INVEST

So I’m going to seminary – Approach

0

I alluded to this subject at the end of my last post, but it might be helpful to open it up a little be more here. Over the course of the last few years I’ve been able to give some unhurried thought to Christian education. In particular, given my own past idolizing of seminary, thoughts about how Christians should be educated have been on the side burner for me (the little burner to the left – not main, but always there). The main issue is simply this: The New Testament (NT) has no explicit teaching that one should establish separate institutions for Christian education apart from the local church body. Now I understand that this statement could sound reactionary or anti-intellectual, but to read it that way would be a misunderstanding.

The model I see portrayed in the NT is one of the presiding pastors of a local body teaching and equipping the people they serve with the clear teaching of Scripture, and the tools to understand their Bibles accurately. I largely gather this from the form of the NT: Letters of instruction, interpretation, and application to the local body of believers. We see this even in the personal letters written in that the church judged them full of teaching not limited for that person but important for the church at large. Given the clear fact that all the major works of the NT were written for the purpose of communal edification and teaching, it seems like a simple deduction that Christian education and instruction is intended to be done within the “walls” of the local church. (One can’t help but note Revelation 1:3 at this point – “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.”)

Why does it need to be this way? Mainly, I would argue, because the word of God is for the people of God, to be lived out by them for the glorification of God (thanks be to God! – my liturgical upbringing there). God sends his word to a people to be learned and lived by them; he even incarnates and stoops from his glory to make this a reality. The Gospel and the Word of God are not given to be studied apart from personal and communal application. That is why, I think, Paul gives his major doctrinal works that hinge word “therefore” (i.e. Romans 12:1, Ephesians 4:1) – deep doctrine must effect us deeply for it to evidenced as truth. Thus, in the muck and grim of the local church, deep doctrines of the sovereignty of God are made to be wrestled with in light of all the severe suffering and pain that “everyday people” bring into our lives. The stirring pot of the local church makes us wrestle with deep doctrine in a way that has immediate live application.

Therefore, for me, as I’m approaching seminary, I’m trying with all my might to orient my life and the education I receive to be applicable to the community I am in. That is why, for the time being, I’m just doing part-time work. To do my school work to the extent that I am prevented from actively engaging the local church would be dishonoring to Jesus. Now what this doesn’t mean is that I wouldn’t ever do full-time work. To say that would be impractical and reactionary. There is a place, I think, for devoting one’s self to full time study for the sake of serving and blessing the church. To stay in the NT, one can’t help but ponder how Paul’s life and ministry would have been drastically different if he hadn’t been a brilliant scholar taught by Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). God does give the call to some men to be set apart for study that the church – yes, in particular the local church – might be directly edified by their studies.

The seminary model is up for questioning in my mind. One of the problems I’ve seen – which isn’t unique to me – is that the model of seminary with tons of education separated from the labor of the local church is serious cause for spiritual pride. Anything can produce spiritual pride (yes, even tons of local church service separated from active, personal study). It is also a slight concern that the geographical local of most seminaries is apart from the geographic gathering point of any local church. I don’t think the Bible mandates buildings for Christians, but it is a general reality that most local churches eventually acquire a property and building for their congregational functions. As such, it does concern me about what is unintentionally, but implicitly being communicated when the education of the church isn’t happening within the walls of the local church. (As a note, this is one of the things that I greatly appreciate about the vision of Sovereign Grace Ministries’ Pastors College.)

Being involved in my local church is a major source for encouragement and perspective for me going into seminary. It is in the local church that I find the godliest men I know; men I desperately want to be like, and men who will honestly never darken the steps of a seminary (at no slam on them). That’s a major fencing to any spiritual pride that I’d be tempted to acquire through this privilege to attend seminary – education does not mean one is more godly, or more right! The call to deeper education is a personal call, not a gift of godliness. However, the call that God gives is the means by which he intends to sanctify and purify us. For me, it will be through education (or so it seems); for another, it will be through carpentry, or for another, it will be through motherhood. Each call that God gives us is intended to be that sanding paper on our souls to polish us into the form of Christ. But it is in the context of the local church that this is intended to happen – because each is called to serve the other.

So one of the things that’s on my mind going in is: How can my studies serve my local church?

The first thought I have is that it can give me direction for prayer. As the Scriptures become clearer, they shine light on where and how our culture deviates from its teaching. This gives me direction for knowing what to pray about for our church.

