Textual Criticism: The New Attack on the Inerrancy and the Infallibility of Scripture

"The fully developed liberal theologian could very well admit that Scripture itself asserts its own inerrancy. But then add that this is just another of the long list of Scriptural blunders. The theologian who has just begun to the edge away from the position of historic Protestantism and still wishes to be known as an evangelical, is more cautious. He is not willing to speak of a long list of Scriptural blunders. He has only two or three difficulties. Two or three insignificant places where the Bible has unfortunately missed the exact truth. But let me point out, with force, that the theological position is the same in both cases." 

"Whether the list of blunders is long or short., both these theologians contradict Christ who said, 'The Scripture cannot be broken.' The liberal and the pseudo­-evangelical both repudiate Christ as well as the Scripture."  Dr. Gordon H. Clark. 

[From a lecture given, "The Inerrancy of Scripture."] The Sermon Audio version is available here:  The Inerrancy of Scripture.]

Westminster Confession of Faith  1:8

The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations,) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical . . .

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim. 3:7 KJV)

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. (1 Tim. 6:20-21 KJV)

The Evangelicals who accept the "science" of textual criticism and who still affirm the doctrine of biblical inerrancy have a major problem.  The problem that should be apparent to everyone is that only the original autographs are the infallible, inerrant and absolutely inspired words of God.  No one is willing to take on this problem honestly.  Instead, what we get are clever dodges and evasive maneuvers.

Translations are not the exact inspired and inerrant words of God. Even the original Reformers and Puritans acknowledged that in all matters of doctrinal dispute we are to appeal to the original languages in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts behind the text of cross-cultural translations, including English and the many other languages around the world.  A further problem is that we cannot reconstruct the original autographs using modern textual criticism.  I say this because obviously the presupposed axioms of the textual critical methods are unproven starting points which may or may not be accurate to the truth.  In short, textual criticism is a highly subjective and fallible process which is prone to errors of speculation and presumption.

Even the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark was not immune to this problem.  Anyone who has read his commentaries can see that he appealed to the textual critical apparatuses of the critical editions of the Greek New Testament.  But did he continue to follow that line of thought in his later years?  I would argue that he did not; because in his later years, he began to gravitate toward the Byzantine Majority Text as the basis for Scripture translations.  I would argue that he would have eventually come around to the confessional view advocated by the Reformation Bible Society.  Clark insisted that the Westminster Confession of Faith was the best summary of the Bible ever produced.  (See also:  WCF 1:6).

The confessional view basically says that the original autographs cannot be reconstructed, as even most of the modern textual critics, including Bart Ehrman acknowledge.  Evangelicals like James White and Daniel Wallace clearly lost their debates with Ehrman, both of which are posted on YouTube.  You can look them up for yourselves.

So where does that leave us?  James White insists that we can reconstruct the original autographs.  But he is duplicitous and equivocates on this point.  He also insists that only God in His archetypal knowledge knows what the actual canon of Scripture is and what the original autographs contained.  Yet, White loudly asserts that we have the original autographs in the many variants exant today.  This is obviously a contradiction.  Either we have the original autographs or we do not.  We do not.  So any reconstructed edition of the critical Greek New Testament is a matter of scholarly opinion, not an infallible and inerrant reconstruction of the original text of the New Testament.  The same can be said about the Old Testament Masoretic Text, which has problems of its own.

Also, White likes to disparage his opponents as King James Only.  That's basically the fallacy of the abusive ad hominem and gaslighting.  Dr. Jeff Riddle, the Reformed Baptist scholar who heads up the Reformation Bible Society, does prefer the King James Version for public preaching and teaching.  But Riddle is not King James Only because he publicly refutes the idea that any translation is the inspired Word of God.  Riddle affirms that only the original autographs are the inspired Word of God.

The confessional view as advocated by Riddle and the Reformation Bible Society is that the Westminster Confession of Faith and other Reformed Confessions affirm that the Textus Receptus is an accurate and providentially preserved reproduction of the original autographs, while simultaneously acknowledging that the TR is not the original autographs or absolutely an inerrant copy of the autographs.  The TR obviously has some minor variants.  But even the Puritans were aware of these, yet they asserted that all doctrinal disputes were to be resolved by appealing to these Greek manuscripts.  The same with the Hebrew Masoretic text--all doctrinal disputes were to be resolved by these Hebrew texts.

The doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture depends on having a providentially preserved Bible.  The Reformers were content with the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text.  We should likewise affirm what the Reformed confessions say, namely that God has providentially preserved the Bible:

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations,) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;r so as in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.s But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto and interest in the scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,t therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,u that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner,w and, through patience and comfort of the scriptures, may have hope.x

r Mat. 5:18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

s Isa. 8:20. To the law, and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them Acts 15:15. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written. John 5:39. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me: Ver. 46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

t John 5:39. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.

u 1 Cor. 14:6. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? Ver. 9. So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. Ver. 11. Therefore, if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian; and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. Ver. 12. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. Ver. 24. But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all. Ver. 27. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. Ver. 28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

w Col. 3:16. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

x Rom. 15:4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning; that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Westminster Assembly. The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition. Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851. Print.

Fact Checking Preachers: Your Christian Duty?

 

Acts 17:11

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

King James Version (KJV)

 

I am frequently on the road so I often listen to church services while I am driving.  Since I live in the Columbia, South Carolina area I frequently attend First Presbyterian Church in downtown Columbia.  I have lived here for around four years so I have visited many of the local Presbyterian churches in hopes of finding the most conservative one in my area.  Of course anyone to the right of moderate Evangelicalism is decried as an ignorant fundamentalist.  But as I recall that is the same label once applied to the lions of Princeton like B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and Charles Hodge.  In more recent times the fake Evangelical leaders in moderate Calvinist circles have labeled the late Carl F. H. Henry and Gordon H. Clark as pesky fundamentalists.  Cornelius Van Til, however, attacked Henry and Clark as "neo-Evangelicals."  It becomes difficult to sort out all the disputes within the Evangelical Calvinist camp and sometimes I have to wonder if a few of them have gone outright heterodox or even heretical.

I personally do not like controversy.  However, when ministers in the pulpit make controversial remarks I am compelled to respond in some way.  Ministers after all are more accountable because they are the theological and moral influencers of the Evangelical movement in general and the Calvinist movement in particular.  

Since I attend mostly Calvinist worship services this one was particularly relevant.  (See:  James 3:1 KJV).  The KJV uses the term masters in verse 1.  A more accurate translation is teachers.  Those who preach and teach the word of God from the pulpit are subject to a greater examination and a greater condemnation from both the Lord and those who hold ministers accountable in the congregation.

A couple of weeks ago or so I was listening to the Sunday evening service of First Presbyterian Church when a newly ordained minister of counseling was delivering the sermon.  The denomination of First Presbyterian is Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and the young minister's name is Joshua Squires.  His delivery style is pleasant and easy to hear.  However, I have a major objection to what he said in the sermon.  I cannot remember off hand which of the Gospels he was expositing from the pulpit but it was probably Matthew 4:1ff.  The minister insisted that Jesus must have took other sustenance during the forty days and forty nights that He fasted prior to His temptation in the wilderness or desert.

As God's providence would have it, I was able to attend the morning worship service on January the second, 2022.  Also by God's providence I happened to unwittingly sit in the pew just behind Josh Squires.  The lady sitting behind me knew that I do not attend weekly and insisted that Josh welcome me.  I then recognized him as one of the ordained teaching elders of the session.  So I waited until after the worship service ended and asked him about his remarks during the sermon in question.  I should probably mention that I was not dressed in formal attire since I am a blue collar worker.  

At any rate, the first response of Rev. Squire was animated and defensive.  I do not recall making any accusatory remarks as I was simply asking him what his rationale was for his remark about the possibility that Jesus took other sustenance rather than fasting completely without any food for forty days and forty nights.  I think I pointed out that the text does not say that Jesus took other sustenance.  He immediately got loud and insistent that the text did say so.  Unfortunately for him, this is not only an argument from silence but it could also be called "eisogesis" or reading into the text what is not there.  When I pointed this out to him he doubled down and became even more insistent that the text does say that Jesus took other sustenance.  

So I pressed the point even harder.  I asked him how he knew that the text said this since the plain reading of the text says no such thing?  He then defended his position by appealing to syntax and etymology, which I presume he got from either a commentary or a lexicon or a grammar of the Greek New Testament.  I then pointed out to him that only the Bible is the inspired and inerrant and infallible word of God.  (2 Timothy 3:16; John 10:35; 2 Peter 1:19-21).  I also pointed out that commentaries, lexicons, and grammars are not the inspired and inerrant and infallible word of God.  In other words, the men who write those books can err.   They are fallible and some of them can be and were unregenerate liberal theologians, especially so in some of the more technical lexical and grammatical works.

But here the young minister doubled down even more.  He insisted that the text does say that Jesus took other sustenance.  But the text plainly only says:

Matthew 4:2

“And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.”

