Can We Trust the Gospels? by Peter J. Williams

Crossway, 2018, 153pp

'Gospel truth'. Really? Aren't the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life, teaching, death and resurrection just made up stuff that no rational person should believe? That's the question biblical scholar Peter Williams seeks to address in this little book. He produces a convincing cumulative case for the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Few if any figures in the ancient world had so much written about them as Jesus of Nazareth. We not only have the witness of the four Gospels. Jesus is also mentioned in a number of non-Christian sources. These Roman and Jewish authors in no way intended intended to write favourably of the Christian faith.  Yet what they said bears out the essential facts concerning Jesus' life and death as recorded in the Gospels. These sources also describe Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and that the early church worshipped him as divine. 

Its is often suggested that the Gospels were written so long after the event that they can't be accurate. Like in the 'Chinese whispers' game, where a phrase is whispered into the ear of one person, who then passed it down the line to others. By the end of the game the phrase usually bears little resemblance to the one at the given at the beginning. 'Sausage, egg and chips' becomes 'postage stamps and crisps', or whatever. This idea is discounted by Williams. For starters, Jesus' treasured teachings weren't communicated in whispers to see what random stuff would come out the other end. They were committed to memory and handed on with great care. The author defends the view that the Gospels were written close the the period the describe, either by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John), or by writers who had access to eyewitness testimony (Mark and Luke). Even liberal scholars now accept an early dating of the Gospels. 

The chapter on Did the Gospel Authors Know their Stuff? is full of fascinating facts. The Evangelists certainly did. Their writings show deep familiarity with the Geography that forms the backdrop to Jesus' ministry.  For instance, local boy Matthew, Mark (based on Peter's testimony) and John refer to the 'Sea of Galilee', or simply 'the Sea'. Peter and John were fisherman on that stretch of water, so for them it was the sea. Luke who may well have hailed from Antioch near the Mediterranean refers to the same waters as 'the lake'. 

Williams delves into the way names are recorded in the Gospels, where the writers disambiguate names that were popular at the time. 'Jesus' was the sixth or seventh most popular Jewish Palestinian name in those days. Which is why when characters are recorded in the Gospels as speaking of Jesus  they often disambiguate, saying, 'Jesus of Nazareth' so listeners knew exactly which Jesus they were taking about. The quotes cited in the Gospels therefore have a contemporary ring to them. They were not made up after the event and placed in people's mouths for effect. When narrating what Jesus said or did the Gospel writers tend simply to say 'Jesus' without disambiguation, as they could be confident that their readers knew very well which Jesus they were talking about. 

As Williams points out, we don't get a sense that the Evangelists were deliberately corroborating each other's accounts. They weren't like criminals concocting their watertight alibis lest they be collared by the police. While there is overlapping material in the four Gospels (especially the 'Synoptics; Matthew, Mark and Luke'), each has their own unique touches. Williams highlights a number of 'undesigned coincidences' where one Gospel in supplying information that is missing from the others helps to fill out the picture. What Luke and John have to say about the sisters Mary and Martha is given a case in point. In different ways both Evangelists present Martha as down-to-earth and practical, while Mary is seen as the more contemplative sibling.  

Various questions that may cause people to doubt the truthfulness of the Gospels are also given attention. Do we have the actual words of Jesus? Has the text changed? What about contradictions? And so on. For me one of the most powerful arguments that Williams makes is about the person of Jesus himself. The one who emerges from the pages of the Gospels is clearly extraordinary in every way. Which is why the preacher from Nazareth continues to command our attention some 2,000 years after he waked on earth. It could be that the Gospel writers were literary geniuses who independently created this special character and put amazing words into his mouth. The simpler and more likely explanation is that Jesus was who they said he was, the Son of God in human form, John 20:30-31.

If you are interested in the Christian faith, but not yet convinced, this book may address some of your doubts. Believers will have their confidence in the Gospels confirmed. They will be able to use the author's arguments in discussing the faith with friends who may be sceptical about the Gospel records. Pastors reading this will have their understanding of the Evangelists' multifaceted witness to Jesus enriched, which will hopefully serve to make their preaching all the more persuasive. 

Gospel truth? Yes, really.

Garry Williams on The Bible as God’s Covenant Treaty

On Wednesday we had Garry Williams, Director of the John Owen Centre come along to our Bradford on Avon Ministers' Fraternal. He led a seminar on The Bible as God’s Covenant Treaty. Basically it was an elegant, erudite and engaging plea for 'theological theology'.

Theology cannot exist on another than theological basis. And the theological basis for theology is the self-revelation of God in Holy Scripture. The Bible is best regarded not as a doctrinal textbook, or 'A Bumper Magic Book of Promises', but as the triune God's covenant treaty with the church.

Attention was drawn to the Bible's own witness to its covenantal character. The insights of Meredith Kline are helpful on this point, setting Old Testament Scripture against the background of ANE suzeran-vassal treaties. Deuteronomy is structured in the form of a classic treaty/covenant document: Preamble (1:1-5), Historical prologue (1:6-4:49). Stipulations (5-26), Curses and blessings (27-30), Succession arrangements (31-34). In one way or another, all the books of the Bible, with their differing genres fit into this covenant framework.

In making his case Garry interacted the writings of some of my favourite authors; Herman Bavinck, Timothy Ward, John Webster, Kevin Vanhoozer, etc. He offered a well thought through defence of biblical inerrancy.

Thinking of Scripture as a covenant treaty reminds us of the role of the Bible in the drama of redemption. The church is called not simply to study Scripture as an ancient text, but to respond in faith and obedience to the communicative action of the triune God who addresses us through his covenant Word.

It was a proper seminar, with opportunities to interrupt Garry and discuss what he said as he made his way through the paper. In all, it was a most helpful and stimulating day.

Contact Garry Williams through the JOC website if you might be interested in hosting a seminar at your fraternal.  

Cheltenham PTS Meeting "Sharper than any two-edged sword"

Next Tuesday I'm due to speak at a Protestant Truth Society meeting at Cheltenham Evangelical Free Church. Here's the low down: 

AV 400

Earlier today I recorded a reading of the King James Bible's translation of 1 Kings 18:17-39, to be broadcast on BBC Radio Wiltshire on Sunday morning. It is that magnificent passage where Elijah faced down the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel. Mine was part of a series of Bible readings that will continue through the rest of the year.

Why are BBC Radio Wiltshire doing this? Well, this year marks the 400th anniversary “Authorised” or “King James” version of the Bible, first published in 1611. This certainly wasn’t the first translation of the Bible into English, but it has been one of the most influential. Prior to the Reformation in the sixteenth century, church services were held in Latin and the Bible was only available in a Latin translation. This meant that the Bible was a closed book for ordinary people. However, Reformers such as Martin Luther in Germany and William Tyndale in England wanted to make the treasures of the Bible available to everybody to read. They carefully translated the Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew into the language of the people.

