Gen. 3:4, And the serpent said unto the woman, “Ye shall not surely die.” In this passage Satan contradicts the word of God in Gen. 2:17, “for in the day that thou eatest thou shalt surely die.” Considering the latitude given Evangelical text critics and the spirit of giving them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it is time to do the same for the devil. After all, contradicting God’s word is a common practice of those who claim the name of Christ while maintaining a critical approach to the Scripture. For instance, consider the normative negation of God’s command found in Deut. 12:32, “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” Contradicting the word, once considered a work of the Devil has gained respectability among the ecclesiastical intellectual elite and wandering sheep. And in this sphere of respectability, perhaps its time for the ecclesiastical social imaginary to recognize and accept the intuitive congruence between scholars and the Devil. Maybe it’s time for a kinder, gentler approach to the Devil; after all the contradiction of God’s Word has become so common place as to make it part of the fabric of modern ecclesiastical social imaginary. A less hypocritical Church would also be less critical of the Devil.

Also note the Devil’s quotation of Scripture in Luke 4:10, “For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee. And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.” First note that the Devil introduces the quote from Psalm 91:11 in the same manner as does the Lord in verse 8. This shared convention of informing the reader that what follows is drawn from the Old Testament should be the first consideration why the modern Evangelical reader should consider tempering his/her attitude toward the Devil as a negative influence. After all, the Devil’s introduction to the Old Testament citation is exactly that of the Lord.

Secondly, please note that Psalm 91:11-12 is in the Hebrew text is 14 words:

כי מלאכיו יצוה-לך לשמרך בכל-דרכיך

על-כפים ישאונך פן-תגף באבן רגלך

In the BHS there is no entry in the critical apparatus for either verses 11 or 12; there are no other contending readings, LXX or otherwise, to the Hebrew text in these verses. The LXX in Psalm 91:11 is consistent with the BHS and reads, ἐν πάσαις ταῗς ὁδοῗς σου, “in all the ways of you” or “in all thy ways.”

Of the 14 words the Devil omitted only 2 — בכל-דרכיך – “in all thy ways.” That is, the Devil quotes the Scripture correctly 86% of the time, only deviating by the omission 14% of the time. This high ratio should fall under the accepted category of sufficiently reliable. Additionally, the omission “in all thy ways” could easily be considered superfluous. In the angelic realm, “in all thy ways” should be understood considering what the Scripture tells us about the power of angels. “In all thy ways” falls under the paradigm of changes that do not affect sound doctrine. There is a high degree of intrinsic probability of “in all thy ways” being inferred by what the Devil said without the necessity of it being restated. Thus, to quibble negatively about the Devil’s omission creates more heat than light.

And thirdly, what then, can we make of the claim made by the Apostle John in the Apocalypse chapter 12, verse 9, “And the great dragon, was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiving the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Is the omission of “in all thy ways” really some kind of well-played, subtle, demonic deception meant to undermine God’s Word or merely an insignificant textual variant? Considering the continuity between the words of the Devil in Luke 4 and the words of Moses in Psalm 91, and the relative insignificance of the omission, it would be reasonably difficult to argue that the exclusion was any part of a grander scheme in “deceiving the whole world.” It seems reasonable that within the relative degrees of doubt allowed by the editors of the UBS Greek text, the Devil should be allowed equal latitude without accusing him of the moral sin of deception. Before harsh judgments are made, the Devil’s omission should first be given minimally either a C or D rating or a conjectural emendation. Additionally, the devil may have access to more ancient manuscripts not yet discovered. It only seems like the fair-minded, balanced, scholarly thing to do. After all, in the current social imaginary of the Therapeutic man our teleological perspective should focused on pleasing each other’s feelings.

[For those readers familiar with the Standard Sacred Text Bullinger’s comment further demonstrates the historic orthodox understanding of Scriptural authority. From the abundant testimony of Reformation era writers from the Continent and England the theological continuity on this point is conspicuous. Bullinger’s commentary is of an intimate character making no distinction between the work of the Holy Spirit in the giving of the autographa and the Holy Spirit’s work in confirming the authority of the preserved Scripture to every believer. Note his citation of the gentle work of the Spirit in the life of Augustine turning his heart from resistant to this truth to “at last thoroughly persuading him.” The same Spirit that assured Augustine assures the believer today that Scripture is indeed God’s Word. Also note the Shepherd/sheep reference and the relationship every believer has with Christ as grounds for accepting the Scripture. As you read, consider the rich, unifying theological heritage of pre-critical Orthodox theology compared to the vacuous and divisive critical approach of recent history.]

Chapter IX

That the Canonical Scripture hath the chief perfection of her authority from the holy Ghost, and of herself: And contrarily that the Church receiveth her authority from the Scripture.

