An Exegetical Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text w/ Dr. Jeff Riddle

Dr. Jeff Riddle was gracious enough to have Dr. Van Kleeck Sr. come the Word Magazine podcast and discuss his new book, An Exegetical Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text. The interview is broad-ranging from Dr. Van Kleeck’s early years in Bible Defense and Ted Letis to the content of Dr. Van Kleeck’s new book with specific attention given to the exegesis of Psalm 12:6-7 and Psalm 119:89. Below you can find this excellent interview in its entirety. Blessings.

Select quotes from the Introduction of “An Exegetical Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text”

“How one interprets the Bible depends wholly on one’s a priori acceptance of the Scripture as God’s Word” (4).

“The ‘house of the Lord’ [Ps. 27:4] has always been the best place to do theology” (26).

“Like so many other things God allows in his providence, the ‘industrial grade’ bible exists for the Church to grow stronger by its rejection” (33).

“Scripture’s preservation is first recognized intuitively” (34).

“Preservation is incontrovertibly linked with inspiration” (35).

“Providential preservation does not exist within the observable boundaries of scientific categories to be classified, nor can it be observed till after the fact” (36).

“The Bible cannot be what it says it is if God did not providentially preserve it for us” (44).

Thomas Ford, 1667, on True Holiness and Inspiration, the “finger of God”

That true holiness consists especially in the inward impressions and dispositions, which make a man meet for communion with God, and in the inclinations, and carriages of the soul towards God immediately, such as mere Moralists never knew. There’s a fountain and a root within, from which springs all that honesty, and integrity, and purity which appears in the outward conversation, and all is from man’s being engrafted into Christ, and receiving from him a continual supply of his Spirit. And this (I hope) Papists will not deny, viz. That all spiritual good is wrought in us by the Spirit of God.

Now this way of holiness being taught us in the Scripture, we conclude Scripture to be written with God’s finger, because no other than God could reveal such glorious truths to us. Let it be showed us, how these things came to be written where we find them, if God did not. Once we think it a rational and unquestionable conclusion, That Scripture is given by inspiration of God, because we find in it the only way of our access to, and acceptance with God, and the only way of purifying us so, as we may meet for communion with him forever. And why? Even because God alone could teach us these things, which the hearts of men or Angels otherwise could never have conceived.

Thomas Ford, Scripture’s Self-Evidence: To prove  its Excellence, Authority, Certainty in itself, and Sufficiency (in its kind) to ascertain others, That it is Inspired of God to be the Only Rule of Faith, (London: Printed for Edward Brewster, and are to be sold at Mr. Marriotts and Scrivener; over against Hicks-Hall, in St. John’s Street, 1667), 10-12.

Reason and Revelation: A Shift Between Turretin and Hodge?

Years ago, while at Westminster [East] I had the opportunity to take a semester long class on Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology with Dr. Scott Oliphint and Dr. Jeff Jue. Turretin’s Institutes served as the Systematic Theology textbook of the Academy at Geneva during the Third Wave of the Reformation. The text was in Latin and remained the standard Systematic Theology into the 1800’s where it was used at Cambridge University until Turretin’s Institutes were replaced by Charles Hodge’s three volume, Systematic Theology.

One thing that my professors pointed out was the amount of time Turretin spent on the relationship of faith and reason verse the amount of time Hodge spent on the same topic. As to amount of content, Hodge spills nearly three times as much ink dealing with rationalism and reason as Turretin spends dealing with the “rationalist” of his time and reason. Covering 10 pages Turretin’s topics are,

VIII. Is human reason the principle and rule by which the doctrines of the Christian religion and theology (which are the objects of faith) ought to be measured? We deny against the Socinians.
IX. Does any judgment belong to reason in matters of faith or is there no use at all for it?
X. May the judgment of contradiction be allowed to human reason in matters of faith? We affirm.