The “King James” translation of the Bible was very much based on the earlier efforts of William Tyndale. It is called the “King James Version” because King James I of England commissioned this edition of the Bible. The work took around fifty scholars seven years to complete the task of producing a fresh English translation of the Holy Scriptures. Their efforts were worth it. The King James Version soon became the Bible of the English speaking peoples. It opened up the wonders of God’s Word for all to read with its much admired combination of accuracy in translation, clarity of style and literary beauty.

The King James Bible helped make modern English the language that it is today. Boyd Tonkin, The Independent’s literary editor called the King James version of the Bible, “a masterpiece of English prose” and so it is. If you have a long neglected copy of the King James Bible lying around the house, perhaps this might be a good time to dust it off and give it a read. But remember, the Bible is more than a literary classic. It is the best of books with the best of messages, “the holy scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:15 KJV).

Written for News & Views, West Lavington parish magazine.

Other resorces:

http://www.kingjamesbibletrust.org/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xh4s3

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A124.pdf

Affinity discussions

As I was saying, the Affinity Theological Studies Conference is a proper confer-ence. Meaning that those who attend get to confer together and discuss papers presented in small break-out  groups and in plenary sessions. Cool, eh? The break-out groups comprised of around twelve people.

I once attended a Ministers' conference in the UK where the big shot American speaker did not deign take his meals with the rest of us. Did he think we Brits have disgusting eating habits or something? No such aloofness was allowed at this event. Speakers duly ate with the rest of us and took their place in discussion groups along with everybody else, which is as it should be.

Philip Eveson, retired Principal of the London Theological Seminary chaired our group. Hywel Jones, who gave the final paper on preaching in the power of the Spirit, another former LTS Principal was also a member of "Group 4". But neither man attempted to hog the discussions, which gave mouthy delegates like me a chance to contribute.  We talked about the pros and cons of the papers delivered and tried to work out how to apply what we had learned in church life. For some reason, Philip Eveson got rather fixated on John Frame's point, cited in Dan Strange's paper about the Bible being sufficient for a Christian plumber. Did he mean that there is a distinctly Christian approach to welding pipes and changing washers, or that a Christian plumber will do an honest job? We thought that it was probably the latter.

It was nice to be able to put Hywel Jones on the spot when it came to discussing his paper. What are we seeking when we pray for the power of the Spirit in preaching? Boldness, liberty, life-transforming power. Can we discern the Spirit at work when we feel that we have failed in preaching, but our people are helped? Yes, God is sovereign, but we should nevertheless seek more of the empowering presence of the Spirit in our preaching.

I don't know why, but I felt OK saying my piece in the small group sessions, but didn't feel like piping up in the plenaries. Maybe something to do with my Welsh inferiority complex. Then again, 50% of the speakers and Affinity's new Director, Peter Milsom were Welsh, as were a good number of some of the most vocal contributors at the plenaries. In fact, most of the people I spoke to at the conference were either Welsh, had trained/taught at LTS, or, like me were both Welsh and LTS'ers. 

The plenary sessions were good though, especially the panel discussion when all the speakers took to the stage and fielded questions from the floor. Questions ranged around the application of biblical principles in the contemporary situation, where our people are often confronted with tricky ethical dilemmas. Should a Christian in the military use torture to obtain potentially life saving intelligence? Is there such a thing as "the lesser of two evils" - i.e. telling a lie to prevent someone being murdered? Or will the Lord not put his people in a position where the only option is to sin? What of the Christian guesthouse owners who were found guilty of breaking the law in refusing a bed to a homosexual couple? Were they right to do so? (On this, take a look at Mostyn Roberts' thought provoking post, Changing Times: the Christian in a secular society). Conference chairman Stephen Clark suggested that we need to give fresh attention to biblical ethics, an area where we are weak in comparison to our forebears. It was suggested that the next Affinity Theological Studies Conference (2013) might be given over to this issue.

Theological discussion laced with friendly banter continued at meal times and in coffee fuelled late night conversations. On Wednesday night I was chatting to Mostyn Roberts about the theology of Kevin Vanhoozer, when a chap from a neighbouring table asked if he could join us. It turns out that the brother from Romania is currently engaged in doctoral studies on Vanhoozer's theological method. We had an stimulating conversation on KJV's theodramatic proposals. It was also nice to bump into several people who I've not met before who are regular readers of this blog.

This was my first Affinity Theological Studies Conference and I really enjoyed it. The papers were very helpful and the discussion orientated format worked well. Oh, and unlike one of the speakers, Carl Trueman (where did they get him from?), the lady at the Affinity desk did know my name.

But before wrapping up my reflections on the conference, I feel I should share with readers a couple of important truths that were impressed upon me at the event. 1) Allusions to pop music are likely to be lost on many pastors and  theologians. I found myself having to explain Trueman's mealtime reference to Mark Knopfler. And I can't stand Dire Straits. It was demeaning. For me the 80's were all about Going Underground by The Jam and U2's Joshua Tree, not dire yuppie music. Also, Eminem (whose music I loath even more than Dire Straits) is a rap singer, not a packet of sweets. 2) Wearing chunky-knit jumpers with jeans and brown brogues isn't a good look.

To Affinity and back again

Dan Strange, Peter Naylor and Hywel Jones

Following on from Part 1 of this report, on the Affinity Theological Studies Conference on, "The Truth Will Set You Free: The Doctrine and Function of Scripture in the 21st Century":

Stephen Clark got down to brass tacks with a paper on The Use of the Bible in the Church. Our authority is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures. The Bible is God's clear and present word to the world and the church. Scripture was given for this purpose, "that people may come to know the Living God, who has been revealed supremely in the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ, and then grow in their knowledge of him and their likeness and conformity to him: in Paul’s memorable words, that everyone may be presented mature in Christ (Col. 1:28)." The reading of Holy Scripture is an essential component of the public worship of God. The Bible should ordinarily be read in this context by Ministers of the Word. What the church sings and the language of her prayers should be informed by the Bible. In preaching, Scripture should be expounded accurately and in the power of the Holy Spirit. In Preachers should not offer distorted readings of the Bible for the sake of practical application. The case was given of Joel Beeke's commendation of Jephthah's daughter as an example of "contagious submission" (see here). The Bible should be brought to bear on the ethical dilemmas faced by the people of God in the 21st century such as embryo research, civil partnerships etc. Pastors should help believers to feed themselves on the riches of God's Word so that the church is nourished on a rich diet of biblical truth.

The paper that generated the most discussion and debate was Dan Strange's piece, Not Ashamed! The Sufficiency of Scripture for Public Theology. Strange reminded us of Stephen Green's appearance on BBC's Question Time back in 2005. The Director of Christian Voice met with howls of derision from the audience when he persisted in answering questions from the Bible. The debacle was an indication of what can happen when the Bible comes into contact with the public square. This raises the question of how we might best speak Christianly in the public arena at a time when the Bible is no longer held in high regard. Strange set out two alternative proposals for "public theology" from within the world of Reformed theology. First, the "two kingdoms view", that emphasises the distinction between the temporary kingdom of this world and the eternal kingdom of God. The civil realm is subject to the "light of nature" or "natural law" that is common to all humanity (Romans 1:18-32, 2:14-15), while the church, belonging to the eternal kingdom is subject to Scripture. The Bible is not sufficient for the public arena, "We will not cure cancer …by reading Scripture, we will cure it by investigating molecular biology, organic chemistry and other related disciplines" (citing T. David Gordon). Second, Strange drew our attention to the "transformationist" model that seeks to bring biblical truth to bear upon the public square. In this view, the Bible must be allowed to supplement and inform the light of nature. Scripture is sufficient for public theology. So says John Frame,

When people are converted to believe in Christ, they bring their new faith and love into their daily work. They ask how Christ bears upon their work as historians, scientists, musicians, how this new passion of theirs affects art, entertainment, medicine, the care of the poor and sick, the justice of courts, the punishment of convicts, relations between nations.