Hitherto we have yielded many reasons for the most excellent authority of the Canonical Scripture. Now the question is, from when the scripture hath or received this most excellent and perfect authority, or by whom the Canon was made, whereunto the Canonical books pertain. The papists say that the Scripture hath her authority from the Church, and that therefore the authority of the Church is greater than the authority of the Scriptures. As though the word of God, which endureth forever (Isa. 40:8), were subject to men’s decrees, as though God his truth should entreat men top authorize it. It is not so. The word of God is of itself most sure, and needeth not the propping up of men, but holdeth up all things. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall in no wise pass away” (Matt. 24:35). The Scripture receiveth her strength or authority chiefly from God, from whom it was revealed. That is to say, that it came not by the will of men (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21) but that the men of God, being moved by the holy Ghost. Both spake and wrote. Whom being chosen and elected for this office, God adorned with many and sundry miracles and divine testimonies.

So that there is no doubt at all, that those things were given by God by inspiration which they wrote and set down. And the selfsame spirit, which hath caused these things to be written, assureth us, that they are not the inventions of men. And when the spirit of God doeth herein witness to our spirit, it seals up the Scripture in our hearts, the faithful soul doeth marvelously rejoice and is greatly confirmed. Therefore we being illuminated by the virtue of the spirit, do not now believe, either through our own judgment, or through the judgment of others, that the Scripture is of God, but do most certainly persuade ourselves above man’s judgment, none otherwise then if we did behold therein the power of God, that the Scriptures are come unto us, even from the very mouth of God by the administration of men.

Therefore the Spouse in the Ballets sayeth with marvelous joy, “My beloved said unto me.” I say nothing of that, which everyone, which is lightened with the light of true faith sayeth, must needs find by experience in himself. By this experience wrote once Augustine the man of God, how God by a little and a little tempered and disposed his heart with his most meek and most merciful hand, and at the last thoroughly persuaded him, so at the last he knew and believed, that those books were delivered to mankind by the Spirit, and the only true and most true God. Therefore the authority of the Scripture doth depend not on the judgment of Church, but by the inward testimony of the holy Ghost: “Neither is it to be doubted that we become Christ’s sheep through the power of the holy Ghost, that we follow not falsehoods, errors, corruptions, and heresies, which are the voice of strangers, but hear only the voice of Christ.”.

And John witnesseth, the Christ said thus, concerning the Spirit, “If God were your father, why do ye not know my speech?” (John 8:42-43). For it is most certain, that we are adopted to be sons of God, by the means of the holy Ghost, which when we have obtained, Christ witnesseth in this place, that we by the lightning of the same Spirit, may so discern his speech from strangers, that it may be manifest and certain unto us. In the selfsame sense, Christ sayeth also in another place (John 10:2-5), “He that entereth in by the door, is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth, and the sheep hear his voice, andn he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he shall put forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they shall in no wise follow, but fly from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.” Neither is it to be doubted that we become Christ’s sheep through the power of the holy Ghost, that we follow not falsehoods, errors, corruptions, and heresies, which are the voice of strangers, but hear only the voice of Christ, that is to say, embrace the natural sense of the Scripture. And Paul sayeth to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 2:14-15) “The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he known them, because they are spiritually discerned.” And in the same place (1 Cor. 2:10) “The spirit searcheth the deep things of God.” And Christ also sayeth (John 14:26) “The comforter, which is the holy ghost, shall bring all things to your remembrance , whatsoever I have said unto you.” Also John hath said these words in his Epistle (1 John 2:27) “The anointing teacheth you of all things,” Again, (1 John 4:6) “He that knoweth God heareth us.”

To be brief, Augustine in the place lately cited sayeth, “Therefore when as we were weak to find forth the truth by clear reason, and when we had need of the authority of the holy Scriptures, for the same purpose, I began to believe forthwith, that thou wouldest by no means give so excellent authority unto that Scripture throughout all lands, but that they will was, that thou wouldest be sought by it, and wouldest be believed by it.”[1] Behold, it is God, I say, it is God, which hath established his holy books with so great authority in all nations. And August. added the cause why God will be sought through them, is why he will be believed through them.

I conclude therefore, that the scripture hath not her authority chiefly from the Church. For the firmness and strength thereof dependeth upon God, is not of men. And the word being both firm and sure, was before the Church, for the church was called by the word (Eph. 2:20). And seeing the doctrine of the prophets and of the apostles is the foundation of the Church, it must needs be, that the certainty of the Church must consist in the said doctrine, as in her foundation and groundwork, before the said Church can take her beginning. (Eph. 2:20) For if the Church of Christ were founded in the beginning by the writing of the Prophets, and with the preaching of the Apostles. Wheresoever the said doctrine be found, certainly the allowing of the doctrine went before the Church, without the which doctrine the Church could never have been. And because the spirit of God wrought in the hearts of them, which heard the word of God (and read it, that they might acknowledge that it was not the word of man, but of God. Undoubtedly, thew word of God receiveth authority from the spirit, and not from the Church.

