David's Sense of God's Inspiration

In giving his final charge to Solomon regarding the building of the Temple, King David included this statement: "All this He made clear to me in writing from the hand of the Lord, all the work to be done according to the plan" (I Chronicles 28:19). 

There is a lot of substance in this one sentence. 

First, David is explicit about the source of his plans for the Temple, i. e., God. He says, "He made clear to me." The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews develops this statement in Hebrews 8:5: "They [the levitical priests] serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For, when Moses was about to raise the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, 'See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.'" That writer was referring to statements that are found in Exodus 25:9, 25:40, 26:30, and 27:8. What Moses was shown regarding the construction of the tabernacle, David also received when the tabernacle was replaced by the Temple. 

Second, David tells us that he received God's words  by the mediatorial hand of the Lord, i. e., Yahweh, the preincarnate Son. This, too, is a pattern we see elsewhere: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His servants" (Revelation 1:1). What God would inspire to be recorded in the Scriptures had its origin in the triune God, and was then mediated through the Son to the human writer. This is probably what Peter meant when he mentioned that the prophets were taught by the Spirit of Christ when they predicted His "sufferings and subsequent glories" (I Peter 1:11). 

This refutes some neo-orthodox teachers who claim that the writers of the Bible had no concept of divine inspiration when they wrote (compare II Timothy 3:16). While some may not have had such a concept, some did, as we see in the words of David recorded here. 

How Can I Know that the Bible Is the Inerrant Word of God?

The Christian philosopher and apologist Gordon Clark once wrote, "Because God is sovereign, God's authority can be taken only on God's authority. As the scripture says, 'Because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself' (Hebrews 6:13)" (from God's Hammer, p. 39). His point was that confirmation of authority comes from higher authority. However, there can be no authority higher than God by which to confirm what He says. By His own authority, therefore, He declares His own truth and authority. 

The thoughtful person sees this and asks, "But isn't this circular reasoning?" And it is. Yet, we can see the impossibility of an alternative if we ask a parallel question: "How can you prove logic without presupposing logic as the basis for its proof?" 

The thoughtful Christian might ask whether the unbeliever would be convinced by that argument. And the obvious answer is that an unbeliever would not be convinced. Yet we must deny that his disbelief is based on a reasonable doubt. On the contrary, his rejection would arise from his own presuppositions against God's authority. Those presuppositions are the inherent nature of unbelief (Romans 1:18). 

On the other hand, we know that there are many Christians who receive the Bible as God's word, and that it is necessarily, therefore, inerrant. I am one of those Christians. Yet that belief did not arise from a consideration of a chain of logical arguments or archeological verifications. 

So, from where did my belief come? 

Clark quotes from the Institutes of John Calvin: "It is, therefore, such a persuasion as requires no reason; such a knowledge as is supported by the highest reason and in which the mind rests with greater security and constancy than in any reasons; in fine, such a sense as cannot be produced but by a revelation from Heaven" (I. vii.5). By "revelation," Calvin meant no such thing as a voice whispering in the believer's ear. Rather, in the process of effectual calling, the Holy Spirit causes the man's spirit to recognize the truth of the Scriptures as he reads them or hears them preached. 

This concept was picked up later (1646) in the writing of the Westminster Confession of Faith (I:5), the doctrinal statement of the world's Presbyterians: "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." The Westminster divines added to Calvin's argument that Scripture provides good reasons for recognizing it as the Word of God. Yet the unbeliever suppresses his awareness of those qualities (Romans 1:18). He cannot recognize them exactly because of his unbelief (I Corinthians 2:14). He cannot be argued out of his unbelief, because his unbelief is a matter of sin, not ignorance. 

The case here demonstrates why we never see an apologetical situation in the New Testament in which Jesus or the Apostles ever argued for acceptance of Scriptural proofs. Even when Jesus faced Satan and when Paul preached to the pagan philosophers of Athens, each argued from Scripture as his starting point, not as a subsidiary point requiring proof. 

We must remember the promise of God: "So shall My Word be, that goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:11). God promises success to His word, not to our attempts to appeal to the fallen intellect of the unbeliever. "Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures" (James 1:18). There has never been any other way by which God has converted His elect (Romans 10:8-15).

The Fullness of the Revelation of the Faith

In his epistle, Jude, the brother of Jesus, made an interesting comment: "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). "Delivered once for all" can mean nothing except that the content of the Christian faith, that is, all of her doctrine, had been fully revealed by the time Jude was forced to warn against false teachers who were striving to corrupt that faith. Paul made the same point to his young protégé in II Timothy 3:15-17). 

