Ps. 119:73-80, Special Revelation (2)

Let’s begin by meditating on some of the ways God’s “special revelation” (the Bible) reveals the attributes of God.

·       God's grace, mercy, compassion.  GR leaves man without excuse.  SR is "remedial" or redemptive.  GR as a witness of God is not strong enough to overcome the sinfulness of the human heart. Man needs a remedial revelation and Scripture is that special, remedial revelation of God.  Redemption is gracious, merciful, compassionate

·       God's personality.  God is a person.  Persons are known only as they choose to be known.  As man stands before the Person of God, he discovers he cannot open up the discussion.  If there is to be a conversation this Person must initiate it.  God has done this, thereby making Himself known to man.

·       God's incomprehensibility.  The incomprehensibility of God is a direct teaching of Scripture (Job 36:26; I Tim. 6:15-16; Psalm 139:6).  The incomprehensibility of God means that man's knowledge of God is at best fragmentary and limited. The incomprehensibility of God sets the limits to discourse about God.  The point is this: the mystery and wonder of grace is that the transcendent God has willed to reveal himself.

  Here are a couple of doctrinal definitions of “special revelation.”

    Miller: "the communication by God to man, of those truths concerning Himself, His plans, and His will, and concerning man and his redemption, which could not have been known through nature, nor by intuition, nor by any process of reasoning, apart from supernatural aid."

    Horne: "the discovery afforded by God to man of Himself, or His will, over and above what He has made known by the light of nature, or of reason."

These definitions are fairly basic.  Lord willing we will give more detail in the next post.  For now, however, Heb. 1:1-2 gives us the essence of “special revelation” as it speaks of various ways God has spoken, and then the supreme method of God’s speaking:

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds.

Ps. 119:65-72, Special Revelation (1)

Let’s begin with a review of terms so far.

·       Revelation: God's autobiography; God's self-disclosure

·       General Revelation (GR): God's witness to himself in nature, history and con-science; general in intent and content

·       Natural theology: the “science of God” based in reason, or at best in GR.

·       Natural law: consensus-law found in universally agreed upon ideas; based in reason or at best conscience

What are the capabilities of GR?  We can learn about God, and ourselves.  We can understand that we are different than God, that we are sinners, and that we are without excuse before God. 

But what are the incapabilities of General Revelation?

ü Though man might glean something about sin and its penalty from General Revelation, he could know nothing of God's love, His provision for pardon, rec-onciliation, and salvation and the blessings of the new life in Christ.

ü Further, only through SR can we know the Trinity, the person & work of Christ, the HS, immortality, future rewards and punishment, etc.

ü Human opinions and reason are insufficient guides in matters of life and conduct.

ü The heathen world is hopelessly corrupt, & is powerless to make itself bet-ter. (Rom.1:21-31; 3:9-18; 1 Cor.6:9-11; Eph.2:1-3,11,12; 4:17-19)

ü Man's moral & spiritual nature longs for God & holiness.  God has begun to supply this need in GR; will He not complete it?

Thus, we need more/another Revelation?  Here are some assumptions about SR based on how the Bible describes itself (from H. S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction):

v God has spoken! Heb. 1:1-2

v The Bible is God Speaking. 2 Pet. 1:21

v The Bible is a Revelation from God to Man.

v God has given to man a Special Supernatural Revelation.

The following arguments show the general reasonableness to expect a revelation from God. Then we will ask, is the Bible that revelation.  In other words, we might conclude from GR that there should be another revelation from God that is more detailed.

·       A revelation is possible (Mk.10:27; Lk.1:37; if God created man it’s reasonable to think that communication between God and man is possible).

·       A revelation is necessary (based on the incapabilities of GR above).

·       A revelation is probable (based on God's love). "Philosophers of all ages have thought a divine revelation probable, and have expected it." (Pardington in Outline Studies in Christian Doctrine, p31.)

·       A revelation is credible.

·       A revelation is reasonable. "It would seem strange indeed if the Author of our being, who has enabled us to communicate with one another in so many ways, should never have communicated with us at all.  Reason, so far from rejecting the idea of a revelation, rather calls for it." (Girdlestone, The Building Up of the Old Testament, p295)

·       A revelation is certain.

