Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (9)

"Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him."

There is some debate over the expression "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him." Are the words "is joined" passive or middle voice?

In Koine Greek, the present middle and present passive forms of verbs and participles look identical. So, the only way to know whether "is joined" is middle or passive is by other factors, such as the context. The middle voice in Koine Greek indicates that the subject acts as both the agent (doer) and the primary focus or beneficiary of the action. In other words it is something a person actively does and does for his benefit, doing it by himself and for himself.

The problem with saying the present participle is passive voice is the fact that this interpretation will not work with the first use of the participle in verse sixteen where we read of one who is joined to a harlot. Surely we cannot say that such sexual sins are done passively. A person chooses to do so and unites himself with a whore. So, likewise, a person who is joined to the Lord and becomes one with him likewise is active in uniting himself and does it with the purpose of benefiting himself thereby. 

Of course, it is possible that a marital union may be both active and passive, both in different senses, but not so in joining oneself to a whore in fornication. In marriage a man and a woman consent to unite themselves together in marriage and yet when they are formally or legally joined we hear the preacher say - "What God has joined together." By this we mean that God agrees to the union and certifies or confirms it. So, in this case we see where there is active joining by the parties and a joining where God is the one who is doing the joining.

The main point however is this, what I mentioned in the previous chapter: One must first be joined to Christ by faith before he can be regenerated, born again, quickened, justified, forgiven, sanctified, or washed of sin by the blood of Christ. And, since we are discussing the logical order of things in salvation, it is quite logical to say that union with Christ is first in any ordo salutis, and that it is by faith that sinners unite themselves to Christ. It is illogical to say that union with Christ is by faith and also to say that regeneration precedes faith. Calvin was right to say that as long as a person is separated from Christ, disjoined from him, there is no life, justification, or any other aspect of salvation. Christ is life, and to be disconnected from him is to be dead. That is logical. The union is brought to effect in the birth but the birth is the immediate result of faith, as both Calvin and Luther said - "we are born again by faith." It is not logical to say union with Christ is by faith but that being born of God is before faith. In that case union is not by faith. 

When Paul speaks of those who are joined to Christ (in Greek the word means glued together), when does he contemplate that such happened in the lives of the members of the church of Corinth? When they were supposedly regenerated as infants? When they were regenerated at some unknown point in time without knowing it, when it occurred at some unknown time unbeknownst to them? Or, is it not rather clear that he is referring to the time when they were joined to Christ by faith, or were converted? Is it not that time that Paul speaks about when he says to the Corinthians - "For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (II Cor. 11: 2b nkjv)? So, how and when is a sinner wedded to Christ? Can a person be married to Christ apart from his choice to be married? Can a person be married to Christ and not know he is married? Paul wrote to the Roman Christians about their marriage to Christ in these words:

"Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God." (Rom. 7:4 nkjv)

Some Hyper Calvinists want to say that the bride of Christ was married to Christ before the world began by that act of the Father choosing those who would be the bride (the elect), being a prearranged marriage. However, the above texts show this not to be the case. Why would Paul espouse or betroth the believers in the church of Corinth to Christ if they were already married to him? Their betrothal was of course their day of conversion through Paul's ministry among them, and Paul was the one who arranged the "get together." Paul introduced the Corinthians to Jesus. 

The Greek word for "betrothed" ('espoused' kyv) is "harmozō," which is not the usual word for being engaged in marriage (as in Matt. 1: 18; Luke 1: 27; 2:5 concerning the engagement of Mary and Joseph), and is used only here in the new testament. Its root meaning is to be "joined" or "fit together" and is used by carpenters joining wood beams together as well as joining a man and woman together in marital union. So, the point is this, union with Christ occurs by faith in conversion and of which the one who introduces a sinner to Christ by informing about Christ is the medium of his salvation. The union was not something that occurred to the Corinthian believers apart from their faith or choice to be so united to Christ. 

In this post (here) on "Union With Christ" I began by asking these Questions: 

 

1) Does union with Christ precede or follow faith?

2) Does regeneration precede or follow union with Christ? 

3) Does justification precede or follow union with Christ?

4) Does regeneration precede or follow justification? 

I then affirmed this proposition - "Union with Christ is by Faith." I also cited the above text (I Cor. 6:17) about being joined to Christ. The only ones who will answer question number one by saying "it precedes faith" - are those who are Hyper Calvinists or semi-Hyper who say that sinners are "born again before faith" (BABF). 

The Westminster shorter catechism asked the question (#30) - "How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?" The answer given is - 

"The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling."

Likewise, "Keach's Catechism" of the 1689 London Baptist Confession likewise asked and said:

"Q. 34. How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?

A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling."

In that same article I cited from H.B. Smith (1815-1877) in his Systematic Theology who wrote (SEE HERE - emphasis mine): "This union is at the ground of regeneration and justification." That is the view of Calvin and the first Calvinists of the Reformation. It is the view I firmly believe and contend for. It is a truth denied by those of the BABF view, men such as the late R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur, and of James White and John Piper (although the latter has actually taken both views at times and has said that union with Christ is by faith). 

R. L. Dabney (1820-1898), well known theologian, wrote the following in "Union To Christ Effectuates Salvation"(emphasis mine):

"The instrumental bond of the union is evidently faith—i. e., when the believer exercises faith, the union begins; and by the exercise of faith it is on his part perpetuated. See Eph. 3:17; John 14:23; Gal. 3:26–28. First God embraces us with His electing and renewing love; and we then embrace Him by the actings of our faith, so that the union is consummated on both sides. One of the results, or, if you please, forms, of the union is justification. Of this, faith is the instrument, "for being justified by faith, we have peace with God." The other form is sanctification. Faith has the instrumental relation to this also; for He "purifieth our hearts by faith;" "faith worketh by love;" and it is the victory which overcometh the world." (Chapter 38: Union to Christ - See here)

Dabney rightly says that justification, like regeneration, follows faith union Christ. In so doing he is taking the position of Calvin and Beza and the authors of the 1689 London Baptist Confession.

Wrote the great A. H. Strong (1836-1921) in his Systematic Theology  (emphasis mine):

"The consequences of union with Christ may be summarily stated as follows:

(a) Union with Christ involves a change in the dominant affection of the soul. Christ's entrance into the soul makes it a new creature, in the sense that the ruling disposition, which before was sinful, now becomes holy. This change we call Regeneration.

(b) Union with Christ involves a new exercise of the soul's powers in repentance and faith; faith, indeed, is the act of the soul by which, under the operation of God, Christ is received. This new exercise of the soul's powers we call Conversion (Repentance and Faith). It is the obverse or human side of Regeneration."

"While in some cases God's preparatory work occupies a long time, there are many cases in which he cuts short his work in righteousness (Rom. 9:28). Some persons are regenerated in infancy or childhood, cannot remember a time when they did not love Christ, and yet take long to learn that they are regenerate." 

Here is where Strong contradicts what he said in the above citations. He says people may be regenerated while infants, apart from any preparation or union with Christ by faith.

Clearly Strong says that faith is first, then union with Christ, then justification, then regeneration. I find that many of those who espouse the BABF view say that union with Christ is by faith. When they say this I am puzzled at such a contradiction for in that case their regeneration while they were unjoined to Christ.

Strong also wrote:

"Luther: "By faith thou art so glued to Christ that of thee and him there becomes as it were one person, so that with confidence thou canst say: ' I am Christ,—that is, Christ's righteousness, victory, etc., are mine'; and Christ in turn can say: 'I am that sinner,—that is, his sins, his death, etc., are mine, because he clings to me and I to him, for we have been joined through faith into one flesh and bone.'" Calvin: "I attribute the highest importance to the connection between the head and the members; to the inhabitation of Christ in our hearts; in a word, to the mystical union by which we enjoy him, so that, being made ours, he makes us partakers of the blessings with which he is furnished." John Bunyan: "The Lord led me into the knowledge of the mystery of union with Christ, that I was joined to him, that I was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. By this also my faith in him as my righteousness was the more confirmed; for if he and I were one, then his righteousness was mine, his merits mine, his victory also mine. Now could I see myself in heaven and on earth at once— in heaven by my Christ, my risen head, my righteousness and life, though on earth by my body or person." Edwards: "Faith is the soul's active uniting with Christ. God sees fit that, in order to a union's being established between two intelligent active beings, there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive the other, as entirely joining themselves to one another." Andrew Fuller: "I have no doubt that the imputation of Christ's righteousness presupposes a union with him; since there is no perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one for another's sake, where there is no union or relation between." (59-84 - Union with Christ By Augustus Hopkins Strong - See here)

Strong in his section on "Regeneration" wrote:

"Man is not wholly passive at the time of his regeneration. He is passive only with respect to the change of his ruling disposition. With respect to the exercise of this disposition, he is active. Although the efficient power which secures this exercise of the new disposition is the power of God, yet man is not therefore unconscious, nor is he a mere machine worked by God's fingers. On the other hand, his whole moral nature under God's working is alive and active."

