The Birth of Jesus, the Son of God

Luke 2:1-20 

1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.

18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

The Translator’s Preface to the Reader of the 1611 KJV

Welcome to the Brickyard. This is a place to find quotes for use in your own research and writing. The bricks are free, but the building is up to you. The following quotes are from The Translator’s Preface to the Reader of the 1611 KJV. In a prior post I dealt with the term “meanest.” In this post I offer some of the less quoted material. As always, I hope these quotes can aid you in your own study and argumentation. Under “The Praise of the Holy Scripture” the Preface reads,

“But how what piety without truth? what truth (what saving truth) without the word of God? what word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the Scripture…If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us. Tolle, lege; tolle, lege: Take up and read the Scriptures.”

The Praise of the Holy Scriptures

“Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell; that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we my come by the water.”

Translation Necessary

“So much are they [i.e, the Church of Rome] afraid of the light of the Scriptures…that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set forth by their own men.”

The Unwillingness of Our Chief Adversaries, That the Scriptures Should be Divulged in the Mother Tongues, &C.

“Many men’s mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment.

The Speeches and Reasons, Both of Our Brethren and of Our Adversaries, Against This Work

And what exactly were these mouths saying? The translators share some very similar themes and questions. Ones we face even today.

“Hath the Chruch been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime…Was their translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people?

The Speeches and Reasons, Both of Our Brethren and of Our Adversaries, Against This Work

Sound familiar? Briefly, the KJV translators plainly state that the Christians of their time critiqued and criticized those who translated the KJV. And why wouldn’t they? The KJV translators took upon themselves the work of retranslating a text that was already received by many Protestants – the Geneva Bible. So, the KJV translators were criticized for their work. In the end though, the KJV served and serves the believing community across multiple centuries.

There are many lessons to learn here but two seem to be of the utmost importance: 1.) If great scholars are to retranslate the Bible it is only natural that they be criticized because of the strong belief and conviction held by the believing community regarding the book they regard as the word of God. 2.) When all was said and done the Holy Spirit worked in those nay-sayers and critics and their progeny to accept the KJV as the word of God in English and it remained that way for over four-hundred years. Finally, on this Christmas Eve, I leave you with these words from the Preface.

“Many other things we might give thee warning of, gentle reader, if we had not exceeded the measure of a Preface already. It remaineth that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of His grace, which is able to build further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from the eyes, the vail from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His Word, enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea, that we love it to the end.”

Reasons Inducing Us Not to Stand Curiously Upon an Identity of Phrasing

Do We Need Permission to Read the Bible?

Turretin asserts against the Papists,

“But we, on the other hand, maintain not only that every believer may freely read the Scriptures, but also ought to without waiting for permission form a bishop or priest.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 18, Sec. 1.

When the academy claims that the long ending in Mark, the woman caught in adultery, and 1 John 5:7 do not belong in the Scriptures, they are saying, either implicitly or explicitly, that to read those passages goes against the authority of scholars. If it were up to them, they would not permit those words into the text of Scripture and would thereby not permit the people of God to read them. The church does not have the academy’s permission in these regards.

The better way would be for the academy to do their work, present it to the believing community, trust the Holy Spirit to blow where He wills [John 3:8], and if the believing community chooses to retain those passages, then the academy willfully and eagerly submits. Yes, the Ph.D.’s, linguists, and archeologist submit to the Spirit of God as He has moved through plumbers, truck drivers, MD’s, and Stay-At-Home moms. And unless some major find [i.e., a Qumran level find] the issue of the inclusion of these texts would remain settled. And this is exactly where Turretin takes the discussion. He writes,

“If men abuse the Scriptures, this does not happen per se, but accidentally from the perversity of those who wrongfully wrest them to their own destruction.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 18, Sec. V.

The word “accidentally” here is not used as we often do now. “Accidentally” here does not mean, a chance happening or unintentional behavior. No, the idea is having to do with what is non-essential. So, the abuse of Scripture is not essential because God’s word remains pure in all ages. Still, the abuse of Scripture is accidental being a wresting of Scripture via human bias and interpretation. He goes on in that same section to say of those who do such things,

“For heresies usually arise not form common people and the unlearned, but from ecclesiastics.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 18, Sec. V.