Covering 26 pages Hodge’s topics are,

III.1 Meaning and Usage of the Word “Rationalism”
III.2 Deistical Rationalism
III.3 Second Form Rationalism. – Its Nature, Refutation, History
III.4 Dogmatism
III.5 Proper Office of Reason in Matters of Religion
Reason necessary for the Reception of a Revelation. – Difference between Knowing and Understanding. – Reason must judge of the Credibility of a Revelation. – The Impossible cannot be believed. – Reason must judge of the Evidence of a Revelation
III.6 Relation of Philosophy and Revelation
III.7 Office of the Senses in Matters of Faith

There are at least two initial observations to make regarding this comparison:

1.) Clearly Hodge saw a greater need to address the rise of Rationalism or even the worship of human reason during his time. As such he chose to give nearly 3 times as much attention to the role of reason in matters of faith. But such threats where not wholly absent from Turretin’s time either given the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Fall and particularly the fall of the intellect at Adam’s first sin.

2.) Did Hodge place a greater emphasis and even impetus on the role of reason in matters of faith? That would have to be argued on a later post but suffice it to say that Hodge’s terminological emphasis seems to differ from that of Turretin’s. Consider in our examples above Turretin’s VIII and Hodge’s III.5. Turretin plainly states that Reason is not the principle by which the doctrines of the Christian religion and theology ought to be measured?” while Hodge plainly states that “Reason must judge of the Credibility of a Revelation” and “Reason must judge of the Evidence of Revelation.” For Turretin reason is not principle and for Hodge reason is a “must” and is therefore principle. At this point, I only wish to point out that Hodge places a greater emphasis on reason than Turretin. We will discuss meaningful differences at a later time.

Indeed, the times of these two men were different but the role, efficacy, and authority of human reason has not changed since the fall of Adam in the Garden.

Thomas Ford, (1667), Scripture’s Self-Evidence: To prove its Excellence, Authority, and Certainty in itself

The former part,

Shewing the Rational Grounds upon which Protestants believe Scripture to be inspired of God, etc.

Scripture is (as it calls itself) s Light, and therefore is best seen in ,and by, and of itself, though there be nothing else to show it. Hence it is, that when we have said as much as we can, to prove its Divine authority, we must leave it to be seen in its own Light, and to prove itself the manifestation of God’s mind and will made to the sons of men. And upon due consideration it will appear so, to any that are judicious and impartial. For how can it be proved to be what it is by any argument, besides the attestation given it by God, and his Spirit, and the evident tokens of God speaking in it? And so proves itself, just as a Learned man proves himself as Scholar by his Exercises, when he is called to them; or as God proves himself to be what he is, by what he saith and doth.

                However, we are put to prove our Principles, and we are contented so to do, as well as we can. I say as well as we can, because Scholars know that Principles are most hardly proved against such, as have impudence enough to deny them. And here I must in order to my intended work, request the Reader to grant me somewhat which seems very reasonable, and (I Hope) will be supposed such by all that are indifferent and impartial.

  1. That in this Case, I can allege no rational Arguments, other than such as Scripture yields and offers, to prove itself inspired of God; so that my work is to let others see the light wherein Scripture shows itself.
  2. I do not in this undertaking charge the papists, as denying in terms the Scripture to be Divinely inspired. For they grant it in a sort, when they say, The Church’s Testimony makes it not Authentical and Canonical in itself, but, quoad nos, in respect to us, who cannot otherwise be ascertained of its Divine authority.
  3. I hope it will not be expected from me, that I shall prove the Divine authority of Scripture so, as to silence the Gainsayers, since nothing can be so proved as there will not be some to make exceptions. What can be more certain than God’s Existence? And yet how many are there who deny, or question it? Christ came as a Light into the World, and what Christian dare say or think he did not sufficiently prove himself to be (what he was) the promised Messiah? Yet all he could say or do for that purpose, was no enough to satisfy the most of his Countrymen and Kindred, that he was the Lord’s Christ. All that I can reasonably design, is to show, that Scripture is a shining Light, that doth sufficiently prove itself to be inspired of God, thou many have not the eyes to see it.
  4. It must be supposed in this Discourse, that as there is one living and true God, so this God is to be honored and adored by his reasonable Creatures, with that service and worship which may become his infinite and most excellent Majesty. Hence it cannot be denied, that there must be some Revelation made of God himself concerning what way of worship wherein he will have his Creatures to serve him. For who can know what pleases God, but he himself, and they to whom he makes known the good pleasure of his will?

