Tonight 9/5 at 7:30 we will hold the thirteenth lecture of series three on “A Theological Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text –The
Role of B..B. Warfield

Leading up to the national implications of replacing Scripture with history in Germany, was the wide-ranging impact of this theological transition in the lectures of Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, (1887-1921) Professor of Theology at Princeton Seminary. Perhaps the most impactful miscarriages of the application of providence were the redefinition of the 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1, section 8, “and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.” Having returned from Germany, being immersed in the historical critical method, Warfield’s Oxford lectures forever changed the theological trajectory of the American academy and subsequently the Church. If ever such egregious words were penned, Warfield wrote,

In the sense of the Westminster Confession, therefore, the multiplicity of copies of the Scriptures, the several early efforts towards the revision of the text, the raising up of scholars in our own day to collect and collate MSS., and to reform the text on scientific principles – of our Tishendorf’s and Tregelles, and Westcotts and Horts – are all part of God’s singular care and providence in preserving His inspired Word pure.[1]

---

[1] Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and its Work (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), 239. Also see Karl Barth, Der Romerbrief (Bern: G. A. Baschlin, 1919), preface, as cited in James M. Robinson, “Hermeneutics Since Barth,” in New Frontiers in Theology, vol. 2, The New Hermeneutic, ed. James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr. (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 22. Barth writes, “The critical historical method of Biblical research has its validity. It points to the preparation for the understanding that is never superfluous. But if I had to choose between it and the old doctrine of inspiration, I would decidedly lay hold of the latter. It has greater, deeper, more important validity, for it points to the actual work of understanding, without which all preparation is useless. I am happy not to choose between the two.” Note the similarity between Barth’s modulation of the relationship between inspiration and historical criticism with that of Princeton Theologian Benjamin Warfield.

Don’t miss this important study of the Immediate inspiration for Christian theology, ecclesiology, and personal edification, Tuesday 9/5 at 7:30pm.

Tonight 8/29 at 7:30 we will hold the thirteenth lecture of series three on “A Theological Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text –God’s Singular Care and Providence and the Sacred Apographa

Eighty-eight years earlier, in book 2, chapter 16, of the Institutes, Calvin discussed the pivotal role played by the providence of God. He concludes that everything is “governed by God’s secret plan in such a way that nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by Him.”^[1] Providence is “secret” because it is the personal exercise of God. Trying to categorize or systematize the intricacies of God’s providential work is beyond the rational scope of men. Only after the “secret” has been divulged in the course of history can the work of providence be seen for what it is. Even then, the limitations of men often only allow them to see the aggregate parts of providence, never living to see the beauty of the whole and blessed to live it its fulfillment. The early collators of inspired Scripture could only dream of the day that the sixty-six-book library that is the canon was between two covers as a single volume. Their obscure and unsung part of the aggregate was essential to making the whole a reality. In this regard it is also important to note that the early collators of the aggregate parts did not know how many books comprised the completed canon. What they knew, through the testimony of the word itself and the Spirit, is that their portion was canonical. It is God’s “singular care and providence” that unites the whole in that it is His word and Spirit that makes the collection of words and books throughout the ages a work of providence.

---

[1] Calvin, Institutes, 2.16.3.

Don’t miss this important study of the Immediate inspiration for Christian theology, ecclesiology, and personal edification, Tuesday 8/29 at 7:30pm.

All attempts made to discredit the inspired word “finally devolves” or is finally handed over to the Holy Spirit, the Author of the sacred Writings, the written inspired word being the Holy Spirits “registers and transcripts.” Use of the word “transcript” tends toward the understanding of the Holy Spirit dictating the inspired word. The following is a polemic against Enlightenment theological erosion and a call to return to pre-critical Theological categories by looking at two principal passages on the Doctrine of Inspiration — 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-21.

