The Word of God
“Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word, he shall never see death, to the age" – The Lord Jesus Christ, John 8:51.
We teach Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation in their original documents constitute the plenary (equal in all parts) Word of God and is God’s written revelation to man given by God the Holy Spirit.
“The Theology of a church is in direct relationship to the Bibliology of that church”
1.1 Overview
We teach the Word of God is authoritative, inspired, inerrant, infallible, invincible and the absolute trustworthy account of reality and history (i.e. natural and redemptive history). The Word of God is comprised of two Testaments, namely the Old Testament and the New Testament. The final Canonical form of the OT went through a construction period over 1,000 years of inscripturation (i.e. process of writing Scripture) [1] in its original autographs and is given from God by inspiration and is authoritative, inerrant, infallible, invincible and trustworthy. During the period between the close of the Old Testament Canon (ca. 400 BC) and the events associated with the Nativity of the Lord Jesus Christ and the ministry of John the Baptist there was a period of approximately 400 years of silence in which God’s prophetic ministry was silent. Therefore, the extra biblical writings during the period of silence (i.e. the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, and the oral tradition that would later be synthesized into the Babylonian Talmud) are not authoritative, inspired, inerrant, infallible, or completely trustworthy. Therefore, the extra biblical writings during the intertestamental period (period of silence) – that is, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphical[2] books as well as the rabbinic oral tradition (i.e. the foundation for the Babylonian Talmud-the Mishnah and Gemara) are not authoritative, inspired, inerrant, infallible or trustworthy and are not a part of the canonical form of Scripture and therefore are of no authority in the church of God and are to be regarded as nothing else but merely human writings.
We teach the final canonical form of the NT went through a construction period for approximately 60 years starting as early as AD 35[3] and ending approximately in AD 95.[4]
1.1.1 Canonicity - The Doctrine of the Canon of Scripture
Κανών, ονος, ὁ (Kanon) means measuring rod, rule-ruler, level, straight, area, standard. The Greek word Κανών was used no less than four times in the NT (cf. Galatians 6:16; 2 Corinthians 10:13, 15, 16). The Word of God in its final form is a canon (i.e. standard, area) of sixty-six books, namely, from Genesis through Revelation, containing all the books that are unanimously understood to make up the traditional protestant canon. Both the OT and NT together comprise the final canonical form of the Word of God.
Question: How do we know that the 66 books of the Canon of Scripture together are the complete Word of God?
1.1.2 OT (Old Testament)
Books of the OT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.
Answer: There are 39 books that comprise the Canon of the OT because the LORD Jesus Christ affirmed those books as being the Word of God (cf. Matthew 5:17-18, 11:11-13; Luke 4:16-21; John 5:39-45; 13:18; 15:24-25).
Apostolic Testimony: Likewise, those who were commissioned by Him to be Apostles affirmed the OT as being the Word of God (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). Also, the NT testament writers under Apostolic authority referred to the OT as the Word of God.
1.1.3 NT (New Testament)
Books of the NT: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.
Answer: There are 27 books that comprise the Canon of the NT because the Lord Jesus Christ in His high priestly prayer authorized His Apostles to produce further revelation to the OT Canon which is equally authoritative as the OT. The NT is divinely, supernaturally inspired, superintended by God the Holy Spirit. Every book of the NT was either written by direct Apostolic authorship or indirect Apostolic authorship – that is, under Apostolic authority. The close of the Canon of Scripture is dependent on Apostolic authority because Jesus promised that He would disclose revelation through the Apostles, not church authority (cf. Matthew 10:27; John 14:26; 15:26; 17:20-21).
Therefore, the Lord Jesus Christ determines the Canon (i.e. standard) because He is God the second Person of the Trinity, the Living Word of God – the incarnate Word of God (cf. John 1:1-3; 14). The living Word of God and the written Word of God are in agreement – that is, in perfect harmony. In summary, The Lord Jesus Christ affirmed the OT as the Word of God and authorized the NT as the Word of God.
The Church submits to the Lordship of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is how we know that the 66 books of the Canon of Scripture together are the complete Word of God. The church does not determine the Canon of Scripture. Instead, the church recognizes the Canon of Scripture – that is, divinely inspired writings. The Authority to determine the Canon of Scripture is from the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles (cf. Ephesians 2:20). The church did not choose these books to be authoritative but instead the church recognized books that were already inherently authoritative. The Canon was authoritative because God guided the church in a providential manner to recognize the Canon. God in His providence determined canonicity and man recognized canonicity. Inscripturation criteria required that one had to have had the gift of prophecy – supernatural ability to communicate God’s will. To this effect, the early church knew who wrote each book of the NT – that is, the identity of each Apostle who wrote a book in the NT as well as the books that were written under the authority of an Apostle.
Question: How did God guide the church in a providential manner to recognize the Canon of Scripture?
Answer: One of the ways God preserved the true Canon was through the Roman persecution of Christians. Christian persecution helped form the Canon of Scripture because in the age of the early church the Roman Empire confiscated, from Christians, literature. For instance, there were many various collections of writings and canons that were collected by the order of the Roman Caesars when they sent Christians to their deaths. Therefore, the early Church had to make a choice and determine which writings were Apostolic and for only those writing the believers in the early church were willing to die. True Christians in the early church sifted through all the canons and they took out all the extra-biblical writings for which they were not willing to die. Thus, recognizing the true Canon was inseparably constrained to the honesty of martyrs who based their lives and their deaths on preserving what future generations would read as the Word of God.
1.2 The Doctrine of the Authority of the Word of God
We teach true Christians are those who recognize that the Word of God is the supreme, highest, and final authority for belief and behavior. The Word of God is the final authority concerning truth. Sola Scriptura is the sound doctrine which teaches that the Church submits to Scripture alone as the only ultimate and final authority. The authority of Scripture is over human reason, councils, tradition, non-canonical writings, one’s own opinions and teachings, and the writings of earlier and modern Christians. Moreover, any institution, council or tradition of men that advocates the authority of the Canon of Scripture as equal with tradition or anyone who advocates extra biblical revelation outside the Canon of Scripture as of equal authority to Scripture– those institutions, councils, traditions, or individuals are to be dismissed and their view on this point is to be treated as error. No visible church, nor denomination, nor para-church, nor organization, nor synod, nor seminary, nor fraternity has plenary authority in Christianity. Only Scripture has plenary authority in Christianity.
(cf. Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 4:4; Matthew 5:17-19; Matthew 7:29; Matthew 9:6-8; Mark 1:22, 27; Mark 2:10; Luke 4:32; John 5:27; John 10:18; John 17:2; John 17:17; Ephesians 1:20-21; Colossians 1:16; Colossians 2:9-10; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Titus 2:1, 15; Revelation 12:10). [Back to Top]
1.3 The Doctrine of the Inspiration of the Word of God
“All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).
Both the Old Testament and the New Testament Scriptures were plenary, verbally inspired by God.