Psalm 119:169-176 Tau: Continue to put your hope in God’s word.

Jesus promised a life of trouble from this world to those who would follow Him; He also assures them that He has overcome the world (John 16:33).  In other words we are foolish to think that our life of obedience will ever become free of affliction.  Likewise we are foolish to ignore the provision of Christ for His people.

The Psalmist understands this.  In this final stanza we again find him pleading with God for help.  It may be that the trial that forms the backdrop for Psalm 119 is still ongoing; or it may mean he has seen the next difficulty on the horizon.  Either way, he continues to put his hope in the Lord and His word.

He is still “crying” to the Lord (169).  He still lifts his supplication (170).  But there is a thought in this stanza that should encourage all of God’s people.  He has experienced so much of God’s word in his trial; now he desires to share it with others.

o 171: he has been taught so much that he would declare his praise to the Lord for all to hear.

o 172: he is so overcome by the way he has seen God’s righteousness that he would speak God’s word to others.

Having expressed this desire he does not allow himself to become proud, as if he had learned all he needed and can now walk on in his own strength.  The closing 4 verses continue to call on God for help.

o 173: let your hand be my help.

o 174: I long for Your deliverance.

o 175: let my soul live; let your judgments help me.

o 176: seek Your servant.  I have gone astray like a lost sheep; without You I will do it again.

The longer we live our lives the less we may be shocked by the things that happen in the lives of believers.  The longer we live hopefully the more we know of God’s word so it can be used in our lives.  But we never outgrow our dependence on God.  Nor do we ever completely escape the temptation to stray away from our Good Shepherd.  May our time in this longest of Psalms be a motive to come back often to find in God’s word that which we need to glorify Him in our afflictions.

God be praised!

Ezekiel 13:1-16, God’s Purpose in Israel (2)

This passage was also part of my reading in these last few weeks.  It speaks powerfully to me personally, with respect to the ministry of preaching and teaching.  But it also continues to be applicable to Israel, which was, of course, the original context.  Ezekiel prophesied to the captives in Babylon, at the same time Jeremiah was prophesying in Jerusalem.  At the time, there were many prophets in Jerusalem who were preaching a message of peace, that God would never allow His temple to be destroyed but would come to Israel’s aid against Babylon.  That message was being preached in Babylon as well, among the captives.  It was a “pro-military” message while Jeremiah was accused of discouraging the military (Jer. 38:4). 

What was the problem with this “peace” message?  It’s not just that it was a lie, something God had not told these prophets to say.  As Ezekiel put it, the message was missing something.  The picture was of a wall of protection.  The people needed a wall, a message from God, in which they could put their hope, in which they could be protected.  The “peace” message was akin to building a wall, and using “untempered” mortar to hold it all together.  The mortar wasn’t proven.  And that would be disastrous when the enemy came against the people.

So, what was missing from the message?  The easy answer is just to say, they were lying.  They were not saying what God said.  Very true.  And you can say that the lie is that there will be peace when there won’t be peace.  Also, very true.  But I am certain we can be more specific.  What is missing is “Jesus!”  After all, “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev. 19:10). 

More specifically, Jesus is the Son of God who, according to Psalm 2, will receive the nations as an inheritance and will rule from Mt. Zion.  This promise of the Father, called in other places “the mystery of God” (Col. 2:2; Rev. 10:7), contains all the other major aspects of God’s plan for creation.  It includes the choice of Israel as His people, the promise of the land, the salvation of the nation (spiritual and national), and the New Covenant (Church, indwelling Spirit, rapture). 

The false prophets were convinced God would not destroy the temple because He had to keep His promise to place His name on Jerusalem forever.  But if God did it there way, the nation would never be saved.  There would be no Savior apart from Israel’s blind rejection of Jesus.  Thus, these prophets could claim to speak a “Biblical” message but it was an incomplete Biblical message. 