Secondly, I can involve my friends in what I’m studying by talking about it with them. They may not have any thoughts on technical issues (or they might!), but they will ask questions and express thoughts that will help me clarify or think in directions on the issues that I wouldn’t normally.

The third thing is to be in discussions with my pastors on the content. They are extraordinarily wise men, and getting their pastoral thoughts on different issues will help me process how to think about things. I can also serve them by handing them bite sized pieces of what I’m learning. Pastor’s don’t have the time to read everything, so handing off summaries will help me think clearer and will help them stay abreast on issues they might not normally engage with.

The local church is God’s missionary outreach, and I’m jealous to see the Gospel advance through her. So as I’m approaching seminary, my thoughts are riveted around how to serve the great commission. While I might be called in this season to devote serious time to study, it must not sever my active involvement in my church body. I pray these thoughts that I’ve expressed capture God’s heart for how academic study should serve his church.

So, I’m going to seminary…

0

So, I’m going to seminary. Indeed, danger is afoot, but thankfully, in whatever I bring to the task, Jesus has promised that the gates of Hell shall never conquer his kingdom. I therefore anticipate a great crusade of grace upon this man’s heart. The honor of going to seminary has been a long desire of mine, and one that I have given much thought to over the last six years. What I’d like to do here on the blog is work out a few of those things, hopefully to the benefit of those who read. At the moment I have a total of four posts in mind (including this one) though that may get stretched if I realize certain things are not fit for particular headings. Anyhow, so on to the first:

How I got here.

This process, while not very long (five years is a dust of time to God), there have been many unexpected turns, which I hope to keep to a minimum here. I grew up in the United Methodist Church, and at the end of high school, going into college, had the sense of call and the coupled ambition to go to seminary after undergraduate studies to be ordained as pastor. This, for me, meant an immediate insertion into the ordination process to discuss and discern a pastoral calling. In addition, I was already looking at seminaries – yes, even requesting information – as a freshman, anticipating the next step in the journey, even as my present foot was just hitting the dust of the current place.

Over the next few years, several events happened almost all at once that turned my direction. The first was a family crisis that turned my head from the Open Theistic view of God that I had to the Reformed teachings. This was mainly through John Piper’s teaching and ministry. This turned my theological perspective from the Weslyan, Arminian tradition and view, to the Reformed, Calvinist tradition, with the spice of spiritual gifts, just to make things fun. Through Piper and another friend, I was introduced to C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) – guys who were like me, mainly Reformed Baptists who prayed in tongues and prophesied all over the place.

During this time, my thoughts about the nature of the church began to shift. I had previously been giving most of my time and energy to the local Wesley Foundation (the UMC’s college ministry), meanwhile not really investing much into the local church. The college ministry basically consisted of young adults from various backgrounds, all in the 18-23 age range. But what I was seeing in the NT for fellowship and the context for normal Christian life was the local church, filled with people at various stages and seasons of life, where the Scriptures were regularly preached, and where appointed elders lead the people. I didn’t see a call to segregate a particular age group away from that local church to minister to itself, but rather each member contributing to, and being disciple by, the members within the local church body. So, with this stirring in my heart, I started to pull away from the college ministries I was involved in and joined a local Reformed Baptist Church (that I dearly love to this day!) that had this same vision, of a true “life together” under the Word of God in loving fellowship.

Coupled with this was a revisioning of pastoral ministry. The bread and butter of what I had been raised in was to set a course on what God was calling you to, and make a b-line towards that. For me, and I would wager a large number of my pears, this meant that one announced their pastoral calling and moved towards that. Now of course there were things set in place to avoid ordaining non-called people, but there was not much of an emphasis on a communal sense of calling for pastoral ministry, it was more about one’s personal desire, regardless of the heart’s motivation. What I began to see in the NT was men being given a personal sense of call to pastoral ministry that was evaluated and discerned in the context of the local church where people could probe those desires. The pastors of the church were lifted up by the church (both congregation and leadership). This perspective was informed largely by meditation on Scripture, but was also helped and clarified by a little booklet put out by SGM entitled, Am I Called? I should note here that in retrospect, I should have involved the community that I was a part of within the college ministry more than I did – a lack of application of what I was learning here, and a good mixture of pride.

