The Upper Register

The Testimony of the Holy Spirit

Calvin teaches that the authority of Scripture does not rest on the church's decision but on the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. The elect, whose minds have been enlightened by the Spirit, know that the Scripture is God's word.

"Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their color, sweet and bitter of their taste" (Institutes I.vii.2).

To those who demand that the inspiration of the prophets be proved by reason, Calvin replies that ...

"the testimony of the Spirit is superior to reason. For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit" (I.vii.4).

Therefore, the same Spirit who inspired the prophets and the apostles to communicate God's word to us must also penetrate our hearts to seal and confirm our faith and enlighten our minds to receive the Scriptures as God's word.

"Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human judgment, feel perfectly assured — as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it — that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our judgment, but we subject our intellect and judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate" (I.vii.5).

Evidences, arguments, and rational proofs can only take us so far and in fact do not provide full assurance. But by the Spirit's inner testimony we arrive at a spiritual certainty that is "superior to human judgment."

"We feel a divine energy living and breathing in [the Scripture] — an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge" (I.vii.5).

Therefore, the best way to feel this "divine energy" in Scripture and to be convinced of its divine authority is to read the profane authors and then to turn to the word of God.

"Read Demosthenes or Cicero, read Plato, Aristotle, or any other of that class: you will, I admit, feel wonderfully allured, pleased, moved, enchanted; but turn from them to the reading of the Sacred Volume, and whether you will or not, it will so affect you, so pierce your heart, so work its way into your very marrow, that, in comparison of the impression so produced, that of orators and philosophers will almost disappear; making it manifest that in the Sacred Volume there is a truth divine, a something which makes it immeasurably superior to all the gifts and graces attainable by man ... Those who feel [the works of the prophets] insipid must be absolutely devoid of taste" (I.viii.1-2).

Does this mean that evidences and arguments are worthless? Far from it, but they must be used in a subordinate role.

"These [evidences and arguments], however, cannot of themselves produce a firm faith in Scripture until our heavenly Father manifest his presence in it, and thereby secure implicit reverence for it. Then only, therefore, does Scripture suffice to give a saving knowledge of God when its certainty is founded on the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit. Still the human testimonies which go to confirm it will not be without effect, if they are used in subordination to that chief and highest proof, as secondary helps to our weakness. But it is foolish to attempt to prove to infidels that the Scripture is the Word of God. This it cannot be known to be, except by faith" (I.viii.13).

[All quotes from the Beveridge translation.]

The Bruce Waltke Affair and the Westminster Confession

I suppose most everyone has heard by now about the kerfuffle over Dr. Waltke's video in which he pleaded for evangelical Christians to engage the issue of evolution. The video, which has since been removed, had appeared on the website of BioLogos, a think tank founded by Francis Collins, author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (2006). Dr. Collins is a geneticist and a committed Christian who converted from atheism. He was the former head of the Human Genome Project and is now Director of NIH. His BioLogos group is committed to advancing dialogue between science and faith, but with a decidedly theistic evolutionary slant. Dr. Waltke stated in his Old Testament Theology (2007) that reading Dr. Collins's book helped him to reach the conclusion that theistic evolution is the best way to resolve the apparent conflict between the modern scientific account and the biblical account of human origins (p. 202, n. 81).

I comment on this situation with some trepidation, since I know from firsthand experience how controversial the topic of evolution is in Reformed circles. There is something about this topic that causes some people to lose their minds. Like Dr. Waltke, I wish we as Christians could have a calm, rational conversation about this without immediately jumping to charges of heresy.

Now I have been perusing the various theology blogs to see what people's reactions are to Dr. Waltke's resignation, and I have observed that no one has raised the question of whether the RTS administration is right in its apparent view that theistic evolution is out of accord with the Westminster Standards. Let me back up a bit and provide some evidence that this is what the RTS administration thinks. I base this on the Inside Higher Ed report which has the following paragraphs:

Michael Milton, president of the seminary's Charlotte campus and interim president of its Orlando campus, where Waltke taught, confirmed that the scholar had lost his job over the video. Milton said that Waltke would "undoubtedly" be considered one of the world's great Christian scholars of the Old Testament and that he was "much beloved here," with his departure causing "heartache." But he said that there was no choice.