Further, the false prophets assumed that God would save Judah/Israel by blessing their army.  Like the future antichrist, they worshiped a false god, a “god of fortresses” (Dan. 11:37-38).  But the Bible says Jesus will destroy the rebellious nations with the breath of His mouth and the brightness of His coming (2 Th. 2:8). 

The message of the Messiah, missing in Ezekiel’s day, is missing today.  Until Israel submits to the Prince of Peace, there will be no peace.  It’s not surprise that, as they seek to destroy Hamas, the voices against Israel grow louder and louder.

Lamentations 2:1-8, God’s Purpose in Israel (1)

It’s Oct. 27, 2023.  We intend to return to the topic of “Special Revelation,” but feel the need to take a brief break and share a couple of posts on Israel.  On Oct. 7, as you surely must know, terrorists from Gaza invaded southern Israel and viciously killed (butchered in many cases) over a thousand Israeli’s.  We are not interested in giving the news; that is available in many places on the internet, from Christian sources as well as sources inside Israel.  (If you want to know, our primary source in Y-Net News.com from Israel.)

Our reading throughout these three weeks has included The Lamentations of Jeremiah.  You might think this to be valuable for Israel in these days.  The “weeping prophet” lamented one of the worst events in Israel’s history, being the day the Babylonians entered Jerusalem, ending the year and a half siege of the city (Jer. 32:1-7).  We have heard people of Israel refer to Oct. 7 as their “9/11.”  But Israel already has a day like that, called “Tisha B’Av” (the ninth of Av).  This day recognizes several tragic events in her history that all happened on that day, the first being the one that caused Jeremiah to write his Lamentations.  What Babylon did is the type of thing Hamas did, only on a much larger scale, not to diminish what Hamas did.  I’m just saying that Israel has the original and greatest “9/11.”

For Bible-taught Christians, Lam. 3:22-24 is often all they know about this little book.  It’s the basis for the great hymn, “Great Is Thy Faithfulness.”  But this book also teaches God’s people how to grieve when they have experienced days filled with atrocities.  Eventually they need to put their hope in the faithful God.  But before that it is critical that they come to grips with the true nature of the event.  In today’s passage, Jeremiah recognizes something critical: God, the Lord, has done this.  Oct. 7, as well as Tisha B’Av, are the work of God.  Hear Jeremiah’s words:

The Lord has swallowed up and has not pitied all the dwelling places of Jacob.

He has cut off in fierce anger every horn (military might) of Israel.

The Lord was like an enemy.  He has swallowed up Israel.

The LORD has purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion.

This does not absolve Hamas nor indicate they should not be destroyed.  But if Israel does not come to recognize God’s hand, and to understand what they and their sin has done to move God’s hand, they can never come true repentance.  They will only repent of bad governmental leadership, poor intelligence, insufficient ammunition for the Iron Dome, and not enough help from the United States.

Jeremiah knew Tisha B’Av was God’s hand at work, not just because he was a prophet, but because he read his Bible.  Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 and 31:29-32:43 were Jeremiah’s sources.  They apply to Israel today, along with Jesus’ predictions in Matthew 24 and Luke 19:41-44.  More on this, Lord willing! 

Romans 2:5-16, General and Special Revelation (5)

·       Natural Law holds that mankind, by reason, can discover concepts of goodness, righteousness, justice and morality.

o   There is truth to this in terms of the “law of God” being on the heart of each man.  An illustration might be found in the United Nations “universal declaration of human rights” drafted in 1948.  It spoke of “a universal consciousness of law” that demands justice, and of “a response of the general human consciousness of right and justice” (p188). 

o   Roman Catholic teaching sees two realms of eternal law: Natural Law, the source of which is reason, and Divine Law, the source of which is revelation.  As before, the problem for Rome is this: it is founded on the reasonable nature of man, which simply cannot but strive for the good (acc. to RCC).  Is there such a conscious “demand” for justice?  It is possible to make a “program of principle” which will show all people what ought to be?  It is really true that these ideals directly link up with universal opinion, because man is fundamentally an “idealist?”  Can there be Law without God, and without special revelation?