The importance of Jude's words here is to shut the door in the faces of pseudo-Christian sects who seek to claim that they have revelations of additional doctrines beyond those given by Jesus and His Apostles. The Mormons have their Book of Mormon and other "scriptures," while Rome makes lofty claims for her "sacred tradition." Both claims are their efforts to cover the manmade doctrines that they confess cannot be found in the Bible. 

Yet, according to Jude, that exclusion is sufficient proof that the doctrinal claims of Rome and the Mormons are precluded from true Christianity exactly because they were not revealed in the New testament once for all. 

The Primacy of the Gospel of Matthew

This post is a little out of character for me. Usually, I write about some Christian doctrine, usually a specifically-Reformed doctrine. This post is not such a case.

When I was doing my studies of the Synoptic Gospels for seminary, there were numerous references to the primacy of Mark. That is, that most experts believe that the Gospel of Mark was written first, and then Luke and Matthew used Mark's material, plus other sources. I could see that for Luke, because he was not, as is generally admitted, an eyewitness of the events in his gospel (though he was for parts of Acts). As he tells us in his preamble: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:1-4). To summarize, Luke was not an eyewitness, so he interviewed those who were, or depended on additional sources. That would largely have been the Apostle Paul, of whom Luke was a longtime co-worker. Luke's case is consistent with the majority view of primacy.

Mark, too, was not an eyewitness. He, however, was a longtime co-worker with the Apostle Peter, who was an eyewitness. Therefore, Mark could write from an original source, short only of Jesus Himself.

Matthew, in contrast, was an eyewitness, as confirmed not just in his own gospel account but also of the other two. He was himself one of the original apostles, appointed personally by Jesus. Given that, why would he have need to depend on other sources for his account? That was the logical question that kept bugging me as I read the majority view.

That question led me to this personal view of primacy: as the only eyewitness, Matthew wrote the first account of the events of the earthly ministry of Jesus. This would have been especially relevant, because he was a Jew and wrote from a Jewish perspective, during the initial period after the ascension of Jesus, when the church was predominantly Jewish. Then, as Romans and romanized Jews entered the church, a new gospel account was needed to address their cultural perspective. Enter Mark, with Peter's oversight, perhaps also borrowing from Matthew (the case I seek to make), while trimming down most of his cultural references. Then, as the church continued to expand beyond Palestine, more and more Greek-speaking Jews and pagans came into the church, requiring a third gospel account for the use of the apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13) and his co-workers.

My argument here is strictly a logical consideration. I have no linguistic or documentary expertise on which to judge this issue. I also recognize that it puts me in the minority. However, does my argument not make sense? Does this not provide a beginning basis for presuming that Matthew was first, not Mark? Also, I share this hypothesis with so august a personality as Augustine. While that is not decisive, I am quite comfortable being in a minority that also includes Augustine!

Election and Reprobation: Treating Biblical Truths as Shameful

Regarding the hesitancy to preach on election, Southern Presbyterian Theologian James Henley Thornwell wrote, "This squeamish timidity is no less dishonoring to God [than is to be inquisitive and speculative], as it supposes that He has communicated some truths, in a moment of unlucky forgetfulness, which it would have been better to conceal, and flatly and palpably contradicts the assertion of Paul that all Scripture is 'profitable' [II Timothy 3:16]" (Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

Thornwell is correct to identify Paul's words as the issue here: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (II Timothy 3:16). This verse is fundamental to the Christian attitude toward the Bible. First, it is literally the word of God, not given directly, but through the instrumentality of men. Therefore, as God is necessarily incapable of error, then, too, His word is necessarily free from error. Second, Paul tells us that this origin with God, and as given to men, is profitable, "that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (verse 17). God gave His word that His people may be trained for the work that He has given us to do. Therefore, there can be nothing in it that is harmful or irrelevant. Yet, there are many men in the pulpit who avoid dealing with the myriad passages that discuss the doctrines of grace.

I had this experience once. I had moved to a new community, and needed to find a new church. There was a Presbyterian congregation - I won't specify, but each was of an orthodox denomination, though not the same one - at about equal distance north and south of my house. To help in choosing between them, I asked the minister of one whether he would preach on predestination if it were a natural part of whatever text he was using. His response, word for word, was, "Oh, no! That would offend too many people!" I went to the other church and never looked back.

Is that not a rebuke to God, as Thornwell says? Is such a refusal not telling God, "You screwed up by putting this in Your word, so I have to fix your mistake"?

Here is the instruction from the Westminster Confession of Faith III:8, to which this minister had committed his subscription: "The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel." Handling with prudence does not mean don't handle at all.