Continuing our Bibliology Primer we now come to the question of whether real contradictions appear in the Scriptures. This blog post will be divided into two section, maybe three. The first section will deal with the problems faced by the Reformers at there time which, interestingly enough, very closely resembles similar problems the Standard Sacred Text/Confessional Text/KJV community face today. The second section will address Turretin’s response to these problems. I may then write a third entry addressing the proposed “contradictions” which Turretin undertakes. For now, and beginning with our first section, Turretin writes,

“Although when the divinity of the Scriptures is proved (as in the preceding question), its infallibility necessarily follows, yet the enemies of true religion and of Scripture in every age flatter themselves that they have found not a few contradictions in it and boast of their discoveries in order to overthrow its authenticity.”

Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 1. 70.

But Turretin does not limit his apologetic address to those outside the Church who care little for the word of God. No, he expands his response to those in the Church. It should not be surprising then that both people in the Church and outside the Church willingly or otherwise attempt to weaken the authority of Scripture in this or that part. Turretin observes,

“we have to deal here not only with declared atheists and Gentiles who do not receive the sacred Scriptures, but also with those who, seeming to receive them, indirectly oppose them.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 2. 70.

While dealing specifically with supposed contradictions in Scripture, Turretin broadens the target a bit by including “Enthusiasts who allege the imperfection of the written word,” “papists… insisting on the corruption of the original,” “Libertines who, living in the bosom of the church, are constantly bringing forward these difficulties,” and all “in order to weaken the authority of the Scriptures” [ Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 2. 70]. Not much has changes since the 1600’s.

Turretin then gives a series of responses “the learned” have used over time to answer the accusations of the enthusiasts, papist, atheists, and libertines. Some say “the sacred writers could slip.” Others say the “Hebrew and Greek originals are corrupted.” But perhaps the most familiar, and the one used by most in the English-speaking Church to this very day is,

“Others again think that a few very slight errors have crept into the Scriptures and even now exist which cannot be corrected by any collation of manuscripts. These are not to be imputed however to the sacred writers themselves, but partly to the injuries of time, partly to the fault of copyists and librarians.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 3. 70

Now pause for just a minute and try to guess what Turretin’s next line is going to be. I mean Turretin wrote nearly 400 years ago. What do you think the chances are that the next line is his text is a near direct quote from our present day? Turretin writes immediately after the quote above,

“Yet on this account, the authenticity (authentia) of the Scriptures cannot be weakened because they occur only in things less necessary and important.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 3. 70

This is THE present day response of so many pastors, theologians, and laymen to the “slight errors” found in Scripture. Nearly every seminary, Reformed or otherwise, concludes with the above language. “Slight errors don’t matter because they don’t affect any major doctrine.” Sound familiar? Still, Turretin at the time of the Reformation states that this is not the majority position held by the orthodox or those of right thinking.

Turretin goes on to offer the orthodox prescription when he writes,

“Finally others defend the integrity of the Scriptures and say that these various contradictions are only apparent, not real and true; that certain passages are hard to be understood, but not altogether inexplicable. This is the more common opinion of the orthodox, which we follow as safer and truer.“

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. 3. 70 [Italics: Mine]

In short, Turretin lumps the Roman Catholics, Atheist, Charismatics, and the prevailing opinion of the present-day English-speaking Church into the same group in terms of “improperly defending the integrity of the Scriptures.” He then goes on to declare that all contradictions are apparent and infers that all “slight errors” are presently reconcilable rather than potentially reconcilable. It is this last part which we will deal with in greater deal in our second section.

For now, it is important to note that arguments against a standard sacred text are old. There is nothing new under the sun. It now falls to our generation to address these old failed arguments, and we need not go far. So much of the answer has already been laid out for us in examples like Francis Turretin. Study. Be gracious. Be compelling. Be bold.

