undermine logic, but it always attacks true reason.

Second, take heed of those thorns which will choke the word read.

If your heart is busy dwelling upon something other than the words of the Scripture, how will you be able to read with even the barest concentration? As Watson writes of such a one: “While his eye is upon the Bible, his heart is upon the world.”

The Scripture takes concentration to read, meditation to digest, pray to expound: all these will take attention. Without a heart devoted to Scripture, “You may as soon extract oil and syrup out of a flint, as he any real benefit out of Scripture.”

Third, Take heed of jesting with Scripture; this is playing with fire. Some cannot be merry unless they make bold with God.

The Scriptures are nothing to trifle with. Some will trifle by merely joking about sacred things. This sort of levity is apparent even in many pulpits. Sometimes it is for laughs, other times is to tie the Scripture to gimmicks and nonsense. When pastors treat the Scripture as frivolous, we should not be surprised when the congregation does not consider the Scripture

Quotations from Thomas Watson, “How We May Read the Scriptures with Most Spiritual Profit,” in The Bible and the Closet: Or How We May Read the Scriptures with the Most Spiritual Profit; and Secret Prayer Successfully Managed, ed. John Overton Choules (Boston: Gould, Kendall and Lincoln, 1842), 18–19.