King James Version (KJV)

I later consulted the basic lexicon definition and the lexicon nowhere intimates or suggests that fasting allowed for the taking of basic sustenance.  Mr. Squires insisted that he would not want Jesus to be able to do anything he could not do himself since Jesus was obviously fully human.  But in the Old Testament Moses fasted from both food and water for forty days and forty nights.  (Exodus 34:27-28).  When I pointed this out to Squires he had no response.  I also asked him if he could walk on the water, heal the sick or feed the multitudes?  To his credit Squires said no.  The point I was making that no matter how hard you try, you cannot bring Jesus down to our level theologically.  Unfortunately this minister thought that appealing to authorities outside the Bible was a legitimate way to argue one's case.  Instead such an appeal is a logical fallacy called appealing to authority because when I confronted him that the text did not plainly say that Jesus took other sustenance he insisted that the text did say so and that many scholars agreed with him.  On the contrary, Luke says that Jesus ate nothing during His fast.  (Luke 4:1-2.  See also:  Was Jesus' Time in the Desert Literal?).

Although it is true that Jesus was fully human, that he was born a helpless baby, ate and drank real food and water, and had to learn new things just as human children do as they grow up, it cannot be denied that Jesus was also the divine Logos incarnate who learned nothing new, was not limited in location, being ubiquitous and omnipotent just as the other two Persons of the Trinity are.  God is one in nature or essence and three in subsisting Persons.  (Deuternomy 6:4; 1 Timothy 3:16; John 1:1; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Matthew 28:19; Matthew 3:16-17; Luke 9:35; John 1:32-33).

I guess the point here is that even if you insist that Jesus sustained Himself during His fast by eating small amounts of food rather than being supernaturally sustained by the Holy Spirit, you have a problem because we are not incarnate gods and Jesus was God incarnate!  I once debated a Free Methodist pastor who insisted that Jesus was susceptible to fall into sin during His temptation.  I insist otherwise.  The Arminians wish to emphasize the real humanity of Jesus to the extreme because they want to show that we have a natural ability to overcome sin; because Arminians believe in common or prevenient grace which neuters total depravity, they insist that libertarian free will makes it possible that anyone can become a Christian apart from God's sovereign and irresistible grace.  But mere possibility also makes it possible that no one will believe.  The temptation of Jesus could be a real temptation even if it were impossible for Him to fail.  

There are several reasons that it would be impossible for Jesus to fail.  The first one is that even if He were not God incarnate the providence of God is the carrying out of God's eternal decrees.  If God planned the end from the beginning, then it was never possible that Jesus would fail the test in the wilderness.  (Isaiah 46:9-11; Isaiah 14:24-27; Ephesians 1:11).  Also, since Jesus is the hypostatic union of two natures, divine and human, it logically follows that God cannot sin.  Now this gets into the two persons view of Gordon H. Clark.  If Jesus is truly a human person, then His temptation in the wilderness was very real.  On the other hand, if the divine Person of the Logos is incarnate in the hypostatic union between the human nature and human personality of Jesus, then the human nature and human person of Christ must be infallibly preserved by the divine Person and the divine nature of the Logos and, by implication, the entire Trinity.  That's because the divine nature cannot be divided into three separate gods or three separate Persons.  Each of the three Persons is a distinct subsistence within the one divine nature or Godhead.  (Colossians 1:19; 2:9).  

But one could ask, "How is the temptation real if Jesus had advantages that we do not have?"  This question ignores the fact that not only was Jesus God incarnate but He was also conceived by the Holy Spirit in the virgin's womb and He was born without any original sin.  Not only this but Jesus was sinless from birth and never once committed any willful sins in thought, word or deed.  (1 Peter 2:21-23; Isaiah 53:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 John 3:5; John 8:46; Hebrews 7:26).  Jesus was in all points tempted as we are.  (Hebrews 4:15).  But this does not mean that Jesus was tempted with every possible sin that humans have committed since the fall but that He was tempted with the same kinds of general sins.

However, I digress into a theological discussion of the implications of the young Presybterian minister's remarks.  Frankly, I was disappointed that he became so defensive and aggressive toward me.  I am obviously much older than him.  He did not respect me as an elder--although I am not an ordained elder--even if he mistakenly thought I was an ignorant layman, which I am not.  I told him that I had seminary education and that I thought his position was a slippery slope to deny the other miracles in the Bible.  He said that I was entitled to my opinion.  And since he had very disrespectfully laid down the gauntlet I did not relent.  I retorted that he was entitled to his opinion as well and that his opinion was just an opinion because only Scripture is the infallible and inerrant and inspired word of God.  Sermons and ministers are not infallible, inspired or inerrant and I remarked that he himself was not an infallible pope.

