Faith and the Principium of Theology

The following quote can be found in my Westminster class notes[pp. 4-5] found here and particularly the ST 101 – Introduction to Systematic Theology notes. As a reminder, come the end of the semester those notes will be replaced with new notes from different classes sometime in January. Blessings.

______________________________

The historic conviction of the Church, clarified at the Reformation, is that the self-revelation of God is the only norm for understanding who God is – Sola Scriptura – Scripture alone.  We may not veil from ourselves that in terms of the commitment to the principium, there are only two alternatives: (1) Affirm our principium, embracing it in faith; faith that can only come by the hearing of Christ (Rom. 10:17), or (2) Reject our principium in unbelief.  We cannot from a neutral standpoint prove that the Bible is God’s word.  We cannot prove Scripture in an a priori or a posteriori, inductive or deductive way.  How do we prove that God spoke through prophets and through his Son?  We can speak convincingly only as we speak from faith to faith.  To seek to demonstrate your principium, or your ultimate norm is to show you do not understand your principium.  This veils from ourselves that we have a different or more ultimate principium.  This does not mean that it is a waste of time to reflect on our principium, nor to give reasons why we hold to our foundational norm.  We can give reasons for holding our principium, but such efforts are meaningful only in the circle of faith; only among those who believe.

Faith is not a principle of subjectivity; it is not my own subject-centeredness.  What we need to break out of is the mindset that my reason gives me my objectivity and my faith is my subjectivity.  Faith is a gift from God; more specifically, faith is the result of the Sovereign working of the Spirit of God.  Considering faith as a gift of God, is in one important sense, has nothing of its own: “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief” (Mark 4).  Faith is what it is only in relation to its object- – Jesus Christ.  Faith’s object and focus is in Jesus Christ.  Faith depends upon this object; focused and bound to this object; faith is radically “extra-spective” or looking away from itself.  Faith is focused on the Word of God and the saving relationship in Christ.  Without Christ faith has nothing.  Rom. 10:17- “Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the Word of Christ.”  Eph. 3:19- “As believers we may be filled up with all the fullness of God.” Christ dwells in our hearts through faith.  Because faith in itself is nothing, it possesses everything. 1 Cor. 3:22- “All things are yours.”  By faith, we are better than our faith.  “We are shut up to the circle of the Spirit’s working.”  It is not that faith is subjective; we cannot set up reason as objective and faith is subjective.  

From these observations, it is plain that to insist on the unbreakable correlation between faith and revelation, or that theology is the truth of faith, to insist on this is not a sacrificing of the Church to subjectivism.  Error has come into the Church through misdirected appeals to feelings and faulty uses of reason, and religious sentiment and tradition.  It is because of this that the Church has not stayed faithful to the Word of God.  Faith, no matter how partial or imperfect, it holds fast and unerringly to Christ and His Word.  This is the true, distinguishing essence of faith.  John 10:27- “My sheep hear my voice.”  Faith is drawn to the Word of God.  Belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is not a necessary component, it is an intricate and normal component of saving faith.

__________________________________

I hope you can see that our dependence here at StandardSacredText.com upon the Spirit/word/faith paradigm is not something we cooked up, but something we were taught over and over – first in the Scriptures and then at school. All we are doing is carrying this torch in the 21 century in order to share the same light with others.

Debate Commentary: Closing Statements

In this episode Drs. Van Kleeck comment on the closing statements of the debate. Overall, we very much appreciated the opportunity of the debate and the fruits that have come from it. I want to thank Dr. James White for taking the debate and for Chris Arnsen for setting things up. It was a joy and a blessing in so many ways and I praise the Lord for it.

On another note, here is another commentary on the debate recently offered by Robert Vaughn. Go ahead and take a look at that.

Finally, I have heard your demands and have published Then He Poked The Bear as a paperback. I want to remind you of the glowing endorsement that James White gave of the book when he said in the debate that Then He Poked The Bear was “The most skeptical attack upon any critical approach to the New Testament I’ve ever seen in my life, ever.” Thank you, Dr. White.

Debate Commentary: Dr. James White’ Second Cross-Examination

In this episode Drs. Van Kleeck engage with Dr. James White’s second cross-examination. We note again that JW apparently was unable to pivot from his cursory reading of our published words to the debate topic and positive arguments of the night. This was the last chance JW had to offer informed cogent rebuttals or defeaters to my arguments and once again, now 2 hours and 20 minutes into the debate, was unable to do so. Seeing JW has had 178 moderated debates to this point it still baffles the mind as to how he was unable to make this most crucial pivot. Maybe JW is too busy, but his lack of debate prep for both this debate and for the ones he had with Dr. Jeff Riddle was apparent which is unfortunate for all parties involved.