Strange commended the second view, arguing that much of what passes for "the light of nature" is in fact the legacy of the impact of Christian moral teaching in the United Kingdom. The more post-Christian our country becomes, the more we will need to make the source of our values in the Bible explicit. We cannot have biblical ethics apart from the gospel revealed in Holy Scripture. Society is transformed as more and more people become Christians and then act as salt and light in their daily lives,

And when we are anxious that speaking ‘Christianly’ will threaten our place in the public square and our contribution to social transformation, we need to remember that real social transformation will only come about through conversion through encountering Jesus in the Word of God and by the regenerating and illuminating power of the Spirit. In summary, given our current context, our public theology is public apologetics.

The "transformationist" model is big enough to include a role for "the light of nature" in public theology, but it rightly insists that the Bible must be allowed to speak in the public arena. The relative value of the "two kingdoms" and "transformationist" visions and the practicalities of speaking Christianly in the public square stimulated a lot of discussion and debate in the break-out groups and plenary discussion session.

The final paper was given by Hywel Jones, entitled, Preaching the Word in the Power of the Holy Spirit. Jones  challenged the view that the Holy Spirit works invariably whenever the Word is preached. In keeping with the teaching of Scripture itself (1 Corinthians 2:1-5, 1 Thessalonians 1:5 etc) the speaker gave due emphasis to the importance of the preaching of the Word while also highlighting the need of the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit in preaching. This was his key proposal,

The Spirit and the Word are therefore not on the same plane of reality. The former is God; the latter is not seeing as it is the product of the Spirit (2 Tim. 3: 16 – 17). This means that the Spirit is as free and sovereign in his activity as is both the Father and the Son and that the Word that is his product is also his instrument. He remains the agent.

This needs to be said, as some, most notably John Woodhouse of Moore College, Sydney have been teaching a Lutheran conception of the relationship between Word and Spirit that virtually imprisons the Spirit in the Word. His views are influential among Evangelical Anglicans in the UK. Where such teaching holds sway, preachers will not be encouraged to seek the empowering presence of the Spirit in their ministries. All they need to do is preach and the Spirit can be relied upon do his work. The Reformed view is that the Holy Spirit works with his Word as he pleases. Jones quoted the words of John Stott's statement that Word and Spirit should never be divorced, and that the Spirit is needed to make the Word effective,

We must never divorce what God has married, namely his Word and his Spirit. The Word of God is the Spirit’s sword. The Spirit without the Word is weaponless; the Word without the Spirit is powerless . . . The truth of the Word, the conviction with which we speak it, and the power of its impact on others all come from the Holy Spirit. It is he who illumines our minds, so that we formulate our message with integrity and clarity. It is he whose inward witness assures us of its truth, so that we preach it with conviction. And it is he who carries it home with power, so that the hearers respond to it in penitence, faith and obedience.

Also note the words of John Owen,

When God shall be pleased to give unto the people who are called by his name, in a more abundant manner, “pastors after his own heart, to feed them with knowledge and understanding”, when he shall revive and increase a holy. humble, zealous, self-denying, powerful ministry, by a more plentiful effusion of his Spirit from above: then, and not until then, may we hope to see the pristine glory and beauty of our restored unto its primitive state and condition.

Hywel Jones' important paper was an attempt at sketching out a theology of Word and Spirit in preaching. But it was more than that. It was a passionate plea for preachers to seek a greater measure of the power of the Holy Spirit as they proclaim the Word of God. Such preaching is the crying need of the world and the church. The trouble with the Moore view is that it does not encourage preachers to seek more of the empowering presence of the Spirit so that they may preach the gospel "not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction" (1 Thessalonians 1:5).

To Affinity and back

Greg Beale, Stephen Clark, Carl Trueman, Peter Milsom

The Affinity Theological Studies Conference does exactly what it says on the tin. It is given to theological study and it is a proper confer-ence. Papers are circulated beforehand for attendees to study. At the event the papers are introduced by their authors prior to small group and plenary discussion sessions. The theme this year was,  "The Truth Will Set You Free: The Doctrine and Function of Scripture in the 21st Century."

Ever since the Garden of Eden, one of the devil's master strategies has been to cast doubt on the word of God. Once we begin to wonder, "Has God said?", we are on the high road to ruin.  This has especially been borne out during the last 150 years or so, where the doctrine of Scripture has been a storm centre of controversy. There is no sign of the storm dying out, with various cross winds threatening to blow the church off course.

Now, you might be forgiven for thinking that Princeton theologians A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield had offered the definitive defence of the Bible as God's inspired and inerrant Word in their various writings on the subject, most notably their jointly-authored article Inspiration, published in The Presbyterian Review 6 (April 1881). But things ain't that simple. It is often claimed, even by some in the Evangelical camp that the Princeton view of the Bible was based on wrongheaded Enlightenment assumptions. Furthermore, it is argued  that the teaching set forth by Hodge and Warfield was out of kilter with the way the church had regarded the Scriptures over the centuries. Carl Trueman attempted to respond to these points in his paper, Is the Princeton View of Scripture an Enlightenment Innovation? Looking at the issue from a strictly historical point of view, Trueman set out the essential elements of the Princeton position on the Bible and demonstrated that there were precedents for this view in the history of the church, most notably in the writings of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, the Reformers and Reformed Orthodox scholars. He concluded his survey,

As a result, if the Princetonians are to be seen as innovators, it cannot be in terms of their articulation of the concept of inerrant autographs or in their concern for verbal inspiration and the connection of this to notions of truth. On these points, they stand within an established tradition of Christian discourse which goes back beyond the Reformation to the early church.

Next up for consideration was Peter Naylor's paper on Lost in the Old Testament? Literary Genres and Evangelical Hermeneutics. Naylor's brief was to respond to some of the challenges to the traditional Evangelical doctrine of Scripture from the world of Biblical Studies. He gave special attention to the issue of identifying literary genres found in the Bible. Should we regard Genesis 1-3 as mythological depiction of creation? Is the Book of Jonah to be read as historical narrative, or is it in fact an extended parable? Is Peter Enns right to say that the discovery of Ancient Near Eastern texts such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, which often depict events found on the Bible, compromise the uniqueness of Scripture? Naylor argued that both Genesis 1-3 and Jonah should be read as historical narrative and gave some clear criterion for identifying biblical literary genres. Believing in the supernatural God of the Bible we should have no problem in regarding portions of Scripture that depict the miraculous as historical. While the Old Testament might overlap with Ancient Near Eastern documents, the differences between these texts and the Bible are highly signifigant. The Bible is monotheistic rather than polytheistic. There is no notion of creation ex nihilio in Babylonian literature and no account of the fall of man into sin. Naylor warned against Evangelicals embracing a demythologizing approach to the Bible,

The assured results of liberal criticism have been empty pews, closed churches, loss of confidence, inability to stand against the tide of moral corruption that has been sweeping aside all the waymarks that once guarded the British people.