A further controversy occurred in the worship service that day.  The senior pastor, Derek Thomas, conducted an ordination of many male deacons and at least one female "deaconess."  He remarked that the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church allows for individual sessions or churches to ordain female deaconesses.  He also remarked that the Presbyterian Church in America does not ordain female deaconesses.  Then he remarked that the ARP does not ordain homosexuals, alluding to the fact that the PCA now ordains male homosexual teaching elders who profess to be both celibate and born with an unchangeable homosexual orientation.  (1 Corinthians 6:9).  Thomas justified the ARP position by stating that there appears to be ambiguity in the text of the qualifications for elders and deacons in 1 Timothy 3:1ff.  His insistence that there is ambiguity in the text is based on the fact that there are no qualifications for the wives of teaching elders (1Timothy 3:1-7) while there are qualifications for the wives of deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-11).  He also said that the word for wives of deacons implies that they are deaconesses.  But in verse 11 the word for wives just means a married woman.  Thomas used the appeal to the ordination of women deaconesses on the same exegesis of other questionable and ambiguous texts such as Priscilla and Junia.  But these are ambiguous since the text could also be Junian, the masculine Greek word.  (See Romans 16:7 KJV).  Be that as it may, the plain text of 1 Timothy 3:12 says that the deacons are to be the husbands of one wife.  I fail to see how that is ambiguous at all unless you think that women can be the husband of a wife?

Derek Thomas does not support the ordination of women as teaching elders.  But he is inconsistent in doing so since it logically follows that his arguments for the ordination of deaconesses could also apply to the positions of ruling and teaching elders.  I might also point out that denominations that base their theology on ambiguity rather than the perspicuity of Scripture are on a trajectory toward the acceptance of homosexuality as well.  I rather think that logical propositions make it possible to logically deduce from the text what the logical implications of a proposition are.  If there were only male deacons ordained in the book of Acts, doesn't that imply that there were no female deacons?  If Jesus and all of His apostles were men, does that not imply logically that male leadership is the biblical norm and not just a cultural preference?  (Acts 6:1-6).

I will not be joining any denomination that allows for the ordination of women as deaconesses because the plain teaching of Scripture never prescribes it or mandates it, as even Derek Thomas acknowledged.  The Bible alone is the word of God.  (2 Timothy 3:16).  Basing morality and norms on ambiguity opens the door to all sorts of theological and moral compromises, including the two which I mention above, namely undermining biblical miracles, the deity and divinity of Jesus Christ as the Logos incarnate (1 Timothy 3:16), and making allowances which not only feminize the church but also contradict the command that only men should have theological authority over men and women in the church (1 Timothy 2:12).  Women should not be visiting the sick at home or any other such male duty since it calls for prayers and exercising authority over men in those households.  (James 5:14).  The word in James 5:14 is presbuteros, not the same thing as a deacon; but in practice the deacons of most churches fulfill this duty in the place of the elders when there are too many sick persons for the elders to visit them all.  (Acts 6:1-6).

This brings me back to the main point of this article, namely that laypersons are to hold their ministers accountable to the Bible, which is the only inspired and infallible and inerrant rule for faith and practice:

WCF 1.9  The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one) , it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.1

WCF 1.10  The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.1
 (WCF 1:9-10 WCS)  Westminster Confession of Faith

While laypersons often do not have the benefits of a seminary education, they can read the plain text of Scripture and compare Scripture with Scripture.  When general assemblies appeal more to their own books of order rather than to the final authority of Holy Scripture to justify their moral and theological compromises it is usually an indication that relativism and cultural accommodation is more important to them than doctrinal orthodoxy and purity.  We as Christians must search the Scriptures to see if what our ministers are telling us is true or false.  Any time a minister bases his arguments on ambiguities and the silence of the text it is an indication that he does not uphold the perspicuity of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture to interpret itself.  When a denomination allows for unbiblical ordinations in order to prevent church splits it is an indication that truth is secondary to a denomination.  The denominational associations of churches and presbyteries should only be unified by the word of God.  (1 Corinthians 1:9-10) and a strict adherence to a detailed Reformed confession of faith such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, Edinburgh edition, 1647.  Dr. Gordon H. Clark referred to the WCF as the most detailed summary of the system of propositional truths revealed in the Bible which has ever been produced.

