Dr. Peter Van Kleeck, Sr., Musings in Bibliology

Richard Stock, 1651, on Error in the Church from Malachi 2:8

Use 2. This teacheth us how dangerous a thing ignorance is even in every Christian; for if it be the cause of error in the ministers, it will be in the people. And if the ministers all, one and other, are subject to error, if they err, and the people be without knowledge, they will go after, taking error for truth; because they are able to distinguish neither the one nor the other. If it were infallible and certain that their guides could not err, nor their ministers be deceived, it were no matter though they were never so ignorant; but when it is most certain that they are subject to it, and their erring will not excuse the people, though the other answer for their abusing and misleading of them, their ignorance is very dangerous, and that implicit faith popery so much commends damnable. And in them and others, who would persuade the people they may be ignorant, and little or no knowledge is required of them, it is suspicious, as if they meant to make a prey of them, and to broach some errors among them; for then, saith Chrysostom, thieves go to stealing when they have first put out the candle; and then do men utter their bad wares when they have dim and false lights.

Use 3. To persuade all men to labor for knowledge, and to increase in the knowledge of the word and mysteries of salvation; that they having the rule of truth and falsehood, the word of God, may not be carried away with the error of one or many, be they never so great or learned. Err they may, be they never so learned; for they know but at the best in part, and err oftentimes they do, because they are not wholly sanctified. For as the greatest part of a church is wholly unsanctified, so the best are but in part sanctified, and so are subject to partiality and error; yea, may both err, and defend error against their knowledge, some violent temptation of pride, pleasure, and profit, and such like, carrying them thereunto, seeing none now is incessantly guided and governed by the Spirit. Then had they need of knowledge, that they may try and discern the spirits and doctrines; and he that is not careless which end goes forwards, not reckless for his soul, whether it walk in the paths of truth or in the paths of error, will not be careless for it, and to grow in knowledge. But if they err, how not we? Lookers on may see more than players. We may allude to that, Prov. xxviii. 11, “The rich man is wise in his own conceit; but the poor that hath understanding can try him.” And God often to the simple reveals things when hid from wise, Mat. xi. 25, to humble them, and know themselves but men. It is a thing that cannot be denied, because stories of all times do manifestly prove it, that sometimes errors and heresies have so much prevailed, that the most part of them who held and possessed great places of office and dignity in the church of God, either for fear, flattery, hope of gain, or honor, or else misled through simplicity, or directly falling into error and heresy, have departed from the soundness of the faith, so that the sincerity of religion was upholden, and the truth defended and maintained only by some few, and they molested, persecuted, and traduced as turbulent and seditious persons, enemies to the common peace of the Christian world. To say nothing of the times of Christ, and after him of the first churches in the Acts, this was the state of the Christian world in the time of Athanasius, when, in the council of Seleucia and Ariminium, the Nicene faith was condemned, and all the bishops of the whole world were carried from the soundness of the faith, save Athanasius, and some few confessors banished with him. So that Jerome (contra Luciferam) Ingemuit tot us orbls, et miratus est factum se Arianum; so Hilarius (contra Aux. Episc. Mill.) complained that the Arian faction had confounded all. Paphnutius, in the Council of Nice for the marriage of ministers, was alone.

Richard Stock, A Commentary on the Prophecy of Malachi, 1651, (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1865), 149-150.

Richard Stock, 1651, on Inspiration and the Self-Interpreting Nature of Holy Scripture Contained in his Commentary of Malachi

Of the word of the Lord. The circumstance of the person sending, the efficient, and author, as of other prophecies, so of this; he comes not unsent, he spoke not of himself, he came not without the Lord, but from him. So he affirmeth, and truly, to get more reverence, credit, and authority with them. And that it was thus from the Lord, and so canonical, the testimonies of Christ and his apostles, alleging him divers times for confirmation of doctrine and reformation of manners, proveth it; but he addeth “the word of the Lord,” not only to shew that he had but the word,– the rod and execution would come after, God making his word good,—but, as some think, to shew that he had not a free embassage, but that he was to deliver it in certain and set prescribed words. Sometime, when prophets were more frequent and perpetual in the church, and God spoke to them by dreams or by visions and apparitions, they had divers kinds of words, and had liberty for divers manners of speaking and delivery; but our prophet was such a messenger, that the commandment he had received and was credited with he must deliver in so many words, and the same he received them in ; and so he doth, for in the whole he never useth his own person, but the Lord only, as chap. 1:2, and 2:1, and 3:1, and 4: 1. Here we might observe that the writers of the Scriptures are not the authors, but God himself, of which Rev. 2:7. But one particular may we herein observe, this following:

This prophecy is the very word of the Lord. It is of divine, not human authority, which is not only here affirmed, but, lest it should be doubtful, it hath the testimony of the New Testament: the 3d chap. ver. 1, hath testimony, Mark 1:2; and chap. 4:2 hath testimony, Luke 1:78; and chap. 1:2, 3, Rom. 9:23.