Turretin’s point here is that some wrest the Scripture, some abuse the Scripture and usually it is the educated churchmen who do it. In doing so they commit heresy which simply taken means, they divide the church. A heretic is one who causes schisms in the believing community. As such it seems only appropriate that the ecclesiastics/scholars eagerly submit to the Spirit leading “common people and unlearned,” especially in issues that could bring about a schism like whether John 7:53-8:11 is God’s word and belongs in the Bible.

On this point the modern textual critic has to prove more than just “the oldest and best manuscripts do not have this passage” they must go on to show that God did not give John 7:53-8:11 by inspiration. Unfortunately for them they cannot. That is the work of the Spirit-led common people and the unlearned to determine. So, for the NT scholars, once you’ve done all your text critical work and you have exhibited that necessary artistic acumen, submit your work to the finding of the Spirit-led common people and unlearned then sit back knowing you have done all you can. Then when the people of God return your work, perhaps even in disagreeing with it, bow the knee to Christ’s bride and praise the Lord for His work in the lives of believers.

But what if John 7:53-8:11 really is an error? What are we ever going to do? Turretin writes,

“If errors can arise from the Scriptures improperly understood, so far from keeping them [i.e., the translated Scriptures] from their [i.e., the unlearned and common folk] perusal, this ought the rather to excite them to searching. Thus, properly understanding them, they may be able to confute such errors.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 18, Sec. V.

Whether an error in knowing what the Scripture is or in knowing what the Scripture teaches the method for sorting it out is the same. Give God’s people the word of God. God in the person of the Holy Spirit will accompany His words and not accompany the words which are not His. In so doing the common and unlearned believing community will come to know what is or is not God’s word or what God’s word does or does not teach. Borrowing from I Corinthians 1:26-29,

“For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29That no flesh should glory in his presence.

It’s high time the wise, mighty, noble academy be confounded and brought to nothing by the called and chosen bride of Christ. Assuming of course that the existence of the Bride of Christ is a meaningful and robust reality in the American religious landscape.

Nathaniel Ingelo, 1659, on the Certainty of the Christian Religion

Upon the plainness of God’s revelation, depends the certainty of the Christian Religion. This Pillar had need be firm, for the best thing in the world rests upon it. What is acceptable to Christ, and what he will do for us, is to be known by revelation which he hath made of his mind to us; but if the revelation conceal his sense it doth not deserve its name, nor benefit us. For notwithstanding the assistance we receive from it, we are left to acknowledge him with blind conceptions, to worship him with uncertain expresses, and depend upon him with a very infirm expectation.

But, O blessed Savior, we have no reason to think ourselves at a loss! Thou hast told us plainly of the Father, thou hast explained the two Great commandments, and in them the substance of the Law and the Prophets. Thy Gospel holds forth to us all particular duties of Faith and Love and Righteousness and Mercy. Thou hast shewn us what kind of worship and worshippers thou dost regard, having commanded us to worship God in Spirit and in Truth, with all true apprehensions and worthy affections; to serve God in all good conscience and with purity of heart, and hast rejected the vanities and superstition, though they ever be so gay or costly, all exterior shows, which want the correspondency of inward goodness; so that now we may well say thou shewed us men what is good, and what the Lord our God requires of us, even to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. Thou hast taught us, how in all religious addresses we may come acceptably before the Lord, and what Mediator we are to use, we need no longer ask, for thou hast shewed us the one Mediator between God and man, and told us for whom he will intercede, even all that come to God by him, and make themselves like unto him. Thou hast shewn us how thou didst converse with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Prophets and Apostles, and that we also upon the same terms may become the friends of God by Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, today and forever; so that all good Christians may say, and concluded that are certain of their way to God, the Scripture having reveled it a clearly as sun-beams. The Scripture given by inspiration is so profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God, (teacher or learner} is perfectly furnished with direction to all good works.

Now, if any shall say the force of these arguments may be avoided, though the Scripture be not plain, if we have an infallible Interpreter to resolve their doubtfulness and clear their obscurity. I answer. There is no question of that; but where is the Interpreter? It is harder to find him, than the sense of the most difficult Scripture. What will be answered, if we ask these few questions concerning him? What is his name? what countryman is he? Where doth he dwell? If his commission be not in the Scripture, how came he by it? If it be, in what words is it set down.