o   The Reformation answer was this.  Calvin affirmed the possibility of natural Law. “The predominant aspect … is not the goodness of human nature, but the goodness of God’s law and ordinances.”  Man, who naturally cannot subject himself to the law of God (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14) still stands for right and justice, for punishing that which is evil and rewarding that which is good (Rom. 13:3-4).  This is indeed remarkable.  So every society agrees that murder and thievery and taking another man’s wife is unjust.  But for Calvin, the problem is that man “isolates laws and norms from the Lawgiver and in his apostasy uses them as though they were his material and property.  He does not do so in obedience but still in his actions, in his conscience, in his judging others and in his protest against complete anarchy, he manifests the superior power of God’s work and law.” (As we write this, it is against the historical backdrop of the Palestinian group Hamas ruthlessly killing over a thousand Jews and the resulting argument about who was at fault, Hamas or Israel.  Of course, the Holocaust had the same ‘confusion’.)

o   In the end, the problem is that man cannot accurately understand his conscience nor naturally subject himself to God’s law (Ro. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14).  Here is a concluding summary from Everett Harrison in Bakers Dict. of Theology:  

The biblical ground for this notion is found in Romans 2:13-14. This indicates that man knows by creation what is right and wrong and stands under the guidance and correction of conscience. From this it has been deduced that non-Christian ethics, e.g., as summarized in the cardinal virtues, may be used as a basis for the ethics of revelation, or that the two may be regarded as identical, or even (by Rationalists and Humanists) that the natural law is preferable to the biblical and makes the Christian revelation ethically unnecessary. The argument of Romans, however, is that the natural law, though it is a fact and may find partial fulfillments, is primarily an instrument to condemn the sinner who does not truly perceive or keep it, driving him to Christ as the end of the law for righteousness (Rom. 10:4) and therefore the beginning of real knowledge and observance of the divine will.  It cannot, then, be made an independent basis, alternative or substitute for the law of Christ.

Romans 10:14-21, General and Special Revelation (4)

Is God’s general revelation to mankind sufficient for us to develop a “natural theology” by which we can know the Creator?

o   G. C. Berkouwer (Studies in Dogmatics: General Revelation, Ch. 4) points out that Roman Catholic theology answers this question “yes.” 

P62f: Since the Middle Ages, Roman Catholic theology has without a moment's regret defended the right & the possibility of natural theology… Rome maintained that there was a way from man's reason to God.

P64: Rome means by natural theology: a natural knowledge or theology derived from the created things by means of reason.

P66: from the Vatican Council, "the natural knowledge of God derived from creation is made easier through special revelation, but not that this revelation is absolutely necessary."

P67: The background for this is: "a specific anthropology...which lifts the so-called rational soul out of the sin-depraved life of man, and then by way of this non-corrupt reason considers man capable of true knowledge of God...It is true that Rome admits that sin has wounded human nature by the loss of special supernatural gifts, but the physical ability of human reason was neither destroyed nor disturbed, so that reason can still reach God."

·       Rebuttal of Natural Theology:  

o   They do not actually come to know God, the God of salvation, the personal God: P73: "the God whose existence natural theology proves, is not the living God of mercy.  One can therefore speak only of rational proofs for the reality of an Absolute, but not of the proofs for the existence of God."

o   Conversion, being born again, requires more than what nature can provide: P77: "The religious act (coming to personal knowledge of God) is completely unique, and it can never simply come to expression.  Only when man knows God through this religious act does that which the proofs aim to demonstrate achieve meaning and significance...we do not know God 'in the light of the world,' but the reverse is true--we know the world in the light of God."

o   Gen. rev. must be explained by spec. rev.: P78f: "the whole creation does bear traces or 'fingerprints of God' its maker, but this 'is an addition which becomes true only and exclusively of the perceivable matter, when the religious world-view (i.e. spec. rev) brings this to the non-religious facts (i.e. gen. rev)."

The result of this is that the Catholic Church has been able to absorb other religions based on their ability to truly know God apart from Special Revelation.  The same passage (Rom. 10:14-21) that uses Ps. 19:4 as proof that Israel has heard and is without excuse, also says that they cannot believe without a preacher, someone to declare the gospel (Special Revelation). 

