We believe as do most of our interlocutors that people of all languages ought be able to read God’s word in their own language. If they ought to read God’s word as it is in their own language then this “ought” implies that they can read God’s word as it is in the own language. This of course assumes that God’s word can be translated into other languages. And not just that, but that all of God’s words can be translated into other languages which assumes that we have all of God’s words. Unless, of course we are to believe that vernacular translations cannot translate all of God’s words because we don’t have all of God’s words.
Most of our interlocutors would retort that we do have all of the words of God. It is just that we are not sure if they are in the apparatus or the body of the Greek text. Does that same criteria go for the version as well? Are we to believe that the translation of the CSB is the word of God or are we to think that perhaps something of God’s word was left in the textual apparatus of the N/A27 and thus never translated into the CSB?
If it is true that all of God’s words are either in the textual apparatus or the body of the Greek NT and the textual apparatus is not present in modern versions of the Bible, then it is quite possible according to most Critical Text advocates that all modern translations do not have all of the words of God. So why should the modern church around the world believe she has all the words of God in her Bible if we know, admit, and regularly teach first year seminary students that the words of God are either in the text or apparatus and modern versions don’t translate the apparatus?
“But what about the marginal notes,” says the critic, “sometimes the marginal notes may have the other rendering from the textual apparatus.” Indeed, but if it is God’s word in the margin, then the editors of that translation have quite literally marginalized God’s word. Well played.
I believe that we and our interlocutors agree on the point that the word of God should be publicly preached in public worship and that is should be preached as the power and authority of God in all things that pertain to life and godliness.
Such an agreement should then exclude preaching things we know are not the word of God for these kind of things are not the power and authority of God in all things that pertain to life and godliness.
Additionally, we ought to avoid preaching things we are unsure are the word of God because in doing so the preacher is unsure if the words he is preaching are indeed the power and authority of God in all things that pertain to life and godliness. And any conscientious preacher would rather avoid preaching certain words as if they were the words of God and as if they possessed the power and authority of God when in fact it is possible that said words are not the words of God and do not carry the authority and power of God in all things that pertain to life and godliness.
So then the question of the hour is, “Do preachers preach the word of God because they know it to be the word of God as such the power and authority of God in all things that pertain to life and godliness?”
If they do know, how do they know? If the argument propounded here at StandardSacredText.com is rejected, then the natural transcendentless alternative seems to be something like, “Because my professor says so” or “Because I like the way this is the version of God’s sounds” or “Because the editors of the ECM are smart guys and I trust them.”
The I-like-the-way-it-sounds response is merely Expressive Individualism wearing dressed up in its Sunday bests and ought to be flatly rejected as a primary reason for reading the Bible. Regarding the professor and the editors of the ECM responses, the follow-up question would be, “Well, how do they know?” They don’t know. Rather they think it is probable that this or that reading is the Bible based on evidence. As such the Red Sea probably parted, Lazarus probably rose from the dead, and Jesus probably fed 5,000 people from a small lunch, and the belief that Jesus died on the cross for our sins is probably true.
Finally, then, our Christian faith is anchored in something that is probably true which makes faith itself probable seeing it is said to be a deliverance of Scripture [i.e., faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God]. So those who profess faith in Christ are probably saved.
And before you say that I’ve gone to far in that last line, both Dr.’s Van Kleeck have pressed this line of argumentation regarding the probability of faith with professors whose names you would recognize if we were to name them, and these professors have, in front of the whole class, admitted that in the interest of epistemic humility and given the limitations of the human capacities to know and believe they could only be at best 99% sure that they were saved by faith in Christ. In other words, for these two prominent evangelical professors from two different schools, it is only highly probably that they are saved and they are so sure of this fact that they are willing to say it out loud in class. I can’t imagine what they expect from us who are less informed and are not as gifted intellectually.
In sum, if the Bible you read is probably the word of God then the best you can say is that you are probably a child of God and therefore probably going to Heaven.
If the Bible you read is the word of God, then all other Bibles are not the word of God. They merely contain large amounts of the word of God. So then here are the two ways you can have it:
Option 1: My Bible is probably the word of God and as such I am probably saved by accepting its teachings.
Option 2: My Bible is the word of God and as such I am saved by accepting its teachings, but all the other Bibles which differ from God’s word are not the word of God at least in the places they differ. Still, a Bible that is 75% God’s word and 25% men’s word is not properly called God’s word.