Strong also said: "Good works are the necessary result of regeneration by union with Christ." He also rightly said:

"Conviction of sin is an ordinary, if not an invariable, antecedent of regeneration. It results from the contemplation of truth. It is often accompanied by fear, remorse, and cries for mercy. But these desires and fears are not signs of regeneration. They are selfish. They are quite consistent with manifest and dreadful enmity to God. They have a hopeful aspect, simply because they are evidence that the Holy Spirit is striving with the soul. But this work of the Spirit is not yet regeneration; at most, it is preparation for regeneration."

Many of the BABF advocates are forced to say that conviction of sin is a result of regeneration. But, such a view is fraught with many logical and scriptural difficulties. First of all, if a person is being convicted by the Spirit of his guilt and condemned state when he is really not such, then the Spirit is convincing a sinner of what is not true, making the Spirit to bear witness to a lie. I wrote about this in these posts (here and here).

Strong also wrote:

"Until the soul gives itself to God from motives of love, it is never saved. And so long as these preliminary motives rule, regeneration has not yet taken place. Bible-reading, and prayers, and church attendance, and partial reformations, are certainly better than apathy or outbreaking sin. They may be signs that God is working in the soul. But without complete surrender to God, they may be accompanied with the greatest guilt and the greatest danger; simply because, under such influences, the withholding of submission implies the most active hatred to God, and opposition to his will...There is a prevenient grace as well as a regenerating grace."

Again, I say, it was a grave mistake for post Reformation Calvinists to define regeneration by the acts of God alone apart from the acts that God's acts cause. In other words, for them to deny that in regeneration a sinner is both passive and active. Even they acknowledge this is true if regeneration is defined broadly so as to include conversion, which is the way the first Reformers and the scriptures define it.

Strong also wrote:

"...union with Christ logically precedes both regeneration and justification; and yet, chronologically, the moment of our union with Christ is also the moment when we are regenerated and justified. So, too, regeneration and conversion are but the divine and human sides or aspects of the same fact, although regeneration has logical precedence, and man turns only as God turns him."

Here we see where even Strong is not immune to inconsistency in his statements on the ordo salutis. In the above he says union with Christ by faith precedes regeneration but then says regeneration precedes conversion. Conversion involves repenting and believing, so how can conversion follow regeneration if, as he has said, regeneration precedes faith? Perhaps he is doing what others do, using the term "regeneration" in a restricted sense of some Calvinist theologies and not in its broad sense, the sense used by Calvin and the Reformers and the one used by the Bible writers. 

John Murray, an advocate for BABF theory, wrote that “union with Christ is...the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation...It is not simply a phase of the application of redemption; it underlies every aspect of redemption.” ("Redemption—Accomplished and Applied," pgs. 201, 205).

In that same post I cited John Murray who said (emphasis mine): "Union with Christ is the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation." (As cited here) He cited John Owen who said in agreement: 

 

"[Union with Christ] is the cause of all other graces that we are made partakers of; they are all communicated unto us by virtue of our union with Christ. Hence is our adoption, our justification, our sanctification, our fruitfulness, our perseverance, our resurrection, our glory." (Ibid)

Yet, Murray also wrote:

“Regeneration is inseparable from its effects and one of the effects is faith. Without regeneration it is morally and spiritually impossible for a person to believe in Christ, but when a person is regenerated it is morally and spiritually impossible for that person not to believe” (cf. John 6:37, 44, 45; pg. 111)."

“The fact that regeneration is the prerequisite of faith in no way relieves us of the responsibility to believe nor does it eliminate the priceless privilege that is ours as Christ and his claims are pressed upon us in full and free overtures of his grace. Our inability is no excuse for our unbelief nor does it provide us with any reason for not believing. As we are presented with Christ in the gospel there is no reason for the rejection of unbelief and all reason demands the entrustment of faith” (pg. 118)."

So, Murray believes that regeneration occurs before faith or union with Christ. That is an absurdity. This, as I stated, is common with those of the BABF view. They will say regeneration precedes faith but union with Christ, like justification, follows faith. So, logically speaking, a person is regenerated apart from union with Christ and is regenerated while still under condemnation and wrath. Murray in saying that regeneration precedes faith contradicts what he said in the above citations, such as when he said union with Christ by faith "underlies every aspect of redemption" and when he cites approvingly the words of Owen who said that union with Christ by faith "is the cause of all other graces that we are made partakers of; they are all communicated unto us by virtue of our union with Christ." If union with Christ by faith is "the cause" of all graces, of all aspects of salvation, how then can regeneration not be reckoned to have likewise been the result of faith?

John Calvin, also wrote: "...we are grafted into his body and made one with him by belief of the gospel..." (As cited in this article here)

J. P. Boyce (1827-1888) wrote the following in his Systematic Theology (emphasis mine):

"It holds an important connection with every act and condition of salvation. It is by faith that men come into vital union with Christ, through faith that they are justified." (CHAPTER XXXIV - FAITH - See here)

So, again, another great Calvinist theologian rightly says that faith first unites a sinner to Christ and then follows justification and regeneration and all other aspects of salvation.

In this post (here) I cited John V. Fesko who rote (See here emphasis mine):

"Charles Partee suggested that union with Christ, not predestination, was Calvin’s “central affirmation. Partee presses this point in his later book on Calvin’s theology with a twofold claim. First, though many Reformed theologians contributed to the complex development of the tradition, Partee believes “we can still affirm John Calvin as the greatest systematic thinker among them.” Second, in line with his earlier claim, Partee claims that union with Christ is Calvin’s central teaching. Partee argues that Reformed Orthodoxy departed from Calvin’s teaching: “To put the point briefly and sharply, Calvin is not a Calvinist because union with Christ is at the heart of his theology—and not theirs.”

When I debate with the BABF view I always insist that union with Christ be discussed. I am sure all the readers can see why this would be.

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (7)

Next, Dr. James White addresses the question as to whether the great Catholic apologist, Thomas Aquinas (died 1274), taught the born again before faith view. He begins by saying:

"I will be brief here as I’m not usually in the habit of defending Thomas Aquinas. But to say that he did not hold to regeneration preceding faith is not correct. The following citations are from the First Part of Book Two, Question 113 of his Summa Theologica.

In Article 8, he stated that the “infusion of grace” is the cause and “naturally prior” to “whatever is required” for justification.

On the contrary, The cause is naturally prior to its effect. Now the infusion of grace is the cause of whatever is required for the justification of the ungodly, as stated above (Article [7]). Therefore it is naturally prior to it."

Surely White knows that Aquinas believed that regeneration occurred in water baptism, just as Augustine. Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, Second Part, "Question 66. The sacrament of Baptism," wrote (emphasis mine):

"He also sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament—namely, “regeneration” which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness; and “enlightenment,” which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habakkuk 2 (Hebrews 10:38; cf. Habakkuk 2:4): “But (My) just man lives by faith”; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the “Sacrament of Faith.”" 

Notice that Aquinas says that it is by faith that a man receives spiritual life and in baptism regeneration occurs. So, for White or Sproul to say that Aquinas taught that sinners are regenerated or born again before faith or baptism is false. Just because Aquinas says that grace is infused before a sinner wills to be saved does not mean that the infusion of grace was regeneration, but it was what preceded an eventual regeneration. Aquinas also believed that when Jesus spoke of being born again "of water and of Spirit" (John 3:5) that the water was baptism and he also believed that "the washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5) denoted being regenerated in water baptism.

In Question 68 Aquinas wrote the following about being born of water is a reference to water baptism:

"On the contrary, It is written (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Again it is stated in De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe the way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized."

And he also wrote:

"But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Galatians 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men."

Here are plain statements that show that Aquinas did not believe that regeneration or rebirth precedes faith. So, when White tries to read into Aquinas his view (that regeneration precedes faith) from the fact that Aquinas says grace must be given or infused prior to faith, or prior to willing to be saved, he is misinterpreting Aquinas.

Aquinas also wrote in the same section:

"Reply to Objection 1. At no time, not even before the coming of Christ, could men be saved unless they became members of Christ: because, as it is written (Acts 4:12), "there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." But before Christ's coming, men were incorporated in Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith circumcision was the "seal," as the Apostle calls it (Romans 4:11): whereas before circumcision was instituted, men were incorporated in Christ by "faith alone," as Gregory says (Moral. iv), together with the offering of sacrifices, by means of which the Fathers of old made profession of their faith. Again, since Christ's coming, men are incorporated in Christ by faith; according to Ephesians 3:17: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts."" 

Could anything be more clear? Incorporation into Christ occurs in regeneration, and Aquinas says this incorporation into Christ occurs after faith. A person is not joined to Christ, is not "in Christ," before he believes or receives Christ by faith. 