As we continue our way through Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology as a Bibliology Primer we come to the question, “Are the holy Scriptures truly authentic and divine?” Of course Turretin assumes the affirmative. He then goes on to say that the question could be divided into two sub-heads:

“(1) with atheists and the heathen, who attribute no higher authority to the Scriptures than to any other book; (2) with those Christians who, while acknowledging its authority, nevertheless wish to make it depend (at least as far as we are concerned) upon the testimony of the church.”

Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. I. 62.

Turretin goes on to clarify these statements and proceeds by first addressing the former of the two sub-heads. It is important to observe that Turretin in addressing the atheist does not begin with rational arguments for the existence of God followed by markedly Christian claims. Instead he begins with markedly Christian claims and then defends those, rather than seeking neutral ground, and then positing Christian dogma from there. Turretin, in identifying what the question is not about, writes,

“The question is not whether the sacred writers (as men simply and in a divided sense) could err (for we readily grant this); or whether as holy men influenced by the Holy Spirit and in a compound sense, they did in fact err (for I think no one of the adversaries, except a downright atheist, would dare to say this.)”

Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. IV. 62.

He then goes on to define the question as it is.

“Rather the question is whether in writing they were so acted upon and inspired by the Holy Spirit (both as to the things themselves and as to the words) as to be kept free from all error and that their writings are truly authentic and divine. Our adversaries deny this; we affirm it.”

Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. V. 62-63.

Note the tenses employed here by Turretin. He speaks of the act of inspiration in the past tense [kept] but speaks of their authenticity and divinity in the present [are/sunt]. He could have just as easily employed [were/erant]. If you continue to follow us here at StandardSacredText.com you will see among the Protestant scholastics an intentional and regular emphasis on the possession of the originals in their here-and-now. They held that the Greek and Hebrew Bible in their hand was equal to the original and here we see a glimpse of that confession.

Turretin’s first argument for the authenticity and divinity of the Scriptures is…the Scripture’s testimony of itself. He writes,

“The Bible proves itself divine, not only authoritatively and in the manner of an artless argument or testimony, when it proclaims itself God-inspired (theopneuston).”

Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. VI. 63.

He then goes on to offer four external proofs and five internal proofs. The external proofs are:

• Quoting Tertullian, “That which is most ancient is most true.” Because the Scriptures are ancient they are true. [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. VII. 63].
• Concerning its longevity Turretin writes, “With regard to the duration; the wonderful preservation (even to this day) of the divine word by his providential care against powerful and hostile enemies who have endeavored by fire and by sword to destroy it, while so many other books, against which nothing of this kind has ever been attempted, have wholly perished” [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. VII. 63].
• The candor and sincerity of writers in that they do not “conceal their own faults but ingenuously confess them” [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. VII. 63].
• Finally, “the number, constancy and condition of the martyrs who sealed it with their blood.” [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. VII. 63].

Of the five internal proofs, he writes,

• The mysteries contained therein [e.g., the Trinity, incarnation, Christ’s propitiation, and resurrection].
• The style of Scripture in that “the divine majesty, shinning forth no less from the simplicity than the weight of expression and the consummate boldness in commanding all without distinction, both the highest and the lowest.” [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. IX. 64].
• “[T]he divine agreement and entire harmony of doctrine.” [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. IX. 64].
• “[T]he direction of all things to the glory of God alone and the holiness and salvation of men.” [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. IX. 64].
• “[T]he light and efficacy of the divine doctrine which is so great that, sharper than any two-edged sword, it pierces to the soul itself, generates faith and piety in the minds of its hearers, as well as invincible firmness in its professors, and always victoriously triumphs over the kingdom of Stan and false religion.” [Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. IX. 64].

This post is getting long so I will leave you with a couple quotes and comments from this question. First, Turretin acknowledges that other religions make the same claims concerning their “sacred texts.” He writes,

“Although false religions usually claim for their doctrine these criteria, the true religion may appropriate these criteria to herself because the vain and false opinions of men do not weaken the truth of the thing itself.”

Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. XII. 64.

Simply because false religions claim to be true or that their god is the living and true God is not grounds enough for a Christian to avoid or cease from making these claims. The same goes for the Christian’s claims of Scripture. Finally I leave you another hint from Turretin in affirming the priority of Presuppositional methodology.