1.3.1 The Meaning of Inspiration
The Greek word θεόπνευστος (theopneustos – “God breathed”) from 2 Timothy 3:16 which is translated into English “inspired” does not mean that God breathed into the writers, who then wrote the Scriptures. Moreover, this word does not mean that God breathed a divine influence into previously existing writings of the writers. Instead, the intended meaning of the word theopneustos – “God breathed” indicated the divine source or origin of the Scriptures – that is, breathed out from God. Scripture is divine in origin and therefore divine in character. Scripture reflects the character of its Author – namely, God. Scripture reflects the character of God – that is, holy, righteous and absolutely veracious (i.e. absolute veracity – perfectly true). Inspiration is about the creative breath of God. Divine spiration is from the Third Person of the Triune God – the Holy Spirit, who is the executive of the Godhead in the divine activity of the spiration of the Scriptures.
We teach the Scripture is the product of God, not the product of man. The Scripture is the product of God through the human authors who God chose to write down only that which God wanted in the Scriptures. In this sense, man is the instrumentality (i.e. intermediate agency) but man is not the source of Scripture.
All in all, we teach inspiration is defined as the act of God the Holy Spirit who supernaturally directed the human authors of Scripture, preserving their own personalities, intelligence, individuality and literary style, who composed and recorded God's complete canonical message, without error, in the words of the original autographs of the Bible in a complete and coherent way for man to read.
(cf. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 1 Corinthians 2:6-14; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 4:12-13; Ephesians 6:17; 1 Peter 1:10-12; John 6:63; John 6:13).
1.4 The Doctrine of the Inerrancy of the Word of God
We teach the Word of God contains no error. We teach the Word of God is absolute truth. The Scripture is perfect because it reflects the nature and character of the Author, namely God who does not lie, will never lie, and cannot lie (cf. Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; 2 Timothy 2:13; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18).
We teach all Scripture is perfectly consistent. There is no Scripture in the Canon of the Word of God that contradicts another Scripture in the Canon of the Word of God. God supernaturally directed the human authors to write down what God wanted in the Scriptures and these human authors that God chose were superintended by God the Holy Spirit to write completely free from error.
If there seems to be an apparent contradiction in Scripture to the reader, it is the fault of the reader not the Author – An apparent contradiction is because a manuscript is wrong, or a translation is wrong, or the reader has not understood a passage, but the Author’s original intent in the Scripture never contradicts.
In conclusion, we teach the Scripture is free from error.
We teach the Scripture is absolute truth.
1.5 The Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Word of God
Infallible means incapable of making mistakes or being wrong in the sense of never failing to be always effective in accomplishing one’s purpose. The sound doctrine of the Infallibility of the Word of God is directly related to the accomplishment of God’s sovereignly decreed purposes in history and eternity. As a result, the summation of God’s sovereign decree is the only Meta-Narrative – that is, the revelation of the Word of God from Genesis through Revelation which reveal His decreed will and certain outcome for all of His creation in every detail and circumstance. In other words, all actual stories from all His creatures are scrutinized by, dependent on, are tested for their veracity through the lens of the Word of God - the overarching story of reality. We teach there is only one story to Human History in which Every man and woman and child is under the Theistic-deterministic jurisdiction of this one overarching reality.
We DO NOT teach the false teaching of post-modernistic conditioning that argues that there are localized mini-narratives that throw off this one over arching story to History.
We DO NOT teach the false teaching of modernism conditioning that argues that there are multi – meta narratives that are make up reality like Progress, Darwinist Evolution, Enlightenment, Emancipation, and Marxism.
We teach there is only one story to human history where every man woman and child is under the Theistic-deterministic jurisdiction of God and God’s Sovereign decree.
Many philosophers in the modern era did not like this one story to history. They did not like reality and the divine accountability of having to answer to God for their lives. Therefore, modern era philosophers attempted to reinvent history with their own meta-narratives. Modern philosophers started with origins and invented evolutionistic theories to redefine the origin of the universe. Modern philosophers tried to get God out of the picture. Modern philosophers, out of their sinful anger, and in their evil suspicions brought up accusatory arguments that they claimed were conjectures, even though they were informed (cf. Romans 1:18-19), for example they argued:
“Well, what about all the people who lived and died before Jesus came? And what about all of the indigenous peoples of the earth that lived in ancient times who never heard of Christ or His Gospel?”
They did not argue out of love or concern for their fellow man, but because they did not like the fact that people who are born during or after Genesis 11 are inseparably constrained to the dispersion of the nations, that is the event that happened when God shut down the building operations of the tower of Babel. Man in his sinful state does not like the beginning features and events of the one overarching story to history in which our existence and origins cannot be explained without beginning with God as our Creator. The events of Genesis 1-11 – namely Creation, then fall of man, then (universal catastrophism with the global flood), and dispersion of the nations. Sinful man does not like this explanation because sinful man in his natural state does like the fact that the entire human race is accountable to God.
Modernism and post-modernism philosophers redefined history, with ignorance, repressive regimentation, brainwashing, mind control, coercive persuasion, “thought reform” and re-education.
Modernism and post-modernism philosophers practice historical negationism (i.e. denialism) – that is, falsification and distortion of the historical record. We DO NOT teach modernism or post-modernism.
We DO NOT teach historical revisionism – that is, reinterpretation of a historical account.
Modernism and post-modernism philosophers taught and teach historical revisionism because they did not like what the Apostle Paul said at Mars hill – namely,
Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead - Acts 17:30-31.
Therefore, the accusatory questions,
“Well, what about all the people who lived and died before Jesus came? And what about all of the indigenous peoples of the earth that lived in ancient times who never hear of Christ or His Gospel?” are answered by appealing to the word of God and specifically, the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis.
We teach every man, woman and child are inseparably constrained to the one story and we are all accountable to God because the entire human race originated from one man and one woman Created by God:
“and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation” – Acts 17:26.
We teach in the garden of God At the fall of man (cf. Genesis 3), the spiritual serpent used the physical serpent to tempt the woman to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God commanded Adam not to eat. Because God said,
“but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” – Genesis 2:17.
The woman was deceived by the devil (cf. 1 Timothy 2:13-14) and she ate and then her husband with her ate and that was the fall of mankind into sin.
“Therefore, just through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” – Romans 5:12.
Then God pronounced this judgment upon the spiritual serpent:
“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: He shall crush you on the head, and you shall bruise Him on the heal” – Genesis 3:15.
Therefore, we teach there is one story to History and in this one story to human history every man and woman and child is under the Theistic-deterministic jurisdiction of this one overarching reality.
This means, the absolute certainty of the eschatology exegesis on the part of God towards man in judgment – namely, the objective account of all His creatures’ activities under the Sovereign decree of God destined to face final judgement (cf. John 5:22; Revelation 20:11-15). Only the elect will be delivered from the wrath of God because of the finished redemptive work of Christ.
Moreover, this one story to human history presupposes the historical accuracy about the historicity of the OT books (e.g. Job) and issues like the creation of Adam, the subsequent fall of Adam and the redemption found in the Second Adam. These literally contribute to the overall storyline and Meta-Narrative of Scripture.
We teach the Word of God is infallible because Scripture is not able to be broken (cf. John 10:35). The Word of God is infallible because it is immortal (cf. Psalm 119:160). The Word of God is infallible because it cannot be overcome (cf. Isaiah 55:11). The doctrine of the infallibility of the Word of God is based on the perfections of God that He has eternally testified to the honor of His name (cf. Psalm 138:2).