Milton said that the seminary allows "views to vary" about creation, describing the faculty members there as having "an eight-lane highway" on which to explore various routes to understanding. Giving an example, he said that some faculty members believe that the Hebrew word yom (day) should be seen in Genesis as a literal 24-hour day. Others believe that yom may be providing "a framework" for some period of time longer than a day. Both of those views, and various others, are allowed, Milton said.

But while Milton insisted that this provides for "a diversity" of views, he acknowledged that others are not permitted. Darwinian views, and any suggestion that humans didn't arrive on earth directly from being created by God (as opposed to having evolved from other forms of life), are not allowed, he said, and faculty members know this.

Asked if this limits academic freedom, Milton said: "We are a confessional seminary. I'm a professor myself, but I do not have a freedom that would go past the boundaries of the confession. Nor do I have a freedom that would allow me to express my views in such a way to hurt or impugn someone who holds another view." 

I have to say that I am a little puzzled by Dr. Milton's argument. I'm particularly interested in the last two paragraphs above. The penultimate paragraph states that "Darwinian views, and any suggestion that humans ... evolved from other forms of life ... are not allowed." The final paragraph states that RTS is a confessional seminary and that faculty cannot go past the boundaries of the Confession. If we put the two statements together, we have the implication that Dr. Waltke's view of human evolution is outside the boundaries of the Confession. This seems to be taken for granted on all sides. Even Waltke may have agreed with this, or presumably he would not have resigned so quickly (although we cannot discount the possibility that at age 79 he may have had personal reasons for not wanting to put up a fight).

Whatever Dr. Waltke thinks, the burden of proof rests with the RTS administration to make the case that Dr. Waltke's position is a violation of the system of doctrine of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. This is far from obvious, at least to me.

I recall the same issue back in 1996 when the Terry Gray case came before the OPC General Assembly, at which GA his appeal was denied and he was found guilty for his defense of Adamic animal ancestry. I was not present at that GA, but I quizzed several commissioners upon their return to try to determine what the argument was for concluding that his views were out of bounds confessionally. To a man they all said, "We were convinced by John Murray's exegesis of Genesis 2:7." I sputtered in disbelief, "But that doesn't answer my question," and then I would repeat it. They had no answer. To me it was a travesty of justice that Terry Gray was removed from his office as a ruling elder because the majority of the elders in the OPC disagreed with his exegesis, not because they found him guilty of violating the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession (cp. OPC Book of Discipline III.7.b). Perhaps the case was made at the lower courts, and I was simply unaware of it; in which case it is still disappointing that the men I spoke with voted guilty on exegetical grounds alone, without relating that exegesis to the larger question of whether it is essential to the system of doctrine.

It seems to me that in order to remain within the fence of the Westminster system of doctrine, we need to make the following minimal affirmations with regard to this topic:

1. The inspiration, authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture, which includes a firm rejection of any notion that the opening chapters of Genesis are mythical or non-historical, even as they polemically engage the myths prevalent in their Ancient Near Eastern context (e.g., Enuma Elish, the Gilgamesh Epic) (WCF I.1-5).

2. Affirming that when there is an apparent conflict between scientifically interpreted general revelation and special revelation, we can and should let general revelation serve as a warning flag to spur us to go back and reexamine our exegesis, but that in the final analysis special revelation has priority and ought to provide the ultimate hermeneutical context for interpreting general revelation (WCF I.6-10).

3. The historicity of Adam and Eve as real individuals, and of Adam as the federal head of all humanity descending from him by ordinary generation; this foundational affirmation is so interwoven with the very fabric of Reformed, covenantal, biblical, and Pauline theology (Romans 5) that it would seem to be essential to the system of doctrine (WCF VI.1-3; VII.2; WLC 21, 22, 26, 31).

4. That if God did employ secondary causes such as natural selection acting upon genetic variation within populations to create all of the species of living things, he sovereignly superintended the process by his providential concursus so that all biological diversity developed in accordance with his perfect decree and for his eternal glory (WCF III.1; IV.1; V.1-3; WLC 18).

I would think that within the doctrinal turf marked out by the fence of these affirmations it would be possible to hold to some version of theistic evolution, although one would want to examine the details of what is being asserted. Perhaps I've missed something essential; if I have, I'm open to being argued with. But as far as I know, Dr. Waltke affirms the above points. In fact, after having the video taken down he issued a nine-point clarification affirming that "Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended" and that "Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church." And in his Old Testament Theology, he argued that Gen. 1-3 are "essentially historical, not mythological" (pp. 189-90). Waltke also recently engaged Peter Enns in the pages of the Westminster Theological Journal (2009) in which he concluded that Enns's views were in his mind "inconsistent with the doctrine that God inspired every word of holy Scripture." Although both scholars are featured on the BioLogos site, they are not the same.

