Category Archives: A Bibliology Primer

In Volume 2 of Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology (1696) he discusses the question of the object of faith, or toward what is faith aimed and from which does faith come? To answer this question, Turretin offers four propositions. “First proposition: ‘The object of faith ought to be true and nothing false can comeContinue reading “Scripture as the Object of Faith”

We are now in our third installment of Turretin’s argument on Scripture as infallible judge of controversies and interpreter of itself. In part 2 we discussed the first four of Turretin’s arguments in support of the claim that the Scripture is such a judge and interpreter. In this installment we will discuss the final threeContinue reading “Scripture as Supreme and Infallible Judge of All Controversies and Interpreter of Itself (Part 3)”

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 GodContinue reading “Scripture as Supreme and Infallible Judge of All Controversies and Interpreter of Itself (Part 2)”

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’sContinue reading “Scripture as Supreme and Infallible Judge of Controversies and Interpreter of Itself (Part 1)”

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 theContinue reading “Do We Need Permission to Read the Bible?”

As we continue our Bibliology Primer drawn principally from Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology we come now to the perspicuity or clarity of Scripture. The objection here raised by the Roman Catholics is that the Scriptures are not in themselves clear enough to profitably nourish and grow the Christian. As a result, it isContinue reading “The Perspicuity [i.e., Clarity] of the Scriptures”

Turretin askes regarding the Perspicuity of the Scriptures, “Are the Scriptures so perspicuous in things necessary to salvation that they can be understood by believers without the external help of oral (agraphou) tradition or ecclesiastical authority? We affirm against the papists. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 17. First theContinue reading “Perspicuity – What the Scriptures Are vs. What They Say.”

On the heels of our discussion of Turretin’s treatment of the necessity of versions 1, 2, and 3 let us turn to the Translator’s Preface to the Reader of the 1611 King James Version under “An Answer to the Imputation of Our Adversaries” the preface reads, “Now to the latter we answer, that we doContinue reading “The Preface to the KJV, “Meanest,” and Translations”

Continuing our discussion of the necessity of versions of the Bible we now turn to the relationship of the version to the original and the similarities and differences that therein lie. I. The version is not authentic in itself. The version derives its authenticity from the original which underlies it. Thusly construed, we deny theContinue reading “Are Versions Necessary (Part 3)”

As you recall for out last entry in this Bibliology Primer the question of the necessity of versions is divided into two main heads: the necessity of versions and the authority of versions. In this instalment we will look into the latter. Turretin begins and we here at StandardSacredText.com agree, “Although their [the version’s] utilityContinue reading “Are Versions Necessary? (Part 2)”