In this episode of Warrior Theology Podcast, Dr.’s Van Kleeck continue their discussion of the preservation and collation of the canon of Scripture as a ground for treating the preservation and collation of the canonical words of Scripture.
Four initial points: 1.) we agree without our interlocutors that double inspiration is not supported in Scripture 2.) we agree with our interlocutors that God immediately inspired the original words written by Moses, Paul, Peter etc. 3.) we believe that the inspiration present in the words written by the canonical writers has been preserved for us down to this day. 4.) we believe that this inspiration can be present in vernacular translations via the categories of substantia doctrinae and derivative inspiration.
Regarding the first of these four we find perfect agreement with out opposing interlocutors. Regarding the second of these four we find relatively perfect agreement with our inerrantist interlocutors. Regarding the third of these four our interlocutors are rather muddled and so it is difficult to conclude whether we agree on this point or not. But the fourth of four, our interlocutors seem wholly unware that such a thing exists. If they are aware of such inspiration in vernacular translations then it seem to take the shape of something like, “If the translation is faithful to the originals then it is in this way inspired.” Setting aside the fact that we don’t have the originals and the fact that our interlocutors have only a naturalistic mechanism whereby they determine what is or is not original and the fact that such an unsupported declaration is hardly robust enough to stand under its own weight, it seems our interlocutors may be onto something which may one day grow into right thinking and right practice.
Until then it seems that in the place of a disagreement we have a void. It is not that we disagree on this point with our interlocutors it is that they have nothing on offer to fill this place in their system. And if they do, as I’ve said, it is rather anemic.
We believe and have asserted several times on this blog and in print that inspiration is to be understood in two parts: 1.) the inspiration of the accidents of writing [i.e., the shape of the letters] which in this case is the shape of Greek and Hebrew, the languages of the originals and 2.) the inspiration of the substance of writing [i.e., the meaning of the words]. So while a translation cannot have #1 seeing that a translation is not written in Greek or Hebrew and as such has different accidents of writing; translations can have #2 regarding the substance or meaning of the inspired words.
This we call derivative inspiration as distinguished from immediate inspiration. The latter happened at a moment in time and was unique to that person [e.g., Moses, David Paul etc.] and that unique time. Derivative inspiration is when a vernacular translation of a given inspired original word bears the substance of the original word. In such a circumstance the translated word is not inspired as to the accidents of writing but it is inspired, indeed equally as inspired as the original word, as to the substance of the word. In this sense, the words of a vernacular translation are inspired and are therefore profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction and for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect or complete unto all good works.
And how are we to determine which words are the inspired words in a vernacular translation? If you’ve been with us long you know the answer. The Spirit of God through the substantially inspired vernacular words of God speaks to the people of God and in those substantially inspired vernacular words the people of God hear the voice of the Good Shepherd and receive those substantially inspired vernacular words as indeed the words of God in the vernacular and not the words of men.
But you say, “Aren’t there substantially inspired vernacular words in some of the other modern translations?” Yes, there are, but for all my programming friends out there, there is a huge difference between an “Is A” relationship and a “Has A” relationship. A translation may have words of God but that is different from saying a translation is the word of God. Furthermore, no two vernacular translations agree at every point regarding that substance spoken of above and especially when comparing the KJV to most modern translations which bracket or footnote or wholly remove large portions of Scripture or significant portions of verses. In this sense, all versions when compared to each do not manifest the same “substantially inspired vernacular words.” Put simply, many vernacular translations add or omit words which the editors of such translations have determined are or are not the substantially inspired vernacular words of God.
Turning again to the Law of Non-Contradiction, The ESV as the word of God and the NIV as the word of God cannot both be the word of God at the same time and in the same way. And the same goes for any other versions you would like to compare: KJV, NKJV, CSB, NASB and on and on. Given that the words of a translation can be the substantially inspired vernacular words of God then either the ESV or the NIV or the KJV or the NKJV or the NASB or the CSB or the LSB are the substantially inspired vernacular word of God. But they cannot all be the word of God at the same time and in the same way. Why because the translated words can and do bear the inspiration of the original words of God written at the hand of Moses, David, Paul, Luke, etc. via the substantia doctrinae of inspiration making even the words of a translation to be inspired.
Interestingly enough, we here at StandardSacredText.com agree with our interlocutors that some form of textual criticism is and should be employed by capable scholars. We believe it was done at the time of the formulation of the TR and before that and we believe something of textual criticism ought to practiced today for the benefit of the Church.
But as you can imagine we disagree with our interlocutors in certain key areas and more specifically with regard to the nature of the practice and the method as it is carried out.