Debate Commentary: Van Kleeck’s Second Cross-Examination (Part 2)

In this episode Drs. Van Kleeck conclude their observations regarding Van Kleeck Jr.’s second cross-examination. Obviously this series is getting long and we have two more episodes to go. I hope that it is becoming clear if it is not already that what was presented at the debate was merely the tip of a very large iceberg which represents a defense of the Textus Receptus.

There are other defenses we can offer. Defense from explanatory ultimate, Scripture itself, properly basic belief, history, and church history. The defense of the TR is deep and wide. As such, don’t ever get sucked into the trap that only historical arguments can be made in defense of your Bible. Even worse, don’t get sucked into the trap that the best arguments are merely historical and the best way to argue these arguments is by assuming your opponent’s methodology. There is no good reason to entertain either of these traps whether you have a graduate degree or not.

Remain faithful to your Bible and defend it with distinctively Christian argumentation. With these two practical admonitions we will see belief in the Bible to change the world.

Debate Commentary: White’s First Cross Examination

In this episode Drs. Van Kleeck discuss Dr. James White’s first cross examination from the recent debate he had with Dr. Van Kleeck Jr. Our hope is that by giving this commentary greater light can be shed on why I answered the questions they way I did and why I refused to answer some of the questions in distinctly evidential terms.

Debate Commentary: Van Kleeck’s Rebuttal

We are back in the recording saddle this week. Drs. Van Kleeck were finally able to complete their commentary of the debate between Peter Van Kleeck Jr. and James White. We pick up commentary at the beginning of Van Kleeck’s rebuttal.

The aim of this commentary is to shed some light and add some color to the debate by commenting on the background and motivations of our arguments as well as to add some color and light to why I interacted with JW as I did.

TULIP Bibliology

Perhaps it would be helpful for my Reformed brothers to conceive of Confessional Bibliology [CB] in terms of Soteriological Calvinism [SC]. When seen through this lens the parody between the two is quite striking. To my non-Reformed brothers this argument will of course not carry as much weight.

So let us begin…

1.) T in SC stands for Total Depravity. In short, this doctrine teaches that man cannot save himself nor does he rightly desire to be saved apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in his heart.

In like manner for CB, man cannot locate, verify, or prove what words are God’s words apart from the Spirit of God working in the heart of the Christian. Indeed, such things are spiritually discerned. Only the Spirit through His words to His people who accept these words by faith can locate, verify, and prove what words are God’s words.

2.) U in SC stands for Unconditional Election. Here God is said to choose those who would be saved and united to Christ just as God chose Jacob rather than Esau before either of them had done good or evil.

In like manner for CB, God chose specific words which He dictated to the penmen of Scripture [i.e., Moses, David, Luke] who then faithfully and willingly wrote those words. Those words are called inspired, infallible, and authoritative Scripture.

3.) L in SC stands for Limited Atonement. Here Christ’s sacrifice for the sins of mankind is often expressed as “sufficient for all but efficacious only for the elect.” That is, Christ’s atoning sacrifice did not save everyone but rather a specific mass of elect individuals of every people, tongue, and nation. What is more, because Christ actually saved people on the cross, He did not merely make salvation possible.

In like manner for CB, God’s work of providentially inspiring and preserving that mass of authoritative words applies only to those words and to no others. Certainly God could have inspired all the words of men, but He chose to inspire only a certain number and only at a certain time. What is more, God’s inspiring and preserving is not a mere possibility but rather an actuality. Indeed, these inspired and infallible words have been kept pure in all ages.

4.) I in SC stands for Irresistible Grace. The Holy Spirit always accompanies the hearing of His words but in the specific case of salvation the voice of the Spirit draws the lost soul to Christ by giving that soul a desire for Christ. Through that God-given desire and the hearing of the word he who was once lost becomes found by accepting Christ as Savior through faith.

In like manner for CB, the Holy Spirit always accompanies the hearing of His words but in the case of recognizing His words as God’s words the voice of the Spirit speaks to the Christian through those words because they are His words. Through His speaking, the Christian, having a God-given ability and desire to hear God’s voice, recognizes the voice of his Shepherd and accepts by God-given faith those words as indeed the words of God and not men. When the Spirit speaks through His words to His people who accept those words by faith in such a way the conclusion that said words are the words of God is irresistible.

5.) P in SC stands for Perseverance of the Saints. Simply put, no man, including one’s own self, is able to pluck a Christian out of the Father’s hand. As such, all true Christians will ultimately remain faithful to Jesus Christ though that faithfulness may fluctuate given the storms of life and our propensity for doubt.

In like manner for CB, the Holy Spirit will always preserve his words as He preserves all those who have been given to the Son. As a result, no man is able to pluck a single word from Scripture, the living Voice of God, any more than a man is able to pluck a Christian out of God’s hand. No child of God and no word of God can ever perish. In light of these truths we have no grounds to doubt a single word in our Bible has been lost any more than we have ground to doubt a single saved sheep has been lost from among Christ’s fold even amidst our propensity to doubt which is brought about by academic interpretations of manuscript evidence.