Henrie Bullinger, A most godly and learned discourse of the worthiness, and sufficiency of the holy Scripture: Also of the clearness, and plainness of he same, and of the true use thereof. Translated out of the Latin into English by John Tomkys (London: Ponnsonby, [1571] 1579), Chapter IX

---

[1] Updated translation: “Thus, since we are too weak by unaided reason to find out truth, and since, because of this, we need the authority of the Holy Writings, I had now begun to believe that thou wouldst not, under any circumstances, have given such eminent authority to those Scriptures throughout all lands if it had not been that through them thy will may be believed in and that thou mightest be sought.”

The entire book is a comprised of stating a position that deals with the ambivalence among believers as the correctness of Popish, Calvinistic, and Lutheran doctrine. Twisse raises objection after objection to which position is correct and then argues didactically from Scripture to say that one can have certain and infallible faith in God’s written word. Because of Twisse’s renown as for his extraordinary knowledge of logic, philosophy, and divinity, in 1643 he was nominated, by order of Parliament as prolocutor [presiding officer] to the Westminster Assembly of Divines. What follows is a brief excerpt of Twisse’s argument.

In this section Twisse deals with the source of faith and thus the nature of the faith based on the source. In the first paragraph he argues for a certain faith based on the examples found in Hebrews 11 and particularly that of Abraham. This certain faith is not a hypothetical or theological but practical and demonstratable. In the second paragraph Twisse, for the sake of argument, questions his own conclusions as to whether certain faith can be derived by natural means which he rejects by references to Matt. 16, 1 Cor. 2:14, Isa. 53:1, John 12:39, Rom. 8:8, Acts 18:27, Phil. 1:29, and Rom. 11:30. In the last paragraph Twisse shows that the nature of faith is determined by the speaker – men, angels, God. Only faith in God’s Word is divine faith and can thus be held certainly forever. Twisse argues that it is absurd “seeing faith is no faith, unless it depend upon some word, that God should work his faith by another word than his own, is an uncouth and contradictious assertion I should think as ever was heard among the learned.”

Let us inquire, Whether a man can have any certain faith at all? 1. answer. 1. They may, for many have had it, as it is defined by S. Paul, Heb. 11. to be the evidence of things not seen, the ground for things hoped for, and there the Apostle reckons up a catalogue of many that had such faith. I presume the propounder of this, if he be Christian, makes no question thereof. And that Abraham the Father of the faithful, Rom. 4:18, 19, 20, was such a one. Who against hope believed in hope, and being not weak in the faith, he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strong in faith, fiving glory to God, and that all true children of Abraham had like faith as Abraham had.

But then let us distinguish when we treat of possibility, this may be understood either in reference to the power of nature, or in respect of the power of God. And according to this distinction I answer, that it is utterly impossible to believe this by the power of nature, Matt. 16, Flesh and blood had not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven; and 1 Cor. 2:14, The natural man perceives not the things of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned; and Isa. 53:1, Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?; and John 12:39, Therefore they could not believe, because Esaias saith again. He heath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I should heal them. And Rom. 8:8, They that are in the flesh cannot please God, and consequently they cannot have faith, for surely by faith we please God. But then on the other side, it is most true, that by the power of God a man may believe, Acts 18:27, They believed through grace; and Phil. 1:29, To you it is given not only to believe in him, but to suffer for him, and to believe and find mercy at God’s hands are all one, Rom. 11:30.

Now if it be granted that faith may be had in what degree of certainty forever, what sober Christian can make doubt but that if question be made about the means whereby we may have it, it may be had by holy Scriptures as well as by any other means? Yea and far better, considering that faith is in the proper notion thereof the assent to somewhat from the authority of the speaker, and if the speaker is but a man, it is no better that human faith; if the speaker be God, that and that alone makes it to be faith divine. Now we all confess, that the holy Scripture is the Word of God, and therefore if by any word faith may be had in what degree of certainty forever, sure it may be held by the Word of God. Yes, and that no other way can Divine Faith be had by the Word of God, not by the word of the creature, whether man or Angel. And if faith may be wrought by the power of God’s Spirit in the heart of any man, he that makes question whether this may be done by the holy Scriptures, had need of some good measure of Ellebore [a natural medication] to purge his brain, for he seems to me to be in the next degree to a madman. For seeing faith is no faith, unless it depend upon some word, that God should work his faith by another word than his own, is an uncouth and contradictious assertion I should think as ever was heard among the learned.

[Restating Orthodox Protestant theology, faith in God is derived only from the Word of God and not through some human intermediary. This is one reason why Bullinger argues, to summarize, that the only authority the Church possesses is to say those things God has already said in his Word. According to Twisse, presiding officer of the 1643 Westminster Assembly, faith in anything other than God’s Word is not faith at all. It is “faith human” as he describes it, or faith that places its confidence in man rather than God. Such faith cannot be certain or forever in that its object is relative and finite. With the bifurcation of Bibliology from Orthodox theology by critical scholars and Evangelical surrogates, the origin of the contemporary uncertainty and relativity of Scripture becomes clear. Faith in man has usurped faith in God.]