The things that fell into place for me, the mental furnature if you will, were that I was engaged to be married, and nearing graduation. What was to come began to be dictated by the desires we had. We started looking into SGM, and decided that we should pare up cities with both great theological institutions and Sovereign Grace churches. To make this short, this eventually lead to me visiting Covenant Fellowship Church, just outside Philadelphia which housed Westminster Theological Seminary. From this visit, and a subsequent visit to a SGM church in North Carolina for Michelle to get the flavor of what they were about, we felt that God was leading us to move to the Philly area to join Covenant Fellowship. What also happened during this time was a sense that I should put off seminary work for the time being, and set my focus on getting married (and learning to be a husband), moving us to Philly, and becoming active members at our new local church.

So, skip into the summer of 2007, we were now married, moved, and members of Covenant Fellowship. But there I was, still wrestling with thoughts and desires for seminary work. So a pastor and I got together for lunch where I got telling him about my thoughts. His guidance was to continue as we were in the church – active and growing – and to join in on the discipleship groups they were doing called GROW. The purpose of those groups was to help people in their basic Christian discipleship to Jesus Christ, and to give a closer context for pastors to see if members were called to leadership within the church (any type of leadership, not just pastoral). This then ended and moved into INVEST, which was more intentionally focused on leadership development for members who the pastors wanted to train more “hands on”.

All of this transpired over a 2ish year period. What occurred in my heart over that time was profound grace from a gracious God to a deeply entrenched, demanding sinner. Through the process I realized that I had simply made an idol of seminary. That was the place that competent people like me deserved to go – we deserved schooling so that we can help all of yous! Why wasn’t God giving me what I wanted! I just simply wanted to give him glory! What a fool I was! Some friends of mine also began to comment that it seemed like I viewed my present season as a waste of time. This all was a part of God exposing my discontentment in his plans for me. I wanted the things of God when I wanted them regardless of what was inconsistent with those things in my own life. How can a man be a tool of God when he’s not been effected by God? I began to see how I wasn’t serving my wife, nor giving serious attention to her spiritual growth. I was mainly jealous for ministry for vain glory. I was constantly anxious about what the pastors were thinking about out ministry future – even judging them, supposing that they didn’t see a pastoral calling. This was the spin of my deceitful heart – completely neglecting the Gospel in engaging my view of life and others. All of this simply from a differed desire for seminary!

So, over the last two years I have been in “the school of grace.” I’ve seen how first and foremost, my time with God, my heart and mind before him in confession and worship, are of primary important. From there, my delightfully role of being Michelle’s husband is my primary. If I fail at being a husband, I fail everything. I have grown in my desire be a godly husband, and by the grace of the Gospel, I have seen growth. Further, I’ve grown in my contentment to not be celebrated or seen, but to simply serve in obscurity in my church – either taking meals to others, growing in deeper relationships with my friends, or simply setting up chairs at church. My friends who have been the key means of grace in this area are Jace and Jenny Hudson, and Brandon and Anya Page. These are four people that I think the world of, and consider them my closest friends. They are each examples of Christians living godly lives in obscurity, all the while being massive examples of the victory of the cross of Jesus Christ before my eyes.

So, now to the “I’m going to seminary part”. Over the last year, Jim Donohue (the pastor I’ve been in an INVEST group with) and I have been talking about pastoral yearnings in my heart. In addition, Jim’s had the time to see gifting and leadership in my life that has given him fuel for thought in where God might be calling me. But along the way, Jim and I have gotten to know each other, and Michelle and I have received loads of grace through Jim having observations on our life and marriage that have helped us see sin and grow in grace. Through this time, almost every spring, I hit the desire, “Should I apply for seminary?” Jim and I got together a couple months ago to talk about how to deploy us in the church, during which we talked about desires I had and his observations on gifting. It actually was very helpful because we both started talking about if I should do seminary work. This conversation lead to us seeing that it would seem that God is leading me to do seminary work given the gifts he’s given me, and the way folks within the church have benefited from those gifts. What I find profoundly deep about this decision is that it came out of a communal recognition, stirred by my own desires, and lead wisely by pastors.