White wrote further in his commentary on things Aquinas said:

"Following this, he then stated that God’s part “is the infusion of grace” – which is turning man’s free will towards God. Aquinas is speaking of “order” here – the first in line is the infusion of grace and then man’s faith. Now the motion of God the Mover is the infusion of grace, as stated above (Article [6]); the movement or disposition of the moved is the free-will’s double movement; and the term or end of the movement is the remission of sin, as stated above (Article [6]). Hence in their natural order the first in the justification of the ungodly is the infusion of grace; the second is the free-will’s movement towards God."

So, how do the words of Aquinas affirm regeneration before faith? And, if they did, would that not contradict what he plainly said in the citations I gave above? Further, if I understand Aquinas rightly, he does say that God first moves the will, but he also says that the sinner's "free will" also is a mover, so that it is both wills acting together ("double movement") that bring remission of sin and all that is connected with it.

White wrote further:

"If we go back to Article 6, as referenced above, we see that grace is the cause of man’s will leading to faith. 

"The entire justification of the ungodly consists as to its origin in the infusion of grace. For it is by grace that free-will is moved and sin is remitted."

But, for White's inference from the words of Aquinas (in red) to be proof that he believed in regeneration before faith, you would have to have good reason to believe that by "infusion of grace" Aquinas means regeneration. Where is the evidence that this is what Aquinas meant? I have already cited texts like Acts 18:27 where we are told of people who had "believed through grace." That does not equate, however, to mean "believed through the grace of regeneration." White is reading his interpretation into the words of Aquinas. White and Sproul have it in their minds that the first giving of grace to a person has to be regeneration, that there can be no pre-regeneration grace. But, that is an error, and one that Calvin and the old Calvinist Reformers did not believe. I have already shown where Aquinas believed in prevenient grace, grace that precedes salvation.

Dr. Sproul in his article "Regeneration Precedes Faith" (see here) said (emphasis mine):

"No man has the power to raise himself from spiritual death. Divine assistance is necessary. This grace, according to Rome, comes in the form of what is called prevenient grace. "Prevenient" means that which comes from something else. Rome adds to this prevenient grace the requirement that we must "cooperate with it and assent to it" before it can take hold in our hearts." 

Where is the proof that the great apologist for Catholicism disagreed with that? 

White wrote further:

"Then, going back to Article 8 we see that this infusion leading to our wills having faith and our sins remitted relate to God’s justification. In all of it, “grace is the cause of the forgiveness of sin and of obtaining of justice”.

"And since the infusion of grace and the remission of sin regard God Who justifies, hence in the order of nature the infusion of grace is prior to the freeing from sin. But if we look at what is on the part of the man justified, it is the other way about, since in the order of nature the being freed from sin is prior to the obtaining of justifying grace. Or it may be said that the term “whence” of justification is sin; and the term “whereto” is justice; and that grace is the cause of the forgiveness of sin and of obtaining of justice."

(emphasis by Dr. White)

So again, I ask, how does admission that grace precedes faith (as Acts 18: 27 also plainly says) by Aquinas prove that he believed regeneration preceded faith? All Arminians admit that grace precedes faith, but they do not mean that they believe regeneration precedes faith.  

White wrote further:

"And lastly, from his comments on 2 Corinthians 3:3, Aquinas wrote the following. Men’s hearts were “made receptive as a result of filling and understanding”, and then he quoted Ezekiel 36:26.

"It is written not with ink, I say, but with the Spirit of the living God, i.e., by the Holy Spirit, by whom you live and by whose teaching you have been instructed: “In whom you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13). He suggests where it is written, when he says, not on tablets of stone, as the Old Law, to exclude hardness; as if to say: not in the stony hearts of the hard-hearted, as the Jews: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit” (Ac. 7:51); but on tablets of human hearts, i.e., hearts opened by charity, and human, i.e., made receptive as a result of filling and understanding: “I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (Ez. 36:26)." (emphasis by Dr. White)

Again, these words do not mean what White thinks they mean. Aquinas quotes Ephesians 1:13 which says that being "sealed with the promised Holy Spirit" occurs "after you believed." I also suggest that the writing that God does on the tables of the heart is not done apart from faith. Do we not read in the Bible where God exhorts people to write his word upon their hearts and minds? (Prov. 3: 3; 7:3) The bible is clear that the benefits of the new covenant are received by grace through faith, and having God's word written on the tablet of the heart is one of those benefits. This is the clear message of the Book of Hebrews.

White concludes by saying:

"We have read how Augustine, The Council of Orange, and Aquinas each were relating their belief that the infusion of Grace that we receive prior to coming to faith is an active and effectual infusion leading to “all men gladly assenting”. All who received this infusion of Grace through the removal of the heart of stone would then have faith. Certainly the most compelling statements we have read above were those of Augustine where he clearly established his belief that there must first be an act of regeneration (the turning of the heart from stone to flesh) before a man can come to faith. But Augustine’s clarity may be the most detrimental to Dr. Allen’s assertion here because it is Augustinianism that is a chief villain in this story Dr. Allen is presenting."

I don't believe that Augustine, Aquinas, nor the Council canons of Orange, said that all who receive grace would become believers, nor that they said that the heart of stone must first be removed before faith is possible. White is misinterpreting those people and twisting what those men meant. If Augustine, as White affirms, "clearly established his belief that there must first be an act of regeneration before a man can have faith," why can White not simply give us where Augustine said that? I have already shown where he said just the opposite. I suggest that White not only reads his view into the writings of the men we have been examining, but he also reads his born again before faith view into the sacred writings. But, more on that in the chapters to follow.

When I did a Google search asking the question - "who taught the regeneration before faith view prior to Calvin" I got the response from AI that said both Augustine and Aquinas. Why was that? I then responded to AI and said - "both Augustine and Aquinas did not believe regeneration preceded faith." AI responded by saying "you are right." The only source AI had for the incorrect view was R.C. Sproul! AI said:

"You are completely correct, and that is an important historical correction. Neither Augustine nor Thomas Aquinas taught that "regeneration precedes faith" in the way modern Reformed theology defines it. The claim that they did is a well-known historical misnomer, largely popularized by modern Reformed theologians like R.C. Sproul. Sproul famously wrote that "Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin...and even Thomas Aquinas" taught that regeneration precedes faith. However, church historians and historical theologians have heavily criticized this reading for anachronistically imposing a later Calvinist framework onto early and medieval church fathers."

AI gives as sources the following: 1) the article I have been critiquing from Sproul "Regeneration Precedes Faith," (here) and 2) the article from Daniel Musick "Faith Precedes Regeneration" (here), and 3) an article from Sproul "The New Birth" (here), and 4) an excellent article from Derek DeMars "Does Regeneration Precede Faith? Examining the Evidence." (here)

The two articles from Musick and DeMars completely refute the born again before faith view and show that this was not the view of Augustine, Aquinas, and the first Calvinist Reformers. The article by Musick was a great help to me in writing these first several chapters in this series. Also, I just read the article by DeMars and I also found it a very good article, expressing my own views generally. Let me cite from some things DeMars said in that article. All emphasis mine, except where words are in red.

“Regeneration precedes faith!” This statement has become a popular slogan among some contemporary Calvinist Christians. It summarizes the theological view that before anyone is able to put their faith in Jesus for salvation, they have to have already been spiritually born again (or regenerated) by a prior work of God within them. Then, and only then, are they capable of exercising faith."

"I’ll explain all this below. But at the start, let me just say to everyone reading this that if you personally lean more Calvinistic, this post is not intended as a tearing-down of Calvinism in general. Please keep in mind from the outset what I just wrote: most Calvinists throughout history have not taught or believed that “regeneration precedes faith!” It’s actually important for you to know that this doctrine is not essential for a Calvinist theological system. And, as I will seek to show below, it is also not biblical."

"For a systematic treatment of this topic by two modern Calvinists who conclude that regeneration does NOT precede faith, see Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 264-65, and Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., 944-59. For much of the below, I’m indebted to the discussion in David Allen, “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?” JBTM 11:2 (Fall 2014)."

"So Where Did This Doctrine Come From? Not only is the Bible against it, but church history also stands against the false notion of regeneration preceding faith. Prior to the Reformation, no one saw this idea taught in Scripture. Even after the Reformation, it was the view of only a small minority. None of the major classical theologians taught it — neither Augustine, nor the early church councils, nor Aquinas. Not even such figureheads of Calvinism as Calvin himself, Beza, Edwards, or Spurgeon taught it! (See Allen, “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?” 48-51.)"

"In other words, the idea that regeneration precedes faith does not come from the clear exegesis of Scripture, nor is it accepted Christian tradition. Rather, it is read into Scripture by a small minority of extreme Calvinists who want the Bible to support their system. It is eisegesis. And it is false."

"Concluding Thoughts. So, here’s the takeaway. If you’re a Calvinist, you could still argue that individual election and an effectual calling precede both faith and regeneration. You can argue from verses like Rom 8:28-30 or 1 Cor 1:26-31 that God effectually and irresistibly calls those whom he has unconditionally elected, and that the effectual call produces faith within the elect so that they can then be saved/regenerated. In that sense, God would still be granting the elect their faith. Non-Calvinists will debate that interpretation and deny the notion of an irresistible call, but you’d at least have a case to present. But don’t say the Bible teaches that regeneration precedes faith. It doesn’t."