1.6 The Doctrine of the Sufficiency of the Word of God
Those who advocate and search to look for additional revelation from God outside of the Word of God deny the doctrine of the sufficiency of the Word of God. This Doctrine presupposes the incarnate word, namely the Lord Jesus Christ the living Word of God (cf. John 1:1-3; 14; Hebrews 1:1-2). Therefore, the written Word of God is sufficient for all things pertaining to life and godliness (cf. 2 Peter 1:3-4).
We teach the sufficiency of the Word of God establishes the basis for saving faith (cf. James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23), sanctification (cf. John 17:17; 1 Peter 2:2), fellowship (cf. 1 John 1:1-3), unity (cf. Ephesians 4:13), contentment (cf. 1 Timothy 6:3-6), spiritual warfare (cf. Ephesians 6:17), evangelism (cf. Philippians 1:14), discipleship (cf. Matthew 28:19-20), the spiritual examination of the entire condition of a person (cf. Hebrews 4:12-13) and all of life’s decisions (cf. Psalm 1:1-2; Psalm 19:8; Proverbs 6:20-22; 30:5-6; Romans 12:1-2).
(See Psalm 19:7-14; Mark 13:31; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 1:1-2; 2 Peter 1:3-4).
1.7 The Doctrine of the Invincibility of the Word of God
We teach the sound doctrine of the invincibility of the Word of God is inseparably constrained to the sound doctrine of the infallibility of the Word of God though it focuses on the power of the Word of God as indestructible. The Word of God has invincible power and to this effect, Hebrews 4:12-13 reads,
“For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.”
We teach the invincibility of the Word of God has the sense of immortality (cf. Ps 119:160), indestructibility (cf. the fact that Scripture cannot be broken – Matt 5:17; John 10:35); instead the Scripture is the relentless force—Jeremiah 23:29); and has a relentless indefeasibility (i.e. it can’t be overcome or undone— cf. Isa 55:11).
We teach there is an offensive powerful quality to the Word of God that cannot be defeated, whereby it destroys the strongholds of error and liberates captives who were enslaved to the devil (cf. 2 Corinthians 10:4-5; John 8:32; Acts 26:18)
1.8 The Doctrine of Prophecy
We teach the sound doctrine of prophecy is bound to the Eternal Triune God (cf. Isaiah 6:8).
We teach prophecy is sent from God the Father (cf. Matthew 16:17; John 7:16-18; John 8:28-29; 1 Peter 1:12).
We teach God the Father has appointed, consecrated and commissioned His chosen prophets (cf. 1 Samuel 3:4; Jeremiah 1:4-5). The Prophets prophesied soteriological, messianic prophecies concerning the covenants and the coming Kingdom (cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12). The Prophets were God’s spokesmen to prophesy about and interpret the biblical covenants.
We teach God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the ultimate prophet and fulfillment of the office of prophet (cf. Deuteronomy 18:15, 18; cf. Acts 3:22-24). The prophetic writings revealed the second Person of the Eternal Trinity to all of the nations, leading the elect from those nations to bring them to the obedience of faith in Christ. (cf. Romans 16:25-26; 1 Peter 1:10-12; Revelation 5:9).
We teach the agency of prophecy is God the Holy Spirit. God the Holy Spirit is the Personal agency responsible for the spiration of prophecy from God, and as a result all prophecy from God is completely true and accurate because God does not lie, God never lies, God cannot lie (cf. Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). Scripture also cannot contradict itself, because God is a God who cannot deny himself (cf. 2 Timothy 2:13). As a result of this, prophecy does not depend upon human will, and is not subject or open to man’s interpretations, since its agency is God the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Peter 1:20-21).
We teach the Prophets were redeemed men and revealed theocratic, soteriological, and eschatological purposes, concerning the two advents of the Messiah.
We teach true prophecy utters infallible divine truth, from the infallible God, delivered by the infallible Holy Spirit of truth through God’s spokesmen – namely, the prophets. The standard of prophecy is that it is to be delivered infallibly by those who claim to give prophetic utterances. We teach today in the church age after the apostolic age and the completion of the Canon of Scripture, there has been a cessation of the prophetic gift. Therefore, prophecy was the oral or written message of a prophet in the Holy Scriptures. We teach there is no such prophecy in any shape or form that is a fallible prophecy.
1.8.1 Old Testament Prophets
All OT prophets spoke with divine authority and were sanctioned by the Spirit of God to declare divine utterances to their hearers. They prophesied concerning salvation and calamity, that is oracles of hope and oracles of judgment. They were assigned specific prophetic appointments irrespective of personal consequence or danger (i.e. Ezekiel 2:3-6). OT prophets did not prophesy on their own authority. They typically began their declarations with the binding words יהוה אמר כה ‘Thus says the LORD’. When they prophesied, it was the LORD speaking through them. Although the prophets were mortal men, they were commissioned by the Only, Eternal, Immortal and Almighty God. Prophets were to speak the exact words of יהוה with infallible precision. Their prophetic success was not measured in terms of positive receptivity by their hearers, rather it was measured by their faithfulness to God’s commands to speak exactly what God commanded them to speak. God’s words through them had eternal ramifications whether those words were obeyed or disobeyed. Old Testament prophets received special revelation by God, through dreams, visions, theophanies, and angelic testimony.
Prophets were commissioned to declare theocentric, theocratic, redemptive, and soteriological realities that signified events in their contemporary age, and also the age to come. The Prophets were cognizant of the reality that they belonged to יהוה. They understood the severity of irreverence and frivolity toward their commission and also, by the Spirit of God, courageously prophesied irrespective of impending threats or martyrdom among those who rejected them. The OT prophets were not soothsayers. They decried spiritual and marital harlotry (cf. Malachi 2:10-17; Jeremiah 2:8, 9:1-9, et. al), rebuked Israel’s obstinacy (cf. Isaiah 48:1-11), prophesied judgment against the land (cf. Jeremiah 5:1-17, 6:1-8, et. al), declared that God would spare some who rebelled against Him, according to His mercy (cf. Isaiah 53; Malachi 4; Lamentations 3:22, et. al), and foretold the coming of Messiah to inaugurate a kingdom of obedience and subjects who would repent, and whose hearts were changed to obey Him faithfully, suffering for them vicariously, substitutionary and propitiatory (cf. Ezekiel 36:26; Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, et. al).
Prophets were also raised up during the Old Testament to foretell Yahweh’s redemptive plans, and to communicate his impending or imminent judgments. Their task also included, testimony concerning the Messiah, prophesying blessings for Israel’s obedience, cursing and calamity for Israel’s disobedience, and Yahweh’s eschatological scheme for Israel and the world. Prophets were commission by God, and His Spirit placed upon them to declare His words to the people of His choosing. God commanded Prophets to speak the precise words in the precise manner that He delivered to them to speak. Their failure to speak God’s exact words brought blood upon their hands and judgment upon their heads (cf. Ezekiel 33:8). Adversely, faithfulness to the prophetic declarations that they were given, irrespective of earthly peril and men’s consequences, absolved them from any culpability due to rejection by their hearers.
The prophets declared messianic prophecies concerning the biblical Jesus Christ. The prophets knew that the Messiah would come in the age beyond their own time, however they made careful inquiries to determine the identity of Christ, who prophesied through them, as it related to His vicarious, penal, propitiatory, substitutionary atonement at Calvary. Thus, they inquired as to whom, not ‘what’ concerning God’s redemptive plan (cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12).