Subsequently to that conversation, I applied to Westminster Theological Seminary here in Philadelphia, and was accepted for their Master of Arts in Religion degree with a focus on Theological Studies. So, after a long trail turned around, the issue wasn’t so much of getting into seminary, but God getting his perspective on it into my heart. Honestly, at this point, I could take or leave seminary work. I’m excited about it, and look forward to the task, but it’s no longer an idol for me. At this point, I’ll be taking one class this fall (Prolegoma to Theology), but if through that we feel that this isn’t what God’s leading me to, I’ll step out. A theological degree is intended to serve the treasuring of Jesus Christ in my own soul, and to help me be used to stir the same treasuring in other people. It is not intended to make me more important, but rather, cause me to decrease that Christ may increase. Going into the great honor of seminary, I honestly desire what I didn’t before – the glory of my precious Savior, Jesus Christ, to be seen and known in my life, in the life of his people, and to those still in rebellion to him.

Jesus Christ: The Definition of “God is Love”

0

In reading through Meditations on the Glory of Christ by John Owen the other day I came across a section that helped shed light on this question I’ve wrestled with lately: “How do we determine why people are not Christians who claim to believe in Jesus Christ?” In chapter two, Owen is discussing the glory of Christ as the representative of God. He gets into saying that we behold the glory of Christ in this way: that he is the declaration and evidence that God is love, and thereby he is pre-eminent above all things. That is, Jesus Christ is himself the means by which God declares and defines his love, and all other means of declaring and defining his love are subordinate to how he does in Jesus Christ. Therefore Owen says:

Herein we may see how excellent, how beautiful, how glorious and desirable he is, seeing in him alone we have a due representation of God as he is love; which is the most joyful sight of God that any creature can obtain. He who beholds not the glory of Christ herein is utterly ignorant of those heavenly mysteries; — he knoweth neither God nor Christ, — he has neither the Father nor the Son. He knows not God, because he knows not the holy properties of his nature in the principal way designed by infinite wisdom for their manifestation; he knows not Christ, because he sees not the glory of God in him. Wherefore, whatever notions men may have from the light of nature, or from the works of Providence, that there is love in God, — however they may adorn them in elegant, affecting expressions, — yet from them no man can know that “God is love.” In the revelation hereof Christ has the pre-eminence; nor can any man comprehend anything of it aright but in him. It is that which the whole light of the creation cannot discover; for it is the spring and centre of the mystery of godliness. ~ John Owen, Works 1:301-302

What Owen is emphasizing here is that those who do not see Jesus Christ in his propitiation of God’s eternal wrath for sinners as the definition and declaration of what “God is love” means do not know God or know the true Jesus Christ. This was a chasm being alight for me. We do not hold some Christianity ID card and from that stance discuss different perspectives on how to understand the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We start with a true understanding of what the death of Jesus Christ did and accomplished, and from that stance are Christians, people who know the true God.

In a day when people claim that the penal substitutionary death of Christ isn’t the main way we should understand the work of Christ, or that people really aren’t bad enough to deserve eternal wrath from God, Owen steps in to help. The means by which God displayed himself in the work of Jesus Christ is how God defines his love. A love that freely comes in grace to take on the punishment deserved by his enemies that he might make them his friends by, and for, his love.

Thus, the answer to my question above is that we determine if people (or ourselves) are Christians by discussing with them what they see in the death of Christ. Do they see the awesome glory of God in the real manifestation of his wrath for sinners being poured out on an innocent, voluntary substitute and respond with humility, praise, and love? Or do they see merely an example of love? Or the oppression of government? Or a transaction with Satan? Or the price of revolution? What we say about the cross of Jesus Christ is what we say about God himself.

Reflections on Jesus Christ and Him Crucified

0

As I said in yesterday’s post, I created a paper/outline for a men’s meeting on the person and work of Jesus Christ. Here is the final section to that paper of my own personal reflections on the doctrine of Christ’s person and his atoning work:

The doctrines of the atoning work of Christ and the person of Christ cannot be separated or pitched against each other, as Paul clearly indicates when he resolved to preach nothing “except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). Without a clear identification of who Jesus Christ is, there is no clear identification of what Jesus Christ did. So, to climb the mountain of God into a clearer understanding of the Cross is to grow in a clearer understanding of Jesus Christ, the revelation of God to us. This happens with time, each foot standing on one as the other becomes clearer. As my Jesus becomes clearer in who he is, my perception of my own weakness and depravity is clarified, and his ability to be the only sufficient savior and rock for me is magnified all the more. If Jesus Christ were not hypostatically unified God and Man, then being saved by him would mean nothing for the security of my soul in his hands: He is a man like me, yet perfect, able to stand as one beside me; he is God, and thus able to securely hold me in my frailty. We are not merely saved from God’s wrath, but saved to joy in God; this dual reality kisses in Jesus Christ. Hence, the atonement and the person of Christ are required to go hand in hand as a single doctrinal unit.