Peter Enns was under fire once more in Greg Beale's paper on The Right Doctrine, Wrong Texts: Can We Follow the Apostles’ Doctrine But Not Their Hermeneutics? Enns has argued that the apostles employed a typical Jewish non-contexual approach to Old Testament exegesis. In effect they obtained the right doctrine concerning Christ from the wrong Old Testament  texts. Beale set out to challenge this view. He reflected on the relationship between ancient Jewish and apostolic exegesis and set out five presuppositions of the apostle's exegetical method,

1. the assumption of corporate solidarity or representation ;

2. that Christ is viewed as representing the true Israel of the OT and true Israel, the church, in the NT;

3. that History is unified by a wise and sovereign plan so that the earlier parts are designed to correspond and point to the latter parts (cf. Matt. 11:13f);

4. that the age of eschatological fulfilment has come in Christ;

5. as a consequence of (4), it may be deduced that the latter parts of biblical history function as the broader context to interpret earlier parts because they all have the same, ultimate divine author who inspires the various human authors, and one deduction from this premise is that Christ as the centre of history is the key to interpreting the earlier portions of the OT and its promises .

The paper then considered a case study, the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15. By giving careful attention to Hosea, Beale showed that the prophet himself held the expectation of  a new, eschatological exodus, inaugurated by Israel's lion king (Hosea 11:10-11 cf. Numbers 23:24 & 24:9). Matthew was not being non-contextual in saying that this event was fulfilled in Christ. Beale assured us that "there is good reason and evidence that supports the notion that Jesus and the Apostles did interpret the Old Testament in line with the originally intended meaning of the Old Testament writers themselves."

Papers were followed my stimulating times of small group and plenary discussion. Watch this space for more reports.

To Affinity and beyond!



Shortly I'll be off to the Affinity Theological Studies Conference (see here). This year's theme is "The Truth Will Set You Free: The Doctrine and Function of Scripture in the 21st Century." The speakers are Carl Trueman, Peter Naylor, Greg Beale, Stephen Clark, Dan Strange and Hywel Jones. I hope to post a report when I get back. As Buzz Lightyear might say, "To Affinity and beyond!"

Some thoughts on the right of private interpretation of Scripture

The right of every Christian believer to read and interpret the Bible is one of the distinguishing features of Reformed Protestantism. Famously, when Martin Luther was charged with heresy at the Diet of Worms this was his defence,

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.

This attitude gave birth to what Alister McGrath calls "Christianity's dangerous idea"  - the right of private interpretation of Scripture (see here). Armed with this "right" Protestants subjected Roman Catholic traditions to the scrutiny of Scripture and attempted to reform the Church in line with the teaching of the Bible. The right of private interpretation is closely allied with two other defining characteristics of Protestantism; the priesthood of all believers and the clarity of Scripture. All true Christians may read and understand Holy Scripture because each believer has a personal knowledge of God, Jeremiah 31:34, John 6:45, 1 John 2:20. This saving knowledge of God in Christ is disclosed in the Scriptures, 2 Timothy 3:15. The basic message of the Bible clear so that every believer may read God's written Word with understanding. These principles gave impetus to the Protestant drive to give the Bible back to the people of God by translating Holy Scripture into the vernacular.

However, the Protestant "right of private interpretation" was never meant to be taken as mandating what is today called a "reader response" approach to Bible reading, where what matters most is not so much the contextual meaning of the biblical text as what the reader makes of the text for himself. Protestants were not proto-postmodernists. Standing above the right of private interpretation is the church's responsibility to listen attentively to what the Holy Spirit is saying in the Scriptures. That is why the Reformers, most notably John Calvin went to such lengths to help Protestants to read their Bibles with accuracy and care. Hence Calvin's devotion to expository preaching, his publication of voluminous Bible commentaries and his writing of the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Note what he says in the preface to the Institutes,

For if I mistake not, I have given a summary of religion in all its parts, and have digested it into such an order as may make it not difficult for any one, who is rightly acquainted with it, to ascertain both what he ought principally to look for in Scripture, and also to what head he ought to refer whatever is contained in it. Having thus, as it were, paved the way, I shall not feel it necessary, in any Commentaries on Scripture which I may afterwards publish, to enter into long discussions of doctrines or dilate on common places, and will, therefore, always compress them. In this way the pious reader will be saved much trouble and weariness, provided he comes furnished with a knowledge of the present work as an essential prerequisite.

Calvin's approach to biblical interpretation also inspired the Geneva Bible, where marginal notes helped the reader to understand the plain meaning of the text of Scripture. The ESV Study Bible attempts to do the same for contemporary believers.

The right of every Christian to read and interpret the Bible is not to be exercised in isolation from the church. The priesthood of all believers and the clarity of Scripture must not be taken to mean that the believer has no need of teaching on the meaning of the Bible and how its teaching applies. That is why the Lord calls some men to the pastoral-preaching ministry, Ephesians 4:11-12. The "right of private interpretation" does not amount to the attitude of some in the Plymouth Brethren, summed up in the (hopefully) apocryphal saying, "We all knows nothing and we all teaches each other." Well instructed Christians will be able to read their Bibles with greater understanding. Part of the purpose of preaching is to give the people of God "canon sense", that is a grasp of the Bible's redemptive-historical plot line and a good grounding in biblical doctrine.

Now, for all their emphasis on the clarity of Scripture, the Reformers and their successors did not mean to say that the whole of Scripture is equally clear and plain. Take this representative statement,

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Westminster Confession of Faith I:VII).

Note that "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation" are so clearly revealed that the learned and unlearned may attain a sufficient understanding of them. Those words distinguish Protestantism from the Roman Catholic Church, where it is held that the faithful can only understand the Bible's essential message with the help of the Magisterium, Rome's officially sanctioned interpretation of Scripture.  However, the Westminster divines were not trying to suggest that the church has no need of biblical scholarship that endeavours to interpret those parts of Scripture where the meaning is less plain and clear. For example, a new Christian reading Daniel 11 for the first time may not be able to make head nor tale of the details of the passage, but with the aid of a good commentary (e.g. E. J. Young - Banner of Truth, or Stuart Olyott - Evangelical Press), he will hopefully have some idea as to who the kings of the north and south were and that the nasty Antiochus Epiphanes is being described in Daniel 11:21-35.