One of the primary functions of the OT prophets was to interpret the biblical covenants, namely the Adamic Covenant (cf. Genesis 3:15), the Noahic Covenant (cf. Genesis 6:18; 9:8-17), the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12, 15, 17, 18, 22), the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19-24), the Priestly Covenant (Numbers 25:10-13; Jeremiah 33:14-22), the David Covenant (2 Samuel 7:8-16; 1 Chronicles 17:7-14; Psalms 72, 89; 110:1; Jeremiah 33:14-22), and the New Covenant (Jeremiah 24:4-7; 31:31-34; 32:37-41; Ezekiel 11:17-21; 36:22-32).
The first prophet in the OT was God and the first prophecy of a divine redeemer was Genesis 3:15 – the Protoevengelium.
The final OT prophet was John the Baptist as he was the gatekeeper guarding the gate to the sheep pen (i.e. Israel) commission to only allow the Good Shepherd (i.e. the Lord Jesus Christ) into the gate to access the sheep (cf. John 10:2-3). It was John the Baptist who historically baptized the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:19-36).
1.8.2 New Testament Prophets
The NT nature of prophecy, after 400 years of silence, transitioned from the final prophecy of Malachi concerning Judah’s impending judgment and the merciful New Covenant age to allow for elect of God (cf. Malachi 4). John the Baptist, the final OT prophet, proclaimed the necessity to repent in light of Messiah’s immanent arrival (cf. Matthew 3:1-12; Mark 1:3-8; Luke 3:2-17; John 1:6-8, 15, 19-37; 3:22-36). Jesus Christ testified that John the Baptist, given the enormity and magnitude of his task, and immediate object of his prophecies (i.e. the Person and Work of Jesus Christ and the necessity to prepare for the inauguration of His Kingdom), surpassed all the prophets before him (cf. Matthew 11:9-14), describing John as greater than all the preceding prophets. John the Baptist was the promised Elijah, the forerunner of Jesus Christ.
Prophecy in the New Testament, after the death and resurrection of Christ, shifted to ecclesiological and eschatological matters. Prophecy in the NT was a sign for believers (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:6). Utterances were proclaimed to the church in an orderly manner, under the divine sanction of prophets and apostles. It edified the believers in the church, and convicted them. Paul, in Christ, commanded believers in Thessalonica not to despise prophesy (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:20). Scripture is the consummation of prophecy, ending the necessity for prophets and prophetic utterances in the present age, since God has spoken in finality through His Son (cf. Hebrews 1:1-2). However, there will be a momentary return of prophecy in the great tribulation by two witnesses (cf. Revelation 10:1-11). Such prophecy will still be subject to the strict standard of infallibility and veracity.
Jesus Christ, God in human flesh, is therefore the ultimate Prophet and the consummation of all redemptive prophecy, and also unifies the office of High Priest and King, unrivaled as such through all ages (Deuteronomy 18:15-22).
_________
The Greek word for “prophecy” is propheteia, and derives from a combination of Greek words. The first is “pro”, meaning “before”, and the second is phemi, which means “to make clear”, so literally, the word prophecy means “to make known beforehand.” It involves speaking forth clearly, accurately, and undeniably the mind of God.
Prophecy establishes continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Jesus Christ is the ultimate prophet, and yet He did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them (Matt 5:17). The apostles submitted themselves to the prophets, and were tested by the prophets (1 Cor 14:32, Acts 17:11). The last of the Old Testament prophets was not Malachi, but John the Baptist (Matt 11:13) Christ referred to himself as a prophet on several occasions (Matt 13:57, Luke 13:33), and He was chief among the prophets because he was the one who sent the prophets (Matt 23:34).
Prophecy in the New Testament is described as being a gift to the church (Eph 4:11). The church is built upon the foundation of both apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20). This faith concerning Christ, attested to by both the apostles and the prophets, has been handed down once for all to the saints. This prophetic word is a more sure word to which believers will do well to pay attention (2 Peter 1:19). It is contained in the Scriptures and is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation.
Both the gifts of apostles and prophets, which are the foundation of the church, have ceased. Apostles have clearly ceased, since Paul referred to himself as the last apostle- one untimely born (1 Cor 15:8). Prophecy also has ceased with the close of the canon. The gift of prophecy then was a temporary gift given to the church.
Furthermore, there is no such thing as fallible prophecy. If one claims to be giving prophecy, and yet that so-called prophecy contains error, it can be certain that prophecy did not come from God, because God cannot lie. Proponents of fallible prophecy often point to the prophecy of Agabus as an example of fallible prophecy in the NT (Acts 21:10-11). However, Paul was in fact handed over to the Romans by the Jews, and even says as much in Acts 28:17. So Agabus is not an example of a fallible prophet, for the thing which he prophesied did come to pass.
The Scriptures plainly teach that there will be false prophets which arise among the church who prophesy what is directly opposed to apostolic doctrine (2 Peter 2:1). This is why Christians are commanded not to believe every spirit, but to test the spirits, to see if they are from God (1 John 4:1). A clear mark of false prophets which demonstrates that they are of the world is that they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them (1 John 4:5)
Though the gift of prophecy has ceased and there are no true prophets prophesying today with the close of Scripture, the testimony of Scripture indicates that there will be a time in the future when the gift of prophecy will be given again. The two witnesses in Revelation 11 are called prophets and will have a prophetic ministry that lasts 1260 days. So the gift of prophecy, though it has ceased now, will be given again the future.
In conclusion then, prophecy is the speaking forth of divinely inspired, infallible utterances from God. It is a gift that was given for the building up and maturity of the church, and it is a gift that has ceased.
1.8.3 Biblical Tests of a True Prophet
We teach that the Word of God is the only standard to test the spirits to see whether they are from God (cf. 1 John 4:1-6). The categories of testing include the biblical tests of a true prophet versus a false prophet and the biblical tests of a true teacher versus a false teacher.
1.8.3.1 Sound Doctrinal Orthodoxy (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 2 Peter 2:1)
If signs and wonders accompany a person’s ministry it does not prove that they are from God. A “prophet’s” prediction may come to pass, however, if the “prophet’s” message contradicts God’s Word then that “prophet” is a false prophet. God allowed false prophets to tempt Israel with signs and wonders to test Israel to remain faithful to the Word of God (cf. Deuteronomy 13:1-5). Today, Christians are commanded to test the doctrine of teachers to see whether they are from God (cf. 1 John 4:1-6; 2 Peter 2:1).
1.8.3.2 Moral Veracity in Orthopraxy (Jeremiah 23:14-16; 2 Peter 2:2-3)
False prophets and false teachers live their lives practicing sin. Not only do false prophets and false teachers practice teaching lies but you will also know them by their fruit in the habitual practice of their lifestyles (cf. Matthew 7:15-20; 1 Timothy 6:9-10; 2 Timothy 3:1-9).
1.8.3.3 Prophetic Accuracy (Deuteronomy18:20-22; Ezekiel 13:5-7)
Sometimes false prophets and false teachers predict and it happens as they said, but ultimately there is the failure of all their predictions to come true. This is because false prophets and false teachers teach false doctrine and represent false gods to try a turn people away from God. On the other hand, true prophets and true teachers correctly represent God and teach the truth so that people will turn away from sin and turn to God. The prophetic accuracy of true prophets was one hundred per cent accurate throughout the tenure of their office. The Lord Jesus Christ has proven this point of indestructible veracity as He has fulfilled the office of Prophet (cf. Deuteronomy 18:15, 18; Matthew 5:17; Hebrews 1:1-2).