Gordon H. Clark: Infallibility of Scripture

"No doubt the Romish claim [to magisterial infallibility of the church] is reprehensible; but orthodox Protestants must not immediately dismiss all further concern.  They must ask whether in in their own thought, buried below the surface, a claim to infallibility is made.  This is not an easy question to answer.  On the one hand, the Calvinist is most ready to acknowledge his sinfulness and ignorance; the heart even of the regenerate is deceitful above measure; and God has not promised him freedom from error.  The Westminster Confession asserts that even 'councils may err and many have erred.'  On the other hand, Scripture is perspicuous; it was addressed to ordinary people, the poor, the slaves, the uneducated in Corinth and Rome.  God obviously intended that they should understand it.  How can an ordinary person make a mistake when he says that the Bible teaches the virgin birth?  How could a Roman slave or a Corinthian businessman be confused as to the fact that the New Testament says that Christ rose from the dead?  Is not everyone infallible on these simple points?"

Gordon H. Clark, Karl Barth's Theological Method, (Unicoi:  Trinity Foundation, 1997), pp. 143-144.

Propositional Revelation, the Only Revelation – D.B. Knox : Anglican Church League, Sydney, Australia

Similarly, the knowledge of God’s providence comes to us through propositions. For example, our Lord’s statement that God is “Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt. 11:25) is a proposition. Yet by this title a profoundly important truth has been revealed to us. God’s providence is not deducible by observation of events; though having been given to us through propositional revelation we can see this doctrine reflected in events.  -- D. Broughton Knox

[Charlie's note:  I am posting this in response to the recent publication of Mike Horton's new systematic theology, The Christian Faith.  According to Horton and other Van Tilians, Scripture is not the very words of God univocally revealed in propositional truth claims.  Rather Scripture is only analogically God's Word due to the Creator/creature distinction and at no single point does our knowledge coincide with God's knowledge, EVEN WHEN IT IS SPECIALLY REVEALED IN HOLY SCRIPTURE.  This is not the classical Reformed view of special revelation in Scripture.  It is a philosophical irrationalism read back into the position taken by the Reformers.  In fact, the theory of analogy is borrowed from the rationalism of Thomas Aquinas.  Although D.B. Knox gets the atonement wrong (Amyraldianism), he did have a firm understanding of the doctrine of Scripture.  Click on the post title to see the original post at the Anglican Church League.]

Propositional Revelation, the Only Revelation – D.B. Knox

Propositional Revelation, the Only Revelation

by Canon D.B. Knox, B.A., B.D., M.Th., D.Phil.
Principal of Moore Theological College, Sydney, Australia,
1959-1985

THE PROBLEM

For some time now it has been fashionable to deny what is called “propositional revelation”. The term has been coined by those who are opposed to the concept, and by it they appear to mean that revelation is not given to us by God in the form of truths couched in words, or propositions, but that all the revelation that God has given has come to us primarily as acts and events. Thus, Dr. Leonard Hodgson wrote:

“The ‘Word of God’ is not a proposition or a series of propositions prescribing what we are to believe or think. It is a series of divine acts, when they are reflected on by the mind as it seeks to grasp their significance. The revelation of God is given in deeds; the doctrines of the faith are formulated by reflection on the significance of those deeds.”

Hodgson denies that there exists for us “revealed doctrine, presented by God, ready-made in propositional form.”

Archbishop William Temple, in Nature, Man and God (page 317) wrote: “There is no such thing as revealed truth. There are truths of revelation, that is to say, propositions which express the result of correct thinking concerning revelation; but they are not themselves directly revealed.” The explicit denial of “propositional revelation” may be traced back as far as George Tyrrell, the Roman Catholic modernist, who wrote: “revelation is not a statement but a showing… God speaks by deeds, not by words.” (Through Scylla and Charybdis, page 287).

THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF REVELATION

The denial of “propositional revelation” is the denial that God reveals Himself to men through the medium of words, that is to say, through meaningful statements and concepts expressed in words; for such is the only sense that can be given to the word “propositional” in this phrase. The denial that revelation is propositional in form, though widespread and repeated nowadays from writer to writer, runs counter to the biblical view of revelation.

The view of the Bible is that revelation is essentially propositional. This may be established in two ways. First, by considering how the Bible describes revelation, and secondly, by examining biblical revelation to see what in fact its nature is.

On the first point, it should be noted that the Bible regards words spoken and, in particular, written, as the means of revelation. For example, Paul describes the Old Testament as “the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2). It is the words of the Old Testament which are referred to as “oracles” (or logia). The same term is employed by Stephen in Acts 7:38, where the law at Sinai is described as “living oracles”; and the phrase “oracles of God” is used in Hebrews 5:12 and in 1 Peter 4:11.