As if anticipating postmodern hermeneutics, the WCF stated that by the use of ordinary means the the unlearned as well as the learned may attain a sufficient understanding of Scripture. We cannot rid ourselves of our situatedness when we read the Bible. We all bring a certain amount of baggage to the text. But that does not mean that biblical interpretation is doomed to reader response subjectivity.  No interpretation of Scripture will ever exhaust the meaning of the text. But it is possible for the believer to achieve a grasp of the Bible's teaching that is sufficient to equip him to live the Christian life for the glory of God, 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Like the Bereans commended by Luke in Acts 17:10-11, each believer has the right to scrutinise the teaching of the church in the light of Scripture. But this is not a licence for theological anarchy, where anything goes. If the authority of Scripture was the formal principle of the Reformation, then the gospel of grace was the material principle. Readings of Scripture that compromise the gospel are to be rejected. This involves false notions concerning God as Trinity and the Person of Christ and also erroneous views that distort or deny the biblical teaching on salvation by grace alone.  The Reformers drew up confessions of faith in part to exclude wrong-headed interpretations of the Bible. Also, when it came confessions of faith, the early Protestants had no desire to ignore the creeds of the early church, which they accepted as accurate expressions of biblical teaching. The Reformers were Reformed Catholics, holding to the historic faith of the Church that had been corrupted by the Romanism of their day. In other words, a robust commitment to sola Scriptura, which the "right of private interpretation" entails does not amount to a solo Scriptura approach that neglects the theological heritage of the Church.

The right of every believer to read and interpret the Bible brings with it the demand that Protestants be a "people of the Book". The "right" is to be exercised  by believers reading their Bibles thoughtfully and prayerfully with the help of the Holy Spirit in order to put its teaching into practice. Holy Scripture was given to enable the people of God to faithfully perform their roles in the drama of redemption in accordance with the biblical script.  According to John Webster, "Faithful reading of Holy Scripture in the economy of grace is an episode in the history of sin and its overcoming." (Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, Cambridge University Press, p. 87). Or if you prefer the words of the psalmist, "Your word have I hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against you." (Psalm 119:11 cf. Joshua 1:8-9). If we loudly protest the "right of private interpretation" and yet fail to order our lives by Holy Scripture, then we protest in vain.

Affinity Theological Studies Conferene

Last I heard there are still places available for the Affinity Theological Studies Conference (2-4 February).

"The Truth Will Set You Free: The Doctrine and Function of Scripture in the 21st Century."

I've not been to this one before, but I've booked to go this year. Papers are circulated to attendees beforehand for study in preparation for discussion sessions. At the conference speakers introduce their papers,  highlighting the main issues. After each presentation there are small group discussions. This is the low down:

Is the Princeton View of Scripture an Enlightenment Innovation?
Carl R. Trueman
Professor of Historical Theology Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

Lost in the Old Testament? Literary Genres and Evangelical Hermeneutics
Peter Naylor
Minister, Immanuel Presbyterian Church, Cardiff

Right doctrine, wrong texts. Can we follow the apostles’ doctrine but not their hermeneutic?
Greg Beale
Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

Every heretic has his text: the use and abuse of the Bible in the church
Stephen Clark
Minister, Free School Court Evangelical Church, Bridgend

The Sufficiency of Scripture for Public Theology
Daniel Strange
Lecturer in Culture, Religion and Public Theology at Oak Hill College, London

Preaching the Word in the Power of the Spirit: biblical, historical and practical reflections
Hywel R. Jones
Professor of Practical Theology at Westminster Seminary California

Holy Scripture and the Church

 Yesterday evening I spoke at North Bradley Baptist Church on Holy Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God. I was attempting to reflect on the relationship between God, the Bible and the Church. Here  is the concluding section on the how Holy Scripture serves the revelatory presence of God in the Church.

1. Holy Scripture and the Church

i. The Word of God and the formation and growth of the church

The Bible is not simply a text book that shapes and informs the beliefs of the church, it is the God-given script that the people of God have been called to perform in the theatre of this world. The church was called into existence by the Word of God and she was founded upon that Word, Ephesians 2:19-20. The church exists to perform the Word of God and proclaim the gospel of salvation to the nations, 1 Peter 2:9.

There are lots of church growth theories these days. Some of them may be more or less helpful. But it is noteworthy that in Acts Luke attributes the church growth to Word growth, (Acts 6:7, 12:24, 19:20). It is important to remember that Luke sets such statements in the context of the outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:5-8, 2:1-4). He makes it clear that preachers need to be filled with the Spirit to empower them to proclaim the word boldly and effectively, (Acts 4:31). Where the agency of the Word alone is mentioned in Scripture it is assumed but not always stated that it was the Holy Spirit who made the word effective in the salvation of sinners.

We should always remember that the Church will only grow as the word of God has free course and is glorified, 2 Thessalonians 3:1. How important it is that the church is centred upon God’s self-revelation in Holy Scripture.

ii. The people of God need to hear the Word of God read

According to the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, the reading of Holy Scripture in the context of public worship is one means by which the Lord builds up his people in their most holy faith,

Reading of the word in the congregation, being part of the publick worship of God, (wherein we; acknowledge our dependence upon him, and subjection to him,) and one mean[s] sanctified by him for the edifying of his people, is to be performed by the pastors and teachers.

The reading of Scripture was vitally important for Israel as the Old Testament people of God Deut 8:3, 31:9-13, 2 Kings 22. God acts by his word as it is read, Jeremiah 36:1-3, 6-7, Nehemiah 8:1-3, 7-8. Also in the New Testament: Jesus, Luke 4:17ff, Paul, 1 Thess 5:27, Col 4:16.  

A good portion of Scripture should be read out in worship services, not just a few verses. If the sermon is based on a short passage, then those leading worship should read the whole or at least a good portion of the chapter in which the verses are set. If the preacher is engaged in a series of sermons on a Bible book, preaching through chapters a few verses at a time, then a related passage of Scripture should be read. This will ensure that a decent portion of God’s Word is read out and will give a sense of how Scripture fits together as a coherent whole. As Paul charged Timothy, "Give attention to reading", 1 Timothy 4:13.

iii. The people of God need to hear the Word of God preached

2 Timothy 4:1-5. The Holy Spirit gave us the Bible and he continues to speak through Scripture. He transforms the lives of preachers and empowers them to so preach Christ that sinners are saved and the church is built up. God is actively present in the church by the power of the Spirit when the people of God assemble to hear to the Word of God proclaimed.

Given our acceptance of Scripture as the written Word of God, it follows that all preaching should be expository, 2 Timothy 2:15. Preach the Word in the form that it was given. But even when not preaching a series, our aim should still be to expound the meaning of the passage. I am commending expository preaching. Bible studies have their place people need to be taught and given the relevant Bible knowledge. But preaching involves more than that. We need to aim at conveying the communicative action of the text so that by the power of the Spirit the message takes effect in the lives of those who hear it 1 Thess 2:13. The aim of our preaching should be to enable our people to faithfully play out their roles in the drama of redemption. What is God saying and doing with the text on which we are preaching? Is he making a promise? “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”. Then he wants the people to believe it. Is he issuing a command? “Be holy for I am holy”. Then he wants us to obey it. Is he giving us a warning? “We must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ.” Then let us so preach that people heed the admonition.