"If you're not a Calvinist, don’t let anyone confuse you by throwing a bunch of verses around out of context and trying to say that regeneration precedes faith. Christians can still affirm the reality of spiritual death and our inability to save ourselves without thereby having to deny any human moral agency in salvation."

"And for all of us, remember that one thing we can all agree on is that salvation is by God’s grace through faith. Keep in mind that we are all simply trying to make sense out of how it is that God’s grace saves us, and how it “is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9)."

Amen

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (2)

Theodore Beza (1519-1605)

When I asked Google AI if Beza believed that regeneration preceded faith, I got this answer:

"Theodore Beza did not believe that faith preceded regeneration; rather, as a central architect of Reformed scholasticism, he held that regeneration (or effectual calling) logically precedes saving faith."

After I gave evidence to the contrary to AI, AI then said I was right and gave me the evidence from other sources that say I was right. I asked AI why it keeps making these errors. So, folks, do not trust AI to give you the correct answer. It is still learning. lol

In the previous chapter I showed that John Calvin, for whose namesake we get the word "Calvinism," did not believe that regeneration or rebirth of the Spirit preceded faith but believed faith preceded. Now I wish to cite from Theodore Beza, Calvin's close friend and one who co-founded with him the Geneva Academy and who succeeded him in leadership of the Reformed churches. He was also, even more than Calvin, a Greek scholar, having published critical and influential editions of the Greek New Testament (with his own Latin translations and detailed annotations) in 1565 and 1582. I say this because he believed like Calvin that regeneration was by faith and obviously therefore did not believe that I John 5:1 taught that regeneration or rebirth occurred before faith from the Greek grammar as later Calvinists would argue.

In "Propositions and Principles of Divinity" (You can read it here), Chapters 22-26, "concerning Faith, Justification, and Sanctification," and the sub-heading "PRINCIPLES CONCERNING FAITH. XXII," Beza wrote (emphasis mine):

"1. CHRISTIAN faith is that only hand, whereby we take hold, or apply unto ourselves, Christ being offered unto us, with all his benefits, that are necessary unto our salvation." 

"5. We affirm this Faith to be the mere gift of God, peculiar only to the elect: and such a gift as in no wise can be repented of, or called back, or being the most sure & immovable remedy unto the salvation of all the elect." 

This is what Calvin taught. He said that union with Christ is what must first occur before any of Christ's saving benefits can be obtained and since union with Christ is by faith, faith must precede not only justification, but regeneration, sanctification, etc. Since penitent faith is the substance of evangelical conversion, it precedes or is identical with regeneration. Calvin and Beza saw regeneration as sanctifying and believed, contrary to the Catholics, that justification precedes sanctification. The idea that union with Christ by faith is first in the order of salvation was also the teaching of the oldest Calvinist confessions, such as the Belgic (1561), the French Calvinist (1559), Westminster (1646) London Baptist (1644 & 1689).

The Belgic Confession says:

Article 22: Our Justification Through Faith in Jesus Christ We believe that to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery the Holy Ghost kindleth in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ with all His merits, appropriates Him,1 and seeks nothing more besides Him.2 For it must needs follow, either that all things which are requisite to our salvation are not in Jesus Christ, or if all things are in Him, that then those who possess Jesus Christ through faith have complete salvation in Him.3 

Article 24: Man's Sanctification and Good Works We believe that this true faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God and the operation of the Holy Ghost,1 doth regenerate and make him a new man, causing him to live a new life2 and freeing him from the bondage of sin.3 Therefore it is so far from being true that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life,4 that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God, but only out of self-love or fear of damnation.

Notice that the confession says that "true faith...doth regenerate and make him a new man" and causes him to have a new life.

The French Confession Of Faith A.D. 1559 (drawn up under the supervision of Calvin) said: "XXII. We believe that by this faith we are regenerated in newness of life, being by nature subject to sin." 

Westminster catechism says:

Q. 30. How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ? A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling. 

Q. 31. What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel. 

 Q. 32. What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life? A. They that are effectually called do in this life partake of justification, adoption, sanctification, and the several benefits which, in this life, do either accompany or flow from them. 

Notice that all the benefits of redemption, which would include regeneration or quickening, come from union with Christ and union is by faith. The Baptist Catechism attached to the 1689 London confession says the same.

Next, under "PRINCIPLES CONCERNING THE CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF FAITH" (XXIII) Beza wrote:

"1. THE efficient cause of faith indeed, and to speak properly, is one; to wit, the mercy of God. 

2. The ordinary means whereby the same is wrought, (that is, whereby both the understanding of man is framed unto a saving knowledge of God in Christ, and a particular receiving thereof; and also the will powerfully disposed unto a right order of the affections) is the preaching of God’s word, delivered unto us by the Prophets and Apostles, and for that cause (so far as it concerneth the elect) appointed to be in the Church."

It was when later Calvinists began to deny that regeneration or rebirth was by faith that they also began to deny that the word of God was a means in regeneration. In this post (here) I gave citations from W.G.T. Shedd's Systematic Theology where he said:

"The Lutheran doctrine, stated in the apology for the Augsburg Confession and in the Formula of Concord, employs regeneration in the wide meaning, but distinguishes carefully between justification and sanctification. In the Reformed church, the term regeneration was also employed in the wide signification...Regeneration thus included not only the new birth, but all that issues from it. It comprised the converting acts of faith and repentance...The divines of the seventeenth century very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms. Owen does this continually (On the Spirit 3.5), and Charnock likewise (Attributes, Practical Atheism)...Consequently, there arose gradually a stricter use of the term regeneration and its discrimination from conversion. Turretin (15.4.13) defines two kinds of conversion, as the term was employed in his day. The first is habitual or passive conversion. It is the production of a habit or disposition in the soul: Habitual or passive conversion occurs through the infusion of supernatural habits by the Holy Spirit. The second kind is actual or active conversion...Regeneration is the origination of life; conversion is the evolution and manifestation of life...Regeneration is wholly an act of God; conversion is wholly an activity of man...regeneration is not effected by the use of means, in the strict signification of the term means. The Holy Spirit employs means in conviction, in conversion, and in sanctification, but not in regeneration...the word and truth of God, the most important of all the means of grace, is not a means of regeneration..." 

  

(You can read the larger citations in the post I mentioned; these are excerpts)

Next Beza wrote:

"3. But here two extremities are to be taken heed unto: the one of the ENTHUSIASTS, who do not only distinguish but also separate the internal word as they call it: that is, the work of the Spirit of God in our souls, from the preaching of the written word: whence followeth not any faith, but rather a mere dotage." 

These old "Enthusiasts" remind me of the Hardshell Baptists who likewise distinguish between the internal word and the preaching of the written word. When they are confronted with I Peter 1: 23 and James 1: 18 where it is said that sinners are "born again" or "begotten" by the "word of God" or "word of truth" they will often say that this is a word that Jesus speaks directly to a sinner apart from the written word of God. It also reminds me of the rhema versus logos doctrine (or "word of faith" doctrine) of Pentecostals such as Kenneth Hagin who say that the rhema word is the word that Jesus speaks to you apart from the written word of God, as he does to prophets, and to them this rhema word has more weight than the written word of God. I wrote a short post on this (here).

Next Beza wrote:

"4. Now that which we have spoken of the Ecclesiastical ministry, is so to be taken, as in the mean time we are to know, that God as often as it pleaseth him, is able in a moment by the inward operation of his Spirit, extraordinarily to regenerate his elect."  

That is the essence of Calvinism. I recently wrote about his (here), stating that it is this truth that makes me a Calvinist and how even many Arminians pray this way.

Next Beza wrote:

"9. Now that true and lively faith, whereof we speak, is no less made known, by the perpetual and necessary effects thereof, than is the life of the body, by motion and sense. 

 

10. But these effects do not give being unto faith, or inform the same, as the Sophisters do most absurdly dream, but they are the undoubted and sure signs of it." 

 

This surely condemns those Calvinists today who say that regeneration precedes faith for they surely teach that regeneration and its effects are what gives being unto faith.

Beza continued:

11. These effects are partly carried out of us unto Christ, with whom we are united by faith, and partly they do beget some things within us.

12. The outward effects, inasmuch as they do peculiarly apply Christ and his benefits, unto those that believe, and therefore the most excellent, and of greatest account. And they are, both the full remission of all sins, as well original as actual, by the blood of Christ, and also the bestowing upon us of all righteousness fulfilled by him, together with the most full restoring and repairing of our nature in the flesh of Christ: All which, are freely by faith in Christ, imputed unto us, who take hold both of him and his gifts. 