An oracle is a revelational utterance, or, in other words, a revealed truth. Its revelational character lies entirely in the words. The words may be descriptive of an event, or of a concept; but in both cases the words form propositions, and it is the proposition which is revelational, because it is a proposition uttered by God. This is the meaning of the phrase, “oracle of God”. The apostolic writers regarded the Old Testament as a series of oracles, of which God is the author, though different prophets and law-givers were the penmen.

The concept would be commonplace to the Greek readers of the New Testament. (We need not, of course, follow the pagan Greeks in their unduly mechanistic concept of the methods of inspiration). Nevertheless, the phrase, “oracles of God” can imply nothing else than that the end-product, viz., the words uttered and written down, are God’s words, and if God’s words, then revelational of His mind and purpose and so properly called “His oracles”.

The biblical doctrine of revelation is concerned with the end-product – the words written down. Words written meaningfully are, of course, propositions. Yet it is such written words which the Bible avers to be “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16). It is the written word, the Scriptures, which Christ declared cannot be broken (John 10:35). The Gospel, which St. Paul says is God’s power to save, is adumbrated in “holy scriptures” (2 Timothy 3:15). Jesus asked the Sadducees “Have you never read what was spoken to you by God?” (Matthew 22:31) i.e., the written word is God’s word to the reader.

An examination of the nature of revelation in Scripture confirms that this revelation very frequently is plainly in the form of propositions. For example, the opening verse of the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”, reveals one of the most fundamental facts in our knowledge of God and ourselves; and insofar as this verse is revelational (and it is profoundly so), it is because it is in the form of a proposition. No-one was present when the act of creation took place, to perceive it.

The act in itself revealed nothing to us. Our knowledge that God is creator is a revealed truth, and this revelation is exclusively propositional. The writer to the Hebrews affirms as much (Heb. 11:3). The same is true of all that has been revealed, for example, with regard to the Second Coming, or about Heaven and Hell. By the nature of things, such revelation must be propositional; for the action of the Second Coming has not yet taken place; while heavenly things cannot yet be experienced by men. Consequently, our knowledge of future events, or of heavenly realities, must be revealed to us propositionally, that is to say, through meaningful words, if we are to have any knowledge of them whatsoever.

Yet the revelation which God has given us of the Second Coming, of the judgment day and of Heaven and Hell, form a very large and important part of biblical revelation, and are exclusively propositional. we are enjoined in Scripture to orient our lives by these propositions about God’s actions in the future. If they are not reliable and inerrant, this would be an improper injunction.

Similarly, the knowledge of God’s providence comes to us through propositions. For example, our Lord’s statement that God is “Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt. 11:25) is a proposition. Yet by this title a profoundly important truth has been revealed to us. God’s providence is not deducible by observation of events; though having been given to us through propositional revelation we can see this doctrine reflected in events.

In the Bible, God is constantly represented as revealing facts about Himself in propositional form, e.g., “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” All the great “I am” sayings of Christ, too, are propositions. Nor would these truths about Christ have been apprehended by the weak minds of men had they not been given as propositions.

A great deal of the Old Testament revelation was given to the prophets in the form of vision. So characteristic of prophecy is vision, that the whole book of Isaiah is described as “the vision of Isaiah” (Isaiah 1:1, 2 Chron. 32:32). In revelation through vision, the event (i.e. the vision itself) is not revelational, but it is the content of the vision (i.e., the concepts which God makes known through the vision) which is the revelation.

These concepts are all apprehended by the seer and passed on to the hearer prepositionally; that is to say, through meaningful words expressing the concepts which God put into the mind of His servant. One of the most important revelations through vision is Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man in Daniel 7. Both the vision itself, and the vital interpretation of it, cannot be described otherwise than as “propositional revelation”.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF DENYING PROPOSITIONAL REVELATION

Hodgson’s statement that the revelation of God is not given in words but in deeds minimises the fact that, if the deed is to be meaningful, it must be interpreted correctly; and that it is the interpretation which brings about the revelation.

Hodgson’s position, by confining revelation to deeds and making the Bible merely a witness to the deeds and not itself part of the revelation, leads to conclusions self-evidently wrong. In his view, 

“the Word of God is a series of divine acts, to which the Bible bears witness… the revelation of God is given in deeds; the doctrines of faith are formulated by reflection on the significance of those deeds.”

Such a view means that the New Testament Epistles are excluded from being revelation. They would be, according to Hodgson, the propositions formulated by the mind, as it reflects on the deeds of God and seeks to grasp their significance. A similar consideration applies to such statements of Christ as “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.” (John 4:23,24). This is a statement about God and His worshippers. To deny that this proposition is revelational is foolish.