William Twisse (1578-1646), The Scriptures Sufficiency to Determine All Matters of Faith: or, That a Christian may be infallibly certain of his Faith and Religion in the Holy Scriptures (London: Printed for Matthew Keynton, at the Fountain in St. Pauls Churchyard, 1656), 17-20.

The Scripture you say are a rule and a line: but are they not (as the Church of Rome imagineth) like a rule of lead, which may be bowed everyway at men’s pleasure.

“They are as a rule of steel, that is firm and changeth not. (Matt. 5:18; Psalm 19:9) For seeing they are sufficient to make us wise unto salvation, (as if before proved): it followeth of necessity, that there is a most certain rule of truth for instruction both of faith and works, to be learned out of them, by ordinary means of reading, prayer, study, the gifts of tongues, and other sciences, to which God promiseth and assistance of his grace (Job 5:39; James 1:5). And this sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God written, (as the example of Christ, our General Captain showeth, Matt. 4) is delivered unto us by the Holy Ghost, both to defend our faith, and to overcome all our spiritual enemies, which the Devil and his instruments, false Prophets, Heretics, Schismatics, and such like. (Eph. 6:17) Therefore the holy Scriptures are not a nose of wax, or a leaden rule, (as some Papists have blasphemed) that they may be so writhed every way by impudent Heretics, but that their folly and madness (as the Apostle saith, 2 Tim. 3:9) may be made manifest to all men.”

Ussher identifies two practical purposes for the Scripture being an unchanging standard – apologetic and polemic. Scripture is unchanging as the basis for Christian apologetic and as the grounds to “overcome all spiritual enemies” which he goes on to elucidate. Spiritual warfare the Scripture speaks of throughout its pages is a topic ignored by modern text critics and contemporary Evangelicalism. Muslim apologists identify an insurmountable weakness in the Christian Faith because of the low and changing view of Scripture brought on by modern text critical practices.[1] Uncertainty has replaced divine faith, handicapping the Church and transforming the once bold assertion of “Thus saith the Lord,” into a pusillanimous whimpering of ambivalent concessions.

The Devil does have his instruments but the modern Evangelical acts as if the unchanging Scripture is unnecessary to defeat his schemes. Considering most modern English Bibles remove any reference to Lucifer in Isa. 14:12, in another generation, the fallen angel, Lucifer, may no longer be believed to exist. And if there is no Lucifer, who Satan is, if there is such a person or thing, becomes problematic. The most skillful of enemies are the ones who convince those they wish to defeat that they do not exist. See Daniel 8:25, “And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.”

James Ussher, A Body of Divinitie, of the Sume and Substance of Christian Religion (London: Printed for M.F. for Tho. Downes and Geo. Badger, and are sold in S. Dunstans Church yard. And at the three Daggers, near the Inner-Temple gate in Fleetstreet, 1647), 21.

---

[1]See Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, “Some Neglected Aspects of Medieval Muslim Polemics against Christianity,” Harvard Theological Review, 89:1 (1996), 61-64. The historical critical method has not only had negative impact on Christianity in the West but also on the world stage: “Muslim scholarly criticism of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament never brought about a corresponding study of the Qur’an. When European biblical criticism was brought to the Muslim East in the nineteenth century, it served only as an additional corroboration of the traditional polemical arguments about the falsification and unreliability of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.”

Question: Why are the Scriptures called Canonical?

Answer: Because the Word is a Rule of Faith, a Canon to direct our lives. The Word is the Judge of controversies, the Rock of Infallibility; that only is to be received for Truth, which is consonant to, and agrees with Scripture, as the transcript with the original. All maxims in divinity are to be brought to the Touchstone of Scripture, as all measures are brought to the standard.

Question: Are the Scriptures a complete Rule?

Answer: The Scripture is a full and perfect Canon, containing in it all thins necessary to salvation: 2 Tim. 3:15, Thou hast from a child known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation. It shews the credenda, what we are to believe, the agenda, what we are to practice. It gives us an exact model of religion and perfectly instructs in the deep things of God. The Papists therefore make themselves guilty, who go to seek out Scripture with their traditions, which they equalize it. The Council of Trent saith, that the traditions of the church of Rome are to be received pari pietatis affectu, with the same devotion that Scripture is to be received with and so bring themselves under the curse, Rev. 22:18, If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book.

