“But perhaps someone will say that the word ‘adoption’ is not actually found in Holy Scripture [in Luke 3, part of Augustine’s argument that Joseph was adopted and thus had two fathers, thereby explaining the discrepancy in genealogies]. As though it were of any importance what word is used for it, when the thing itself is there…” -Augustine, Christmas and Epiphany Sermons
“Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whisky bottle in the hand of (another)…” -Calpurnia to Scout in To Kill a Mockingbird
“What prevents us from explaining in clearer words those matters in Scripture which perplex and hinder our understanding, yet which conscientiously and faithfully serve the truth of Scripture itself, and are made use of sparingly and modestly on due occasion?… If anyone, then, finds fault with the novelty of the words, does he not deserve to be judged as bearing the light of truth unworthily, since he is finding fault only with what renders the truth plain and clear?’ -John Calvin
Baloo cartoon in the 8/28/2000 National Review:
“One cartoon depicts Moses standing on top of God’s mountain, holding the two tablets of the Ten Commandments. The prophet is beaming. ‘Hey, these are great,’ he says enthusiastically. ‘From now on, nobody will have trouble distinguishing right from wrong.'” quoted from Phil Ryken, Written in Stone
BTW NOTE: obvious sarcasm.
Well then, do not the Socinians, Quakers, Anabaptists, and Arminians err who maintain that all matters of faith are set down expressly, and in so many words in Scripture, and that no matters of faith (at least necessary to salvation) can be built upon consequences.
By what reasons are they confuted?
1. Because Christ himself proves that necessary point of faith, the resurrection from the dead, from the Scripture by a consequence (Matt. 22:29, 31-32). To be any one’s God is to give one eternal life (Psa. 33:12; Psa. 144:15). Whence followeth that those patriarchs lived still with God in respect of their souls (which these Sadducees also denied; Acts 23:8), and should also rise in respect of their bodies and live eternally: seeing he is called a God, not of one part of them only, but of their whole persons. And in that same chapter (Matt. 22) verses 43, 45, Christ proves his deity by a consequence from Scripture against the Pharisees.
2. So doth Apollos (Acts 18:28) and Paul (Acts 9:22) prove from the Old Testament Jesus to be the Christ: but it is not expressly said in the Old Testament that he is Christ. Is not that which necessarily follows from Scripture, contained in it implicitly and explicitly revealed by God, infallibly true?” (David Dickson, Truth’s Victory Over Error, 9-10).
In response to my post “Bavinck Contra Biblicism” (title corrected 3/12/10), J. R. Schuiling commented the following: “Nice, but not really contra Biblicism.” I asked J. R., as kindly as I could, if he would be interested in expounding upon that comment. It has been eight days since his comment, and since he has yet to explain his point, I am assuming that he does not intend to do so. Since his comment (brief as it was) is a critical response to my post, I want to defend the idea that Bavinck really was critiquing a biblicistic approach to the study of Holy Scripture. Thus, if you follow the link below you will see my response to J. R.’s comment. For the record, I am not personally offended by his critical comment (though rather surprised by his lack of substantiation), but I am interested in defending my views as best I can when they are critiqued. So, without further ado.