 

13. Another effect of our spiritual joining together with him by faith is, that he governeth by his Holy Spirit, both our understanding & will, being sanctified and brought out of darkness unto that marvelous light; so as we begin to think, to will, and to do, the things that are of God."

Notice again the important basic proposition that says that faith is the means of a person becoming united to Christ and how all the benefits of redemption (of which regeneration or spiritual life is one) follows that union. The "repairing of our nature" is a result of union with Christ by faith.

Next he wrote:

"PRINCIPLES CONCERNING MAN’S JUSTIFICATION IN THE SIGHT OF GOD. XXIIII"

"11. The effect inherent in us, as in a subject, is that new quality, which is called inherent righteousness, or regeneration, which in no wise doth absolve us in the presence of God, but is only a most sure witness of our engrafting into Christ, and therefore, of our free absolution in him."

Beza says that regeneration is an effect of justification by faith. That is the biblical teaching. It was what Calvin, Beza, and others of the first Calvinists of the Reformation taught. They taught that faith preceded both justification and regeneration. Today's Calvinists who put regeneration before faith have also taken the Catholic view that says justification follows regeneration and sanctification. Those Calvinists who do so have not improved Calvinism but have adulterated it.

Next Beze writes the following under "PRINCIPLES CONCERNING SANCTIFICATION" [XXV.]:

"SEEING THE EFFECT OF FAITH IS twofold, Justification and Sanctification: it followeth that having spoken of the former, we adjoin the latter unto it."

Notice that he puts justification before sanctification and also know that he rightly saw how regeneration is sanctifying. Louis Berkhof even acknowledges this when he wrote:

"At the same time regeneration is the beginning of sanctification. The work of renewal, begun in the former, is continued in the latter, Phil. 1:6." (Systematic Theology Chapter X "Sanctification" - here)

So, not only do Calvinists of the "born again before faith" camp put regeneration before justification but also put sanctification before justification.

Next Beza wrote:

"1. HERE first of all, we do especially distinguish, Sanctification, whereof we are now to speak, from that most perfect integrity which in Christ is imputed unto us, as the effect is to be severed from the cause, and the fruit from the tree.

2. To express this whereof we now speak, there do occur many & diverse names in the holy Scriptures, as are these especially in the new testament: Sanctification, regeneration, newness of life, Baptism taken passively, Spirit, mortification of the old man, and the quickening of the new, with other the like phrases, which would be too long to be here recited."

Notice how Beza sees regeneration as the beginning of sanctification as well as the fruit of justification by faith. 

Beza continued:

"11. This faith is in no wise of ourselves, but from the mere grace of God, the Holy Ghost mercifully creating the same in the understanding, and the heart of the elect, that is, being the cause that after they have heard, and understood the word of the Gospel, they do truly believe although not perfectly..."

Those Calvinists who teach the "born again before faith" error tell us that if we do not put regeneration before faith that we then deny total depravity, accept Arminian 'prevenient grace,' deny that regeneration is the work of God wherein the sinner is totally passive, and the whole Calvinistic system. However, that is simply not true. Why? Because, as Beza says, faith is God's creation. That is what he said in the above citation and in others I could cite.

Beza continued:

"13. That new quality then, called inherent righteousness, and regeneration testified by good works, is a necessary effect of true faith: whence it is to be gathered, that good works are by no means the causes, but only the witnesses of that imputed justification, whereby alone troubled consciences are at rest. for they are no otherwise to be considered, than as things that necessarily follow the believer’s being already justified in Christ."

Why did Calvin and Beza not see that their teaching of regeneration by faith caused all the problems that those Calvinists of the "regenerated before faith" view create? Why did they not see how the grammar of I John 5:1 taught the born again before faith view? In the above citation Beza again says that regeneration is by faith. He also spoke of "Doctrines therefore are to be detested." Such doctrines included the view "That no man can be assured of his salvation" and "That our Justification in the sight of God, is an effect of our Regeneration." Today's Calvinists of the "born again before faith" view who in their ordo salutis put regeneration before justification would be denounced by Calvin and Beza and other Calvinists, such as I, being a view that they "detested." 

The following is taken from this web page (here) of "puritans mind" and the article titled "Faith and Justification - by Theodore Beza (1519-1605)." The author writes:

"The following article by Theodore Beza was taken from chapter four (sections 1-13) of his book The Christian Faith, translated into English by James Clark (Focus Christian Ministries Trust, East Essex England, 1992)." Then follow these citations from Beza (emphasis mine):

The Holy Spirit makes us partakers of Jesus Christ by Faith Alone

The Holy Spirit is therefore the One through whom the Father places and maintains His elect in possession of Jesus Christ, His Son; and, consequently, of all the graces which are necessary to their salvation.

But it is necessary, in the first place, that the Holy Spirit makes us suitable and ready to receive Jesus Christ. This is what He does in creating in us, by His pure goodness and Divine mercy, that which we call ‘faith’ (Eph. 1: 17; Phil 1: 29; 2 ‘Mess 3:2), the sole instrument by which we take hold of Jesus Christ when He is offered to us, the sole vessel to receive Him (John 3:1-13, 33-36).

Further on, we will return to this; in the first place we shall define what this so precious faith is, and what are its effects and powers."

"How faith is necessary, and what faith is. We are at this point such enemies of our own salvation, because of our natural corruption (Rom 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14), that if God had merely contented Himself to tell us that we shall find our salvation in Jesus Christ, we would only mock it; thus has the world always done and will do until the end (1 Cor. 1:23-25; John 10:20; Acts 2:13; Luke 23:35). Even more, if He added nothing more than to tell us also that the means whereby we experience the efficacy of this remedy against eternal death is to believe in Jesus Christ, that would profit us nothing (John 3:5-6). For, in all this, we are more than dumb (Ps. 51:15; Is 6:5; Jer. 1:6), deaf (Ps. 40:6; John 8:47; Matt 13:13), and blind through the corruption of our nature (John 1:5; 3:3; 9:41). It would be no more possible for us even to wish to believe than it would be for a dead man to fly (John 12:38,39; 6:44)...In declaring to us that He has given His own only Son so that whosoever takes hold of Him by faith should not perish (John 3:16), He creates also in us this instrument of faith which He requires from us."

"On the other side, faith embraces and appropriates Jesus Christ and all that is in Him, since He has been given to us on the condition of believing in Him (John 17:20,21; Rom 8:9). There follows one of two things: either all that is necessary for our salvation is not in Jesus Christ, or if all is indeed there, he who has Jesus Christ by faith has everything. Now, to say that all which is necessary for our salvation is not in Jesus Christ is a very horrible blasphemy, for this would only make Him a Saviour in part (Matt 1:21). There remains therefore the other part: in having Jesus Christ, by faith, we have in Him all that is required for our salvation (Rom 5:1)."

"Here is the explanation of our justification by faith alone: faith is the instrument which receives Jesus Christ and, consequently, which receives His righteousness, that is to say, all perfection. When therefore, after St. Paul (Rom 1: 17; 3:21-27; 4:3; 5:1; 9:30-33; 11:6; Gal 2:16-21; 3:9,10,18; Phil 3:9; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5; Heb. 11:7) we say that we are justified by faith alone, or freely, or by faith without works (for all these ways of speaking give the same sense), we do not say that faith is a virtue which makes us righteous, in ourselves, before God. For this would be to put faith in the place of Jesus Christ who is, alone, our perfect and entire righteousness."

"But we speak thus with the Apostle, and we say that by faith alone we are justified, insomuch as it embraces Him who justifies us, Jesus Christ, to whom it unites and joins us. We are then made partakers of Him and the benefits which He possesses. These, being imputed and gifted to us, are more than sufficient to make us acquitted and accounted righteous before God."

"It is established that to be assured of one’s salvation, through faith, is not only neither presumption nor arrogance, but, on the contrary, is the sole means of stripping oneself of all pride, to give all glory to God (Rom 8:16,38; Eph 3:12; Heb. 10:22,23; 1 John 4:13; 5:19; Rom 3:27; 4:20; 1 Cor. 4:4; 9:26,27). Because faith alone teaches us to go out of ourselves, and compels us, to earnestly acknowledge that in ourselves there is nothing but cause for complete damnation. Thus it sends us away to Jesus Christ, and it teaches us and assures us that we shall find salvation before God through His righteousness alone. Truly, all that is in Jesus Christ, that is to say, all the righteousness and perfection (in Him there was no sin and moreover He has fulfilled all the righteousness of the Law), is placed to our account and gifted to us as if it were our own, provided that we embrace Him by faith."

"That is why the Church, that is to say, the assembly of believers, is called the Spouse of Jesus Christ, her Husband (Rom 7:2-6; 8:35; 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph 5:31,32); it is to more clearly show the greatness of the union and communion which exists between Jesus Christ and those who, through faith, have entrusted themselves to him. For, by virtue of this union and this spiritual marriage through faith, He takes all our miseries upon Himself, and we receive from Him all His treasures, by His pure goodness and mercy. This is what we are going to see."