“Is all Scripture of Divine Inspiration, is it a Book made by GOD himself? Then this reproves, 1. The Papists who take away part of Scripture, and so clip the King of Heaven’s Coin; they expunge the second Commandment out of their catechisms, because it is against images; tis’ usual with them if they meet with anything in the Scripture they dislike, either to put a false gloss upon it, or if that will not do, pretend it is corrupted. These are like Ananias who kept back part of the money, Acts 5:2 so they keep back part of Scripture from the people. This is a high affront to God, to deface and obliterate any part of his Word. By this they bring themselves under that premunire [a writ charging an offense], Rev. 22:19, If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life. Is all Scripture of Divine Inspiration? 2. It condemns the Antinomians that lay aside the Old Testament as useless and out of date; they call them Old Testament Christians. God hath stamped a Divine Majesty upon both Testaments and till they can shew me were God hath given a repeal to the Old it stands in force.[1] The Two Testaments are the two Wells of Salvation. The Antinomians would stop up one of these Wells, they would dry up one of the Breasts of Scripture. There is much of the Gospel in the Old Testament. The Comforts of the Gospel in the New Testament have their rise from the Old. The great promise of the Messiah is in the Old Testament, A Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son:–Nay, I say more, the Moral Law in some part of it speaks Gospel, I am the Lord thy God; here is the pure wine of the Gospel. The saints great charter where God promiseth to pour clean water on them, and put his spirit within them, is to be found primarily in the Old Testament, Ezek. 36:26. So that they who go to take away the Old Testament, do as Sampson, Pull down the pillars. They would take away the pillars of the Christian comfort. 2. It condemns the Enthusiasts who pretending the Spirit, lay aside the whole Bible, they say the Scripture is a Dead Letter and they live above it. What impudency is this? Till we are above sin we shall not be above Scripture. Let not men talk of the revelation from the Spirit, suspect it to be an imposture. The Spirit of God acts regularly, in works in and by the Word, and he that pretends a new light, which is either above the Word of contrary to it, abuseth both himself and the Spirit. His light is borrowed from him who transforms himself into an Angel of Light. 4. It condemns the slighters of Scripture. Such are they who can go whole weeks and months and never read the Word. They lay it aide as rusty armor. The prefer a play and romance before Scripture, the Magnalia legis are to them minutula. O how many can be looking their faces in a glass all the morning, but their eyes begin to be fore when they look upon a Bible. Heathens die in want of the Scripture and these in the contempt of it. They surely must needs go wrong who slight their Guide. Such as lay the reigns upon the neck of their lusts, and never use the curbing bit of Scripture to check them, are carried to Hell and never stop. 5. It condemns the Abusers of Scripture. 1. Who do mud and poison this pure Chrystal Fountain with their corrupt glosses, who wrest Scripture, 2 Peter 3.16. The Greek word is στρεβλοῦσιν, they set it upon a rack, they give wrong interpretations of it not comparing Scripture with Scripture. The Antinomians pervert that Scripture, Numb. 23:21, He hath noy beheld iniquity in Jacob. Hence, they infer, God’s people may take liberty in sin, because God sees no sin in them. ‘Tis true, God sees not sin in his people with an eye of revenge, but he sees it with an eye of observation. He sees sin not in them, so as to damn them, but he sees it so as to be angry, and severely punish them. Did not David find it so when he cried out of his broken bones? In like manner the Arminians wrest Scripture: John 5:40, Ye will not come to me. Here they bring in free-will. This text shows 1. How willing God is that we should have life. 2. That Sinners may do more than they do; they may improve the talents God has given them, but it doth not prove the power of free-will, for it is contrary to Scripture, John 6:44, No man cometh to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him. These therefore wring the text so hard as they make the blood come. They do not compare Scripture with Scripture. 2. Who do jest with Scripture. When they are sad they take the Scripture as their lute or minstrel to play with, and so drive away the sad spirit, as that drunkard I have read of, who having drunk his cups, called to some of his fellows, Give us of your oil for our lamps are gone out. In the fear of God take heed of this. Eusebius tells of one who took a piece of Scripture to make a jest of, who was presently struck with frenzy, and run mad. And ‘tis a saying of Luther, Quos Deus vult perdere, etc. whom God intends to destroy, he gives them leave to play with Scripture.

Thomas Watson,1692, A Body of Practical Divinity Consisting of above One Hundred Seventy Six Sermons on the Lesser Catechism Composed by The Reverend Assembly of Divines at Westminster: with a Supplement of some Sermons on several Texts of Scripture (London: Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappel, 1692), 15, 16-17

---

[1] On page 13 Watson writes, “The two Testaments are the two Lips which God hath spoken to us.”