Now supposing some Revelation of God’s will in order to that service which he will accept, and be well pleased with, I may ask this Question, viz. If Scripture be not this Revelation, where is it? And this will lie hard upon all who acknowledge one only true God, that mad Heaven and Earth, to show some other, and better manifestation concerning the will and ways of God, than what he hath made in his written word. But this is to be discussed hereafter; and for the present I am to show how, and wherein Scripture speaks itself the word of God, and by consequence the Rule of Faith.

Thomas Ford, Scripture’s Self-Evidence: To prove its Excellence, Authority, Certainty in itself, and Sufficiency  (in its kind) to ascertain others, That it is Inspired of God to be the Only Rule of Faith, (London: Printed for Edward Brewster, and are to be sold as Mr. Marriotts a Scivener; over against Hicks-Hall, in St. John’s Street, 1667), 3-7.

Lutheran John Gerhard (1582-1637) on “the word of God as life, light, saving power, and the like”

Lutheran John Gerhard (1582-1637), regarded as the greatest living theologian of Protestant Germany, writes of the Scriptures,

That the word itself has power to convert Gerhard finds an unambiguous doctrine of Scripture, for many texts speak of the word of God as life, light, saving power, and the like (Psalm 119: 109, John 5:39, 6:63, 17:20; Romans 1: 16, 10:18; Hebrews 4:12; 1 Peter 1:23; 2 Peter 1:19). Moreover, Article V of the Augsburg Confession clearly teaches that the word and sacraments are truly instruments through which the Spirit is “given and faith created.” From this truth Gerhard concludes that the word by virtue of divine order has an inner power to convert, The operative principle here is that every effect must come from a power that produces the effect (“actug gecundeg praegupponet pnmum, operatio vertutem”). The many metaphors in Scripture which speak of the efficacy of the word point in the same direction. There are, for example, the metaphors of the seed (Luke 8:11), of the fire (Luke 24:32; cf. Jeremiah 20:9), of the rain and snow (Isaiah 5:10), and of the light (Psalm 119: 105; 2 Peter 1:19).[1]

[1] Bengt Hägglund, “The Theology of the Word in John Gerhard,” Concordia Theological Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 2-3 (April-July 1982), 209-217: 214.

The Standard Sacred Text Debate of Yesteryear.

The following is the opening post of a discussion I had on the Sharper Iron forum over 11 years ago. The discussion took the better part of 3 months with over 300 comments largely between me and three opposing interlocutors. I had just finished my Th.M. from Calvin Theological Seminary the previous Spring and longed for a little academic interaction.

After perusing the argument again today I was struck with how much of the substance of the Standard Sacred Text argument remains the same. Still, it is clear, to me at least, that my rhetoric has somewhat toned down. Conversely though I believe the argument has gotten sharper over the last decade and we continue to hone its edge even today. The discussion started in October of 2011 and went until nearly Christmas of that same year. So without further ado here is my opening post to that disucssion,

“In 1558 William Whitaker, a master apologist for the truth of sola Scriptrua, wrote his comprehensive apology against the Roman Catholic dogma of Bellarmine and Stapleton on the topic of Holy Scripture – Disputations on Holy Scripture. Under the First Controversy and the Sixth question Whitaker writes concerning the necessity of Scripture,

‘For if in civil affairs men cannot be left to themselves, but must be governed and retained in their duty by certain laws; much less should we be independent in divine things, and not rather bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule, lest we fall into a will-worship hateful to God.’ [523]

So for this brief post, here is the question, to those whose trust rests in the quality and certainty of modern scientific textual criticism [MSTC], in what way is MSTC ‘bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule’ seeing that Holy Scripture falls most conspicuously under the category of ‘divine things’?

I maintain that MSTC is not bound but rather is a ‘will-worship hateful to God.’ For the nay-sayer, I concur that a form of textual criticism was in practice before the likes of MSTC, but that form was not of the same genus. Not of the same genus in that pre-Enlightenment textual criticism was subject to the leading of the Holy Ghost as manifested in the spirit-filled believing community of the time, whereas MSTC is subject to the scientific deductions of select scholarly board. For those perhaps a bit confused on this point, here is a slice of Theology 101. Where the Holy Spirit is leading the word of God is also present, and where the word of God is present so also is the leading of the Holy Spirit. MSTC pretends no such thing. You need not look any further than the several prefaces to the various editions of the leading Greek NT’s on the market today. The goal of the MSTC scientific exercise is not for certainty, truth, or doxology, but for scientific worship of their own wills by oppressing the church with their findings and declaring all others uneducated, ignorant, and old-fashioned. So I conclude, where the Spirit of God is leading, the word of God accompanies that leading, thus pre-Enlightenment textual criticism is not of the same genus as MSTC, and should not be considered as such.