"In the same way as the soul produces its effects when it is naturally united to the body, so, when, by faith, Jesus Christ dwells in us in a spiritual manner, His power produces there and reveals there His graces. These are described in Scripture by the words ‘regeneration’ and ‘sanctification’, and they make us new creatures with regard to the qualities that we can have (John 3:3; Eph 4:21-24)."

White Horse Of The Apocalypse XVII

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

This destruction of the city and sanctuary occurred in A.D. 70. But, if Jesus died in the midst of the final week, that would leave only 3 1/2 years after his death for the completion of the seventy weeks. The destruction of the city and temple occurred a little less than forty years after the death of Christ. But, should not the destruction have occurred within 3 1/2 years following the death of Christ? How do we explain the fact that the destruction occurred after the 70 weeks had ended? Some make a big issue in regard to this fact.

Those who believe Jesus died in the gap and not in the 70th week will use the above fact as argument against those, like Mauro, others, and I, who believe Christ was "cut off," not in the supposed gap, but "in the midst" of the 70th week, which is the time in which Christ nullified all the old testament ritual sacrifices for atonement. These say that since the destruction of the city and temple occurred outside of the 70 week time period (it ending 3 1/2 yrs. after his death), then this proves that a gap exists. But, such reasoning is not logical but is a case of reading more into the text than is there.

Some reply to this argument of the advocates of the gap and postponement theory by giving several options for explaining the fact that the destruction of city and temple occurred in a time when the 70 weeks had already ended. Mauro believed that God extended to the Jews a period of time to repent for their crime of crucifying their own Messiah. A better explanation is given by others, however.

In "Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and Biblical Prophecy" Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D. (here) writes these good words (emphasis mine) in answering the same objection:

"Although the event that serves as the terminus of the sixty-ninth week is clearly specified, such is not the case with the terminus of the seventieth. Thus, the exact event that ends the seventieth is not so significant for us to know. Apparently at the stoning of Stephen, the first martyr of Christianity, the coven­antal proclamation began to be turned toward the Gentiles (Acts 8:1). The apos­tle to the Gentiles appears on the scene at Steph­en’s death (Acts 7:58–8:1) as the Jewish persecution against Chris­tianity breaks out. Paul’s mission is clearly stated as ex­ceeding the narrow Jewish focus (Acts 9:15)."

This seems to me to be a very good response to the question. It also made me think of these words from Luke the historian:

"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." (Acts 13: 46)

Gentry continued:

"This confirmation of the covenant occurs “in the middle of the week” (v. 27). I have already shown that the seventieth week begins with the baptismal anointing of Christ. Then, after three and one-half years of ministry — the middle of the seven­ti­eth week — Christ was crucified (Luke 13:6–9; Eccl. Hist. 1:10:3). Thus, the prophecy states that by His conclusive confir­mation of the covenant, Messiah will “bring an end to sacrifice and offering” (v. 27) by offering up Himself as a sacrifice for sin (Heb. 9:25–26, cf. 7:11–12, 18–22). Consequently, at His death the Temple’s veil was torn from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51) as evidence that the sacrificial system was legally disestab­lished in the eyes of God (cf. Matt. 23:38), for Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29; Acts 8:32; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5–7)."

Those who promote the gap theory generally put the fulfillment of the words "unto Messiah the Prince" to the time on Palm Sunday when Christ rides into Jerusalem on the donkey. Those who promote the traditional view, however, see the words "unto Messiah the Prince" as pointing to the time when Christ was "anointed with the Holy Spirit and power" at his baptism. Messiah means, like "Christ," "the anointed one."

If we ask the question "when did the sacrifices end?" we answer: they were "officially" ended by God with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and ended practically when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70.

Gentry continued:

"But how are we to understand the latter portions of both verses 26 and 27? What are we to make of the destruction of the city and sanctuary (v. 26) and the abomination that causes desolation (v. 27), which most non-dispensational evangelical commentators agree occurred in AD 70?

In verse 26 we learn that two events are to occur after the sixty-ninth week: (1) The Messiah is to be “cut off” and (2) the city and sanctuary are to be destroyed. Verse 27a informs us that the Messiah’s cutting off (v. 26a) is a confirmation of the covenant and is to occur at the halfway mark of the seventieth week. So, the Messiah’s death is clearly within the time frame of the Seventy Weeks (as we expect because of His being the ma­jor figure of the fulfillment of the prophecy).

The events involving the destruction of the city and the sanctuary with war and desolation (vv. 26b, 27b) are the conse­quences of the cutting off of the Messiah and do not necessarily occur in the Seventy Weeks’ time frame. They are an addendum to the fulfillment of the focus of the prophecy, which is stated in verse 24. The destructive acts are anticipated, however, in the divine act of sealing up or reserving the sin of Israel for pun­ishment. Israel’s climactic sin — her completing of her trans­gression (v. 24) with the cutting off of Messiah (v. 26a) — results in God’s act of reserving Israel’s sin until later. Israel’s judg­ment will not be postponed forever; it will come after the expi­ra­tion of the Seventy Weeks. This explains the “very indefi­n­ite” phrase “till the end of the war”: the “end” will not oc­cur during the Seventy Weeks.[35] That prophesied end occurred in AD 70, exactly as Christ had made abundantly clear in Mat­thew 24:15.

My own explanation has been similar to this. The prophecy does not say that the destruction of the city and temple were to occur within the 70 week time period. It is not listed among the six things delineated in verse 24 that would be accomplished by the coming of "Messiah the Prince." That is important to note. Based upon this we can say that the prophecy does not say that the destruction of city and temple, along with the dispersion of the Jews, was to occur within the time period of the 70 weeks, unlike the six things listed in verse 24. One may really view the words "and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined" as a parenthesis.

When one looks at the new testament gospel narratives we see how Jesus, after being rejected by the builders, pronounced desolation upon the city and temple. He said "your house is left unto you desolate." (Matt. 23: 38) The judgment upon the city and temple was announced by the Savior in the seventieth week and its execution was carried out fully in A.D. 70.

When did the sacrifices and oblations cease? In the middle of the week, the 70th week. But, after the death of Christ, these continued to be offered until the destruction in A.D. 70.

Gentry continued under the sub title "The Gap in the Seventy Weeks":

"Dispensationalism incorpo­rates a gap or parenthesis between the sixty-ninth and seventi­eth weeks. This gap spans the entire­ty of the Church Age from the Triumphal Entry to the Rap­ture.[36] The dispensational argu­ments for a gap of un­de­ter­mined length between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks are not convincing. Let us consider a few of their leading argu­ments for a gap.

First, the peculiar phraseology in Daniel: Daniel places the cut­ting off of the Messiah “after the 62 ‘sevens,’ not in the 70th ‘seven.’”[37] This is so stated to allow for a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. If the cutting off did not occur during the sixty-ninth week or during the seventieth week, there must be a gap in between wherein it does occur."

But this line of argument is a "begging the question," assumes a fact not in evidence and then reasons upon it.

Gentry responded:

"In response, it is obvious that seventy occurs after sixty-nine and thus fits the requirements of the prophecy. Consequently, such an argument does not prove that the “after” requires a gap. Besides, Daniel mentions only seventy weeks and, as Hans LaRon­delle has pointed out, Daniel most certainly does not say “after sixty-nine weeks, but not in the seventieth.”[38] Such an expla­n­a­tion is a gratuitous assumption. Since Daniel has yet to deal with the seventi­eth week, and since he has clearly dealt with the pre­ceding sixty-nine weeks (v. 25), it is quite natural to assume this cutting off of the Messiah must be sometime within the seven-year period cov­ered by the seventieth week."

Well said. The gap view simply has "no legs to stand on."

Gentry continued:

"Second, a fatal admission: “Historically the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in AD 70 almost forty years after the death of Christ.”[39] Since this was given in Daniel’s prophecy and was to occur within the Seventy Weeks, “the continuous fulfillment theory [is] left without any explanation adequate for interposing an event as occurring after the sixty-ninth seven by some thirty-eight years.”[40]

I have already explained the relation of the Seventy Weeks to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 (see above). The goal of the Seventy Weeks is not the AD 70 destruction of the Tem­ple, which is not mentioned in verse 24. That destruction is a later consequence of certain events brought to fulfillment within the Seventy Weeks. The actual act of God’s reserving judgment (v. 24) occurred within the Seventy Weeks; the later removal of that reservation did not. There is no necessity at all for a gap."

Again, the reasoning of the gap theorists simply "will not hold water."

Gentry continued:

"Third, the general tendency in prophecy: Walvoord writes: “Nothing should be plainer to one reading the Old Testament than that the fore­view therein provided did not describe the period of time be­tween the two advents. This very fact confused even the proph­ets (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10–12).”[41] His argument then is this: Old Tes­tament prophecy can merge the First and Sec­ond Advents into one scene, though separated by thousands of years. Conse­quently, we have Biblical warrant for understand­ing the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks as merged into one scene, although separated by a gap of thousands of years."