We read but of one infallible Interpreter of God’s mind, Jesus Christ, and he hath required all his servants, that they presume not to take any Mastership at this point. And call no man your Father upon the earth, for one is your Father, which is in heaven; Neither be ye called Masters, for one is your Master, even Christ. These words are justly interpreted by most learned men as a command of Christ, directed against men’s usurpation of authority to impose upon others, what we are to believe. The chief Master in the school of the Jewish Prophets had such authority, that no man might contradict what he said, and in this sense we are to call no man Father, but God who hath taught us by him, whom he appointed to be our only Master, (i.e.) Christ Jesus.

How much more those are deceived, that assume to themselves to be infallible guides, and indeed Dictators to God’s Church, hath been shown abundantly by themselves, and many learned ,men have forced them to take notice of their errors, and therefore I will insist no further upon this point.

And now we see with what reason our Savior closed his discourse, saying, If they believe not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, those one rose from the dead. With which I shall also close the doctrinal part of this discourse.

Those which are not satisfied with God’s truth so fairly propounded in Scriptures, may pray to Abraham to send one from the dead to preach to them, if their ears itch for such teachers, but when he comes, would they believe him? No, they would rather accost him thus. Art thou come out of the Grave to fright us? Where is thy Certificate that thou wast in the other world? We do not know thou wast dead, or if thou art a Ghost; we know not whether thou comest from heaven or from hell, whither thy design is to teach us or to disturb us. They say good spirits do not walk. That thou hast some money somewhere. If thou comest to discover any murder, tell us. People talk of Goblins to fright children and fools, but dost thou think that we will leave our profits or pleasures for a shade? That this is too true, we have an instance in the Jews, to whom our Savior preached this point. For they had Lazarus (whether Christ alluded to his name or no) raised from the grave, and he discoursed with the Pharisees; but as soon as he asserted the truth, that crossed their humor, they would have killed him, and sent him to the other world again, a messenger of their unbelief. When men have no mind to do their duty, they will quarrel with the Messenger, and ask for another; not that they will then obey, but to gain a truce for disobedience, and in the mean time they will seek for that which no doubt they will find, (i.e.) something to make themselves believe, that the next will be not so sent neither, but that they shall be able to except against him.

Nathaniel Ingelo, The Perfection, Authority, and Credibility of the Holy Scriptures. Discoursed in a sermon before the University of Cambridge at the Commencement, July 4, 1658 (London: Printed by E. T. for Luke Fawn at the sign of the Parrot in Pauls Church-yard, 1659), 138-147.

What are the most potent objections to the CT/MVO position?

In like manner to a prior post, what are the most potent objections to the critical text/ Multiple-Version onlyist position? Certainly, there may be objections in general, but which objections serve as defeaters? That is, what objections either rebut their claims to the point of crippling the whole system which can only be maintained at the expense of being reasonable or undercut their position to the point of disintegration or collapse? If the goal is to locate God’s divine inspired words, I believe some such objections may be:

1.) Engaging in the enterprise of textual criticism without allowing one’s Christian presuppositions to guide the process. Modern textual criticism done by Christians is not a distinctly Christian enterprise. As such it is subject to the same rebutting and undercutting defeaters leveled against atheism, naturalism, and secularism [e.g., diminishing probabilities, provinciality of abduction, no objective standard for good, ungrounded epistemological standards, etc.].

2.) Operating as if there was not/is not a standard sacred Greek and Hebrew which the believing community has affirmed over the centuries and using that standard text as the starting point for supposed further developments. Christian textual critics should have a bias toward the text used by God’s people. A-biblical Archimedean Points are inherently self-refuting, self-defeating.

William Perkins, 1604, on the Inspiration, Preservation and Canonicity of Holy Scripture as the foundation for Preaching

CHAP III

Of the Word of God

The perfect and equal object of Preaching is the Word of God, (or, the word of God is the whole and only matter, about which preaching is exercised: it is the field in which the Preacher must contain himself). Luke 16:29, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. Matt. 23:2, The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair, that is, they teach the doctrine of Moses which they do profess. 3. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.

The Word of God is the wisdom of God concerning the truth, which is according unto godliness descending from above. James 3:17, But the wisdom, which is from above is first pure, etc. Titus 1:1, Paul a servant of God – according to the acknowledging of the truth, which is according to godliness.

Admirable is the excellency of the Word, which is evident partly by the nature thereof, partly by operation.

The excellency of the nature is either the perfection thereof, or the eternity.