If the words of the Bible are made merely witnesses to the revelation of God, the unique position of the authority of the Bible is undermined and it becomes merely one witness no more infallible than the witness of the Church and the witness of the human spirit and reason to the acts of God in experience. The dichotomy between event and the interpretation of the event, with the singling out of the former as the important element, or indeed as the sole element making up the revelation, leads, as might be expected, to the ignoring of the interpretation given in the Bible in favour of any interpretation which commends itself to the reader.

Thus Brother George Every, S.S.M., writes of Father Herbert Kelly, the founder of his Community: “In his own reflections on the Old Testament, Father Kelly had a way of going directly to the event without even noticing the interpretation given by the Prophet or the prophetic historian”. (The Gospel of God, 1959, page 34). It will be seen that if revelation is in the event rather than in the interpretation, revelation becomes like a nose of wax to be reshaped according to every man’s whim. In fact, if revelation is only in event, then there is no revelation in the sense of God-given knowledge of God.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD AND REVELATION

In the last resort, the concept that God’s revelation is in deeds can only be maintained by a forgetfulness that God is all-sovereign over the world. The fact is that there is no event which God controls more than another and, therefore, every event equally reflects some aspect of His character. Yet no event is revelational in itself.

For example, God controlled the migrations of the Syrians from Kir and the Philistines from Caphtor as completely as He brought up the Israelites out of Egypt (Amos 9:7). What is it then that makes the tribal migrations of the Israelites pregnant with revelation throughout the Old and New Testaments, while those of their related tribe, the Syrians, reveal only the one fact of God’s general providence to which Amos alludes?

Similarly, why are the invasions of neighbouring countries by the Assyrians, and the fate that overtook the Assyrians, revelational of God’s character (see Isaiah 10), while the intertribal warfare of, say the Maoris, are not? It is not as though God’s sovereign control is exercised any the more over the one or any the less over the other of these different events but simply that to the one have been added interpretive propositions and statements, but not to the other. It is the proposition which is the revelation giving meaning to the event. It is the meaning of the event which reveals the character of God, yet the event by itself means nothing. The conclusion is that revelation is essentially propositional. Modern theology largely ignores the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, and the important consequences of this are seen in modern theories of revelation.

Temple saw the danger and sought to guard against it. Temple’s view of revelation has been summed up by Dr. Alan Richardson thus:

“Revelation is due to the twofold form of the activity of God: God controls the historical events which constitute the media of revelation, and also inspires the minds of the prophets and thus enables them to interpret the events aright. ‘He guides the process; He guides the minds of men; the interaction of the process and the minds that are alike guided by Him is the essence of revelation’”. (Christian Apologetics, page 146).

But God guides every event, none is more under his guidance than another.

The new element is the infallible guidance of the prophet’s mind so that he interprets the event aright. Thus, it is the interpretation which brings revelation to us and this interpretation is in the form of inerrant propositions. The biblical doctrine is that it is the work of the Holy Spirit not only to formulate these propositions in the mind of the inspired prophet, but to secure their embodiment in the written scripture. The activity of God in controlling events is continuous and unchanging (though the purposes of His control will vary); but the gift of interpreting the event aright is sporadic.

REVELATION AND FAITH

For an event to be revelational, it must be interpreted by God Himself. This, and not merely some human reflection on the occurrence, is the real differentiating factor. God interprets through His Word, given in the form of propositions and statements about that event. Thus, for the prophets, the word of the Lord was not the event but the interpretation of the event which had been given them by the Spirit. The same is true of that supreme event, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There would have been no revelation in Christ’s ministry were it not for the interpretative statements of our Lord and His apostles. it is the proposition then that is the revelation, not the act itself.

Temple states, on the contrary:

“the faith in which His early followers believed that they had found salvation did not consist in the acceptance of propositions concerning Him nor even in acceptance of what He taught in words concerning God and man, though this was certainly included, but in personal trust in His personal presence, love and power”. (Nature, Man and God, page 311).

This statement contains an inner contradiction. Faith cannot be exercised except towards propositions. Certainly, Christian faith (and in particular the disciples’ faith) was not exercised towards propositions about material things, but towards propositions about a Person, His power, and His promises. Nevertheless, the disciples’ trust in Christ’s presence, love and power was ultimately based on the acceptance of propositions about these things which had been formulated in their minds.