1.8.4 Statements Rebuking Continuationism and Their Fallible Prophecy Heresy
A prophet in the OT and NT received his prophetic message directly from God and the prophetic message was infallible. The gift of prophecy ceased when the NT Canon of Scripture was complete (cf. 1 Cor 13:8-10).[5]
On the other hand, continuationists today argue that the gift of prophecy is still available today as direct revelation from God and can be fallible. continuationists define prophecy this way: “telling something that God has spontaneously brought to mind.” What is more, charismatic continuationists claims that the gifts available today are not exactly the same as the gifts during the apostolic age and to this effect they argue, “yet another objection to the continuation of miracles today is to say that the alleged miracles today are not like the miracles in Scripture because they are far weaker and often are only partially effective. In response to this objection we must ask whether it really matters whether the miracles today are exactly as powerful as those that occurred at the time of the New Testament.”
However, one cannot help to argue against continuationists this way – “if you claim that the gift of prophecy has continued throughout the church age after the apostolic age but you claim that the gift of prophecy is not exactly the same, then how exactly did the gift of prophecy continue?”
Continuationists have redefined the gift of prophecy and as such they have redefined God’s word. Continuationism is error. This is how charismatic theology and postmodernism are equated, that is, both systems deconstruct the Word of God and then redefine the Word of God.
Continuationists argue the following: “prophecies in the church today should be considered merely human words, not God’s words, and not equal to God’s words in authority. But does this conclusion conflict with current charismatic teaching or practice? I think it conflicts with much charismatic practice, but not with most charismatic teaching . . . here is almost uniform testimony from all sections of the charismatic movement that prophecy is imperfect and impure, and will contain elements that are not to be obeyed or trusted.”
Continuationists argue for fallible prophecy by appealing to Acts 21:10-14 with the prophecy of Agabus. Continuationists claim that Agabus, speaking on behalf of God the Holy Spirit, gave Paul a fallible prophecy because later in Acts the events that Agabus attempted to prophesy did not come to pass exactly as Agabus predicted. The implication that they argue is that such is the case today. However, the events that Agabus predicted by God the Holy Spirit did happen exactly as prophesied. First, the context begins in Acts 19:21 when Paul purposes in God the Holy Spirit to go to Rome. This is in accord with the over context of the book of Acts and Jesus’ commission to Paul when he tells Ananias to “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake” (Acts 9:15b-16). Agabus prophesied the following; “And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, ‘This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles'” (Acts 21:11). This is exactly what happened to Paul from Acts 21:27-28:31, fulfilling his commission from God the Holy Spirit.
The prophecy was exactly fulfilled as described in Acts 21:11 because in the event, Paul was delivered by the Gentiles from the Jews, who were forced against their will to hand him over. It was in faith that Paul accepted Agabus’ prophecy as detailed prophecy given by God the Holy Spirit.
1.9 Perspicuity of Scripture (Clarity of Scripture)
1.9.1 Introduction to the Doctrine
We teach that special institutional education is not a prerequisite or credential for understanding the clarity of God’s Word. Institutional interpretation is not the standard rule for rightly understanding prophesy and apostolic doctrine from the Word of God. Instead, man is totally depraved in his natural state and cannot understand the Word of God. This does not mean that spiritually dead men and women cannot comprehend the plain sense of Scripture. But true understanding is inseparably bound to regeneration resulting in a changed life (cf. Job 28:28). Therefore, a person must receive the ministry of illumination from God the Holy Spirit in order to rightly understand the Word of God from the heart and mind (cf. Ephesians 1:17-18; 1 Corinthians 2:14-16).
Subjective experience never overrides the Author’s plain original intended meaning of Scripture to take precedence or precedent over the Word of God. If a doctrine from Scripture is unclear to the reader it is the fault of the reader – not the fault of the original Author’s intended meaning. In other words, the reader cannot justifiably accuse the Authorial intent of Scripture to be unclear. If the Scripture appears to the reader to be unclear at any point it is a consequence of the indiscretion of the reader because of the reader’s sin, his or her commitment to extra-biblical tradition over Scripture, anthropocentric logic, or the subjective experience of the reader that takes exception to Scripture’s plain sense.
As a final point, conferences, congresses, councils, ecclesiastical titles, popes, or scholars are not needed for believers to understand the plain normal sense of Scripture. The Word of God is available to all men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation – be that Scripture has been translated accurately into their languages from the original languages that God chose the human writers of Scripture to compose the original autographs (i.e. Hebrew and Aramaic for OT; Greek for NT).
1.9.2 Scriptural Support for the Sound Doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture
We teach the perspicuity of Scripture means that Scripture is clear and understandable. This doctrine is taught in the Scripture in various places. The Word of God is often called a light (cf. Psalm 119:105, 2 Peter 1:19). If the word of God were unclear, and unable to be comprehended and understood, the writers of Scripture would be in error when referring to Scripture as a light. The difficulties and misinterpretation in Scripture arise not from a deficiency or lack of clarity within the text, but from the darkness of sin that lies within the interpreter, blinding him from the plain meaning of the text, which in and of itself is clear. In 2 Corinthians 1:13-14, Paul argued for the clarity and comprehensibility of the things from his writings when he wrote, “We write nothing else to you other than what you read and understand.” Similarly, in Ephesians 3:4 he wrote, “by referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ.” Therefore, the Word of God can be read and plainly understood. The perspicuity of Scripture does not negate the need for preachers and teachers to herald the message of Christ and exegete the meaning of the text, but it does place the ultimate authority within the text itself and its author, and not with the interpreter, preacher, or church. In this way, the perspicuity of Scripture is in direct contradiction to romanism, which argues that Scripture cannot be understood apart from the interpretive framework of the Roman Catholic Church and the priests and the popes. It also stands in opposition to postmodernism and relativism, which emphasizes subjective clarity in the individual’s response to the text rather than in the text itself.
Instead, the perspicuity of Scripture is perfectly compatible with the priesthood of all believers, and the Holy Spirit’s guiding of believers into all truth (cf. 1 John 2:20).
The ultimate authority and ultimate interpreter of Scripture is Scripture itself, in all of its clarity, and believers who have been enlightened by God the Holy Spirit can read and plainly understand what is written.
1.9.3 Soteriological Implications of the Doctrine of Perspicuity
We teach the Scripture, the written word of God, possesses all that we need pertaining to life and godliness (cf. 2 Peter 1:3). The Scripture is propositional revelation that God has given to man to reconcile man to God through Jesus Christ. The writings are lucid, clear, and without ambiguity. Its perspicuity is evident in explanation of the doctrines contained therein, and specifically the biblical gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Although we believe in the perspicuity of Scripture, we understand that Satan has blinded the minds of the unbeliever (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4), so that they will not openly embrace the Gospel and the doctrines of Scripture. Consequently, unbelievers must be regenerated by God, unbelievers must repent of their sins against God and trust in the vicarious propitiatory penal – substitutionary atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ in order to fully understand the Scripture.