The perfection is either the sufficiency or the purity. The sufficiency is that, whereby the word of God is so complete, that nothing may be either put to it, or taken from it, which appertaineth to the proper end thereof. Psalm 19:7, The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Deut. 12:32, Whatsoever I command you, take heed ye do it: thou shalt put nothing thereto, nor take aught therefrom. Rev. 22:18, 19.

The purity thereof is, whereby it remaineth entire in itself, void of deceit and error. Psalm 12:6, The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, fined seven times.

The eternity of the word is that, whereby it abideth inviolable and cannot pass until all, which it commandeth, be fully accomplished, Matt. 5:18.

The excellency of the operation is that, whereby it is endowed with virtue; first to discern the spirit of man, Heb, 4:12, For the word of God is lively, and mighty in operation, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and entereth through even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and discerneth the thoughts and intents of the heart. James 4:12, There is one Law-giver, who is able to save and to destroy. Isa. 33:21, The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Law-giver, the Lord is our King, he will save us. To bind the conscience is to constrain it either to accuse us or excuse of of sin before God.

The Word is in the holy Scripture.

The Scripture is the word of God written in the language fit for the Church by men immediately called to be Clerks or Secretaries of the holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:21, For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as there were carried and moved by the holy Ghost.

It is called Canonical, because it is as it were the Canon, that is to say, a Rule or Line, of the Master workman, by the help whereof the truth is both first and to be found out, and also afterwards to be examined. Gal. 6:16, And as many as walk according to this Canon or Rule. Therefore, the supreme and absolute determination and judgment of the controversies of the Church ought to be given unto it.

William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying: A Treatise Concerning the Sacred and Only True Manner and Method of Preaching (Imprinted at London by Felix Kyngston for E.E. and are to be sold in Pauls Church-yard at the sign of the Swan, 1607), 4-7.

Charles Drillincourt, 1658, on Scripture’s Self-Interpretation

Papist: That the Word of God contained in the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments, is not the rule of all Verity, since you yourself confess that you hold many things which are not found in the Divine Books.

Protestant: You have already made this objection, and I think I have sufficiently answered it, but seeing it pleaseth you so much, I will (to satisfy you) examine it once more. To demonstrate the vanity of your argument, I take notice, that you cut off the essential words of the Article. For it is thus, that the Word of God contained in the Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, is the rule of all verity, containing all that is necessary to the service of God and our salvation. But it is clearer than the sun, that the Word of God must regulate all sorts of truths; and that all that of which it makes not mention, is false and a lie. A man must be more than distracted of his wits, who should have such a foolish and extravagant thought. There are many things of which we are assured by the senses; some things we learn by histories, which have been written from age to age and some things we know by the report of others, and by our own experiences.

In fine. There is a multitude of things, whereof the Word of God makes no mention at all, either explicitly, or implicitly. Therefore, we say in the Fifth Article of our Confession of Faith, That the Word of God is the rule of all truth, we understand it of every Gospel truth, and of the very truth which concerns the Faith, and is necessary to Salvation. As the same Article clearly explains it, by adding immediately after that, it contains all that is necessary to the service of God, and our Salvation.

Moreover, (as I have already observed) you must carefully distinguish betwixt the rule and the thing regulated thereby. The rule is the Word of God, and the thing regulated, is the Doctrine of our Salvation and the service of God. All that is squared by this rule; all that is contained in this Divinely inspired Scripture, or may be drawn thence by evident and necessary consequence, we embrace in with the entire Obedience of Faith. On the contrary, we reject whatsoever is not squared by this rule, whatsoever is contrary to, or that no conformity or agreement with the Word of God. And we value it not at all, how fair a show soever it may have of piety and devotion….

Whatsoever is necessary to salvation, clearly and expressly in the holy Scripture. If there be any thing of this nature, which is less clear in one place, it is sufficiently explained in another. And Scripture is interpreted by Scripture itself. God hath provided for our salvation in such sort, and hath disposed his Oracles with such admirable wisdom, that not only the precepts of faith and piety, but also those of Regeneration and Holiness of life are clear and easy to understand.

Charles Drillincourt, The Protestant’s Self-Defense or a Discourse Between a Papist and Protestant wherein the disagreement of the Popish Religion, and the agreement of the Protestant with Scripture, is plainly proved to the meanest capacity, 2 Edition, (London: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns near Mercers-Chappel, at the lower end of Cheapside, 1685.), 159-161.