“Although faith may be founded upon the authority of testimony and not upon scientific demonstration, it does not follow that it cannot be assisted by artificial arguments, especially in erecting the principles of faith.”

Turretin, Institutes, Section 2, Q. 4, Sec. XIII. 64.

First, faith cannot be founded on evidential demonstration, but evidence can assist in supporting “the principles of faith.” The conclusions of textual criticism count as scientific/evidential demonstration. It is the Reformed orthodox position that such demonstration cannot lead to faith, and, given evidentialism and the state of the evidence to date, it is unreasonable to believe textual criticism has yielded a document equal to the autographa. Rather, I submit to you that it is only reasonable to believe that textual criticism has yielding a document somewhat representative of the sources immediately behind the manuscript tradition we currently have.

Next time we will continue down this road with Turretin as he continues to give arguments for the authenticity and divinity of his Bible.

In framing the question Turretin writes,

“[T]he question is not whether the writing of the word was absolutely and simply necessary, but relatively and hypothetically; not for every age, but now in this state of things; nor relatively to the power and liberty of God, but to his wisdom and economy as dealing with man.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Second Topic, Q. 2, Sec. III.

The necessity spoken of here is a necessity determined for the church in our time. Indeed, God spoke in times past by the fathers and prophets. Yet in the writing of the canon God saw fit, and in this sense it was necessary, to reveal Himself through the inspired written propositions of Holy Scripture. Turretin goes on to add that the writing of the Scriptures was an act of obedience on the part of the penmen as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. As such, the writing of the Scriptures took placed under the observance of a command via the Holy Spirit bearing penmen along and in this sense the writing of Scripture was necessary.

The three proofs, according to Turretin, in support of this necessity are:

“(1) the preservation of the word; (2) its vindication; (3) its propagation.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Second Topic, Q. 2, Sec. IV.

Turretin explains,

“It was necessary for a written word to be given to the church that the canon of true religious faith might be constant and unmoved; that it might easily be preserved pure and entire against the weakness of memory, the depravity of men, and the shortness of life; that it might be more certainly defended from the frauds and corruptions of Satan.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Second Topic, Q. 2, Sec. VI.

Let me make a few brief notes here. First, “the canon of true religious faith” encompasses the whole of Christianity not just the salvific elements. Again, the potential of being saved out of this or that text is no test of Scriptural authenticity. Second, this “canon” remains constant and unmoved. Turretin’s confession here is important because clearly he is aware of the artillery rolled up against the doctrine of preservation: weakness of memory, human depravity, brevity of life, and the work of Satan himself.

Knowing these threats Turretin speaks of Scripture in the 17th century as “constant and unmoved.” Third, in light of the second point, Turretin goes on to infer that this same canon is and states that this canon will be “easily” preserved “pure and entire.” In this sense, given the foes of preservation, this easily preserved, pure and entire canon of true religious faith remains preserved thus proving that the Scriptures are indeed from God Himself.

And why would this preservation effort seem so strange. Certainly we see it in the sphere of man’s laws. Turretin writes,

“Nor for any other reason are the public laws, statutes and edicts of kings and decrees of the commonality inscribed upon brass or committed to the public tablets, except that this is the most sure method of preserving them uncorrupted and of propagating through many ages the remembrance of those things which it is important for the people to know.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Second Topic, Q. 2, Sec. VI.

Still, some Christians proclaim that their Bible is not yet complete and yet would not proclaim an incomplete view of the “canon” of human sexuality. They would assert without equivocation that sex belongs within the bonds of marriage and that marriage is between one man and one woman. They allow no incompleteness here but they do in the canon of Scripture.

Some Christians call for regular and constant revisions of the Scripture both in the original and in the translation but those same Christians seem reluctant to commit the law of the land [i.e., the U.S. Constitution] to revisions on a yearly basis. Turretin points out that kings emulate the God who made them by committing their works into writing, but it seems in many ways the Western Church is fine with biblical revisions and not so much for their own laws. Idolatry much?