Having proved the divinity and inspiration of the scripture, we next consider its authority. Now this is nothing else but the dignity and right of the sacred books, whereby they claim our faith in whatever they hold forth as necessary to be believed, and our obedience in whatever they prescribe to be done, or to be left undone. For having been proved to be of God, and not of men, or of the devil, the necessary consequence is, that they have supreme authority over us. For who would deny that to be authoritative which is divine?[1] Now the scripture derives its authority from God only, who is the author of it. If then I am asked on what ground I believe the scripture to be divine, I an only reply, “Because of the marks and characters which I hold in it, and by which it proves itself to be of God, and not because of any other testimony.” As if anyone should ask me why I believe the sun to be bright? Or sugar sweet? Or the rose fragrant? I should reply, “Because I see the sun’s rays, I taste the sweetness of sugar, and I smell the fragrance of the rose.” We must reason concerning the scripture, which is the first principle of faith, in the same way as concerning the principles of other sciences, which do not derive their authority from any source, but ate known of themselves, and prove their own truth. The same may be said of God’s word, which is the law and edict of our heavenly Sovereign, as is said of human laws, which do not derive their authority from subjects on whom they are imposed, or from those who have charge of announcing them to the people, but only from the sovereign, who enacted them. But, least anyone should say that the scripture does indeed possess authority itself, as proceeding from God, but does not obtain that authority in relation to us, except through the testimony of the church, we shall prove that the Scripture does not derive its authority from the church,[2] by the following arguments:

First, if this be the case, diviner authority will be subject to human, and we shall believe God merely on the testimony of man; but this would be absurd; therefore it is absurd to say that the testimony of the church gives authority to Scripture. Now we know that the testimony of the church is but the testimony of men, for it consi8sts of mere men, who are not divinely inspired.

Secondly, if the authority of Scripture be suspended on the testimony of the church, then it will be only a human faith, by which we believe the divinity of scripture.; the latter idea is absurd, therefore the former is absurd also. Now the testimony of the church can produce only human faith, because that only is divine faith which rests upon divine authority, whereas the authority of the church is merely human, unless it can be proved to be under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be proved of any church since the times of the apostles, who alone, together with the prophets, were exempt from error. And to believe only with a human faith that the scripture is divine is absurd, because then there would be nothing certain in religion, and nothing on which the mind could securely depend without doubt.

Thirdly, if the judgment of the church does not already suppose the divine authority of scripture, then the authority of the latter will not depend on the former. Now the church is persuaded by the divinity of Scripture, either with or without grounds. The latter idea is absurd even to think of; if then the former is correct, there could be no other grounds than the marks of divinity which appear in the scriptures, and which thereby gain them authority with the church; thus the authority of scripture is at once recognized to be prior and superior to the judgment of the church.

Fourthly, if the authority of the church depends on scripture itself, then it is absurd to make the authority of the latter depend upon the former. Now it is clear that no other church can be acknowledged as the true church, but what is “built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles,” Eph. xi. 20) i.e., upon the scripture. Nor can it be ascertained that any church is a true church, except first of all it be proved, that the divine and true which the church holds to be such, since it is the belief of the truth to which the church owes its existence as a church. Now, we cannot know whether that be true which the church receives as true, except by weighing it in the balances of the scripture. Moreover it will be evident, that the authority of the church is subject to authority of scripture, if we consider that the authority of the apostles themselves was by them subjected to that of scripture, and surely the authority of the church in any age cannot be greater than that of apostles. But that these holy men did subject their authority to that of God’s word, is clear from the words of Peter, declaring that the “word of prophecy’ (that is the scripture of the Old Testament) is surer than the testimony of the apostles, who were “eyewitnesses of his majesty,” and heard the voice from heaven. (2 Peter ii.16-20). And also the words of Paul, “though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal. ii. 8).

To all this we may add, there is no church which has such clear evidences of its own authority, as the scripture has of its own divinity, and common sense teaches us that no authority of any councils, or of any men, can be equal to that of God speaking in his word, or be put in competition with the writings of Moses, of the prophets, and the apostles. From all these arguments it is plain, that the authority of the sacred books is not to be suspended on the testimony of the church…..

Let us follow those, says Augustine, who first invite us to believe what we are not yet able to understand, in order that, having been enabled by faith itself, we may come to understand what we believe, when it is no longer men, but God himself who inwardly illuminates and strengthens our minds.

Benedict Pictet, Christian Theology, translated from the Latin by Frederick Reyroux (London: R. B. Seely and Sons, 1696 [1834]), 35-38, 40

Benedict Pictet (1655-1724): “Reformed minister, theologian, and hymn writer, Pictet is best known for his vigorous defense of orthodox Calvinism in an age of theological transition. Born in Geneva, he was educated at the university, where he became professor of theology (1686). There he was a restraining influence on his colleagues, including his cousin, Jean–Alphonse Turrettini, who wanted to abrogate the Helvetic Consensus Formula and institute other theological changes in the early years of the Enlightenment. A man of irenic spirit, Pictet authored two major theological works, published many books and pamphlets, wrote texts for numerous popular hymns, organized assistance for Huguenot refugees following the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), and promoted evangelism in France.” https://www.biblia.work/dictionaries/pictetbenedict-1655-1724/

---

[1] This rhetorical question remains for the current MVO/CT advocate to answer.

[2] The writer here attacks the opinion of Papists, who maintain that the authority of the scripture over us depends on the testimony of the church. For our purposes, please substitute the focus of external criteria “post-critical scholarship” for “church.”