While one is an enemy of God and spiritually dead in their sins, the Scripture may not seem clear because the truth is spiritually discerned, therefore the natural man cannot spiritually discern spiritual things, and will not receive the truth in Scripture (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:14). The perspicuity of Scripture is also conflated to the Christian reader’s attempt to draw out the author’s meaning through the literal historical-grammatical hermeneutic. The literal historical-grammatical hermeneutic is Scripture’s self-attested hermeneutic to understand the Scripture which avoids all postmodernism and pseudo-scholarship attempts that create ambiguity.
1.10 Principles of Interpretation (Hermeneutics)[6]
1.10.1 The Word of God affirms the Sound Doctrine Hermeneutics:
1.10.1.1 Introduction – Literal-Grammatical Historical:
There are self-attested hermeneutical principles from the Scripture that function as the self-attested rule for interpreting Scripture. In other words, the Scriptures reveal to the reader how the Scripture is to be interpreted. To this effect, the Scripture’s self-attested hermeneutical principle for interpreting the Scripture is called the literal-grammatical historical hermeneutic.
1.10.1.2 Definition of the Literal-Grammatical Historical Hermeneutic:
Hermeneutics is the discipline that deals with the principles of biblical interpretation.[7] The goal of hermeneutics should be to determine the objective meaning from the Scripture. The only way to accomplish this is through the exegesis of the Scripture by using the literal grammatical-historical hermeneutic.[8] The literal grammatical-historical hermeneutic is Scriptures’ self-attested rule for interpreting Scripture. For example, the Scripture upholds literal interpretation as its own self-attested principle because the Scripture confirmed Authorial intent – “All Scripture is God breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). What is more, the monolithic literal nature of biblical interpretation is affirmed in 2 Peter 1:20 when the Apostle Peter wrote, “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.” These verses referred to an entire corpus (quantity of content) and taught the literal principle of Scripture, namely the Authorial intent of God. Authorial intent is not subject to the reader in determining the Authorial intent in any way other than what the Author purposed to communicate. Also, utilizing the original languages that were used to compose the Scripture are an inseparable principle in drawing out the Author’s intended meaning. Even the NT writers referenced the grammatical nuances of word forms to correctly interpret the Scripture (e.g. Gal 3:16 “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ;” see also Matthew 5:18). Finally, Scripture upholds the historical principle of interpretation because the Word of God disclosed events that occurred in real history. To this effect, the Word of God presents the real facts of history with real geography and cultures and has interpreted these real events in history (cf. Rom 4; Heb 11).
1.10.1.3 verbal plenary means that the inspiration of Scripture does not merely extend to concepts but to every single word in the Scriptures.
The 66 books of the Bible are divinely inspired by God the Holy Spirit equally in all parts (1 Corinthians 2:7-14; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
1.10.1.4 analogia fidei (analogy of faith or rule of faith) means Scripture interprets scripture.
The most attested evidence and defense for Scripture is Scripture itself. The Word of God is coherent. The Word of God is only one voice. Nowhere does the Word of God contradict itself. Every doctrine of the Word of God is in one accord with every other doctrine of the Word of God. This is the only doctrinal standard. The Word of God teaches only one perfectly united body of Truth.
By this we do not endorse the erroneous implication that the analogy of faith is a tool to harmonize various passages of Scripture. Many have misapplied this doctrine to state that the proper hermeneutical approach to a “difficult” passage is to read it in light of a “simpler” passage. This approach takes many things for granted while completely ignoring several more foundational principles of biblical hermeneutics.
By using the analogy of faith as a hermeneutical grid assumes (1) that the interpreter rightly understands the “simpler” passage, (2) that the two passages teach the same truth, and (3) that the “difficult” passage is in fact difficult and needs additional information found elsewhere in Scripture.
The use of the analogy of faith as a hermeneutical grid ignores the fact that (1) authorial intention is the key to interpretation, (2) identifying any text as “simple” or “difficult” is a subjective and arbitrary distinction that comes only from the reader’s response, (3) the human writer has provided all the context that is needed in order to understand his intention, (4) the progressive nature of revelation demands that while no text is an island the use of other passages will be made clear by the author, and (5) those passages must have been written previously to the text under investigation (explaining a “difficult” early text by a “clear” late text abandons the principle of authorial intention).
We affirm that the analogy of faith necessitates that there be no contradictions in Scripture. As such we use this principle as a final check to ensure that our interpretation is consistent with the rest of God’s divine revelation as given in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.
We deny that the analogy of faith is a grid used to harmonize various passages. Each text of Scripture must be understood in its own context. The human author will (and often does) link any previous revelation in order to advance his own argument. It is one thing to state that there are no contradictions within the Scriptures and that the complete canon conveys a unified message. It is quite different to assume that any two passages therefore teach the same thing.
1.10.2 List of Man-made Hermeneutical Principles that The Word of God Does Not Affirm:
There are man-made hermeneutical principles that attack the Word God. These man-made hermeneutical principles violate the Author’s intended meaning of the Scripture and are vehicles of false teaching. The following man-made hermeneutical principles have attacked true biblical Christianity and have ushered many American “churches” into apostasy – therefore, these man-made hermeneutical principles are heresy and must be rejected:
(1) Sensus Plenior 1.10.2.1
(2) Historical-Critical Hermeneutics 1.10.2.2
(a) Greco-Roman Bio 1.10.2.2.1
(b) Postmodernistic Historiography 1.10.2.2.2
(c) Speech Act Theory 1.10.2.2.3
(d) Simple to Complex Evolutionary Theory 1.10.2.2.4
(3) Critical methodology 1.10.2.3
(a) Source Criticism (Neologian, 2/4 Source, Markan priority, Q etc) 1.10.2.3.1
(b) Form Criticism (Oral; Criterial of Authenticity) 1.10.2.3.2
(c) Redaction Criticism 1.10.2.3.3
We DO NOT teach sensus plenior.
We DO NOT teach historical-critical hermeneutics.
We DO NOT teach Greco-roman bio.
We DO NOT teach postmodernistic historiography.
We DO NOT teach speech act theory.
We DO NOT teach simple to complex evolutionary theory.
We DO NOT teach critical methodology.
We DO NOT teach source criticism.
We DO NOT teach form criticism.
We DO NOT teach redaction criticism.
1.10.2.1 Sensus Plenior
We DO NOT teach Sensus Plenior.
Sensus plenior is a heretical hermeneutical principle for the interpretation. Sensus plenior is Latin and means “plural sense or more sense.” Sensus plenior teaches that the NT reinterprets the OT. This is false. The NT does not reinterpret the OT. What is more, the NT is not the guide for interpreting the OT.
Sensus plenior refers to the notion of multiple meanings in a passage, often one which was intended by God but not intended by the human author. It is an assault against the Word of God for several reasons. First, it opens up the text to the possibility of multiple meanings, when in reality the Word of God is sure, with one meaning in each passage. Second, it implies a priority of certain parts of Scripture over others, with later parts of Scripture being able to reinterpret earlier parts of Scripture, leading to the false notion of a canon within a canon. Therefore, Sensus plenior creates a canon inside the canon.
1.10.2.2 Historical-Critical ideologies
Historical critical hermeneutics are prevalent in the post-modern age and must be rejected. These heretical hermeneutics are Greco-Roman bio, postmodernistic historiography, speech act theory and simple to complex evolutionary theory.
1.10.2.2.1 Greco-Roman Bio
We DO NOT teach Greco-Roman Bio.