Isaiah 40:10-20, General and Special Revelation (3)

Today let’s begin by summarizing principles about GR and SR.  First, here are some “definitions.”

·       Revelation: The story which God tells about Himself … that knowledge about God which is from God.

·       General Revelation: God’s story told for all men.  It is general in that it is for all men and in that the content is less definitive.

·       Special Revelation: God’s word, in concrete form, to a specific person or group.

Now, more specifically on General Revelation:

·       General Revelation is God’s self-disclosure in general ways (nature, history, conscience) to all mankind.

·       Distinctions:

o   Creation: God’s revealing and man’s knowing are not the same.

o   Conscience: God’s revealing and man’s obeying are not the same.

o   In other words, “revelation” and “illumination” are not the same.

What about “natural theology” and “natural law”?  Perhaps you have heard of these, especially Americans where the latter is often claimed as fundamental to the founding documents of our nation.

·       Natural Theology is the view that there is sufficient information in nature and sufficient ability in man whereby man can know God by reason.  If you are unfamiliar with this, let me share some additional thoughts.

o   Baker’s Dict. of Theology (Everett Harrison) calls it a “theology constructed irrespective of revelation.”  L. S. Chafer (Dallas Seminary; in his Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, p4) gives a “best possible definition” of this: “a science which is based only upon those facts concerning God and His universe which are revealed in nature.”  But Harrison adds this: "The basis of natural theology in the church is a supposed quality in man that enables him to know God as Creator if not as Redeemer...This rudimentary knowledge will then form the starting point for a fuller understanding of God and hence of the divine-human relationship." (P372, Bakers Dict of Theol).

What do you think about this?  Is it possible to have such a developed theology without needing the Bible?  More on this in the next post.

1 Timothy 4:1-10, General and Special Revelation (2)

Today we want to dwell on 1 Timothy 4.  “The Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith”: obviously, that is “special revelation.”  What about vs.3b-5: “every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving.”  Is that something that only “those who believe and know the truth” can know or can all people know this? 

Clearly, “those who believe and know the truth” should know this.  The Bible (SR) helps us overcome deficiencies in our understanding caused by sin.  Also, we will concede (because it is not germane to our study) that SR is necessary to know that food received with thanksgiving “is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”

But what about all men?  What can and should they know?  The answer takes us back to Gen. 4 when Cain and Abel brought their thanksgiving offerings to God.  We have no record that God had told them to do this.  The only SR is what God said to Cain about what he needed to do.  God did not remind Cain of some command that had been given.  I would suggest that Cain and Abel, and Adam and Eve for that matter, could know, by virtue of GR (creation and conscience), that:

·       Every creature of God is good.  This can be assumed from the fact they knew God to be a good Creator.  And if everything from God is good (and it is), then nothing should be refused.

·       We are obligated to worship the Creator by giving thanks for His good provision.  Again, we don’t need the Bible to tell us that if God has given us good things (and He has), then we must give thanks to Him.

However, what interests me is v6-10.  The two paragraphs (v1-5 and 6-10) are connected.  Timothy is supposed to teach v1-5 according to v6-10.  And, he is supposed to “reject profane and old wives fables” (v7).  What are these “fables?”  I would suggest they are corrupt forms of “general revelation.”  For one thing, they are “profane,” meaning they are common, accessible.  It’s what all people, or at least a lot of people, think.  “Old wives” fables are generally what some people call “common sense” that come out of the home.  In this context, it’s an approach to eating that mothers have devised.  They are like “home remedies.”  These could be true or false but they are an approach to things that happen that have come from “experience.”  They don’t necessarily fit “good science.”  But someone said something worked for them and so everyone should do it.

Why did Paul point out these “fables?”  Because everyone deals with the truth of a good Creator and our thankful response to Him.  These “fables” are the attempts to do this, to explain how we live in this world.  They may or may not be in a religious context.  After all, men generally “suppress” the truth of God (Rom. 1:18).  For some, it involved rules about what to eat and what not to eat.  For others, it involved bodily exercise.  This will help prolong life, and after all, this is all we get.  Both these things are corruptions of GR and Paul, by SR, is correcting them. 