Regarding the nature of the practice, we believe that the work of New Testament textual criticism ought to be done in a distinctively Christian environment by professing Christians who set their Christian exegetically based precommitments at the ground and foundation of their text-critical practices and conclusions. We will address what I mean by Christian environment in just a minute, but our focus begins with Christians doing distinctively Christian textual criticism.
So what exactly does Christians doing distinctively Christian textual criticism look like? First, all work done on the New Testament must be understood as and treated as an act of submission to the Scripture itself. All who do textual criticism must be in submission to Scripture if they are to do textual criticism right. Which is to say, that at a minimum they ought to do their work guided by faith for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Furthermore, as part of their submission to Scripture all textual critics must see themselves as slaves or bondservants to the Spirit-led bride of Christ. One particular manifestation of that submission is to place the authority of the believing community above whatever scholastic conclusions are drawn by the academy regarding the Scriptures. As such, NT textual scholars have miserably failed on this point in that they along with Wescott and Hort have abandoned the TR as the Greek standard sacred text of believing community. The reception of the TR by the believing community is of greater import and of greater worth to the Church than all the readings accepted by all the scholars in all the world. To jettison the TR in favor of the “neutral text” of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus was simply an act of rebellion toward rather than submission to the Spirit-led bride of Christ. A rebellion that has yet to be repented of and is instead loudly persisted in.
Additionally, rather then marginalizing or ignoring one’s Christian precommitments in the work of textual criticism, the text-critic ought to make his Christian precommitments front and center in his work. Every act, every thought, every conclusion must be in submission to Christ as Lord, and that submission is defined in the words of Scripture. Furthermore, there must be a regular and clear assertion and acknowledgement that every time a word is thought in need of addition or omission that such an addition or omission may very well be an addition or omission of the very words of God. Fear, holy fear, ought to regularly penetrate the heart of every NT textual scholar when they as men think to claim this or that word to be God’s word when it is not or to think God’s word is something other than God’s word.
Why? Because every time a scholar speaks dogmatically or in terms of high probabilities that Word X is the New Testament then they are speaking dogmatically or in terms of high probabilities that God gave Word X by inspiration. But did He? If God didn’t, then the scholar is dogmatically asserting that God said something He did not. Such behavior – claiming that God said something that He really did not – is the very definition of being a false prophet or shepherd made with men’s hands. Both types of people are roundly condemned in Scripture.
There is more to say on this first point but I must move on. As a point of contention on our part, we assert that the environment of textual criticism is not an academic one. It is an ecclesiastical one. Real textual criticism, that part where words are said to be or not to be the New Testament/word of God, does not come about via textual committees. Real textual criticism is done by everyday Christian folk, by stay-at-home moms, truck drivers, little league coaches, computer programmers, dentists, dairy farmers and the like. It is the body of Christ by faith that hears the voice of their Good Shepherd in the Shepherd’s words and in hearing His words recognize His voice and follow Him. In the end, ultimately this is how we know what words are the New Testament and what words are not. In a right world, Christian textual critics only offer suggestions, are careful with their dogmatism, and when they do make a suggestion they do so with great trepidation.
But the textual critic is not wholly to blame. The believing community has a part to bear in this fiasco. Just like dads have pawned off the spiritual formation of their children to the church, and the church has pawned off its responsibility for the poor to the government and the government pawns off its ineptitude in caring for the poor on society and society pawns off its responsibility to God or Naturalism, so too the church has pawned off the real work of textual criticism to the academy and the academy, like the government, is happy to fill the void with false promises of achieving the original and perpetuated credential worship or the Cult of the Experts.
So, you get two thumbs up from us here at StandarSacredText.com for the use of textual criticism, but to be done right it must be done by faithful Christians holding to and expressing their distinctive Christian precommitments in submission to Christ’s Spirit-led bride who is ready to embrace her calling to hear the voice of the Good Shepherd in His revealed words and to have the boldness to reject all other words as counterfeit. All other forms of textual criticism are at best lessers and at worst immoral and blasphemous.
There is nothing exegetically or theologically prohibitive to believing in a standard sacred text. The Bible no where contemns such a belief. There is no distinctively Christian authoritative ground upon which to stand to claim that belief in a standard sacred text of Scripture for the English-speaking believing community is wrong, evil, against Scripture, or unbefitting the Kingdom of God. So while there are many things which can and do divide us because there are disputes on this or that rendering of Scripture, belief in a standard sacred text is not one of them.