It needs to be pointed out that there are versions of theistic evolution that would fall outside the pale of orthodoxy, including, possibly, some of the versions advocated at the BioLogos institute. For example, Peter Enns is doing a series of blog posts in which he is calling into question the historicity of an individual Adam as the biological father of all humans (contra point 3). Other theistic evolutionists are better described as deistic or naturalistic evolutionists because they reduce God's role to the initial big bang and downplay his sovereign creative involvement thereafter (contra point 4).

I personally do not hold to theistic evolution. I'm committed to old earth progressive creationism as the most satisfying attempt to find concord between the book of nature and the book of Scipture. I have gone on record, with Meredith Kline, in rejecting animal ancestry for Adam (The Genesis Debate, ed. David G. Hagopian, p. 180). See also my "Evolution Disclaimer" here. But this conclusion rests on the exegesis of Gen. 2:7; it is not derived from Confessional boundaries.

Dr. Waltke has had a long and distinguished career as a beloved Reformed teacher. He has been a staunch defender of biblical orthodoxy within the framework of a commitment to the highest standards of scholarship. Not even RTS is prepared to label him a heretic, and they seem to acknowledge that it caused them some pain to let him go. It's disappointing that a longer, more deliberative process such as that which occurred in the Enns case at Westminster was not forthcoming at RTS. Perhaps at the end of the day, RTS would still determine that a parting of ways is in the seminary's best interests, but it would be nice to have an argument laying out precisely why Dr. Waltke is out of accord with the Westminster Standards. Given Dr. Waltke's orthodoxy, I suspect it would be harder to make that case than many assume.

Again, perhaps that case can be made. Perhaps my list of four essentials above is too minimalistic and I need to tighten the fence. Or perhaps I have misread Waltke or am unaware of something he has written or said. My point is that the argument hasn't been made yet and it would be nice to hear it before we cast out a highly regarded Reformed brother and scholar.

Preface to the King James Version, quote 2

Here is the second quote from the Preface to the King James Version.

Translation Necessary

But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian to me. [1 Cor 14] The Apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not Latin the finest. Nature taught a natural man to confess, that all of us in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous; so the Roman did the Syrian, and the Jew (even S. Jerome himself calleth the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) so the Emperor of Constantinople calleth the Latin tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storm at it: so the Jews long before Christ called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better than barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that always in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readiness. 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 may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen 29:10]. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, Read this, I pray thee, he was fain to make this answer, I cannot, for it is sealed. [Isa 29:11]

Let us be thankful for the great tradition of the English Bible from Tyndale to the KJV to any number of modern English versions, and let us "eat the kernel" they provide.

Preface to the King James Version, quote 1

The translators of the King James Version (1611) penned a lengthy preface to their work titled "The Translators to the Reader." Their principal concern was to respond to certain objections that they anticipated would be raised against their work. But what interests me are two delightful passages, one an encomium praising the Scriptures, and the other an explanation of why it is necessary to have the Scriptures translated out of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into the vulgar tongues of the nations. The two quotes are actually connected and form one continuous portion of the Preface. I'll give the first quote today and the second quote tomorrow.

The Praise of the Holy Scriptures

It is not only an armor, but also a whole armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves and put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine. It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruse of oil, which were for memory only, or for a meal's meat or two, but as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great; and as it were a whole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts discharged. In a word, it is a Panary of wholesome food, against fenowed traditions; a Physician's shop (Saint Basil calleth it) of preservatives against poisoned heresies; a Pandect of profitable laws, against rebellious spirits; a treasury of most costly jewels, against beggarly rudiments; finally a fountain of most pure water springing up unto everlasting life. And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the inditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Penmen such as were sanctified from the womb, and endued with a principal portion of God's spirit; the matter* -- verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form -- God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of salvation, etc.; the effects -- light of understanding, stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof -- fellowship with the Saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that never shall fade away: Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night.

[*I have taken the liberty of changing commas to dashes after "the matter," "the form," "the effects," and "the end and reward of the study thereof." I believe this makes the sense clearer.]