We cannot know the plan of salvation, nor the details of “heaven and hell,” on the basis of GR alone.  However, as Ecclesiastes shows (Eccl. 3:16-22), we can, on the basis of “creation and conscience,” conclude that we will have to give an account to the One who created us, and that as it now stands, we are liable for judgment (without excuse)! 

Psalm 119:161-168 Shin: Give testimony to the value of God’s word.

The remaining 2 stanzas provide a fitting end to this marvelous Psalm the speaks of the value of God’s word in my trials.  First we see the Psalmist ecstatic in his praise of God’s word (161-168).  Then, because his trial continues or because there will be more to come, he calls upon God in ways reminiscent of the entire Psalm.

How do you view the word of God?  Is it one book among many?  Is it appropriate for some of the situations in your life?  Let us hear from one who has made God’s word to be his daily portion?

o 161: though his suffering has been unjust, he stands in awe of God’s word.  We often sing, “I stand in awe of You.”  But remember to hold God in awe is to hold Scripture in awe.

o 162: he considers God’s word to be great treasure.

o 163: he loves God’s law, hating all that stands against it.

o 164: seven times a day he praises God for His righteous judgments.  In other words, his praise is without ceasing. 

o 165: he can give testimony that those who hope in God’s word have peace.  Because it lights his path he does not stumble over life’s obstacles.

o 166: while he awaits God’s deliverance he does not fail to keep the Word.

o 167: he not only loves the Word; he loves it exceedingly.

o 168: he recognizes that all his ways are before the Lord and thus subject to His precepts and testimonies.

The thing to note is that this is the testimony of experience.  He has not merely heard or meditated on the Word.  He has kept it in the context of a great difficulty.  This is how we truly learn God’s word.  This is how we truly get to know God Himself.

Remember Paul’s prayer in Col. 1:9-10.  He prays that they might be filled with the knowledge of God’s will with all wisdom and insight.  We must know the Word in it’s practical application.  But it is only as we walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, and being fruitful in all good works that we increase in our knowledge of God.

The Psalmists journey has caused his love for God and His word to grow.  How have you grown in appreciation for God’s word?  Do you today stand in awe of His word?

Ps. 19, General and Special Revelation (1)

Let’s talk about “General Revelation.”  Specifically, let us consider this subject against the backdrop of Ecclesiastes.  The writer of Ecclesiastes is concerned with everything “under the sun.”  That is the realm that concerns “general revelation.” 

We would not know anything about God if He did not reveal it to us.  The Bible indicates God has done this in two ways.  In 19:1-6 we learn that “the glory of God” is declared by the heavens.  In 19:7-11 we learn that the word of God, in all its facets (law, testimony, statutes, commandments, judgments and so forth), warns us and provides an avenue for great reward.  The theologians call these two revelations “general revelation” and “special revelation.”

“General revelation” is general in that it gives us a tremendous amount of truth about God that is available to anyone who will pay attention.  The truth is general and the audience is general.  The truth is that we can see that God is real and we can see many of His attributes.  Without going into detail now, in the heavens we see God’s glory (19:1; meaning that all that we know about Him places Him in a category that is unique, as the Creator).  It is not just the telescope but the microscope also declares God’s glorious attributes.  Everywhere we look in Creation speaks of Him.  A true understanding of the “scientific method” is that it is man, using his senses (seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and smelling), can learn much about his Creator.  The Bible also places the “conscience” in this category.  According to Rom. 2:6-16 all people have “the law (of God) written in their hearts” (2:15).  When we join this to Rom. 1:18-21 we see that in Creation and Conscience people have access to sufficient knowledge of God and His standards to be held accountable before Him in judgment.  “They are without excuse” (1:20).

“Special revelation” is special in that God must convey this information to man in some special way.  It is “the word of God” but includes what Hebrews 1:1-3 calls “various ways” that God spoke through the prophets, and then supremely God’s speaking through His Son.  In terms of Scripture (God’s written revelation), it is the Bible that came through the prophets (Old Testament) and apostles of Christ (New Testament, 2 Peter 3:2). 