We may not be able to agree on which denomination is most faithful to the first century church. We may not be able to agree on what is the proper mode of baptism. We may not be able to agree on the functional nature of the Communion elements. We may not be able to agree on the nature and term of the Millennium. We may not be able to agree on the form of public worship i.e., regulative principle or not. We may not be able to agree on the interrelation of the sovereignty of God in the affairs of men’s souls. We may not be able to agree on the role of the Sabbath in the New Testament or whether an attempted depiction of Jesus is a Second Commandment violation. We may not be able to agree on the nature of our respective biblical hermeneutics. We may not agree on which confession of faith to hold to. We may not agree on whether it is immoral for a Christian to sent their kids to a public school. We may not agree on the point of theological method. We may not agree on the point of apologetic method. We may not agree on the nature of Creation’s beginning. We may not agree on which Bible a Christian ought to read.
But we can agree that there should be one Bible that the English-speaking believing community should read. There is absolutely zero explicit or implicit exegetical evidence/argumentation condemning such a Spirit-led consensus among English-speaking churches. The church in the West is divided, weak, and aggregated and a standard sacred text could easily provide a measure of needed stability for all English-speaking Protestants.
So while the church in the West has much to be divided over and in many cases, for good reason. This one thing we need not be divided over, and that one thing is to hold to a belief in a standard sacred text for the English-speaking church. Let us then have unity around that one thing, around a standard sacred text of Scripture and from that point continue our discussions on those thing about which we disagree.
We agree with out opponents that the New Testament has far more manuscripts and far more complete manuscripts attesting to it than any other book of antiquity. We are told that it is an “embarrassment of riches.” The conclusion our interlocutors often draw from this truth looks something like, “If we trust that we have the works of Socrates or Homer even though we only have a few relatively later copies, then we should trust that we have the works of the New Testament seeing we have relatively more and earlier copies of the NT.” Put negatively, our opponents often opine, “If the number of manuscripts we currently have for the NT aren’t enough to believe that we have the actual words of the NT, then certainly the relatively fewer manuscripts we have of the works of antiquity aren’t enough to believe we have the actual words of Socrates, Homer, Hesiod, and Sophocles.”
At first it may appear that this is a potent argument, especially the negative form, in defense of the New Testament. But in the end, it really is not. It is true that Greek antiquity scholars speak of having the Iliad written by Homer or the plays of Sophocles, but when you read the scholarly literature on these sources few if any scholars are willing to conclude that they have the actual original of Homer.
Perhaps the clearest example of this is found in the works of Socrates and the literature based on such works. There are no surviving works written at the hand of Socrates. All the written material we have of Socrates was written by Plato. To this day there remains significant debate about what words of Socrates in Plato’s works are actually Socrates’ words. Some are thought to be Socrates’ actual words and some are thought to be Plato’s paraphrase of Socrates’ words and yet some others are thought to be wholly Plato’s words in Socrates’ name. And at each of these points there is dispute as to whether such is the case. In the end, no one really knows if the Socratic Dialogues are actually by Socrates, but that does not keep students of ancient philosophy from identifying the Socratic Method or attributing to Socrates the quote, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Even in learning elementary logic it is assumed that we know Socrates:
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The point is that modern scholarship has little qualms about claiming we have the words of Socrates while simultaneously admitting that we are not sure the words we do have are indeed the words of Socrates. So to besmirch the validity of the NT manuscript tradition does nothing against the validity of the case of whether or not words X, Y, and Z are indeed Socrates’ words. Modern scholars already admit that they may not be his words, and that is ok for them. They simply assert that we have is good enough. Now the modern evangelical text-critic is in a bind because their bluff has been called. It is admitted that we very well may not have the original words of Socrates. Now, will the NT scholar admit that we very well may not have the original words of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians? No, but with the rise of the ECM and the abandonment of the search for the original by many text-critical scholars, NT textual criticism is starting to come into line with the boarder scholarship concerned with ancient texts.
Put simply, if modern evangelical text-critic thinks he can build a case for the reliability of the NT text based on the fact that Plato experts think they read the actual words of Socrates in Plato, then that house of cards is doomed to fall, and to fall fantastically. Why? Because Plato experts admit from the start that words X, Y, and Z may not be the words of Socrates. It would only be natural then for the Plato expert to enjoin upon the NT text-critic to admit the same about his NT.