Reason 1. Because this was written by a prophet, for, as all the Old Testament was written by the prophets, so whatsoever was written by them was and is canonical Scripture; therefore, 2 Peter 1:19, Luke 16: 39, Heb. 1:1, Eph. 2: 20. Now all men hold Malachi for a prophet, the last among the Jews till the coming of John Baptist.

Reason 2. Because the church of the Jews, the only church of God, did receive this, and so acknowledged it as the word of God. That they did so appears Mat. 17:10, and the apostles and the evangelists alleging of it, for it is a far more impious and heinous thing to take away scripture than corruptly to interpret them, or to add scripture if it were not of it.

Use 1. I take instructions from hence, entering the opening and expounding of this prophecy, how I ought to labor with my own heart, and to seek from the Lord assistance and grace to handle this as his word, not carelessly, handling the word and work of God negligently, taking his name in vain, coming to speak out of it without due preparation and constant study and speaking; so talk as of the word of God, 1 Peter 4:11; not handling it with vanity, and affectation; not making merchandise and playing the huckster with it; delivering it with a sincere affection, dealing faithfully with it as a faithful dispenser, giving to everyone his portion where and to whom the Spirit of God hath set them down,—to priest and people, to old and to young, to married and unmarried, to the good and profane,—without fear and flattery, or any other sinister affections, remembering that this in the first is in the whole, and to every verse, it is the word of the Lord, fearing to corrupt as well as to add, lest that I hear, as it is Prov. 39:6, “Add not to his words lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar”; remembering that of Luke 12:42, that I may be a faithful and wise steward; that I may obtain that, ver. 43, 44, which, how soon it may be general or to me in particular, whether before I have gone through the whole, or this chapter, or this verse, I know not.

Ricard Stock, A Commentary on the Prophecy of Malachi, 1651, (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1865), 11-12.

INTRODUCTION TO THE POST-CRITICAL THEOLOGICAL MILIEU

“The current zeitgeist [spirit of the time] is not so much a philosophy as it is the cultural milieu, the background for all philosophies and perspectives in existence. Life is no longer understood as dependent on a transcendent ruler of time and history. There is no infinite reference point…. Personal destiny is seen is beginning at birth and ending at death. In such a totally naturalistic world, theology herself adopts an ontological foundation that is so thoroughly secular that it too finds meaningless and undiscoverable any category of the transcendent.” Ronald B. Mayers, Religious Ministry in a Transcendentless Culture, 1980, 13-14.

A. Transcendentless culture – no pre-critical categories: The Bible is considered a natural phenomenon to which all evolutionary scientific methods apply.

B. The bible is a science project.

C. A non-exegetically based, scholarly and ecclesiastical theological consensus maintains a shell of historic orthodoxy. Originals inspired – yes, but they support a textual critical system that denies the inspiration of the originals – Hort. Post-critical Theological Schizophrenia (PTS) — orthodoxy based on a contradiction.

D. The authority of scholarly theological consensus usurps exegesis, making the grammatical/historical defense of individual verses irrelevant.

E. Theological expressions, i.e., “the Bible is inspired,” are theological statements, not statements of fact. The same theological words are used, i.e. inspired, but the actual inspiration of the Scripture is rejected.

G. Theological statements consistent with the scholarly consensus now possess the authority once held only by sound exegesis. Modern evangelical theology is not derived from the exegesis of an inspired text but is based upon theological consensus. As long as everyone says the same thing, an inspired, authoritative text is unnecessary to appear orthodox.