We will show that Ecclesiastes is concerned with “general revelation.”  The writer is always talking about what he has seen.  When the writer speaks about God, he is expressing truth that is available to anyone who will look at Creation and Conscience and think about what it is saying.

Ps. 119:57-64, The Witness of the Spirit

We referred to this important doctrine in our “What do ya know” studies but here are some additional thoughts.

The Witness of the Spirit, Bernard Ramm

Few assertions are more superficial than this, that the Reformers substituted a paper pope for the living pope.  From the servitude of an authoritative person, it is alleged, they moved to the servitude of a book; fleeing one yoke, they manage only to take upon themselves another, the lordship of an historically conditioned book. Such a criticism is wide of the mark. The center of the great debate between Catholics & Reformers did not concern the authority of the Scriptures as such, which they both accepted.  To be sure, there was disagreement on certain points: the extent of the canon--the Catholics maintaining the canonicity of the Apocrypha; the principles of hermeneutics--the Catholics maintaining the validity of the fourfold method of the scholastics; and the relationship of Church to Scripture--the Catholics making the Church the custodian and therefore the lord of the Scriptures.  But certainly each party, in its own way, recognized the authority of 'the book."

The real life-and-death struggle was at 2 points: the relation of Scripture to the Church, and the source of the Christian's certainty that the Scriptures are the Word of God.  With reference to the first point, Calvin placed the Scriptures above the Church, whereas Romanism placed them under the Church.  Calvin insisted that the Church is governed by the Word and the Spirit, and therefore must be in subjection to the Scriptures.  All traditions and the entire ecclesiastical hierarchy must submit to this lordship.  With reference to the second point, Calvin replaced the voice of the Church, which supposedly tells us with great assurance that the Scriptures are the Word of God, with the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.  The Bible itself teaches, said Calvin, that when God gives his revelation, he gives along with it a certainty that it is revelation...

The Reformers and the Inner Witness of the Spirit

Luther: "The Bible cannot be understood simply by study or talent; you must count only on the influence of the Holy Spirit."

Zwingli: "Even if you receive the gospel of Jesus Christ directly from an apostle, you cannot act according to it unless your heavenly Father teaches you and draws you to Himself by His Spirit."

Calvin: The testimony of the Spirit is superior to reason.   For...these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit...Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.  For though in its own majesty it has enough to command reverence, nevertheless, it then begins truly to touch us when it is sealed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.  Enlightened by him, we no longer believe either on our own judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but in a way superior to human judgment, feel perfectly assured...that it came to us from the very mouth of God."

Ps. 119:49-56, The Rejection of the Apocrypha

“The Apocrypha” refers to a collection of writings related to the Old Testament that are included in the Catholic version of the Scriptures.  These were written in the “inter-testamental” period and were not considered to be Scripture by non-Catholics.  Why?

Reasons for Rejecting the Apocrypha as Canonical

by H. S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction

  1.  It is universally acknowledged they never had a place in the Hebrew Canon.

  2.  They are never quoted in the NT.

  3.  Josephus expressly excludes them.

  4.  Philo, the great Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, never quoted from them or even mentioned them.

  5.  They are never found in any catalogue of canonical books made during the first four centuries AD.

  6.  Jerome rejected the Apocrypha emphatically.

  7.  Divine inspiration is claimed by none of the writers, and in fact disclaimed by some.

  8.  They are entirely without the true prophetic element; the "succession of prophets" had ceased.

  9.  The books contain many errors and distortions of Old Testament narratives.

10.  They teach doctrines & uphold practices which are contrary to Scripture.

11.  Weakness of style, stiffness, lack of originality, etc. in comparison with Scripture are noticeable.

12.  Much of the literature is legendary, the stories containing many absurdities.

13.  So-called miracles and deeds of supernatural beings contain much that is fabulous, grotesque and silly.

14.  The spiritual, and even the moral, level is, as a whole, far below that of the OT.

15.  The books were written much later than those of the OT, long after the canon was closed.

16.  Some were read for instruction but were not considered canonical.

17.  The Christian Church received the same OT canon of 39 books.

18.  The use of "Scripture" by Christ and Apostles indicated the OT Canon had long been fixed.

19.  While each canonical book in the OT had a "Targum" (a paraphrase for interpretation) no Apocryphal (with the possible exception of Tobit) had such a provision.

