REGENERATION AND THE WORD OF GOD

1 Peter 1:23, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”

The significance of maintaining the “common salvation” by “earnestly contending for the faith” is taught in Jude 3, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” “Contending” is necessary to preserve that “commonly” believed or the common Christian Faith. What follows is a central element of the “common salvation,” the work of Regeneration, or being born again, and the unified role of the Spirit and Word.

The word of God is the objective instrument in bringing to consummation that spiritual change produced by the Holy Spirit. The Word addresses us consciously while the Spirit’s work in regeneration is a subconscious work. Regeneration is comprised of both aspects of the Word and Spirit’s power, working both consciously and subconsciously. We learn that reading the Bible without the Spirit’s teaching is unprofitable, 1 Cor. 2:14, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Furthermore, the Spirit without the Word will convict of sin but will not save. John 16:8, “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.” 2 Cor. 2:15-16, “For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?” Faith only comes through hearing the Word, Rom. 10:17, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Repentance is likewise a gift of God, 2 Tim. 2:25, “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” Finally, regeneration is entirely the work of God, John 3:5, “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

In regeneration, Word and Spirit are brought together to create a new creature in Christ, 2 Cor. 5:17, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” Regeneration is the outreach of the gospel as a direct creative act of the Holy Spirit that involves the transformation of the whole man. Internal illumination of the Word by the Spirit for the mind and will of the elect is inextricably tied together with the regenerating work of the Spirit. The new birth takes place in the womb of the teaching of God’s Word. Thus, to read the Word is to hear the message of Jesus mediated by the Holy Spirit. The Bible alone does not regenerate. The Bible is the truth, John 17:17, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” This truth is utilized by the Spirit to produce faith. Faith is the gift of the Spirit derived through the cognitive (mundane-phenomenal) understanding of Scripture. Eph. 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Spiritual discernment of the Bible is necessary to be born again and the Spirit gives this discernment.

Scripture as Supreme and Infallible Judge of All Controversies and Interpreter of Itself (Part 2)

In our last post on this point, we framed the question and asserted that disputes over what is or is not the New Testament and therefore what is or is not the word of God fall under the jurisdictional authority of the Spirit of God as supreme autocratic judge speaking through the words of God to the people of God by faith. Today we are going to discuss the first four of Turretin’s arguments to this point. He has a total of seven and we will address the latter three in the next post on this topic.

To summarize his first four argument, Turretin affirms that the Scriptures or God speaking in them are “the supreme and infallible judge of controversies” because 1.) The Bible sends us to itself to judge controversies, 2.) Christ sends us to the Bible to judge controversies, 3.) The Spirit is Himself an infallible judge, and 4.) Man is not an infallible judge. Beginning with the first, Turretin writes,

“God in the Old and New Testaments absolutely and unconditionally sends us to this judge – ‘and thou shalt do according to the law which they shall teach thee (Dt. 17:10); ‘to the law and the testimony, etc.’ (Is. 8:20); ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them’ (Ll. 16:29).”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. VIII.

Having asserted what the Scriptures teach, Turretin takes the opportunity to point our attention to what is conspicuously absent from the list of final judges and interpreters: man.

“Christ does not say they have the priests and scribes (who cannot err), but they have Moses and the prophets (viz., in their writings), implying that they are abundantly sufficient for full instruction and their authority must be acquiesced in.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. VIII.

We may as well add textual critics to the list of priests and scribes. And for those fair-handed textual critics out there, if you do not profess to tell the church what is or is not the New Testament, then who does and by what standard(s)?

Moving onto Turretin’s second argument we see that he moves his emphasis from the revealed word to the Archetypal Word – Jesus Christ and the apostolic message. Turretin writes,

“The practice of Christ and his apostles confirms this for in controversies of faith they appeal to the Scriptures (Mt. 4:4, 6, 7; 22:29; Jn. 5:39; 10:34, 35; Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28; 26:22) and profess to know nothing besides Moses and the prophets (Lk. 24:44; Acts 26:22).”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. IX.

If we are to be imitators of Christ and if Paul calls us to be imitators of him as he is an imitator of Christ it stands to reason that we also should look to the Scriptures for the same reasons and in the same way. Because it is Christ doing it and because we are called to be as He is, then in these descriptions of Christ’s treatment of controversies we receive a prescription of how we too ought to do the same.

In Turretin’s third argument he emphasizes the particular person of the Holy Spirit and the kind of person He is. Turretin writes,

“A supreme and infallible judge is one who never errs in judgment, nor is he able to err; is uninfluenced by prejudice and from whom is no appeal…God speaking in the Scriptures claims these as his own prerogatives alone, as incapable of error in judgement, being truth itself, uninfluenced by partiality, being no respecter of persons (aprosopoleptes); nor can any appeal be made from him because he has no superior.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. X.