In the end, the number of NT manuscripts is only an “embarrassment of riches” when compared to a standard that is already held in low degree [i.e., whether the Socrates’ words are actually his]. Put more vividly, there are about 250 surviving manuscripts of Plato’s Dialogues. And we are not sure if any of the words contained therein are indeed the words of Socrates. We have approximately 6,000 manuscripts of the NT. If we turn manuscripts into YouTube views, then Plato has 250 views and the NT has about 6,000 views. When compared, the NT has 20 times more views than Plato does. WOW, right!
Well, it is only “wow” because of the things compared. Here is a video of monkeys reacting to magic
Monkeys Reacting to Magic has over 82,000,000 views. Now all of a sudden 6,000 views isn’t WOW. What if there were 82,000,000 million total copies of the NT books? 6,000 manuscripts would barely registers on the scale. So much for an “embarrassment of riches.” What if there were a 1,000,000 or 500,000. If such were the case we would think ourselves poor for having lost so much. How many copies were their of Plato’s work? No one knows. How many copies of the NT books were there? No one knows. But in both cases it is fair to conclude that there were more than we currently have and probably many more than the ones we currently have.
In sum, we don’t know how many copies of the NT books ever existed and without a robust sense of inspiration and preservation and an understanding of the leading of the Spirit of God through the words of God to the people of God; we can never know whether our 6,000 manuscripts are representative of the vast trunk of the tree or representative of a weak and aberrant twig more suited to be cut off and cast into the fire than to be called Holy Scripture.
How would you know what the evangelical textual critics were describing the Bible if they did not have the TR to compare it to? The first text of Scripture the critic read was the TR and this foundation allowed the expert to place his investigation within the realm of Scriptural texts. His new text isn’t something wholly different from the TR and that is how everyone knows he’s talking about a Bible. If you were to take away the TR it would be impossible for the critic to say he is working with biblical texts. He is only “close” because the TR had already got him most of the way there. So while disparaging the Reformation text, it is the same text that gives the critic’s study credibility, so much so that many churchmen don’t see a difference between the two. Instead of criticizing the TR the modern text critic should thank the Reformers for giving them a huge head-start in creating their historical critical text. They could not have done it without the TR.
As we shall see, because so much of the critical text was first in the TR, the following are some editorial suggestions for the sake of methodological transparency.
Introductory Material
In one way the critical text is like the Qu’ran. Both plagiarize the Christian Scriptures to gain credibility. To be fair, in the front of each critical Greek text, a disclaimer should be included stating that 80-90%?of the text is taken from the Received Text either in the chosen reading or apparatus. It is misleading to infer by omission that the critical text, except for some lexigraphical, grammatical, or syntactical changes, is original.
Footnotes
In long passages, the critical text and versions should include the following note in the text column which states, “The following [number] of verses have been excerpted without change from the Trinitarian Bible Society’s TR.” This will prevent the accusation of plagiarism. After all, giving credit where credit is due is a scholarly virtue.
Color coding
In keeping with the editorial design of the Five Gospels, all TR readings should be in black to separate them from the blue lettered critical text. In this way a true accounting of the critical changes to the TR can immediately be made by the reader, again relieving the critical text of accusations of plagiarism.
Examples
The following are a few examples of critical text passages plagiarized from the TR. The sad thing about this is that the historical critical method is so feckless it cannot come up with its own text. The critical text is not a text; the critical text is a number of different words and grammatical structure inserted into the TR. The critical text could have been a companion lexicon, including only the suggested changes to the TR, with footnotes to the TR, a glossa ordinalis of a sort. Instead, the editors initial step was to includ lexical entries or the gloss, directly into the text of the TR. It’s like Ford Motor Company putting its badges on a Chevy and calling it a Ford because it has “Ford” monogrammed on the seat covers. (This is not intended to disparage Ford by this comparison. See the 1966 Ford GT40 victory at Le Mans). While the TR is maligned, the critical text could not exist without it. It is a text, and not a lexicon, only because the CT borrows the text of the TR. For our purposes a verse-by-verse examination of the Book of Philemon is offered. Twenty-five verses should be sufficient to demonstrate the focus of this post.
Bold numbers, or the second line are Nestle’s 28th edition. Bold print in the text accents the variations between the TR and Nestle’s 28th ed.
The following are the differences between the texts using the TR as the authority.
Nestle’s 28th ed.
2: Changes ἀγαπητῇ to ἀδελφῇ — “beloved” to “brother.” Different words with similar meanings.
6: Omits ἰησοῦν, Jesus
7: Transposes and changes ἔχομεν πολλὴν to πολλὴν ἔσχον – “we have great (joy)” to “has given me great (joy)” Change from active to passive
9: Transposes ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ to Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ — “Jesus Christ” to “Christ Jesus.”