20.  The bottom line: these books simply are not on the same footing with the Law and the Prophets.

Ps. 119:41-48, Arguments for the Divine Origin of the Bible (6)

The inspiration of the New Testament is a special issue.  The key individuals of the NT (Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, etc.) gave evidence of the veracity of the Old Testament by the way they used it.  But how can we know that the NT is inspired by God?

Strong's Proofs of Inspiration

1.    Since we have shown that God has made a revelation of himself to man, the presumption becomes doubly strong that he will not trust this revelation to human tradition and misrepresentation, but will also provide a correct and authoritative record of it.

2.    Jesus, who has been proved to be not only a credible witness, but a messenger from God, vouches for the inspiration of the Old Testament, by quoting it with the formula: "it is written"; by declaring that "one jot or one tittle" of it "shall in no wise pass away"; and by calling it "the word of God" which "cannot be broken."

3.    Jesus commissioned His apostles as teachers and gave them promises of supernatural aid of the Holy Spirit in their teaching, like the promises made to the Old Testament prophets.

4.    The apostles claim to have received this promised Spirit, and under his influence to speak with divine authority, putting their writings upon a level with the Old Testament Scriptures.  We have not only direct statements that both the matter and the form of their teaching were supervised by the Holy Spirit, but we have indirect evidence that this was the case in the tone of authority which pervades their addresses and epistles.

5.    The apostolic writers of the New Testament, unlike professedly inspired heathen sages and poets, gave attestation by miracles or prophecy that they were inspired by God, and there is reason to believe that the productions of those who were not apostles, such as Mark, Luke, Hebrews, James, and Jude, were recommended to the churches as inspired, by apostolic sanction and authority.

 

We will move on from these arguments in our next post.  Before we do, let us consider the application of this.  First, it is reasonable to believe that the Bible is the divinely given Word of God.  But it is still a step of faith.  The application is that we love the Bible because it is God’s word, we are committed to the reading and study of the Bible because it is God’s word, and we are committed to obedience to the Bible because it is God’s word!

Ps. 119:33-40, Arguments for the Divine Origin of the Bible (5)

Argument from Fulfilled Prophecy

·       Definition: in the narrow sense, prophecy is the foretelling of future events by virtue of direct communication from God.

·       Requirements in Prophecy, considered as an evidence of revelation:

o   The utterance must be distant from the event.

o   Nothing must exist to suggest the event is merely natural prescience.

o   The utterance must be free from ambiguity.

o   Yet it must not be so precise as to secure its own fulfillment.

o   It must be followed in due time by the event predicted.

·       General features of Prophecy in the Scriptures:

o   Its vast amount, extending over 4000 years.

o   Its unity in diversity--finding its central point in Christ and excluding all possibility of human fabrication.

o   Its actual fulfillment as regards many of its predictions, while all attempts have failed to show that any single one of these predictions has been falsified by the event.

Argument from the Miraculous

·       Definition: a miracle is an event palpable to the senses, produced for a religious purpose by the immediate agency of God; an event therefore which, though not contravening any law of nature, the laws of nature, if fully known, would not be competent to explain.

·       The amount of testimony necessary to prove a miracle is no greater than that which is requisite to prove the occurrence of any other unusual but confessedly possible event.

·       Miracles are the natural accompaniments and attestations of new communications from God.  The great epochs of miracles -- represented by Moses, the prophets, the first and second comings of Christ -- are coincident with the great epochs of revelation.  Miracles serve to draw attention to new truth, and cease when this truth has gained currency and foothold.

Argument from the Credibility of the Writers of Scripture

·       They are able or competent witnesses (having opportunities of observation and inquiry, being men of sobriety and discernment).

·       They are honest witnesses (their testimony imperiled all their worldly interests, the moral elevation of their writings and their adherence to it show they were not willful deceivers but good men).

·       The writings of the evangelists mutually support each other.