The formulation of the doctrine of inspiration is in large part been an apologetic record of the doctrine’s historic defense. The adjectives immediate, verbal, plenary, now codified in Protestant Orthodoxy, and later the adjective derivative, aid the Church in specifically defining inspiration and enabling the Church to give both a didactic and apologetic response. Christianity is wholly dependent on the inspired Word. If there is no inspiration, there is no Christianity.

“The internal witness is one alone; namely of the holy Ghost inwardly speaking to our heart, and persuading us that those writings are inspired of God, and sealing them up in our hearts, Eph. 1:13; 1 John 2:20, 27, Ye have an anointment of the Lord, and this anointment teaching you all things. For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, can easily discern his power speaking in the Scriptures….And this testimony properly maketh for our confirmation, and this alone doth satisfy us, being known of them alone that are converted unto Christ, which doth evermore agree with the Scripture, without which the testimony of the Church can be no weight with us. For as none but God alone is a fit witness to testify of himself in his word, even so the word never findeth credit in our hearts, till such time as it be sealed up unto us by the inward testimony of the Spirit.”

William Bucanus, Body of Divinity, 42, 45-46.

“This doctrine is of the utmost importance; for, if you take away the influence of the Holy Spirit from the members of the church, then the very Gospel of Christ will be no more than a sublime speculation, as ineffectual to change the heart or reform the world as the pagan philosophy. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter, is the inestimable promise made to the church; if therefore we would read the Bible for our reproof, our correction, our instruction in righteousness, we must before, and as we read, pray to God for his influence and teaching.”

Henry Venn, The Complete Duty of Man, or A System of Doctrinal and Practical Christianity designed for the use of families, 1763, Revised and Corrected by H. Venn, (New York: American Tract Society, 1838), 391.

The process by which the words of the Canon were collated cannot be classified, categorized, or easily referenced because, as we have seen, all external criteria for canonicity fails, which also includes the effects of divine providence are only seen after the fact. The product, or Canon, does not divulge how the words were identified as canonical other than that they were immediately inspired and show the evidence of that inspiration as surely as does the presence of light. The question of the truth of Matt. 5:18, for example, then deals with the inspired character of a product brought about by a historically unquantifiable process. Unquantifiable means unspecifiable or unidentifiable. That is, the historical collating process of the canon is not bound to a system based on a text type, a neutral text, an older, shorter, harder to read text, a text from which another text would derive its origin, is not based on majority readings, is not part of a genealogical system by any name, is not part of any system.

The Muratorian Canon (175-225 AD)  was the earliest official list produced by the Church. It was not sanctioning a canon but recognizing a list of authoritative, self-attesting, self-authenticating, self-interpreting texts received by believers. This early list omits Hebrews, 2 Peter and James, also 1 Peter but this is considered an unintentional omission. The word “canon” is not yet used but the list is “reckoned,” “received,” and “read” in the churches. These words speak of a closed collection of books – that there would be no more added to the books that were “recognized.” The criteria were: 1. Apostolicity; 2. Inspiration; 3. Historical authenticity; 4. Rejection of anything that could not belong to the Apostolic period; 5. Wide church acceptance of the text – accepted by all believers.

Presbyterian scholar and Westminster Professor John Murray articulates the “imprints” of God’s Authorship upon Scripture, writing, “If, as has been shown in the earlier part of this discussion, Scripture is divine in its origin, character and authority, it must bear the marks of divinity. If the heavens declare the glory of God and therefore bear witness to their divine Creator, the Scripture as God’s handiwork must also bear the imprints of his authorship. This is just saying that Scripture evidences itself to be the Word of God; its divinity is self-evidencing and self-authenticating. The ground of faith in Scripture as the Word of God is therefore the evidence it inherently contains of its divine authorship and quality. “

Theological Grounding Episode 3:The Connection Between Apostolic Preaching & the Written Word of God This Apostolic witness through the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ provides the matrix for a New Testament canon. The central thought is that the authoritative preaching of the Apostolate brought about the emergence of a new authoritative body of material, the New Testament, to stand alongside the Old Testament.