Hurtado's The Earliest Christian Artifacts

In a recent post, I quoted from Larry Hurtado's book, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Here is a helpful review by Jim Hamilton that highlights the main topics and arguments of the book. (HT: Justin Taylor)

I just finished reading the book a few days ago and found it very stimulating and exciting. It is exciting because these manuscripts give us a rare window into the earliest period of post-apostolic church history, ca. 100-300, and bring that period alive to us so that we can almost literally touch it. Through these ancient manuscripts of Scriptural texts (both OT and NT), we are able to get some idea of what Christians of this time were thinking at least in terms of their fixation on sacred Scripture.

Implications for the Canon

From the physical textual remains, both in terms of quantity and physical layout, we can also get an idea of how they viewed various non-canonical or apocryphal Christian writings. For example, we can discern that the mainstream 2nd-3rd centurdy church focused primarily on the four Gospels that we now regard as canonical, as well as the Pauline letters, and perhaps a Johannine corpus. But the apocryphal "gospels" and other early Christian writings, many of them pseudepigraphical, were viewed differently. There are manuscripts in which all four Gospels (or the Gospels + Acts) appear to have been collected together into a single codex, but none that have a different selection in which, say, Matthew and the Gospel of Thomas are bound together. The Gospel of Thomas only occurs as a separate stand-alone entity, and even then it occurs not exclusively in the codex form but also in the scroll format, a format that the early Christian scribes never used for texts they regarded as Scripture. Books like the Gospel of Thomas and the Shepherd of Hermas appear to have been viewed as edifying but non-inspired religious literature.

Implications for personal Bible reading

One thing that surprised me was the evidence that some codices of NT books or book collections appear, based on their small dimensions, to have been made for portable private use. I have often heard it said, and have probably even repeated it myself, that the early Christians only had access to Scripture by hearing it read in public worship. Hurtado's arguments should give us pause before we repeat that claim. He, of course, recognizes that there are also extant manuscripts which are larger and which give indications of having been prepared for public reading. Nevertheless, if some early Christians also had personal copies of Scripture, then we should be careful not to exaggerate the differences between ourselves and the early Christians. We aren't all that different in terms of our piety of Bible-reading. The main difference would seem to be that all Christians now have access to the totality of the canon, whereas various early Christians may have had access only to portions of it, depending on their location. Nevertheless, the core of the NT canon, the four Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline collection, were widely disseminated throughout the Empire, as evidenced by the fact that most of these manuscripts were discovered in Egypt.

Implications for Jesus devotion

I also appreciate Hurtado's perspective that the early Christian fixation with Scriptural texts, especially the Gospels, was part of their Jesus devotion. This is evidenced by the fact that the Christian scribes used various contractions when writing the names of Jesus (Iesous, Christos, Kyrios) as they occurred in the text, contractions that were also used for names of God (theos, Kyrios), thus indicating a binitarian theology in which Jesus was exalted as divine. In addition, whenever the noun for "cross" (stauros) or the verb "to crucify" occurred, they made a tau-rho in the contracted version as a way of visualizing the crucified Jesus, where the tau symbolized the cross and the loop of the rho represented Jesus' head on the cross.  From these sorts of features evidenced in the earliest Christian manuscripts, Hurtado concludes that the Gospels were viewed as "Jesus books" and early Christian devotion to Jesus was promoted by the preoccupation with the Gospels, especially Matthew and John. The early Christians constantly read the Gospels, in both private and public worship. They did so, not merely to learn the facts of Jesus' life or to be instructed in what is expected of disciples of Jesus, but in order, through prayerful meditation on the Gospel texts, to adore Christ himself. 

Which books of the Bible should we read?

I think we need to read the Bible more.

Everyone, I'm sure, will agree. But in spite of our good intentions, we struggle with Bible reading. Here's what happens to me. I get convicted that I'm not reading the Bible as much as I should, especially devotionally. So I start with one of the many "read the Bible in a year" plans. Some have you read straight through in canonical order. Others, mercifully, break the canon up into four parallel tracks so that you are reading from various portions of Scripture, both OT and NT any given day or at least throughout the week.

But the problem is I always get stuck somewhere in Deuteronomy. 

I think that we just have to admit to ourselves that not all of the Bible is equally helpful spiritually. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't read the entire Bible. It's a Christian duty to be familiar with it all, including the dry historical parts. Every Christian should read the entire Bible at least once, and hopefully much more than once, in their lifetime.