The Second Helvetic Confession states that,

THE PREACHING OF THE WORD OF GOD IS THE WORD OF GOD. Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: (Chapter 1).

The Holy Spirit is the one who gave us the inscripturated Word of God and it is his mighty voice that continues to speak as the message of the Bible is proclaimed. Knowing this encourages us to preach the Word in prayerful dependence upon the Spirit, expecting that he will work by his word to fulfil his gracious purposes. The Spirit's empowering presence enables preachers to proclaim the Lord Jesus with boldness, liberty and life-transforming effectiveness. His presence makes preaching an event where the God of the gospel is encountered in all the fullness of his grace and power. Romans 1:16, 10:17. Let us then seek to preach the gospel with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven!

iv. Scripture and confessions of faith

If as William Chillingworth said, “The Bible alone is the religion of Protestants” what need do we have of confessions of faith? It is sometimes assumed that the Protestant Reformers swept aside the theological heritage of the church and looked to the Bible alone. But their commitment to sola Scriptura did not mean that the Reformers saw no value in the historic teachings of the church. They rejected the unbiblical traditions of the Rome on the basis of the supreme authority of the Bible. But they valued the ancient creeds and the writings of the church fathers. The Reformers drew up confessions of their own in order to state and defend biblical truth in their own setting. The solo Scriptura attitude of Fundamentalists who claim to eschew all tradition for the sake of the Bible alone is quite different to that of the Reformers and tends to an individualistic reading of the Scripture.

Creeds and confessions of faith are not infallible. They are open to revision and correction in the light of Scripture. Also, confessions of faith need to be updated to address contemporary errors and concerns. The great Reformed confessions gave more attention to the authority of Scripture and justification by faith than the historic creeds because they were the issues at stake. If we were revising WCF, SDF or 1689 what modern day errors would we want to address?

2. Holy Scripture and the Christian

We tend to take it for granted that Christians have access to copies of the Scriptures in their own language. We stress the importance of personal Bible reading. But it is only since the advent of the printing press in the 16th century that ordinary Christians were able to possess a personal copy of the Bible. Before those times believers encountered the Bible as it was read in church and its message proclaimed in preaching. While it is good that believers have their own personal Bibles, there is perhaps a danger of today’s Christians having an overly individualistic attitude to God’s Word. It is all about what God’s Word means to them, which can sometimes lead to highly subjective and irresponsible readings of the Bible.

We need to stress that the Christian reads the Bible as a member of the people of God. Their reading should be informed by the preaching and teaching of the church. Preaching should model responsible interpretation of the Bible and application of its message. It is beneficial for believers to use commentaries and study notes which help to explain and apply the Scriptures. The Geneva Bible helped to make the English a people of the Book largely because it was a Study Bible, complete with notes. There are various modern day equivalents such as the ESV Study Bible. These aids can make prayerful Bible reading more meaningful and helpful.

John Webster writes the, "Faithful reading of Holy Scripture in the economy of grace is an episode in the history of sin and its overcoming." (Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, p. 87). How we ought to remember that when tempted to skim through our daily Bible readings! We need to cultivate and commend to our people a deep, meditative and prayerful engagement with Scripture. Timothy Ward helpfully suggests that we should approach Scripture with the question, "What is God wanting to do to me and in me, through the words I am reading?" (Words of Life, p. 176-177).

“as newborn babes [may we] desire the pure milk of the word that we may grow thereby” (1 Peter 2:2).

3. Conclusion

Holy Scripture serves the revelatory presence of God, as the Father brings his people into fellowship with himself through the work of the Son by the power of the Spirit. It is for the church to believe, perform and proclaim this living and active Word.

‘The grass withers, and the flower falls but the word of the Lord remains forever’. And this word which by the gospel was preached to you. (1 Peter 1:24-25).

B. B. Warfield on why the Bible is not the 'inspired' Word of God

Evangelicals often refer to the Bible as the "inspired Word of God". The "inspired" bit is derived from the AV translation of 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God". The same wording us used in the NKJV. But the translation is inaccurate and misleading. As B. B. Warfield points out in his essay The Biblical Idea of Inspiration, the word rendered "inspiration", (theopneustos in the Greek) does not in fact mean that Scripture was inspired by God.

"The Greek term has, however, nothing to say of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of "spiring" or "spiration". What is says of Scripture is, not that it is "breathed into by God" or is the product of the Divine "inbreathing" into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, "God-breathed", the product of the creative breath of God.... When Paul declares, then, that "every scripture", or "all scripture" is the product of the Divine breath, "is God-breathed", he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Scripture is the product of a specifically Divine operation." (The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, P&R, p. 133).

For this reason A. T. B. McGowan proposes that we speak of the "divine spiration" rather than the inspiration of Scripture. (The Divine Spiration of Scripture: Challenging evangelical perspectives, 2007, IVP/Apollos - see review article here). I agree that "spiration" is a more appropriate designation of Scripture than "inspiration". Also "inspired" is often taken to mean a work of genius such as in Shakespeare's "inspired" play, Hamlet. Scripture is far more than a literary classic. It is God's own Spirit-given Word. But "spiration" it is a slightly unwieldy term and I can't see catching on outside the world of academic theology. Better I think to say with the NIV and that all Scripture is "God-breathed" or "breathed out by God", ESV.

Some preachers are in the habit of introducing the reading of Scripture in public worship by saying, "This is the inspired Word of God". If we are going to use such a formula, far better to say, "This is the Word that God has breathed out".

How does God speak to us?

More from my talk on Holy Scripture as the living and active Word of God, (see here & here):

1) Presuppositions

Two basic assumptions lie at the back of the Christian faith:

a. God is there.
b. God has spoken.

2) How does God speak to us?

a. Creation (Psalm 19)
b. A sense of God (Romans 1:18-20, Calvin on sensus divinitas)
c. Providence (Acts 14:15-17)
d. The great acts of redemption (Covenant, exodus, law, conquest, dynasty, exile & return).
e. Through his Son (Heb 1:1-4, John 1:1-18)
f. Scripture: Clarifies a, b, & c. Records and interprets d & e. Gives voice to the Spirit and enables us to discern his witness and promptings, g.
g. By the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture, bearing witness with our spirits (Romans 8:15-16) and guiding in the Lord's service (Acts 13:2, 16:6 & 7).

"Without God’s acts, the world would be empty. Without God’s words, the acts would be mute." In fact, God invariably acts by speaking. Creation, providence, redemption and the consummation are the products of the Lord's mighty speech-acts.

The Bible is needed to narrate and record the works of God in creation, providence and redemption and to interpret the meaning of those events. Without the Scriptures we would have no authoritative account of the coming, death and resurrection of Jesus and what that means for us. But the Bible gives us far more than information. In Holy Scripture we have the communicative action of the Triune God.