The fact that many of the prophets of old did not clearly foresee the duality of Christ's coming, and of many things in this "church age," does not prove that such a "gap" understanding is to be applied to cases where a specific and definite time period is given, whether in days, weeks, months, or years.

Gentry continued:

"This argument is wholly without merit. The Seventy Weeks are considered as a unit, though subdivided into three unequal parts: (1) It is one period of seventy weeks that must transpire in order to experience the events men­tioned. The plural “seventy weeks” is followed by a singular verb “is decreed,” which indicates the unity of the time period. (2) An overriding concern of the prophecy, in distinction to all other Messianic prophecies, is that it is designed as a measuring time frame. If the dispensational gap theory regarding the seventieth week is true, then the gap separating the seventieth from the sixty-ninth week is now almost 2000 years long, or four times the whole time period of the Seventy Weeks or 490 years. And who knows how much longer it will continue. The concept of measuring is thus destroyed."

Exactly! There is really nothing about the Dispensational gap theory that is based upon sound exegesis and reasoning.

Gentry under sub title "The Dispensational Covenant" wrote:

"The confirmation of the covenant mentioned in verse 27 is woefully misunderstood by dispensationalists. According to Walvoord: “[T]his refers to the coming world ruler at the be­ginning of the last seven years who is able to gain control over ten countries in the Middle East. He will make a covenant with Israel for a seven-year period. As Daniel 9:27 indicates, in the middle of the seven years he will break the covenant, stop the sacrifices being offered in the temple rebuilt in that period, and become their persecutor instead of their protector, fulfilling the promises of Israel’s day of trouble (Jer. 30:5–7).”[42]

Several problems plague this interpretation, some of which have already been indicated in another connection:

The covenant here is not made; it is confirmed. This is actually the confirmation of a covenant already extant, i.e., the covenant of God’s redemptive grace confirmed by Christ (Rom. 15:8)."

"Several problems plague this interpretation"! Amen to that.

Gentry continued:

"As noted above, the term is related to the name of the angel of God who delivered the message to Daniel: Gabriel (“God is strong”). The lexical correspondence between the name of the strong angel of God (who reveals the Seventy Weeks to Daniel) and the making strong of the cove­nant, themselves suggest the divine nature of the covenant. In addition, covenantal passages frequently employ related terms, when speaking of the strong God of the covenant.[43]

The parallelism with verse 26 indicates that the death of the Messiah is directly related to the confirming of the cove­nant. He is “cut off” but “not for himself” (v. 26a), for He “con­firms the covenant” for the “many” of Israel (v. 27a). His “cut­ting off” brings the confirmation of the covenant, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).

The indefinite pronoun “he” does not refer back to “the prince who is to come” of verse 26.[44] That “prince” is a subor­di­nate noun; “the people” is the dominant noun. Thus, the “he” refers back to the last dominant individual mentioned: “Messi­ah” (v. 26a). The Messiah is the leading figure in the whole prophecy, so the destruction of the Temple is relat­ed to His death. In fact, the people who destroy the Tem­ple are providen­tially “His armies” (Matt. 22:2–7)."

The great error of the Dispensational interpretation is that it ends up making, not Christ, but the Antichrist, as "the leading figure in the whole prophecy." That in itself should make it highly suspect as a legitimate interpretation. They do the same thing with the rider on the white horse in Rev. 6: 2, making Antichrist to be the rider rather than Christ.

Rules of Canonicity

Rules for Deciding Canonicity

Canonical Rule #1

Does the scroll (book) speak of Christ? Is it prophetic?

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself...And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. " (Luke 24: 27, 44 KJV)

Which books of the Old Testament did NOT speak of the Messiah?

Clearly Esther does not.

Levels of Inspiration or Canonicity

Think of a circle with clearly defined rings (boundaries). In the "inner circle" of "inspiration," for the Old Testament, are the five books of Moses, the Penteteuch, or Torah, or "law of Moses."

In the second circle, we would have "the prophets." What books would this include? And, let not our answer be based upon some "canon" that was supposedly being used by Christ, and universally recognized and codified, but solely upon the descriptive title given by Christ.

What books can we put safely into the category of "the prophets"? Surely the ones known as the "twelve." The only questionable ones, besides the ones named above, would be Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Ruth, Daniel, Job, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

First, it is easy to put Daniel and Job into the category of "the prophets," is it not? Jesus called Daniel a prophet (Matthew 24: 15) and certainly Job prophesied of the coming Redeemer (Goel) who would redeem him from death. (Job 19: 23-27)

Next, we can place Judges and Ruth with Samuel, who no doubt authored these books. Further, we can also put Samuel's stamp of approval, along with David's and Solomon's, upon the inspiration of the books of the Kings and Chronicles. Many of these books, in many Jewish collections, were viewed as one book. Further, one can find allusions to the Messiah in the above books.

The book of Joshua could also be placed among the books of the prophets, for he was certainly a prophet and his writings contain both law and prophecy, as well as history.

Also we find their veracity verified by New Testament writers.

Christ, though he put the Psalms in a category all by itself, in the above passage, yet could have placed it in the category of "the prophets," for David is also identified, in scripture, as being a "prophet." Christ no doubt had a reason or reasons, for so doing.

First, not all the Psalms were written by David, but included those written by Moses and Solomon, the former being a prophet, while the latter was not. Also, not all the Psalms were messianic or prophetic. Since Christ put the Psalms into a category all its own, so, we will make the Psalms to be the third circle of inspiration.

This leaves only Ezra and Nehemiah, which were often viewed as one book (as did Josephus, who, like many Jews, believed that there was to be only 22 books, for there are only 22 letters to the Hebrew alphabet).

This really brings us to the fourth circle of inspiration, which we will call "the holy writings," or the "other writings," or sometimes as simply "the writings." These would include the inspired historical books of Kings and Chronicles, and of Ezra and Nehemiah, but they will also include what may be appropriately called the "Wisdom" and Romance books.

The Wisdom literature takes in two of the writings of Solomon, excepting his psalm writing, which are the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. His contribution to the "Romance" category would be, of course, his "Song of Songs." Some would put Ruth and Judges into the category of either historical or romance, but I think they should be placed into the prophetic, into the messianic, being properly part of the entire prophetic writings of Samuel.

None of these historical books can be strictly called "messianic." They are much like the books of Kings and Chronicles, and properly called "historical." They are to be seen as accurate and trustworthy histories and are in this sense "inspired" or "of God," but still not of the kind or level of inspiration as the prophetic books which all speak of the Messiah. The same is true for the "Wisdom" and "Romance" writings. These historical books, together with the "Wisdom" and "Romance" books, are to be received as composing the fourth circle.

Then where would we put the book of Esther? Is it historical? Is it an inspired novel? Certainly it is not messanic and therefore would not pass the first test of canonicity, given by Jesus above. Would we put it in the same circle with the other historical and romance writings?

There are those who have, historically, sought to place other books into these various circles of inspiration. These would include books called "Apocryphal."

How can we judge the inspiration, truthfulness, correctness, and reliability of these books? How do they stand up to the first rule of inspiration and canonicity? The messianic rule?

3. Reliable manuscripts

What is the first criterion for deciding full inspiration or canonicity? It is the Messianic criterion (which would include what some called the "prophetic" test or criterion).

Does the book speak of Christ? In my previous chapter, I showed from Luke 24: 27, 44 that Christ made this a rule for calling something "scripture."

In this chapter I will enlarge upon the "messianic test (rule)" and show that "the scriptures" are defined by this rule.

"But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?...But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." (Matthew 26: 54, 56 KJV)

"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24: 45-47 KJV)

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5: 39 KJV)

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ." (Acts 17: 2, 3 KJV)

"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18: 28 KJV)

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." (I Corinthians 15: 3, 4 KJV)

"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen." (Romans 16: 25-27 KJV)

From these verses we are given a further description and definition of what constitutes "scripture."

Scripture testifies of Christ. Whatever does not testify of Christ is not "scripture." It discusses repentance and remission of sins. Thus, "content" or "theme" is a sub category within the "messianic rule."

From "the scriptures" one may learn of Christ and the gospel. None of this, however, can be learned from the Book of Esther.

We also learn that "scripture" may be "fulfilled." This makes "scripture," by biblical definition, "prophetic," whether outright or by way of symbolism and analogy. Strictly "historical" and "romance" books of Hebrew literature, are not capable of being "fulfilled."

Canonical Rule 2 - The Profitability Test (criterion)

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15: 4 KJV)

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (II Timothy 3: 15-17 KJV)

1) Does the book produce a "hope" of salvation through Christ?

2) Does the book "instruct in righteousness," being "profitable" thereunto?

3) Does the book "correct" errors in doctrine and righteousness?

4) Is the book "profitable for doctrine"? If so, what doctrines?

5) Is the book "profitable for reproof"? If so, how or in what way?

6) Does the book "perfect" the faith of the "man of God"?