This is my favorite topic to think about. I love the person and work of Jesus Christ. How difficult it is to express fully and gather into words his glory seen in these doctrines! That he was a man like me, filled with weakness and frailty, but that he was God, full of love and condescending grace to atone for my sin steals my heart. He is the sun of righteousness that captures my affections and love. Because he is filled with glory, my love is filled with glory. The heart reflects in its form the object of its desire and adoration, and so, what glory is in this, my heart conforms to Christ and all his magnificent worth and beauty because he has set his love upon me. Oh, the awesome, staggering glory of how he stooped so low so as to became like what he loved so that I climb into the heights of Him by his unshakable victory.

The full and victorious atonement of Jesus Christ means that at every given moment, we are receiving God’s best for us at that time because Jesus Christ has taken God’s worst for us. I know that every moment is filled with love from our Savior. Amidst the confusion of circumstances, the dark fog of desires and emotions, the pain of disappointment, suffering and loss, the head-spinning turn of words and events, I know that history and my life are defined and changed because God the Son took on flesh, spoke to us face to face in a man while yet maintaining his distinct deity, and died his victorious death over sin, propitiating on himself the wrath of God the Father that was aimed at his people, thereby giving them all the spiritual benefits of his righteousness, evidenced in them by faith in his name. In this time of not conceiving children when we would like the doctrines of the atonement and the person of Christ mean that I know that God has his best for us because the Gospel says two things: 1) Punishment for sin is satisfied in Jesus Christ so I know God isn’t punishing us, and 2) I have a loving Savior, not merely a court-room contract, that speaks rich, deep, soul-satisfying love across the expanse of time and space and is aimed at me and Michelle in this time. In this time of feeling the tremors from the Fall, I know that I have a loving hand of providence upon us because (and only because!) of the work and person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ and Him Crucified

0

I did a mini-paper outline for a men’s meeting this past week on the person of Christ and the atonement (hence the tittle). For the outline I pulled some quotes from my past reading. I’ve put them bellow headed by their subject they were set under for the outline. My reflections on them to follow tomorrow.

The Person of Christ

“Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be borne in the virgin’s womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the beginning.” ~ John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion 2:13:4

The Hypostatic Union of Christ’s Natures

“A man that holds in his hand a sword sheathed, when he pleaseth, draws forth the sword; but still holds that in one hand, and the sheath in the other, and then sheaths it again, still holding it in his hand: so when Christ died, his soul and body retained their union with the divine nature, though not (during that space) one with another.” ~ John Flavel, Works 1:78

“The human nature did what was necessary in its kind; it gave the matter of the sacrifice: the divine nature stampt the dignity and value upon it, which made it adequate compensation: so that it was the acts of God-man…”it was God that redeemed the church with his own blood” (Acts 22:28). If God redeem with his own blood, he redeems as God-man, without any dispute.” John Flavel, Works 1:179


The Cause of Christ’s Atonement

“God is love. But the supreme object of that love is himself. And because he loves himself supremely he cannot suffer what belongs to the integrity of his character and glory to be compromised or curtailed. That is the reason for the propitiation. God appeases his own holy wrath in the cross of Christ in order that the purpose of his love to lost men may be accomplished in accordance with and to the vindication of all the perfections that constitute his glory” John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 32.

The Necessity of Christ’s Atonement

“If we keep in view the gravity of sin and the exigencies arising from the holiness of god which must be met in salvation from it, then the doctrine of the indispensable necessity [of the cross] makes Calvary intelligible to us and enhances the incomprehensible marvel of both Calvary itself and the sovereign purpose of love which Calvary fulfilled. The more we emphasize the inflexible demands of justice and holiness the more marvelous become the love of god and its provisions.” John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 18.

The Nature of Christ’s Atonement

“Christ’s obedience was vicarious in the bearing of the full judgment of God upon sin, and it was vicarious in the full dischargement of the demands of righteousness. His obedience becomes the ground of the remission of sin and of actual justification” John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 22.

The Dawn of Revelation

0

Here’s a paper I wrote last week, collecting my thoughts on the doctrine of Scripture that I’ve recently studied. I’d appreciate any thoughts or feed back from folks.