God does not err. God cannot err, neither in His words nor in His judgments. God is truth itself. So, when God speaks through His word as an act of confirming His word as His word this speech will be the unerring truth. Now, will man receive it as such? Perhaps not, but that does not impeach the truth that such a phenomenon is happening in space and time and that the Spirit-filled believer can and does by faith hear God speaking in this way.

We come now to Turretin’s fourth argument which is stated as follows:

“Man cannot be the infallible interpreter of the Scriptures and judge of controversies because he is liable to error. Our faith cannot be placed in him, but upon God alone from whom depends the sense and meaning of the Scriptures and who is the best interpreter of his own words.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec. XI.

Turretin’s critique here is really twofold. One, scholars and popes are infallible interpreters in the controversy of what is or is not the New Testament and thereby what is or is not the word of God. People who assume themselves to be in this place are not suited for the responsibilities which appertain. Two, those of us who would like to put our faith in these men, and in many cases do, have erred according to the Scriptures. The Scriptures call us to look into the Scriptures. Christ and the apostles looked to the Scriptures to solve their controversies. We are called to do the same today and especially on the controversies surrounding whether or not this or that text should be counted among the words of the New Testament.

Weekly Question – How great is the ecclesiastical upheaval when the church’s Bible is quasi-replaced?

If we take the church to be a sub-culture of any culture, and we take the Bible to be at the center of that sub-culture because Christ can only be known through the Bible, how seismic is an attempt to replace that Bible with another like it let alone one very different?

On the level of language, the Bible serves as our source of language. We read the same words, memorize the same words, preform weddings and funerals in the same words, and preach from the same words. What happens when we change those words? Assuming no meaning is changed by changing words, the very act of changing the words will change the language of the sub-culture ostensible making for two cultures at least. As such, new Bibles necessarily divide.

Is it not then, that when some have called for different a Bible, they are not merely making a scholastic assertion with ecclesiastical ramifications? They are also making an assertation with cultural ramifications both within and without the church. Based on what authority can the scholar know that he/she is about to make our ecclesiastical culture better by making these kinds of assertions?

Scripture as Supreme and Infallible Judge of Controversies and Interpreter of Itself (Part 1)

We have now arrived at the twentieth question offered in Turretin’s treatment of Bibliology. Here he asks about the Scripture as the final and infallible judge of controversies in the church as opposed to the Scripture + Church Tradition or the Scriptures + the Magisterium. As you can imagine Turretin’s treatment is extensive so it’s going to take a couple posts to present his thoughts on this point. That said, let us begin with Turretin’s framing of the question. He writes,

“…the question concerns only the supreme and infallible judgment by which everything must necessarily stand or fall – whether this belongs to the Scriptures themselves (as we hold) or to some man or assembly composed of men (as the papists maintain).”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec II.

Turretin goes on to admit that there are certain types of judges, judges with varying degrees of authority and autonomy. He divides these judges into three types.

“First is the supreme and autocratic (autokratorikos), which judges by legislative and absolute authority after the manner of the higher prince, which enacts laws and from which there is no appeal.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec III.

“Second is the subordinate (hyperetikos) or ministerial, which interprets the laws after the manner of a public minister.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec III.

“Third is an idiomatic (idiotikos) or private, which both from the laws and from their interpretation judges in the way of private discretion.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec III.

Turretin is not here concerned with the latter two. His emphasis falls on the first. Are the Scriptures (or God speaking in them) the supreme autocratic judge “from which there is no appeal?” Now of course, Turretin is not here addressing those of our day and age. He is addressing the Roman Catholic apologists of his time and particularly their assault on the Scripture as supreme judge of controversies and interpreter of itself. That said the correlation between then and now does bear striking similarities.

Turretin writes,

“The question is not whether the Scriptures are the rule and standard of controversies. This the papists do not object to, at least they appear to be willing to hold it, although what they give with one hand they take away with the other, arguing their obscurity and imperfection.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 20, Sec IV.

How many times have you and I heard some evangelical textual scholars say out of one side of their mouth, “Oh, yes, the Scriptures are the rule and standard.” only to say ten minutes later, “Well the true text is either in the text or apparatus.”? Note also that for Turretin an assault on the perspicuity and perfection of Scripture is an assault on the canon – the rule, the standard. Turretin it not responding to intactness of the gospel message over the whole warp and woof of the Bible. The Roman Catholics weren’t making that argument.

Turretin is responding to the Roman Catholic argument that the Greek and Hebrew are incurably imperfect and obscure. This is the current argument of the evangelical textual critic. The Bible still has imperfections and the CBGM is going to save us or maybe we can’t be saved. Turretin would demur. And why? Because the Spirit of God speaking in the word of God is the supreme autocratic judge regarding the words of Scriptures and the controversies surrounding those words.