My point is there is a difference between reading the entire Bible in order to get the whole story and reading the Bible for daily spiritual nourishment. We tend to confuse the two goals or tasks. I'll call them "canonical Bible reading" and "devotional Bible reading." Canonical Bible reading is very often dry, historical, and close to academic in the sense that we are trying to learn the contents of Scripture. Devotional Bible reading has a different agenda -- the goal is not learning so much as being spiritually nourished and encouraged. The goal is the daily strengthening of our faith, hope and love. We do devotional Bible reading, not to learn the list of the kings of Israel and Judah, but to be convicted of sin and brought to repentance, to be spurred on to greater conformity to Christ, and to commune with the Father through the Mediator by his Spirit.

If this is the case, then we should focus our devotional Bible reading on the books of the Bible that are most suited to spiritual nourishment. Of course, I know Paul says that "all Scripture" is profitable, and I'm not denying that. But even Paul quoted certain books more than others, and rarely or never quoted others. I have recently grown in my appreciation for that gem, the Book of Esther. It has some lovely things to teach us about the providential care of God for his people. But neither Paul nor any other NT writer quotes it or alludes to it.

The early Christians seemed to have had a similar practice of emphasizing certain books of the Bible.

Larry Hurtado, Professor of NT Language, Literature and Theology at the University of Edinburgh, has provided some interesting information about the earliest Christian manuscripts, that is, those which appear to have been copied and used within Christian communities (as opposed to Jewish, pagan, or Gnostic groups) prior to AD 300. Although there were other texts copied and used besides Scripture (e.g., the Shepherd of Hermas was very popular), the following are the top eleven texts based on the number of manuscripts (or surviving portions of manuscripts) that we have for that Scriptural book. Again this is for manuscripts dated pre-300, that is, the first two centuries of post-apostolic church history (ca. 100-300):

Psalms (18)
John (16)
Matthew (12)
Genesis (8)
Exodus (8)
Luke (7)
Acts (7)
Isaiah (6)
Revelation (5)
Romans (4)
Hebrews (4)

Professor Hurtado comments:

"The popularity of the Psalms surely occasions no surprise. Other evidence indicates that the Psalms were cherished and pondered by Christians from earliest days. Importantly, the Psalms are the most frequently cited portion of the Old Testament in the New Testament" (p. 28).

"It occasions no real surprise ... that witnesses to Matthew and John outnumber those for any other Christian writing .... These two seem always to have been the favorite Gospels in Christian usage, both liturgically and in private devotion" (p. 30).

Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Eerdmans, 2006).

The rest of the books listed above -- Genesis, Exodus, Luke and Acts, Isaiah, Revelation, Romans, and Hebrews -- are also foundational for Christian belief, worship, and practice. Of course, the manuscript counts are in no small measure influenced by the historical accidents of manuscript preservation and discovery. Nevertheless, it is not a bad list of the top books that we as Christians should read most often, meditate on, and become most familiar with. In particular, I wonder how it would help us spiritually if we made the top three -- Psalms, John, Matthew -- the focus of our devotional reading.

The spiritual benefit of the Psalms is pretty obvious -- it provides us with language for prayer, lament, confession of sin, thanksgiving and praise. The Gospels of John and Matthew are also very helpful spiritually in focusing our attention on the person of Christ, his words and deeds, and ultimately the passion narrative. The Gospel of Matthew has much valuable teaching for disciples of Jesus organized in large chunks but interspersed throughout the narrative of the life and ministry of Jesus. The Gospel of John has a mystical quality to it that draws us into a sense of union with Christ, the one who came down from heaven, sent by the Father, to reveal the Father and give us eternal life. Both Gospels have a strong emphasis on the deity of Christ, not merely in terms of proof-texts, but in terms of the way they attempt to persuade us that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that we must follow him in faith, trust and commitment.

I have personally found it helpful to listen to the Bible on my iPod during my daily commute. I use the ESV Hear the Word Audio Bible read by David Cochran Heath and produced by Crossway Bibles. It is helpful to listen to large portions of Scripture at a time, e.g., I listened to Matthew 1-8 on my way home from work a couple of days ago. The Sermon on the Mount is magnificent, but it takes on added meaning when heard in its broader narrative context.

However you choose to do it, "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly." And don't feel guilty if you make certain books more central to your devotional Bible reading than others. The book of Leviticus is terribly important theologically for understanding the New Testament, due to its foundational theology of atonement, so you should definitely read it, but it is not so crucial for your growth in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that you must read it once a year.