Thanks,
~Jacob

The Dawn of Revelation (.pdf)

Revelation and Scripture Distinguished

0

“…The earlier theology almost completely allowed revelation to coincide with divine inspiration, the gift of Scripture. It only incidentally referred to revelation and conceived of it much to narrowly. It seem as if there was nothing behind Scripture. As a result Scripture came to stand in complete detachment and isolation and made it seem as if it had suddenly dropped out of heaven. The mighty conception of revelation as a history that began at the fall and ends only in the perousia was – at least to scientific theology – almost totally foreign. This view is untenable. After all, in by far the majority of cases, revelation is antecedent to divine inspiration and often separated from it for a long time. The revelation of God to the patriarchs, in the history of Israel, in the person of Christ was sometimes not described till centuries and years later, and also the prophets and apostles frequently recorded their revelations only after their reception (e.g. Jer. 25:13; 30:1; 36:2ff.). In this connection not everything was recorded that, when it came, did in fact belong to the circle of revelation (John 20:30; 21:25). In addition there were many persons, such as Elijah, Elisha, Thomas, and Nathanael, etc. organs of revelation, who nevertheless never wrote a book that was included in the canon; others, by contrasts, received no revelations and performed no miracles but did record them in writing, as for example the writers of the many historical books. Revelation further took place in different forms (dreams, visions, etc.) and was intended to make known something that was hidden; [divine inspiration] was always an interior working of God’s Spirit in and upon the [human] consciousness and served to guarantee the content of Scripture.

Modern theology therefore rightly made a distinction between divine revelation and scripture. But this theology often fell into the opposite extreme. It so completely detached revelation from Scripture that it became no more than an accidental appendix, an arbitrary addition, a human record of revelation, which might perhaps still be useful but was in any case not necessary. This theme was acclaimed in all sorts of variations: “Not the letter but the Spirit”; “not Scripture but the person of Christ”; “not the word but the fact is the fundamental principle of Scripture.” And Lessing managed to produce the familiar petition: “O Luther, you great and holy man! You have delivered us from the yoke of the pope but who will deliver us from the yoke of the letter, the paper pope?” This view is no less wrong but even more dangerous than the other. For in many cases revelation and divine inspiration do coincide. Far from everything that is recorded in Scripture was revealed in advance but arose in the authors’ consciousness during the wring itself, e.g. the Psalms and the Letters, etc. Those who deny divine inspiration and despise Scripture will also in large part lose the revelation; will have left nothing but human writings. In addition the revelation, even where in fact or word it preceded its recording, is known to us solely from Holy Scripture. We literally know nothing of the revelation of God in the time of Israel and in Christ except from Holy Scripture. There is no other primary principle. With the fall of Holy Scripture, therefore, all the revelation falls as well, as does the person of Christ. Precisely becaue revelation is history there is no way to learn something about it other than the ordinary way that applies to all of history and that is human attestation. To our mind attestation decides about the reality of a fact. We have no fellowship with Christ except through fellowship in the word of the apostles (John 17:20,21; 1 John 1:3). For us, the church of all the ages, revelation exists only in the form of Holy Scripture. Finally, divine inspiration, as will be evident later, is an attribute of the Scriptures, a unique and distinct activity of God in connection with the production of Scripture and therefore also itself to be acknowledged and honored to that extent as an act of revelation. Hence contempt for and the rejection of Scripture is not a harmless act with regard to human testimonies concerning revelation but denial of a special revelational act of God.

Hence both schools are one-sided, the one that fails to do justice to revelation for the sake of Scripture as well as the one that fails to do justice to Scripture for the sake of revelation. In the former, divine revelation, in the latter, divine inspiration does not come into its own. In the one, people have Scripture without scriptures; in the other, scriptures without Scripture. In the former there is a neglect of history; in the other contempt for the Word. The former lapses into orthodox intellectualism; the latter is in danger of Anabaptistic spiritualism. The right view is one in which Scripture is neither equated with revelation nor detached from it and place outside of it. Divine inspiration is an element in revelation, a last act in which the revelation of God in Christ is concluded for this dispensation. Hence it is in that sense the end, the crown, the making permanent, and the publication of revelation, the means by which immediate revelation is made mediate and recounted in books.”

~ Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 1:381-382

Go to Top