The admittance of I John 5:7 is a controversy in the church and has been in the past. How are we to settle the controversy? By yielding to the Holy Spirit speaking through His words. The admittance of the long ending of Mark is a controversy in the church and has been in the past. How are we to settle the controversy? By yielding to the Holy Spirit speaking through His words. The admittance of the women caught in adultery is a controversy in the church and has been in the past. How are we to settle the controversy? By yielding to the Holy Spirit speaking through His words.

These and many other textual disputes are indeed controversies within the scope and jurisdiction of the authority of the Holy Spirit speaking through His words. If the story of the woman caught in adultery is the Holy Spirit’s words, He will speak to us through them. In such a way the Holy Spirit reveals Himself to be the supreme autocratic judge having absolute authority to judge all controversies even biblical textual controversies. I mean, in the end, the words at the center of the controversy are either the Holy Spirit’s or they are not. If they are, only God can judge righteously by speaking through them to the saint, and no amount of “in my professional opinion based on the evidence” can subdue God’s righteous judgement concerning His words. Such impious attempts are both immoral and doomed to fail.

John Owen, 1658, on Self-authenticating Scripture

Sect. 5. That then which is to be the establishment of the Souls of Believers, I shall labor to prove and evince, is plainly this, namely, that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, do abundantly, and uncontrollably manifest themselves to be the Word of the living God; so that merely on the account of their own proposal of themselves unto us, in the Name and Majesty of God, as such, without the contribution of help or assistance from Tradition, Church, or anything else without themselves, we are obliged upon the penalty of eternal damnation (as are all by whom by any means they come, or are brought) to receive them, with that subjection due to the Word of God. The Authority of God shining in them, they afford unto us all the divine evidence of themselves, which God is willing to grant unto us, or can be granted us, or is any way needful for us. So then, the Authority of the written Word, in its self and unto us, is from its self, as the Word of God, and the eviction of that Authority unto us, is by its self.

Eviction: “conclusive evidence”

John Owen, Of the Divine Originall, Authority, self-evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures: With an Answer to that Enquiry, How we know the Scripture’s to be the Word of God. Also A Vindication of the Purity and Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Old and New Testaments; in some Considerations on the Prolegomena (Oxford: Printed by Henry Hall, Printer to the University for Tho: Robinson, 1658), 34-35.

The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit

Happy New Year one and all. After a brief hiatus in celebration of being married to my most splendid wife and co-laborer for 20 years, it is time to once again assume the blogging mantle. Thanks to Dr. Van Kleeck Sr. for doing all the heavy lifting while I was gone. We pick up again with Richard Muller on the point of the Holy Spirit’s witness. Muller writes,

“testimonium internum Spiritus Sancti: internal testimony of the Holy Spirit;

the inward work of the Spirit that testifies to faith concerning the truth of Scripture.”

Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Term: testimonium internum Spiritus Sancti.

It is important to note that the word of God is not ever alone in its work. Where the word is the Spirit is and where the Spirit is the word is. Indeed, it is the presence of the Spirit of God in and through the words of Scripture which makes those words quick (living) and powerful. Muller reminds us of the Protestant orthodox position when he writes,

“The Reformers and the Protestant scholastics were adamant in their belief both that the testimonium is necessary to the subjective receipt of the truth of Scripture and that the testimonium only ratifies the truth of the text and adds no new information.”

Muller, Dictionary, Term: testimonium internum Spiritus Sancti.

For our purposes and for use in the current textual discussion, the truth of the text and thereby its trustworthiness and authenticity/genuineness are ratified by the Holy Spirit. No doubt there are many gifted thinkers who have their say about what they think is or is not a part of that thing called the New Testament in Greek. But let’s be clear. The orthodox theological position has been that the Spirit of God ratifies His own words, and He does so by speaking through His words to His people. The Holy Spirit ratifies His words through His words and does not if the words are not His. This is how an average non-seminary educated saint can believe and know that what he/she reads is the word of God even if scholars argue that those words don’t belong in the New Testament (at least according to the evidence).

The Sacred Apographa

Francis Turretin (1623-1687) Codifier of theological orthodoxy.

“By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, or of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not know exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 106.

“the autographs and also the accurate and faithful copies may be the standard of all other copies of the same writing and of it translations. If anything is found in them different from the authentic writings, either autographs or apographs, it is unworthy of the name authentic and should be discarded as spurious and adulterated, the discordance itself being a sufficient reason for its rejection.” Turretin, Institutes, 113.

William Whitaker (1548-1595) Whitaker is the theological link to John Calvin and most quoted theologian by the Westminster Divines.

“We proceeded to break the force of this portion also of Bellarmine’s defense, and to show that the Greek original (apografh) in the New Testament is purer than the Latin edition.” William Whitaker, A Disputation of Holy Scripture Against the papists especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, 193.