The case is no different, though more obvious with regard to those who “not having seen, yet have believed”, for their knowledge of Christ’s presence, love and power (from which their personal trust in Him springs) it conveyed to their minds exclusively by propositions. Trust in Christ is a religious experience which is a consequence of a revelation given and received. (“He who comes to God must believe that He is”, Hebrews 11:6). This trust and religious experience is to be distinguished from revelation. Such experience of God is, of course, more than propositional; but the revelation on which it is based and by which it must be judged is essentially propositional. A confusion arises, unless the meanings of the word “knowledge” are clearly distinguished.

Knowledge of God in the sense of revelation of Him, is entirely intellectual; it is apprehended by the mind alone. It is, therefore propositional. But knowledge of God in the sense of fellowship with Him, goes beyond intellectual apprehension and is experienced through all the avenues of our being.

In this latter sense, knowledge of God is not exclusively, or perhaps not even essentially, propositional, that is, not articulated consciously into propositions.- but this knowledge of God is not in itself revelational, though it illuminates revelation and suffuses revelation. Yet such religious experience must be based on revelation, and be conformable to, and judged by revelation if it is to be regarded as true, and not spurious knowledge of God.

Revelation is the test and criterion of such religious experience as to whether it is knowledge of God, and the revelation which forms this test is the words of the Scripture and the propositions which these words form.

Denial of “propositional revelation” makes Christian faith impossible in its fullest and deepest expression of trust, for it is impossible to trust absolutely unless we have a sure Word of God; such denial restricts Christianity to a religion of works, i.e., to following and obeying Jesus Christ as best we can. Moreover, denial of propositional revelation makes the lordship of Christ impossible of actual realisation, for it is only by the sceptre of His word that He can exercise that absolute lordship over men’s consciences and wills which is His by right. For it is wrong to give absolute obedience to an uncertain command or to place absolute trust on an uncertain promise.

INERRANT REVELATION

Denial of propositional revelation goes hand in hand with a denial of inerrant revelation. An illustration of this may be taken from The Christian in Philosophy by Professor J.V. Langmead Casserley, who wrote (page 190)

“For the most part, the biblical conception of revelation is not propositional but historical. The God of the Bible is made known, or rather makes Himself known, not in words but in events. The Bible is not a series of saving propositions… but a propositional record of saving events. Its actual language, as is inevitable when human speech grapples with the problem of describing the singular, is partly adequate and partly inadequate.”

It is commonplace nowadays to assume, as Casserley does, that the words of the Bible, being human words, must inevitably (either through natural human inadequacy or the presence of sin) distort God’s revelation. But the assumption ignores the power of God expressed in the divine rebuke, “Who made man’s mouth?” (Exodus 4:11). To assert that its Creator (who saw all from the Beginning) cannot fulfil His purposes which He determined on from eternity, namely to reveal Himself infallibly through human speech, betrays great impiety.

It is sometimes further asserted that, from the nature of truth, it is impossible that there should be such a thing as inerrant revelation. A simple illustration will show the falsity of this. If when the clock strikes four, I state “The clock has struck four”, I have made a propositional statement which is true if words mean anything and this truth remains characteristic of the proposition, even if

(a) my hearer misheard me through deafness,

(b) failed to apprehend my meaning through faulty knowledge of English, or

(c) there was no-one present to hear me.

If it is possible for an ordinary human to make a completely true proposition which is a revelational fact for those who have ears to hear, it is again the height of impiety to say that God cannot ensure that His servants do so, if He will; and not make one such true proposition only, but to make a whole series of them within the pages of the Bible, and to exclude from among them any erroneous propositions, if He will. That God has in fact done so must be believed by all who give credence to the teaching and attitude of Christ and of His apostles and of the whole of Scripture with reference to the character of Holy Scripture.

The apostles explicitly affirmed that their words were the words of God, and that the propositions that they composed were verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit, e.g., “We teach not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth”. (1 Cor. 2:13).

It is highly inconsistent to accept the authority of Christ and the apostles, and Scripture in general with regard to God and His relation to His creation, while rejecting that authority with regard to God’s relation to part of that creation, namely, to the words of Scripture.

_________________________________________________

Dr. Broughton Knox was Principal of Moore Theological College, Sydney, from 1959 to 1985. For many years his “Protestant Faith Broadcast” was heard on Sydney radio station 2CH.

Reproduced with the permission of the Committee for External Studies of Moore Theological College, 1 King Street, Newtown. N.S.W. 2042, Australia.

A collection of essays by Dr. Knox – “D. Broughton Knox: Selected Works” – has been published by Matthias Media in Sydney. It includes this essay.

Propositional Revelation, the Only Revelation – D.B. Knox : Anglican Church League, Sydney, Australia