For those who seek to position MSTC with in the limits of the ‘prescribed and certain rule’ [i.e. Holy Scripture], know that if you cannot, then you are in danger of condoning, supporting, and advancing a ‘will-worship hateful to God.’ Why is it will-worship? Because MSTC’s goal is professedly not that of God’s will but of a never-ending scientific endeavor governed by the limitations of human cognition to locate God’s words. [i.e., men worshipping their own will to decide certain content qualities of divine revelation] Why is it hateful to God? A willful act not subject to the will of God is what brought us sin and the fall of man. Thus, MSTC is nothing more than a present day extension of that god-overthrowing will evidenced by our first parents.

The purpose of this post is to sharpen the iron of the supporters of the MSTC, by challenging them to locate MSTC in the greater exegetical and historical tapestry of Bibliology and if they cannot, to abandon MSTC as a system suitable for the work of Christ’s Kingdom.”

The whole discussion can be found here: https://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-modern-scientific-textual-criticism-bound-or-independent

Claude Groteste De la Mothe (1647-1713), 1694, on Inspiration Establishing Canonicity

(C. G. De la Mothe , a Protestant exile from France, shows that personal utility or ecclesiastical usage was not grounds for Canonicity in the Early Church. The Contemporary Church would do well to follow the truth contained in Lamothe’s writings when approaching the current textual and version debate.)

The third proof drawn from the distinction on which the Ancients made between Canonical and Apocryphal books.

This distinction takes place in respect of both Testaments. There are joined to the Canonical books of the Old Testament sever pieces purely human, as the books of Tobis, Judith, Baruc, Maccabees, etc., which are called Apocrypha. A word, of which the true original is very uncertain. But whether it significance is concealed or obscure, or whether it have any other sense, certain it is that those books which are added to the Scripture, though they are not of divine authority, are called Apocrypha.

If the books which are added to the Old Testament are not admitted to be Canonical, tis not because they are defective in their matter. There are some of them whose doctrine is found, and their instruction is pure, so that there has been no scruple made to read them publicly in the Church. I dare presume to say there is a portion of the Apocryphal books which is more instructive and more edifying, than such a portion of books we call Canonical. Wherefore then are they rejected as Apocryphal? I know very well that several marks of human frailty are to be discovered in them; but the chief ground of their being rejected is , because they are books which the Holy Ghost has not inspired, the Finger of God appears not in them; the good things where are there to be found, flow not immediately from the Spring. Moreover, we have reason to examine the suspect them, because they are not recommended to us by persons actuated by the infallible Spirit of God.

This reason is expressed by the Ancients in other terms, for they say, that the Apocryphal books added to the Old Testament want Canonical Authority, because they were written by persons who were no prophets, and who lived after Malachi, the last of the prophets. Wherein they followed Josephus who has derived from thence the grand character of the difference which we ought to make between the Canonical Books and the Apocryphal. The words of the author are so remarkable as not to be omitted. There is nothing more certain, than the writings authorized among us; because they cannot be subject to any contradiction; in regard that there is nothing approved but what the Prophets wrote some ages ago; according to the purity of the truth, by the inspiration and agitation of the Spirit of God.

They have also written all that passed from the time of Artaxerxes to our time. But by reason there has not been, as formerly, a successive series of Prophets, there is not the same credit given to the books which I have mentioned. (Answer to Appion. I.1.c.2.) The books after the Prophet Malachi have been constantly rejected, in regard he was the last writer whom the Holy Spirit inspired, under the Old Testament. (Euseb. 1.8. De monst. Evangel. Quod ab illoi tempore servatoris nullum extet Sacrum Volumen.)