Holy Scripture as a divine speech-act

More from my paper on Holy Scripture as the living and active Word of God (see here):

Traditionally Evangelicals have been keen to assert the propositional character of Scripture. That is only right. Biblical revelation comes to us in the form of words and those words form sentences that make truth statements or propositions. Without propositions we would have no gospel. ‘Christ died for our sins’ is a vital biblical proposition as is ‘Jesus is risen’. But an overly propositionalist approach can give the impression that the Holy Scripture is simply a book that is full of true information and it is the task of theologians to process and systematise that information. That was more or less Charles Hodge’s approach,

"The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the man of science. It is his store-house of facts; and his method of ascertaining what the Bible teaches, is the same as that which the natural philosopher adopts to ascertain what nature teaches. The duty of the Christian theologian is to ascertain, collect, and combine all the facts which God has revealed concerning himself and our relation to Him. These facts are all in the Bible."

However, while paying due respect to the propositional nature of biblical revelation, we need a more dynamic account of the way language works that will help us to grasp the relationship between God, Holy Scripture and the Church. It is not sufficient to say, “God has given his people all the factual information they will ever need in the Bible”. This is where speech-act theory comes into play. Speech-act theory rightly emphasises that words are more than just words. They always do something. The theory breaks language down into three component parts: locutions, illocutions, and perlocutions. First of all we have locutions – basic units of speech or words and sentences. In theological terms, we confess that Scripture reveals God Word in words – locutions. But we use words to do things. With words we declare a man and a woman husband and wife, we ask for a glass of water, or order a ticket for the cinema. This is the illocutionary effect of language. By speaking, I have acted. In Scripture we have God’s own illocutions – his speech acts. By words, he makes promises, utters warnings, and enters into a covenant relationship with his people. Scripture is not simply a record of God’s words. In the Bible we have the communicative action of the triune God. Now, it is one thing for God to speak words and to do things with his words, like make promises. But what guarantees that God’s words will be received for what they are? God may make a promise, but it is another for us to trust in that promise! This is called the perlocutionary effect of language. And it is here that the work of the Holy Spirit comes into its own. He enables people to respond appropriately to God’s communicative action in Scripture.

So much for the theory, now let's see how this kind of approach is reflected in the text of Scripture itself. In both Old and New Testaments there is a tight link between God's actions and his speech. God’s words are speech-acts that initiate and carry forward the great drama of redemption. We may think of the theodrama in terms of a five act play. Act One is creation, where God’s “Let there be” (Genesis 1:3) creates the setting for the rest of the drama. In his providence God continues to rule the world he created by his word, (Psalm 147:15-18). In Act Two of the drama of redemption by his Word God entered into a covenant relationship with Abraham and his descendants, constituting Israel as his own special people (Genesis 22:18). In Act Three, the Word of God is made flesh for our salvation in Jesus Christ, who died for our sins and rose again (John 1:14, note the relationship between Jesus' words and deeds - e.g. Mark 2:5, 11). In Act Four the Spirit of truth is poured out upon the church to empower the people of God to proclaim the gospel to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8, 2:1). Act Five is the consummation where God will make all things new by his might word (Rev. 22:5).

God's person is so tied up with his words that to believe and obey his word is to believe and obey him, Isaiah 66:2. The human words of Scripture are at the same time God's covenant words to his people. To encounter God's communicative action through the prophets and apostles is to meet with God himself.

"Whenever we encounter the speech acts of Scripture, we encounter God himself in action. The Father presents himself to us as a God who makes and keeps his covenant promises. The Son comes to us as the Word of God, knowable to us through his words. The Spirit ministers these words to us, illuminating our minds and hearts, so that in receiving, understanding and trusting them, we receive, know and trust God himself." (Words of Life, Timothy Ward, IVP, p. 97)

Jesus and the Word of God

An excerpt from my paper, Holy Scripture as the living and active Word of God, given at today's Reformed Ministers' Fraternal, Honiton, Devon:

Holy Scripture and the Son

Jesus taught that the Old Testament Scriptures were about him, John 5:46, Luke 24:45-47. New Testament revelation is also Christ-centred from the Gospels to Revelation where the Lamb is all the glory. In that sense there is a clear relationship between the Son and the Scriptures. The written Word bears witness to Jesus the living Word, 2 Timothy 3:15.

But is it right to drawn an analogy between Jesus as the divine Word made flesh (John 1:1, 14) and Scripture as the word of God through human beings (2 Peter 1:21)? In defending biblical inerrancy, Evangelicals often say something like this: Jesus was fully God and fully man, yet without sin. And so the Bible is the Word of God through human beings, yet without error. Writers such as John Webster (Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch) and following him Andrew McGowan (The Divine Spiration of Scripture) have questioned whether it is appropriate to speak in this way.

What’s the problem here? As Webster notes, the biblical writings are distinguished from all other literature by the designation “Holy Scripture”. The theologian invokes the concept of the ‘sanctification’ of Scripture to hold together both the divine and human aspects of the Bible, “the biblical texts are creaturely realities set apart by the triune God to serve his self-presence.” (p. 21). But Webster is unhappy with the oft drawn analogy between Scripture as a divine/human book and the union of divine and human natures in the person of Christ. He suggests that the analogy blurs the distinction between Christ and the Bible. Like Karl Barth Webster prefers to speak of Scripture as a witness to God’s Word rather than God’s Word written. Scripture sometimes speaks of itself as a witness to Jesus, John 5:39. But for Barth this means that Scripture is a fallible and very human witness to the divine Word,

"The men whom we hear as witnesses speak as fallible, erring men like ourselves. What they say, and what we read as their word, can of itself lay claim to be the Word of God, but can never sustain that claim". (Church Dogmatics Book I, 2, p. 507).

Webster formulates the idea of Scripture as testimony with greater care and respect. He does not want to so stress the fragility of Scripture’s human witness to the divine Word that the relationship between the Bible and God’s self-revelation become almost accidental. We have to bear in mind the work of the Spirit in the production, preservation and interpretation of Scripture. To cast doubt on the reliability of Scripture’s testimony to Jesus is to leave the church in doubt concerning Jesus himself.

What Webster wants to avoid in rejecting the analogy between Christ and the Bible is the attribution of divine properties to the Bible. At this point he draws on Herman Bavinck’s idea of the ‘servant form’ of Scripture. As developed by Berkhouer, this perspective is taken to suggest that in the Bible we have the treasures of God’s self-revelation in ‘earthen vessels’, subject to human weakness. Webster does not spell out what he means by human 'weaknesses', but I guess he has the traditional Evangelical doctrine of biblical inerrancy in his sights. It is rather strange however, that Webster claims Bavinck in support of his views as the Dutch theologian’s notion of the ‘servant form’ of Scripture is explicitly rooted in an incarnational analogy,

"The incarnation of Christ demands that we trace it down into the depths of its humiliation, in all its weakness and contempt. The recording of the word, of revelation, invites us to recognise that dimension of weakness and lowliness, the servant form, also in Scripture. But just as Christ's human nature, however weak and lowly, remained free from sin, so also Scripture is 'conceived without defect or stain'; totally human in all its parts but also totally divine in all its parts." (Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1, Herman Bavinck, Baker Academic, 2003, p. 435).