The a-priori conviction of Greco-Roman Bio presupposes that genre determines meaning and historicity. Consequently, it is incompatible with inerrancy. Greco-Roman Bio supposes that the Gospels are a collection of biographies, or a compilation of short stories. The premise of this critical methodology supposes that the Gospel writers had liberty to create speeches, and to merge historical events with legend. Greco-Roman Bio, therefore, is considered ‘flexible genre.’
The error concerning Greco-Roman Bio is that it eliminates the historicity of the Gospels and equally supposes that extra-biblical sources were instrumental in the writing of the Gospels. As a result, the Gospels then are no longer considered eyewitness accounts from those who were with Christ, or written by apostolic delegates. In addition, the Gospels are considered as inspired by God, however, Greco-Roman Bio, the extra-biblical genres become the means through one must interpret and read the Scriptures. Such a conclusion is a direct assault against the infallible, inerrant nature of God’s Word, and the divine authorship of God the Holy Spirit.
Advocates of this view try to argue that the literary genre of the Gospels is Greco-Roman biography, making the Gospels one of many biographical works of their day. However, the purpose behind the writing of the Gospels demonstrates that they should not be considered as Greco-Roman biographies. The purpose of Greco-Roman biographies was to impart facts regarding famous men. However, the Gospels serve a different purpose- the Gospels are not simply an impartation of facts, they are a proclamation of the Lord Jesus Christ, perfectly inerrant and for the purpose of the convicting the world of sin and bringing about belief on the part of the reader (cf. John 20:30-31). The Gospels should not be considered as simply another Greco-Roman biography, and the attempt of scholars to lump the gospels in with contemporary Greco-Roman biography is an attack on the uniqueness and sufficiency of the text of Scripture.
1.10.2.2.2 Postmodernistic Historiography
We DO NOT teach postmodernistic historiography.
Postmodernistic historiography is a heretical hermeneutic because it extracts the facts from history, reinterprets them and misrepresents them. The danger in postmodern historiography is that it assaults one of the basic principles of proper biblical interpretation- drawing out the author’s intended meaning from the text. Postmodern historiography denies that there is such a thing as authorial intent. As a result, meaning becomes subjective and is left to the reader for their own interpretation. Postmodernism being the trend of the day, is the vehicle for postmodernistic historiography and is nothing more than the importation of worldly, subjective approaches to meaning forced into the text of Scripture. Postmodernism attempts to take away the authority in interpretation and meaning from the author and place it in the hands of the reader. This undermines the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit and attacks the authority of the Word of God. The devil Satan was the first to introduce postmodernistic historiography (cf. Gen 3:1-2), because he denied the facts of history, reinterpreted the facts of history into the form of a question to solicit doubt, and then presented to the first woman the lie as the truth. Furthermore, Postmodern historiography is aberrant because it rejects absolutes and also rejects historical narratives, coherence, truth, and universality. When applied to the Scriptures it is a parasitic mechanism used to deconstruct the veracity of Scripture and also supposes that the mind of interpreter or reader is the final authority but not the author.
1.10.2.2.3 Speech Act Theory
We DO NOT teach speech act theory.
Speech act theory is a heretical hermeneutical principle. SAT is when the communicator uses locutions (words, sentences, rhetorical structures, genres) to embody an illocution (the intention to do something with those locutions—bless, promise, instruct, assert) with a perlocution that anticipates a certain response from the audience (obedience trust, belief). Locution is form and function and literary genre but illocution is the emotional response of the writer reader and it is not according to the plain sense of the meaning of language in the text. Perlocution is the effect upon the audience in the realm of thoughts imaginations feelings and emotions. In other words, locution is what was said or written, illocution is what was meant, and perlocution is what happen as a result. The reason why speech act theory as a hermeneutic principle inserted into text is against the Word of God is because the writers of the NT wrote objective propositional truth therefore what is meant by the author is what is plainly written. Scripture always has its intended outcome.
1.10.2.2.4 Simple to Complex Evolutionary Theory
We DO NOT teach simple to complex evolutionary theory.
Simple to complex evolutionary theory is a heretical hermeneutical principle because it is based on the naturalistic atheism of Charles Darwin in the explanation of origins apart from God. An example of this hermeneutical principle being imposed on the text is Markan priority. Markan priority is the theory that Mark was the first gospel written. Simple to complex evolutionary theory is inserted into the literally genre of gospel narrative. For example, Mark is the shortest gospel concerning content therefore it is the simple. From Mark’s gospel Luke and Matthew copied and evolved into more complex concepts and content. In summary, SCET misinterprets and misapplies the explanation of origins apart from God in the realm of natural/general revelation, and borrowing from this pseudo-science, liberal scholars also insert this idea into the text when they misinterpret and misapply special revelation as an attempt to explain gospel origins apart from the authorial intent of the author in the literal-historical and grammatical sense.
1.10.2.3 Critical methodology
Critical methodology is heretical and all its principles are subjective and arbitrary without proof– namely; the three branches of critical methodology: source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism.
1.10.2.3.1 Source Criticism (Neologian, 2/4 Source, Marcan prioirty, Q etc)
We DO NOT teach source criticism.
Source criticism is a subjective critical liberal methodology that takes exception to the objective historical accuracy of Scripture. In place of the facts of history, SC seeks to create a false narrative of “alleged extra-biblical sources” that SC advocates wrongly claim inspired the Scripture. Therefore, SC denies the divine authority and inspiration of the Scriptures.
Source criticism seeks to discover what documentary material (not oral traditions) a biblical writer had in mind when he wrote his composition. SC advocates presupposed that the NT author made use of extrabiblical sources without the author indicating that he used extrabiblical sources or identifying which sources he “allegedly” used. For this false narrative, the source critic performs a fake quest to investigate extrabiblical ancient documents and eisegete them into Scripture to argue that the NT writers copied, modified or borrowed from them.
Source Criticism proposes that the gospels were contained sources for composition. It essentially seeks to determine which sources were used to write the gospels. Also, Source criticism assumes that the gospels were only written for theological purposes, not historical. Source Criticism, as a sub-practice of Historical criticism, is aberrant because it eliminates the literal-grammatical historical purposes for which the New Testament gospel writers penned their Gospel accounts. Specifically, Luke wrote for historical and theological purposes (cf. Luke 1:1-3). Luke’s intention was to write an orderly (lit. καθεξῆς) account. The Greek word ‘καθεξῆς’ literally means ‘with method’. This signifies that Luke wrote his gospel with methodical intention, and divine precision. He aimed to provide a narration (lit. διήγησιν) of events given to him by the Lord through eyewitnesses and partakers (gk. αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται) of the events that had taken place from the beginning (cf. Luke 1:1). Luke’s recollection was not enabled through a compilation of sources, but through eyewitness accounts of the events that had taken place during the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, as Paul, an apostle, instructed him. In the writings of the other gospels, since John and Matthew were written by the apostolic, eyewitness, while Mark was written by Peter’s apostolic delegate ‘John-Mark’, who received the Gospel narrative accounts from Peter.
1.10.2.3.2 Marcan Priority
We DO NOT teach Marcan Priority.