Since the early 19^th century is there anyone who believes that the MVO position can produce a text to replace the King James Version having proven that the two things that are different cannot be the same axiom makes it impossible to come up with a definitive answer to the believer’s question as to whether the Church is in possession of the words of God? The neutral text failed, the genealogical method failed, the oldest, shortest, most difficult and text that is the source of another reading failed. Reconstructing the original failed leading to accepting the fluidity of the initial text. The science project of evangelical textual criticism over the past 100 years has moved the Church no closer to the original reading of Scripture while constantly disparaging the Received Text. Clearly, the King James Version has no credible contender as the Bible of the believing Church.

Justice Samuel Alito’s draft of the Supreme Court 5-4 decision striking down Roe vs Wade uncovered and highlighted the visceral attachment of pro-death advocates to the killing of babies in the womb. The fact that the 49-year law was egregiously void of Constitutional grounding is irrelevant to the howling mob. By mob, in kinder, gentler terms “mob” could be restated a “consensus expressed forcefully.” The mob is not motivated by the rule of law but by a heightened emotional attachment to this visceral desire in many cases expressed violently. Note that reason or the rule of law does not ameliorate the emotional high in the least. Indeed, appeal to reason exacerbates the emotion. For the mob, there is no place for reason.

The mob is powerful. If the mob is forceful enough or intimidating enough, the rule of law will be forsaken and what the mob wants will take its authoritative place. And when the mob rules, chaos ensues. When the mob rules two things that are different can be the same, like the MVO. For 400 years the KJV has been the Law of God to the Church and morally an element of civil government to the Nation. Supporting the Law are thousands of pages of Protestant Dogmatics, like legal briefs successfully and eruditely arguing for the credibility of the Law. But a visceral desire to throw off the Law and replace it with the passion of the mob, or a “consensus expressed forcefully” that characterizes this cultural milieu. For the MVOist, what God has said has been replaced with what the evangelical mob approves of.

So pastors and professors, fearful of the mob have remained in their academic domiciles, intimidated by the Academy or Church that will have them fired if they speak against them. Writers and thinkers know not to go cite the Law. The mob is camped on their front lawn waiting to scorn them for their appeal to historic orthodoxy.

We will have to see what kind of impact the mob has on the Justice’s ruling. I suspect it will hold up, but if it doesn’t take notice. If this ruling is reversed, and the rule of law succumbs to the mob, then the mob becomes the law. Alito and the four other Justices were correct in their analysis and application of the Constitution, but their finding will be irrelevant to the saving of the unborn. MVOism is the religious element that feeds cultural mob mentality. MVOism is not exegetically, theologically, philosophically, or historically grounded, but it is viscerally, emotionally, and irrationally maintained as the present measure of Christian orthodoxy. The fact that the root of MVOism perpetually fails is not enough to dissuade the evangelical mob from its passion. For much of Christianity in 2022 the evangelical mob is the law.

Willian Bucanus observes that it takes more than a keen mind to understand Scripture. In the following three quotes taken from his Body of Divinity, Bucanus accents regeneration as the essential element to understanding that Scripture comes from God, that it is clear to the elect, and that it is the Authority standing above the Church and men.

1. Regeneration and God’s Truth

What is the true infallible note, whereby all men of sound judgment do acknowledge doctrine to be the doctrine of the true God?

Because that doctrine which doth teach us to seek the glory of the one God and of him alone and everywhere to cleave unto him, out of all doubt that the doctrine is the doctrine of the true God. But only the regenerate do rest in it, as that that bringeth salvation and the doctrine of God, with full assurance to their heart. 48-49

• Regeneration and Scripture’s Obscurity

Is the Scripture manifest, or is it obscure?

It is manifest if you regard the foundation of the doctrine of salvation; as the Articles of faith, the precepts of the Decalogue hence it is called a Lantern to those whose minds God doth open: but it is obscure to those which be blind, and to all that perish, whose minds the god of this world hath blinded.

But is not always obscure to the Elect, and only in part, 1. That they should not too much rely upon their own wit but should seek understanding of at the hands of Gid by prayer. 2. That they might be stirred up to a more careful study of the same. 3. That they might make more account of the ministry of the word whereby they are taught, and therefore stand in need to have it expounded, by the example of Christ and of Philip. 50-51

• Regeneration and the Question of Scriptural Authority

What shall we answer to that saying of Augustine: I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Church moved me?