Research Update

In August of 2011 for about a week, my son Peter and I, sequestered ourselves among the 450,000 volumes then housed in the Calvin College library in Grand Rapids, MI, mining the extensive collection for books dealing with pre-critical exegesis and commentary. We completed our research accumulating thousands of pages of notable and obscure authors relating to our topic. For those who have been following my blog and Facebook posts, what you are reading is the beginning of a winnowing work, discovering the theology and apologetic of Reformation era writers relating to inspiration, authority, the work of the Holy Spirit, preservation and how the principium was argued against objectors.

Theological writing, for these men, is a doxological offering. To be true to the Word, Christ must be exalted. As I was once told, “Theology is worshipping God with your entire mind” and so it is with these men. To the modern reader, much of their writings read more like sermons than commentary. Coming to the text as listeners rather than actors, the commentaries contain what is found within the text and not what is imposed upon the text.

At the earliest stages of this reading, there is an undeniable singularity of expression when dealing with the Holy Scriptures among the authors, as other researchers of pre-critical exegesis have already written. These men considered the Original (autographa), the apographa, or copies. The Scriptures are pure and preserved based on the testimony of Scripture itself and Jesus Christ. Scripture is its own authority – it is self-attesting, self-authenticating and self-interpreting. In translation, though the sound and form of the letters change, the sense of the word does not, and, receptor languages are “sanctified” by God to receive the original languages. Thus, a translation can be called the Word of God.

These truths represent the godly heritage of the Church. The witnesses to the evidence, for the Evidentialist are the Scripture itself and the Holy Spirit. The testimony of these two should substantiate for the reader the authenticity of Scripture’s claim. Indeed, to reject this testimony is to reject the word of Christ, Matt. 5:18; John 5:39, 46, etc.

Henry Ainsworth, 1609, on Translating the Scripture into English

God’s word may be set over into English, for the most part word for word without absurdity. Where our language will not bear the strict propriety of the original phrases, we are warranted by the Apostles allegations of Scripture in another tongue, to use such words as the language will afford, to express other withal. Though tongues differ one from another in propriety of speeches, yet God hath sanctified them all, for instruments to convey his word and law unto us, and this is writing as well as in speaking, Dan. 2:4, etc., Acts 1:4; 8:9-11; 15:23; Rev. 1:11, 19.

Written sermons are the works of men. God’s book set into English, though with some diversities of phrase, is God’s book and word still, (as hath been shown) it is not the letter or sound, but the thing signified and meant by them, which properly is God’s word, and which we are so to reverence.

Henry Ainsworth, A Defense of the Holy Scriptures, worship and ministry used in the Christian Churches separated from Antichrist: Against the challenges, cavils and contradiction of M. Smith, in his book entitled The Differences of the Churches of the Separation (Amsterdam: Giles Thorp, 1609), 60.

Henry Ainsworth, 1609, on Translations being the Word of God

Translation is that in writing, which interpretation is in speaking: namely the expressing of another’s mind or understanding. The Scriptures first written in Hebrew, and secondarily in English, do set forth one and the same word and mind of God unto us, through which different letters and sounds, as Emmanuel is interpreted and translated, God with us, Matt. 1:23. Messias is interpreted Christ in Greek: Anointed in English, John 1:41. Here the Hebrew, Greek and English differ only in outeward letter and sound, the meaning substance or essential form being one in them all, and the word of
God, so called by relation, because the mind of God is made known thereby to the mind and understanding of man. The different letter or character changeth not the nature of the thing. “For if it did, then Emanuel written by Matthew in Greek letters, Emmanuhl, and by Isaiah in Hebrew letters Emanual, (Hebrew font)should be one and the same name of Christ, and so the Apostle should be made a falsifier and our gospel betrayed to faithless Jews. The different sound or pronunciation changeth not the nature of the thing, for then Messias and Christ should not be one and the same, and so the gospel and new testament, and our faith were overthrown, and more than Jewish superstition should prevail. But God who hath sanctified by his Spirit, all sounds and languages to the ear, hath also sanctified by the same Spirit all letters and characters to the eye. As the Apostles practice sheweth, writing with Greek letters words and phrases, which had been profaned by lying histories and lascivious poets, unto all manner of idolatry and wickedness. Hereupon it followeth, that the word of God, in whatsoever letter or language it be written or spoken unto us, is the word of God still, so to be reverences and regarded, and not to be basely and profanely counted human or apocryphal writings….