Of course, the analogy between Christ and Scripture demands careful handling and theological sensitivity. We must make a clear distinction between the hypostatic union of divine and human natures in the person of Christ and the Bible as a divine/human book. But both Jesus and Scripture are identified as the logos of God. In his handling of the Old Testament, Jesus himself made it clear that for him, what Scripture said, God said (John 10:34 & 35). We cannot downgrade the status of Scripture as God's written word in order to safeguard the uniqueness of Jesus as the Word of God incarnate without disregarding Jesus' own testimony to the Bible. But when we confess that the Bible is God's word through human beings, we are not suggesting that there is a personal union between the divine and human sides of Scripture that is comparable to the union of God and man in Jesus. Rather what we have in Scripture is the communicative action of the living God who speaks to us through the human words of the Bible. This construction safeguards both the uniqueness of Christ and respects what Scripture says about itself as the Word of God.

It is through the witness of the written Word that we encounter Jesus the living Word. 2 Timothy 3:15. The Christ of Scripture is the risen Lord and Saviour of human beings. We have not seen him, but having read about him in Scripture and heard of him in the preaching of the gospel we have come to believe in him, love him and rejoice in him with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 1 Peter 1:8.

Holy Scripture as the living and active Word of God

Just finished witing a paper to be given at a Ministers' Fraternal later this month. Here are some words from the intro:

What I want and try and do in this paper is sketch out a theological account of Holy Scripture. What do I mean by that? My contention is that Evangelical treatments of the Bible sometimes fail to place Holy Scripture in its proper theological context. We focus on the production of the Bible in terms of its inspiration. We analyse some of the attributes of Scripture such as inerrancy or perspicuity. That’s all well and good. But in focusing so closely on individual aspects of Holy Scripture we can sometimes fail to see the big picture. We need to stand back and ask, the first order question, ‘What is the relationship between God, Holy Scripture and the Church?’

Should we see the Bible simply as a human book that speaks of the church's consciousness of the divine (the Liberal approach)? Or would it be better to regard Scripture as a God-given text that the church must seek to understand and obey as best it can (the Biblicist or Fundamentalist approach)? Both positions are obviously reductionistic. The first fails to take seriously Scripture's own claim that it is the living and enduring Word of God. The second recognises the divine origin of the Bible, but does not give sufficient attention to the place of Scripture in communicative action of the triune God.

How then may we understand Scripture in relation to God's self-revelatory presence and his saving purposes for the Church? That is the big question that we cannot afford to ignore as pastors and preachers. After all we are Ministers of God, Ministers of the Word and Ministers of the Church. In a sense all our work is concerned with triangulating the relationship between God, his Word and his people. If we should focus on God and Church to the detriment of the Word, the result will be mysticism or worldly pragmatism. Concentration on God and the Word to the exclusion of the Church forgets that the Word was given in order to found and build up the Church. If all our attention is on the Bible and the Church we have lost sight of the living and active God who has called the Church into existence by his Word.

Return to Rome by Francis J. Beckwith - A Protestant response: part 3

In the previous two parts of this review series I gave attention to the key issues that led to Beckwith deciding to return to the Roman Catholic Church, namely sola scriptura (here) and justification by faith alone (here). In this final post I will reflect on whether its is meaningful, given his rejection of key Evangelical teachings for Beckwith to designate himself an 'Evangelical Catholic'. Of course, in a sense, the writer is free to call himself what he wishes. My only concern is whether his self-designation is meaningful.

Evangelical and Catholic?

It is in the last chapter of the book that Beckwith addresses the issue of his identity as an 'Evangelical Catholic'. Quite rightly he points out that 'Evangelical' has its origins in the biblical word, Evangel meaning 'Gospel' or 'Good News' (p. 128). But does Beckwith as a Roman Catholic still hold to the biblical Gospel? Now, there is a huge amount of common ground between Evangelical Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church. Both groups hold to the doctrine of the Trinity as set out in the historic creeds, we agree that Jesus is a divine person with a human nature in accordance with the definition of Chalcedon, we confess together that Jesus was born of a virgin, died for our sins, and rose again from the dead and so on. But there are important differences between Evangelical Protestants and their Roman Catholic counterparts.

The crucial difference is over the issue of whether we are saved through grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone to the glory of God alone. For all that Roman Catholics may say about the good works of the saints being grace-enabled, any talk of human "merit" tends to undermine the gracious character of salvation. According to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, "no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification...". However, the Catechism goes on to say that, "Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life (see here)." Note, "we can merit for ourselves and for others...the attainment of eternal life". Should the faithful fail to merit the attainment of eternal life, then after death they will have to spend time in purgatory, where they will purified from remaining sin before entering heaven. Time in purgatory can be shortened through the meritorious works of others such as prayers for the dead, penance, and the Eucharistic sacrifice (see here).

The Roman Catholic doctrine of "merit" suggests Christ's obedience and blood are not sufficient to save his people from sin. While salvation is initiated by grace, the full reward of everlasting life is dependent on the meritorious good works of the believer. Any such idea is contradicted by countless Scriptures, Ephesians 2:8-10, 2 Timothy 1:8-10, Hebrews 9:13-15. The Gospel is good news because God justifies the ungodly freely by his grace, Romans 1:16-17, 3:24-26, 4:5. Good works are the believer's grace-enabled response to the transforming power of grace. They do not help to "merit" everlasting life. We are saved by grace alone in Christ alone. Christians will certainly be judged by Christ according to their works (2 Corinthians 5:10). The Lord will hold his people to account for their actions. But the believer will stand before God clothed in the righteousness of Christ (Romans 8:31-34). It is because they are justified by faith in Christ alone that they will be welcomed into the eternal inheritance of the saints.

I submit that because official Roman Catholic teaching undermines the Gospel of salvation revealed in Holy Scripture that it is not meaningful for Beckwith and other Roman Catholics to label themselves "Evangelical Catholics". In the words of Paul, the gospel of Roman Catholicism is a "different gospel" (Galatians 1:6-7). Indeed the Council of Trent explicitly anathematises justification by faith alone, a doctrine that lies at the heart of Evangelical theology (see here). In terms of church history the designation "Evangelical Catholic" is hard to swallow. Evangelicalism as a movement has its roots in the Protestant Reformation. In church-historical terms, Beckwith may as well call himself a "Protestant Catholic".

Beckwith left the Roman Catholic Church in his teenage years and became an Evangelical Christian because Rome could not satisfy his spiritual longings at that time. Despite his being elevated to the position of President of the Evangelical Theological Society, he returned to Rome for basically the same reason. It is pretty sad that Evangelicalism apparently failed to offer sufficient theological vision and spiritual depth to feed his soul. I submit that the wider Evangelical world needs to return to the deep riches of the historic Reformed faith. Perhaps there are some encouraging signs of this happening in the States (see Colin Hansen's Young, Restless, Reformed here and also have a look at Hansen's piece on Evangelical and Catholics in Christianity Today here). I am grateful to Francis Beckwith for entering into a friendly dialogue with me (here, here and here) as he picked up on my reviews.