10: omits μου – “my (bonds)”
11: adds [καὶ] –“and”
12: omits σὺ δὲ and προσλαβοῦ. Changes τουτέστι to τοῦτ’ ἔστιν – omits “thou therefore receive.” “that is” us translated the same way.
13: transposes διακονῇ μοι to μοι διακονῇ — “ministered unto me” is translated the same way.
18: changes ἐλλόγει to ἐλλόγα – “he hath wronged” to “he has done you any wrong.” Change from verb to a noun.
25: omits ἡμῶν and ἀμήν – “(the grace of) our Lord” to “the grace of the Lord,” and omitting “Amen.”
Observations:
Verses 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 are identical. 15 out of 25 verses are identical. Then of the remaining 10 verses 13 changes are made that affect 17 words out of 339 words in the TR or 5% of the words in the book.
The point of this exercise is to show that to read Paul’s letter to Philemon in Greek in the N28 is to read the TR with minor variations. Though a corruption of the Original (apograph), pragmatically speaking little has been gained by the N28 critical changes. 95% of the book reads exactly as the TR, and yet we are supposed to accept that the 5% makes this an entirely different text of Philemon? If the critical text is considered a stand-alone critical edition on the book of Philemon, which of course it is touted to be, it can’t be any other way, then the editors of the N28 Book of Philemon are culpable of plagiarizing the TR.
Faithful versions are “divinely [derivatively] inspired” and have “canonical dignity.”
34. The authority of Holy Scripture is canonical, or normative, as in part not only the sense, but also the words of those same divinely inspired Scriptures, or the original text [apograph], in order equally to the versions, recorded by human studies, and it has both the writings and the investigated doctrine, as in itself and absolutely proved, and the authority is founded in the inspiration of the God of truth, and Scriptures, by reason of the words of the original text [apograph], has a dependency on God; thus also in order to us, or that by divine faith we might believe, the books of Scripture under which, by which are shown to us, by the properties, that is by the choice of words in a certain language, by the order and context, to be divinely inspired, and thus to have that normative force, or canonical dignity, and since the testimony of the church alone does not suffice, truly also it is proper to engage this internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, or this operation of the Holy Spirit, which is effective through the same Scriptures. (italics added)
Regeneration is indissolubly united with the first act of immediate inspiration. God is the principle cause of regeneration, Scripture is the efficient cause of instrumentality.
39. To the affects of Holy Scripture pertains further its second effect, that it has a force or active power, supernatural and truly divine, for the producing of supernatural effects, namely the converting, regenerating and renovating of the minds of people, from the divine commands themselves, as far as can be seen, also intimately and indissolubly united by the first act of inspiration beyond the use made of it; and which, approaching it by reading, hearing, or meditating, by the second act it stretches itself out, thus that the effect of that supernatural grace, as from God, as the principle cause, and thus from Scripture itself, as by an efficient cause of instrumentality, at the same time and successively, those effects are produced effectively by one undivided power. (italics added)
Scripture’s perfect and complete instruction
40. Further third in the affects of Holy Scriptures is its perfection, or sufficiency, through which it is able to instruct us perfectly and completely about all things which are necessary for the acquiring, believing and doing of human salvation.
Scripture’s perspicuity by being led supernaturally through Scripture itself and its light.
41. Finally fourth among the affects of Scripture perspicuity has a place, or that thing, by which those things that are necessary for the believing and doing of people tending towards salvation, by the words and phrases thus clear and by the received use of speech, are put forward in Scripture so that actually being able and directing attention to the words by a moderate understanding, the true sense of the words, as far as they are necessary by decree, it is possible to reach out for and to embrace the main points of doctrine simply by apprehension of the mind; as the intellect of humans, by apprehending the words and the signified things being offered, is led supernaturally through Scripture itself and its light, or through the divine strength joined to it, to the assent of faith. (italics added)
John William Baier, Compendium of Positive Theology, ed. by C. F. W. Walther, trans. by Rev. Theodore Mayes (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1686, 1877), Prolegomena, sec. 34, 39, 40, 41.
John William Baier (1647-1694): a Lutheran rector and theological professor of the University of Halle. He wrote, Compendium Theologie Positive (Jena, 1686); De Purgatorio (Jena, 1677); De Aqua lustrali Pontiffciorum (Jena, 1692); Collatio doctrince Quackerorum et Protestantium (Jena, 1694).
Standard Sacred Text.com 