For this cause the holy Scriptures are necessary for all Churches, to be read and expounded unto the people. And as every nation differeth in language, so to have the word spoken and written in their vulgar tongue, which change of the tongue or letter, changeth not the nature of the word spoken or written, but is still divine and heavenly. Only because in this changing or translating, imperfections, wants, errors may fall in. Therefore, the first writings of the Prophets and Apostles penned them, are to be made the absolute canon, touchstone, whereby all translations are to be tried, by which being tried and found faithful, is the same word of God in what language or letter soever, and differeth as much from human commentaries or expositions, as heaven doth from earth.

William Bucanus, 1659, Professor of Divinity in the University of Lausanne, on 1 John 5:7 and the final and fullest revelation of the name of God.

Common Place I.

Of the Trinity

Have you more pregnant proofs out the New Testament?

In the Baptism of Christ, Matt. 3:16, and John 1:322, the voice of the Father is heard from heaven, This is my beloved Son. In the same place there stands the Son by the river Jordan, the Holy Ghost descends in the form of a dove and sits on Christ.
Again, in the Transfiguration, there is the Son, and the voice of God the Father heard from heaven, and Christ is shadowed with a cloud which doth signify the holy Ghost. And further, Matt. 28:19, Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. He saith not in names, but in the name, to show the unity of the three persons, 2 Cor. 13:13, 1 John 5:7. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the holy Ghost be with you all, Gal. 4:6.

Seeing the Scripture doth not use the name of the Trinity, doth the Church well to retain the same?

Yea, no doubt, for the thing itself is found in the Scriptures two manner of ways:

According to the letter.
According to the sense.

Now first that the sense of it and the very thing itself is found in the Scriptures, the Church hath liberty to use such words as may familiarly express the thing itself. Moreover, we call the three Persons in God, the Trinity, not because the Scriptures call them so, but because the Scripture saith nothing against it. Yet the word three, whereof this word Trinity is derived, is expressly set down, 1 John 5:7, There be three that bear witness, etc. Whence we argue, that as from one comes Unity, so from three come Trinity.

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 way 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), 9-10.

William Bucanus, 1659, Professor of Divinity in the University of Lausanne, on Scripture’s Self-attesting Witness

Common Place IIII.

Of the Holy Scripture

What is the Scripture called?

The Scripture, putting one name for another is used for the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, which the company of the faithful doth religiously use for the instruction in godliness. And it is called holy, because, being delivered of God, it containeth holy things necessary unto eternal life. And in the same sense it is called the written word of God, and the unappealable Judge of all controversies of religion. Isa. 8:20; Luke 16:29-31.

Who is the Author of it?

God himself, who did commit his will unto writing by men called immediately of himself, and inspired by the Holy Ghost as his servants at hand, (as his penmen and public notaries) 2 Peter 1:21. For the Prophecy was not at any time brought by the will of man, but the holy men spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost. Hereupon all the Prophets do with one accord repeat this, The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it, Isa. 58:14. These things saith the Lord, Eze. 12:25, 28. 2 Tim. 3:16, The whole Scripture is given of God by inspiration. 1 Cor. 2:13, Which things we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth. Whereupon depend the adjuncts of the Scripture, as the authority, the excellency, the truth, and fulfilling of them, which is necessary, as it must needs be that God is true. Whence also it comes to pass, that the Scripture alone is to be believed, for its self of its self is worthy to be believed. Neither is it subject to the censure, addition, diminution, or alternation of angles or men, Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18. It alone is without all error, and we are bound to believe it alone upon the bare affirmation thereof. By it alone all opinions which men shall read, are to be confirmed and to be decided. This alone is perfect, and containeth all things necessary unto life eternal. Lastly, it is firm and constant, Deut, 17:9,10; Isa. 8:20; Mal. 2:7; Acts 17:2; Joshua 1:8; Job 5:39; Acts 17:11; Psalm 19:8; Luke 16:29; John 15:15; Acts 20:20, 27; 2 Tim. 23:16,17; 2 Peter 1:19.

How may it appear that the writings of the Prophets and Apostles were indicted of God?