It’s Time for New Christmas Songs

The following Christmas songs come from the Trinity Hymnal save the last three which come from the Baptist Hymnal. Songs have served as a source of tradition for the church over the centuries. And not only have they served as a source of tradition, but that tradition has given to us a cultural language. Wherever the church is, and until the coming of Christ, the church is a subculture of the greater culture, whether national or global. And like every other subculture the church has its own language, its own lingo.

As of late though there has been a call to change the language of our ecclesiastical parlance because it is not like the words we regularly use in day-to-day interactions. What is more, some of the words found in the traditional language of the church are hard to understand or are thought to be understood but are not. As a result, there has been a call by few to change the churches version of the Bible. Advocating for such a change not only asks for a new version of the Bible, which is worthy of robust discussion in itself, it is also attempting to change the language of the ecclesiastical subculture of the English-speaking world. Which is problematic in itself, but what makes matters worse is that the state of the Bible in America is one that is constantly shifting to this or that version so there really is no longer a common parlance among English-speaking ecclesiastical subcultures.

All that said, most of us are still going to sing or hear sung, if you haven’t already, one or two songs listed below. I love Christmas songs. I think we should sing some of them all year. But the fact is that they are full archaisms, false friends, and in one case, we have the beautiful yet translationally unadorned Latin. To demonstrate this fact, I give you 14 songs from the hymn book which have the very things so many complain about in the King James Version. In America we complain about the Bible but not about our songs.

The format below is: Name of Song – questionable word, x + number of times it appears in the song [which verse it is found in]

1.) O Come All Ye Faithful – thee x2 [4] 
2.) O Little Town of Bethlehem – met [1]
3.) While Shepherds Watched Their Flocks – meanly [4] 
4.) It Came Upon a Midnight Clear – cloven [2], bards [4] 
5.) Good Christian Men Rejoice – ye x3 [1, 2, 3] 
6.) God Rest You Merry Gentlemen – affright [3], afeeding [4], tidings [2, 4, chorus] 
7.) Silent Night – yon [1], tender [1] 
8.) Angels From the Realms of Glory – yonder [2], natal [3] 
9.) Hark The Herald Angels Sing – hark [title, 1, chorus], herald [title, 1], hail x2 [2, 3], mild [1, 3] 
10.) O Come to My Heart Lord Jesus – dost [1], camest [1], didst [2],  commest [5], callest [5] 
11.) All Glory Laud and Honor – laud [title, 1, 3], comest [1] 
12.) The First Noel – Noel 
13.) Angels We Have Heard on High – Jubilee [2], strains x2 [1, 2], tidings [2], excelsis Deo [Latin] x2 
14.) Joy To the World – prove 

Two last notes. 1.) Some or many of these words may be known to some and some or many of you may not. Who is to decide when too many people misunderstand too much of Angels We Have Heard On High and therefore we need a new translation? 2.) There is a bit of sad hilarity here in that our Protestant song services are more standardized than the Bible we read. Whether it be a screen, a song page, or a hymn book we all read the same words, but not with the Bible. What song leader would hand out multiple hymn books with different words and different numbering? What song leader would put one set of words on one screen and then a slightly different set of words on screen two and then on screen three put a dynamic equivalence translation of screen one? Thus we conclude, don’t touch my songs or my song service, but you may play with the Bible at will so long as you are trained and have a Ph.D.

Blessings and Merry Christmas.

Scripture Is Its Own Interpreter

“Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandam esse: Scripture is to be explained from Scripture

one of several forms of a maxim employed by both Lutheran and Reformed orthodox to indicate the normative authority and self-authenticating character of Scripture over against the Roman Catholic contention that the church has absolute authority to explain the text.”

Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally From Protestant Scholastic Theology, Term: Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandam esse.

Muller goes on to say on this point that

“Since Word, as such, is authoritative and effective, it must be its own standard of interpretation.”

Muller, Dictionary, Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandam esse.

The point for today’s brief article is that many Christians accept that the Scriptures interpret themselves as to their meaning. What seems to be of significant dispute or neglect is that the Scriptures as self-attesting, self-authenticating, and self-interpreting speak for themselves as to what is and is not Scripture as well. The Scriptures do not merely attest to and verify their meaning; they attest to and verify their very being or propositional substance. The Scripture itself in real and present time explains its meaning as you hold it in your mind and its very imminent existence as you hold it in your hand.