What I have said in respect of the Old Testament, takes place in relation to the New. Several books of piety were composed by the Primitive Church; the authors were persons of worth, and the books were so useful, that the reading of them was not only recommended to private persons, but they made no scruple to read them in public. For example, the Epistle of saint Clement had the same honor. Wherefore was it that those books were not put into the number of the Canonical; that is to say, of those books that are the constant rule of faith and manners? It was not always because they were in some things erroneous, but by reason they were not inspired by the Holy Ghost; that was sufficient to hinder them from being received as Canonical. The question that was put, when there was a dispute about any book of which they doubted, was to know, whether or no it was written by a person inspired. Thence it came to pass that in the history of Eusebius we find that Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, pronouncing his Sentence upon the Apocalypse said, that he acknowledged it to be the work of some holy man, inspired by the Spirit of God, Tis known also that Origen speaking of the book written by Hermas said, That he believed it to be a writing divinely inspired; a certain proof that they believed those books which the Church has admitted as Canonical, were inspired by the Holy Ghost. (Reor enim sanctis cujusdam…divina spiritu afflati viri id opus esse. Euseb. h.e I.7.c.21. Quae Scriptura valde mihi utilis videtur, Et ut puto, divitus inspirata. Origen. I.10 reptam Epist. Ad Rom. C. 16. Com. 14. 28-31

Claude Groteste De la Mothe, The Inspiration of the New Testament Asserted and Explained in Answer to some Modern Writers (London, Printed for Thomas Bennet, at the Half-Moon in St. Paul’s Church-yard, 1694), 28-31.

The Modern Academy and the Traditional Text

Carl Trueman, in his work The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, trenchantly lays bare and argues against the rise of expressive individualism in the modern West. He does so in a way that exposes the reasons behind the rise and fall of certain moral narratives and particularly the rise of those narrative which run against the traditional Christian moral norms. The work is knotty and pointed with multiple intersecting lines of philosophy, psychology, culture, and society.

While Trueman makes the case that most if not all of the West, Christian or otherwise, have to some degree absorbed expressive individualism and largely because it is in the air we breathe, still there are some he singles out as particularly formative because of their advocacy of this new normal. Among those singled out are the universities. Trueman observes,

“Whereas in the first and second worlds, intellectuals and institutions such as universities were the conduits for the transmission and preservation of culture, now the intellectual class is devoted to the opposite – to the subversion, destabilization, and destruction of the culture’s traditions.”

Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, 88.

Trueman’s use here of “first and second worlds” refers to those worldviews which anchored their value systems in either myth or faith, respectively. But we in the West now live in a “third world” which has at its center the self and the performance of self and particularly the profound value of how the self feels bout itself. By Trueman’s lights, we no longer live in a world which seeks to preserve our cultural traditions, rather we live in a world which seeks to subvert, destabilize, and destroy the current cultural traditions. And the particular agent of this “progress” has been the academy, the university.

Keep in mind that Trueman has been a professor for several decades and continues to be a professor at Grove City College. Trueman takes this swipe at academia while being a member of that class. I agree that the Western university has done much to subvert, destabilize, and destroy our cultural traditions in the name of free speech and an open marketplace of ideas. Among these “cultural traditions” under assault by the academy, could we not include the Traditional Text?

I have little reason to think that Trueman includes among the “cultural traditions” the Traditional Text of Scripture and particularly the KJV as that Traditional Text. That said, it does seem to me that given the rather recent assault on biblical inerrancy and the need for the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy would at least put the Traditional Text in the neighborhood of those things which the “university” sought to subvert, destabilize, and destroy.

Let’s be honest, if evangelical Christians are ok with the academy telling us what is or is not the word of God, why is it such a big deal for the academy to tell us what is or is not a man or woman, or what counts as a marriage? Put another way, if some of God’s words are considered “small stuff” or not necessary for the Christian to claim he has the word of God, then perhaps homosexual marriage is really just a matter of the “small stuff.” Such a conclusion is certainly in line with Christian attempts to validate same-sex unions or same-sex marriage.

So, I leave it to you all. Why is it that the Christian academia argues tooth and nail for traditional sexual norms but not for a traditional textual norm? I hope the answer isn’t “sufficient reliability.” If it is, know that advocates of homosexual marriage will have no problem arguing that on their view of homosexual marriage is a “sufficiently reliable” form of marriage, and those who disagree are the KJV Onlyists of sexual norms.