Partly by testimonies, partly by reason. And the testimonies, partly inward, partly outward. The internal witness is one alone; namely of the holy Ghost inwardly speaking to our heart, and persuading us that those writings are inspired of God, and sealing them up in our hearts, Eph. 1:13; 1 John 2:20, 27, Ye have an anointment of the Lord, and this anointment teaching you all things. For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, can easily discern his power speaking in the Scriptures. As it is said, 1 Cor. 2:15, The spiritual man discerneth all things, and Isa. 53:1, The arm of the Lord is not revealed to all men. So, Luke 8:10 and Mark 13:11, The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are not revealed to all men, but to whom it is given of God. And this testimony properly maketh for our confirmation, and this alone doth satisfy us, being known of them alone that are converted unto Christ, which doth evermore agree with the Scripture, without which the testimony of the Church can be no weight with us. For as none but God alone is a fit witness to testify of himself in his word, even so the word never findeth credit in out hearts, till such time as it be sealed up unto us by the inward testimony of the Spirit.^*

^*Note the continuity of Bucanus’ commentary with that of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647, Ch. 1.5., “yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit bearing witness with and by the Word in our hearts.”

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), 42, 45-46.

Ursinus (1587) on the Testimony of the Holy Spirit and the Purity of Holy Scripture

But least any man think, that by arguments, which us reason by a natural light to be found, without the singular grace of the Spirit this may be wrought in the minds of the wicked, as either to obey the truth, or to leave off to reproach it, first he must remember that the arguments or testimonies are of two sorts which shew the certainty of the Christian religion, and maintain the authority of the Scripture. For there is but one only testimony, which is appropriated unto them alone who are regenerated by the Spirit of Christ, and unto them alone is known, the force of which the testimony is so great, that it doth not only abundantly testify and seal in our minds the truth of the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, but it also forcibly inclineth and moveth our hearts to the embracing and following of it. Other testimonies whatsoever may be brought, they are understood indeed both of the godly and the wicked, and do compel their consciences to confess, that this religion rather than others is pleasing to God, and that it came from him. But unless that one other come also, which is know of the godly alone, these testimonies will never bring to pass that man shall embrace the truth, although it be known to them. The arguments which shew the truth and certainty of the Scripture are these.

Purity and perfections of doctrine. For we have the pure and perfect doctrines of the Gospel, so also the Law. Now other sects have not both the tables of the Law perfect. The first many have in part. The second but in some part also, and stained with many lies.
The Gospel itself. Because it yieldeth sure consolation to men’s consciences, shewing the only way of escaping sin and death. The nature of man was not created to destruction. Wherefore that doctrine, which sheweth delivery, without violating the justice of God, is undoubtedly true and certain.
The antiquity of this doctrine. Because it is found to be most ancient, party by conference. For we confer this with other doctrines, we shall find it to be pure and most true, as delivered by God, from which men afterwards fell away. Other sects have sprung up at other times, and again have perished. This hath continued, though it hath been mightily expunged by her enemies. (Continued)

Zacharias Ursinus, The Sum of the Christian Religion: Wherein are debated and resolved the Questions of whatsoever points of moment, which have been or are controversed in Divinity. Translated into English by Henry Parrie, out of the last and best Latin Editions (Oxford: Printed at Joseph Barnes and are to be sold in Pauls Churchyard at the sign of the Tigers head, 1587), 20-21.

Zacharias Ursinus, 1587, on Scripture as the immortal seed of the Church

As for that, which some men say, that the Church is more ancienter than the Scriptures, and therefore of greater authority, it is too trifling. For the word of God is the everlasting wisdom of God himself. Neither was the knowledge of it then manifested unto the Church, when it was committed to writing, but the manifesting of it began together with the creation of mankind, and the first beginnings of the Church in paradise: yea, the word is that immortal seed of which the Church was born.

The Church therefore could not be, except the word was first delivered. Now when we name the holy Scripture, we mean not so much the characters of the letters and volumes, but rather the sentences which are contained in them, which they shall never be able to prove to be of less antiquitie than the Church. For albeit there were repeated and declared often after the beginning of the gathering of the Church, yet the sum of the Law and Gospel was the same forever.

To conclude, neither is that which they assume, always true, That the authority of the ancient witness is greater than that of the younger. For such may be condition and quality of the younger witness, that he may deserve greater credit that the ancienter. Christ being man, bare witness of himself. Moses also and the Prophets had long time before borne witness of him. Neither yet is the authority therefore greater, no not of all other witnesses, then of Christ alone. In like sort the Church witnesseth that the holy Scripture, which we have, is the word of God. The Scripture itself also doth witness of itself the same, but with the kind of witness that is more certain and sure than all the others of angels and men.