Whitaker held that the Greek edition in his possession “is no other than the inspired archetypical [the original pattern] Scripture of the New Testament, commended by the apostles and evangelists to the Christian church.” Whitaker, Disputation, 142.

“The state of the controversy, therefore is this: Whether we should believe that these Scriptures which we now have are sacred and canonical merely on account of the church’s testimony or rather on account of the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit, which, as it makes the Scripture canonical and authentic in itself, make is also to appear such to us, and without which the testimony of the church is dumb and inefficacious.” Whitaker, Disputation, 280.

Of the Hebrew text Whitaker wrote, “We must hold, therefore, that we have now those very ancient Scriptures which Moses, and the other prophets published, although we have not perhaps, precisely the same forms and shapes of the letters.” Whitaker, Disputation, 117.

Andrew Willet (1562-1621) Prolific Hebrew exegete

“so that it appeareth to be an unreasonable opinion to prefer a translation (Latin) full of corruptions before the pure Originals (apographa).” Andrew Willet, Hexapla in Leviticum, that is, a six-fold commentary upon the third book of Moses, called Leviticus, 1631, 101

John Owen, 1658, on the Foundation of the Christian Faith

Sect. 13. Thus far have we proceeded. The Scripture, the Written Word hath its infallible Truth in its self; John 17 from whence it hath is Verity, thence it hath its Authority; for its Authority is founded upon its Truth. Its Authority in its self, is its Authority in respect to us; nor hath it any whit more in its self, then de jure it hath towards and over them to whom it comes; That de facto some do not submit themselves unto it, is their sin and rebellion. This Truth and consequently this Authority, is evidenced and made known to us, by the public Testimony which is given unto it by the Holy Ghost speaking in it, with divine Light and Power, to the minds, souls and consciences of men: being therein by its self proposed unto us, We being enlightened by the Holy Ghost, (which in the condition wherein we are, is necessary for the Apprehension of any spiritual thing of truth in a spiritual manner)we receive it, and religiously subject our souls unto it, as the Word and Will, and judge of all: And if this be not at the bottom and foundation of faith, I here publicly Profess, that for ought I know, I have no faith at all.

John Owen, Of the Divine Original, Authority, self-evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures: With an Answer to that Enquiry, How we know the Scripture’s to be the Word of God. Also A Vindication of the Purity and Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Old and New Testaments; in some Considerations on the Prolegomena (Oxford: Printed by Henry Hall, Printer to the University for Tho: Robinson, 1658), 99-100.

Ursinus (1587) on the Testimony of the Holy Spirit and the Purity of Holy Scripture

But least any man think, that by arguments, which us reason by a natural light to be found, without the singular grace of the Spirit this may be wrought in the minds of the wicked, as either to obey the truth, or to leave off to reproach it, first he must remember that the arguments or testimonies are of two sorts which shew the certainty of the Christian religion, and maintain the authority of the Scripture. For there is but one only testimony, which is appropriated unto them alone who are regenerated by the Spirit of Christ, and unto them alone is known, the force of which the testimony is so great, that it doth not only abundantly testify and seal in our minds the truth of the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, but it also forcibly inclineth and moveth our hearts to the embracing and following of it. Other testimonies whatsoever may be brought, they are understood indeed both of the godly and the wicked, and do compel their consciences to confess, that this religion rather than others is pleasing to God, and that it came from him. But unless that one other come also, which is know of the godly alone, these testimonies will never bring to pass that man shall embrace the truth, although it be known to them. The arguments which shew the truth and certainty of the Scripture are these.

  1. Purity and perfections of doctrine. For we have the pure and perfect doctrines of the Gospel, so also the Law. Now other sects have not both the tables of the Law perfect. The first many have in part. The second but in some part also, and stained with many lies.
  2. The Gospel itself. Because it yieldeth sure consolation to men’s consciences, shewing the only way of escaping sin and death. The nature of man was not created to destruction. Wherefore that doctrine, which sheweth delivery, without violating the justice of God, is undoubtedly true and certain.
  3. The antiquity of this doctrine. Because it is found to be most ancient, party by conference. For we confer this with other doctrines, we shall find it to be pure and most true, as delivered by God, from which men afterwards fell away. Other sects have sprung up at other times, and again have perished. This hath continued, though it hath been mightily expunged by her enemies. (Continued)

Zacharias Ursinus, The Sum of the Christian Religion: Wherein are debated and resolved the Questions of whatsoever points of moment, which have been or are controversed in Divinity. Translated into English by Henry Parrie, out of the last and best Latin Editions (Oxford: Printed at Joseph Barnes and are to be sold in Pauls Churchyard at the sign of the Tigers head, 1587), 20-21.