Marcan priority is the false teaching that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the three synoptic gospels to be written, and was used as a source by the other two (Matthew and Luke). According to the hypothesis of Marcan priority, the Gospel of Mark was written first and then used as a source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Matthew clearly did not copy Mark because no more than fifty percent of Mark can show verbal agreement with Matthew. What is more, Marcan priority denies the predictive prophetic power of the Lord Jesus Christ even though the Lord Jesus Christ predicted the future church in Matthew 16 and 18 as well as the fall of Jerusalem. Marcan priority synoptic investigators deny the predictive power of the Lord Jesus Christ by arguing that our Lord did not foresee and could not have predicted the arrival of a church, therefore, a later date for Matthew is presupposed by Marcan priority synoptic investigators and the dates of Mark, Matthew and Luke are all bound up together in the dating of Mark as liberal scholars presuppose Marcan priority.
However, those who advocate Marcan priority attack the supernatural work of God the Holy Spirit in how He superintended the human authors that, through their individual personalities and different writing styles composed and recorded the Gospels without error in the whole or in the part. Marcan priority challenges the eyewitness testimonies of the Apostles (cf. 1 John 1:1-4).
Although we have a particular Baptist theology we separate from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary because the NT department teaches Marcan priority.
We DO NOT teach that the Gospel writers copied off each other to compose their Gospel accounts. Therefore, we DO NOT teach Marcan priority, Lukean priority. What is more, we do not teach a Matthean priority in the sense that Mark and Luke copied off of Matthew. However, we teach that Matthew was composed first historically sometime between 35AD and 40 AD.
1.10.2.3.2 Form Criticism (Oral; Criteria of Authenticity)
We DO NOT teach form criticism
Form criticism is heretical because it asserts that the historical facts from the Scripture cannot be trusted to be objectively true.
Form Criticism, otherwise known as formgeschichte, presupposes ‘Marcan Priority’ (i.e. The Gospel of Mark written as the first gospel and Matthew and Luke copied sections of Mark). Specifically, it suggests that the gospels consisted of a collection of a small units which passed through a stage of oral tradition and was shaped according to the needs of the community. It also aims to identify alleged “forms” or “literary structures”, or “genre” that Gospel sections had during the oral, pre-document period from AD 33-60. Form Criticism is not true scholarship, or biblical hermeneutics, but rather a-priori assumptions rooted in subjective interpretations of history. The assumption of Form Criticism also implies that there are interpretative truths that must be objectively verified by criteria of authenticity. One example of its pervasive effects is its assault on Christology. Specifically, adherents of Form Criticism allege that the “historical Christ” was a Jewish apocalypist who died tragically, whereas the “Risen Christ” is a mythological concept passed to the modern reader through mythological genre. (NTI unpublished notes, F. David Farnell, The Master’s Seminary, 903-4.)
Form Criticism is patently false since it creates a dichotomy between oral and written history as it relates to the Scripture. It also assumes that other extra-biblical sources were instrumental in the writing of the Gospels. Form Criticism’s conclusions deny divine inspiration, infallible authorship and the reliability of eyewitness testimony of the gospel writers. Whatever was orally given to the gospel writers, was written under the divine inspiration of the Spirit of God. What the biblical Christian possesses, by the power of God not the investigative techniques of men, is the complete, infallible, canon of Scripture that is all-sufficient for all things pertaining to life and godliness (cf. 2 Peter 1:3).
1.10.2.3.3 Redaction Criticism
We DO NOT teach redaction criticism
Redaction criticism is the claim that the NT gospel accounts were not independently divinely inspired but instead were composed by the human authors’ vigorous contemporary research of external sources that were then edited to comprise the gospel narratives.
Redaction criticism proponents presuppose that the NT gospel writers selectively edited alleged external sources that are currently unverifiable in antiquity (in other words they say they exist but do not exist). Furthermore, redaction criticism proponents presuppose that the NT gospel writers selectively edited from these unverifiable external sources to achieve an agenda in accordance with their personal theological bent. However, these claims from redaction criticism proponents are unbiblical, unsubstantiated in archeology, unsubstantiated in actual history, unsubstantiated in theology and utilize specious argumentation under the guise of theological and academic scholarship.
1.10.2.3.4 Doctrinal Triage (Sometimes Designated as Theological Triage)
We teach that there is no biblical warrant for theological triage.
There are many leading voices in modern evangelicalism that postulate the doctrinal triage as a hermeneutical principle for Scripture. The “doctrinal triage” is the practice of prioritizing biblical doctrines according to their individual degree of importance, labeling them as of primary importance, secondary importance, or tertiary importance. However, “doctrinal triage” is not a self-attested hermeneutical principle from the Word of God. Man has imposed the triage system upon the Word of God to allow for the reader to subjectively distinguish which biblical doctrines have more weight and importance than others. The doctrinal triage compartmentalize the truth in a way that the Bible does not. Man has invented through triage the criteria for determining which doctrines man thinks are primary, secondary or tertiary. The doctrinal triage an emotional appeal to unity without explicit biblical support. Therefore “doctrinal triage” is a pseudo-unity. The “doctrinal triage” allows for ecumenical unity and does not cultivate the unity that Christ commands his people to pursue. The doctrinal triage promotes doctrinal novelty and a pseudo-unity. The “doctrinal triage” does not promote or sound doctrinal unity.
The purpose of the “doctrinal triage” in the endeavor of studying theology for the systematician, lay person, or those in pastoral ministry is to promote unity among denominational divides and theological differences. For example, core tenants of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus, like His cross work and bodily resurrection are triaged into the level of primary importance, whereas the theological controversy between cessationism and continuationism is considered a secondary matter of importance. Eschatology is often considered to be a tertiary matter of importance. Some have even suggested the doctrine of imputation a fifteenth tier doctrine of importance which contradicts their claim that the nature and extent of the atonement is primary. However, in the doctrinal triage the ultimate criteria for triage is subjective to the reader of the Scripture, where the reader is the authority to distinguish the authorial intent of doctrinal importance making it subject to change and scientific consensus. However, Scripture does not specify or catalogue doctrine as primary, secondary or tertiary in their levels of importance.
[1] We teach that God spoke in His written Word by a process of dual authorship concerning the original autographs of Scripture. God the Holy Spirit superintended the human authors that God chose preserving their personalities and different styles of writing to compose and record God’s Word to man.
[2] Pseudepigraphical – An assorted collection of Jewish religious works thought to be written c. 300 BC to AD 300. Texts whose claimed author is not the true author, or a work whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past (e.g. the Book of Enoch).
[3] We teach the composition date for the Gospel according to Matthew was sometime between AD 35 – AD 45.
[4] We teach the date of composition for the book of Revelation was AD 95.
[5] For the definition of infallibility of Scripture see 1.5 above.
[6] CSBI, article XVIII reads: “We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by the grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claim to authorship.” CSBH, article XIV says: “We affirm that the biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical fact. We deny that any event, discourse of saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.” Further, CSBH, article XIII asserts that “we deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.”
[7] ICBI, Article XVIII reads: “We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship” (ICBI, Article XVIII, 1978).
[8] One writer correctly defined the grammatical-historical-contextual method of interpretation when he wrote, “This approach seeks the meaning of a segment of Scripture as required by the laws of grammar and literary form, the facts of history, and the framework of context. It is the best approach because these features are the features the interpreter must share with the author in order to determine his meaning. Grassmick, Principles and Practice of Greek Exegesis, 11.