That Augustine speaketh of himself, as yet not converted unto the faith. Neither is it any marvel that those which are not as yet converted , are moved with the consent of the Church, and the authority of men. Therefore his meaning is, that the Church is as it were an introduction (eisagoga, eisagwgh), whereby we are prepared to give credit to Scripture. 51-52

Such writing on the part of our 17^th c. Protestant forefathers sounds quite unsettling to the modern reader, protesting, “Let’s keep this born again expreience out of our theological formulation and discourse.” Bucanus argues that the acceptance of Scripture’s doctrine being from God, its perspicuity, and the superiority of Scriptural authority to ecclesiastical or external authorities come from the reasoning of a regenerate man. Not believing the Scripture came from God, finding its meaning totally obscured, and subjugating the Scripture to the authority of men, according to Bucanus, is not the practice of born-again saints. The spiritual condition of the speaker, scholar, writer, accordingly, has a direct impact on whether or not he has any assurance it is God’s Word at all, whether he is spiritually blinded to the meaning of the Word, or whether he holds other authorities above Scripture’s authority.

William Bucanus, Body of Divinity or Institutions of the Christian Religion; framed out of the Word of God, and the writings of the best divines, methodically handled by was of questions and answers, fit for all such as desire to know and practice the will of God. Written in Latin. Translated into English by Robert Hill and Fellow at St. Johns College in Cambridge, for the benefit of the English Nation. (London: Printed for Daniel Pakeman, Abel Roper and Richard Tomlins, and are to be sold in Fleet-street, and at the Sun and Bible near Py-corner, 1659), 48-52.

Trelcatius listed five points in his polemic against Roman Catholic scholar Franciscus Costerus (1532-1619) and Rome’s emphasis of the superiority of the Church Authority over Scripture. As cited in previous posts, there is a close analogy between Rome’s notion of authority and that of the modern evangelical text critic. Though writing in 1604, Trelcatius provides a succinct discussion, outlining the salient points for demonstrating the Authority of Scripture against externally imposed criteria whether ecclesiastical or otherwise.

I

There is a double consideration of the Church and the Scripture; the one common in respect of the Author; the other singular in respect of the Authority which the Author hath put into them. God is the Author of both, whether mediately or immediately, but the Authority from God is diverse, that of the Scripture is principal and formal, but the other of the Church is secondary and ministerial.

II

The Scripture is in two ways considered, either according to the substance of the Word principally, or according to the manner of writing. Secondarily, in that the Scripture is more ancient than the Church as by the Church was begotten or generated.

[Scripture is considered first, in itself, res or as substantia doctrinae, the substance of the writing or what the word means, and second, as substantia verba, or the accidence of writing, the external shape of the words. Scripture, being more ancient than the Church, birthed the Church and not vice versa. (Note: If the priority of the Scripture over the Church were reversed, the Church’s capacity to generate the Scripture is limited to the accidence of writing not possessing access to the inspired meaning, or substantia doctrinae which comes only from God. That is, the Church cannot beget an inspired text of Scripture, but a God-inspired Scripture can generate the Church.)]

III

Some things are required for the confirmation of a thing absolutely and of it self, and some by accident and for another thing. If the Scripture need any confirmation of the Church, it needeth the same by accident, and not of it self, and therefore the confirmation of the Church belongeth not to the Cause Efficient, but ministerial.

[The confirmation of the authority of Scripture by the Church is not of Scripture’s self-authentication or the Cause Efficient, but only by the accidence of writing. The authority of Scripture resides in the Scripture itself and secondarily the Church recognizes this authority in Scripture’s words.]

IV

In causes coordinate, those which are inferior, and latter cannot obtain force and faculty of others, which are the former. Now every Authority of the Church is subordinate, yet the use is very great of the Scripture as the means principal to believe and of the Church, as the mean outward and ministerial.

[As stated above, God is the Author of both the Authority of the Scripture and the Authority of the Church, the Authority of the Scripture being principal and formal, the authority of the Church being secondary and ministerial. The Authority of the Church is latter and inferior and cannot overrule the Authority of the Scripture which is former. The Authority of the Church is therefore subordinate to the Scripture. The Scripture is the principal to faith and the Church’s use of Scripture the outward standard and ministerial, or for the practice of religion.]

V

There is one corruption of words and certain particular places, through the blemish whereof the principal parts cannot be corrupted, and there is another corruption of the essential parts of the Scripture: the former, if any hath happened unto the Scripture, (for the latter, we utterly deny) is not the corruption of the Scripture, but was caused either by the naughtiness of some other, or through the infirmity of the church, or through the particular ignorance of them that were of the household.

[There are two kinds of irreparable corruption of Scripture. The first can occur only in the accidence of writing due to naughtiness, infirmity, and ignorance. The cause of this corruption is known and can be corrected. The second notion of corruption relates to the essential parts of Scripture or in the substantia doctrinae, or res is denied. The Protestant Orthodox Church in 1604, (unlike many today) was confident that it was in possession of the Holy Scripture.]

Lucas Trelcatius, A Brief Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinitie wherein the Truth of every place proved, and the sophisms of Bellarmine are reproved, translated by John Gawen (London: Imprinted by T. P. for Francis Burton, dwelling in Pauls Church-yard, and the sign of the Green Dragon, 1610), 34-36

Please note that Trelcatius places the weight of his argument upon the Scriptures themselves.