7) Does the book "make one wise unto salvation"?

Scripture here is defined as what makes one wise unto salvation in Christ. Does the Book of Esther do this? Does it pass the test of "profitability"?

Canonical Rule 3 (no private interpretation)

Thus far we have given the first two paramount rules of judging inspiration and canonicity, the "Messianic Rule Test," and the "Profitability Test." In this chapter I introduce the next rule, the "no private interpretation rule," or the --

Privacy or Origination Test

This rule would include the issue of divine "authority."

Those who wrote scripture were not self authorized men, or men who were authorized by groups of uninspired men, but men who were chosen and appointed by God, men who were sent and authorized by him, and taught by him what to say and teach.

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (II Peter 1: 19-21 KJV)

In discerning inspiration and canonicity, we should ask such questions as these:

1. Who authored the book?

2. What was the content, subject, or main teachings of the book?

3. How did the book come into being?

4. What of its origination?

5. Is it "prophetic"?

6. Does it reveal the nature and workings of God and Christ?

7. Does it instruct in righteousness and doctrine?

All Apocryphal books are in the category of books that arose from the "will of man," being an artful and cunning device, meant to deceive. The books of genuine inspiration, however, arise from the "will of God," by the working of his Spirit.

The phrase, "private interpretation," translates the Greek phrase, idios epilupsis. Idios is defined as, “pertaining to one’s own self” or “personal.” Epilupsis is defined as an unloosing and is used metaphorically in this verse to mean interpretation, as in loosening the meaning of the verse.

"Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing? a man's wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness of his face shall be changed." (Ecclesiastes 8: 1 KJV)

Wise ones, or "scientists," are those who are able to "explain a thing," to "make sense of things," to "interpret" things in nature.

Scripture is not like other books of knowledge. It is not like a book on Mathematics or Physics or Chemistry. These latter books owe their immediate origin, their "interpretations" or "explanations" of things, to the will and learning of a man, to his own initiative in education and learning, and to his own skillful advances in it.

But, the things the prophets and holy men wrote about were not truths that they "figured out" by the use of reason, logic, and scientific discovery and investigation.

Thus, an inspired book is not only a "prophetic" book, but a book that is "revelation," that which is directly imparted to the mind and understanding of the chosen seer, and which is truth that he could not have "figured out" or "discovered" by ordinary methods of learning.

The books of inspiration are not like works of secular knowledge.

Books of secular knowledge are produced by self willed authors who made a choice to learn all about a topic and then write something profound about it. They are therefore the results of a man's will and efforts, of his own scheming and planning, of his own efforts at discovery.

Can we read the books of Scripture, the books of the Apocrypha, and all the other many books professing inspiration, and discern whether they originated with the will of man, versus the will of God? And discern whether it is knowledge given miraculously by revelation, or knowledged acquired by the efforts of human discovery?

Did the Book of Esther, or Book of Enoch, or the Book of Judith, Book of Maccabees, etc., originate with the will of an uninspired Jewish man or with the will of God? Did the Book of Esther, etc., give a man's uninspired views of things, or the views of God? We might ask the same of the writings of Solomon.

Look at how Paul the apostle and prophet received his revelation and inspiration. He wrote:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1: 11, 12 KJV)

Here Paul contends against the idea that his prophetic writings were a violation of Peter's rule about "private interpretation," about "self production." What was the "source" of Paul's gospel knowledge and revelation? Was it at the feet of Gamaliel? Was it in the schools of the Rabbis? No, no. It was the gift of miraculous revelation of truth to Paul by the personal appearing and instruction of the Lord Jesus Christ.

To know that a book is thus a "revelation" or "oracle" from God, and not a self production, requires that we know something about the author and how he received his revelation.  Of course, above all it requires the inner witness of the Spirit for anyone to recognize inspiration. 

Are there any books of the Bible where we do not know who are the authors and the manner in which they received their divine communications?

Peter says that the authors of the inspired prophecies were "holy men." Do we know that the author of the Book of Esther was a "holy man" who was "moved by the Holy Ghost"?

No "private interpretation" probably includes the idea that no particular prophecy, or book of prophecy and inspiration, is to stand by itself, but should show harmony, if not direct stated support, with other prophets and inspired books.

Paul gave us the rule of "comparing spiritual things with spiritual," which would include the hermenuetic rule to "compare scripture with scripture." (I Cor. 2: 13 KJV)

Questions to ask about particular books

1. Does the book lack authenticity?

2. Does it have faulty historical information?

3. Does it contradict other more authoratative works of inspiration?

4. Does it contradict itself?

5. What is the "spirit" and "tenor" of the writing?

6. What is in the heart and mind of the writer as he writes?

7. Who is his audience?

8. What does he hope to effect by the publishing of his writing?

9. Does the book "breathe" inspiration and divinity?

10. Can you sense the divine profoundness and style of the writings?

"And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." (Numbers 12: 6 KJV)

The authors of inspiration meet this test. Does the author of Esther?

"Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart." (Jeremiah 14: 14 KJV)

The false prophets are the uninspired ones. They spoke not by the Lord and Holy Spirit, were not "moved" and "inspired" by him, but spoke by their own moving and by their own authority and wisdom. Their teachings originated in their evil hearts and minds, not with God's inspiration.

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD...How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart." (Jeremiah 23: 16, 26 KJV)

Notice how the words of the false prophets, and false writers of "scripture," are they whose message comes "from" their own selves, not "from" the Lord. Lack of a valid source to the revelation is a reason to reject the pretended revelation.

"For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed." (Jeremiah 29: 8 KJV)

This is a clear example of "private interpretation" and of what it means for a "prophecy (revelation) of scripture" to "come by" the "will of man," and not "by" the "will of God."

"Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the LORD; Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!" (Ezekiel 13: 2, 3 KJV)

Here again is a picture of an "uninspired" prophet and of his prophecy and pretended revelations, and of his presumed authority and inspiration, of his "private interpretation" and "self revelation."

"Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit: And the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel." (Amos 7: 14, 15 KJV)

Here we see how Amos did arrive at the knowledge of God, as expressed in his writings, in his divine "interpretations" or "explanations" of things, and see how it was not what originated in his own heart, by his own will, and by his own moving of himself, and how it rather originated with God, being that which God gave it to him in a miraculous manner, by revelation, and so not the result of Amos' own self ambitions and educational achievements.

"For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him." (Acts 13: 27 KJV)

Here scripture is defined as being part of the collection of writings which the Jews read weekly in the Synagogue and which were messianic. Also, scripture is defined as being the production of "prophets." Every Old Testament book is the "voice" of a "prophet" of God. Was the author of Esther a prophet of God?

"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." (Acts 24: 14 KJV)

Notice how Paul believes only those books that are either of Moses or of a prophet are authoritative and inspired.

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10: 43 KJV)

What a canonical rule for judging inspiration! What does the book, claiming inspiration, speak about? Does it speak of God and Christ? Of the forgiveness of sins? Of faith?

Three rules have been given thus far for determining inspiration and canonicity.

1) The Messianic rule (test)

2) The Profitability rule (test)

3) The Privacy rule (test)

A popular Conservative web site gives these rules for "Tests of Canonicity."

"Specific tests to consider canonicity may be recognized."

(1) Did the book indicate God was speaking through the writer and that it was considered authoritative?

(2) Was the human author recognized as a spokesman of God, that is, was he a prophet or did he have the prophetic gift?

(3) Was the book historically accurate? Did it reflect a record of actual facts?

There are some 250 quotes from Old Testament books in the New Testament. None are from the Apocrypha. All Old Testament books are quoted except Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon."

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=697

Citations from another bible writer, particularly from a prophet, apostle, or from Christ, is included under canon rule #3, under Peter's rule that said no inspired prophetic work was of any "private interpretation." This will then be an enlargement upon that rule.

No inspired writing (or verbal message) by a prophet (or apostle, but really, all the apostles were prophets too) was capable of self production but was immediate revelation of God. It had to have "come by" the "will of God" and not "come by" the "will of man." The writing must have "come by" the "moving" of God's "Spirit," and not "come by" a self "moving" spirit of man.

Inspiration connects with authority and authority with revelation. A "scripture" or "inspired writing" must have God and his miraculous working as the sole cause of the revelation in order for the "source" to be valid.

According to Peter, if the source be not with God and his will and moving, then it is what is a "personal interpretation," a mere scruple that has no substance of truth to it, and what has arisen from a man's own spirit and imagination.

This third rule for judging canonicity and inspiration, or divine authority for written works of professed revelation, includes the confirmatory "interpretations" and "attestations" given by the prophets themselves to other fellow prophets and to their writings, and of Christ and his apostles, and of those who were companions of the apostles, and recognized leaders among the apostles.

This third rule for inspiration and canonicity, as I have said, includes the "prophetic rule."

Peter referred to all of Old Testament scripture as being prophetic, being revelation from a God sent prophet.

Hebrews 1:1 says, "God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets. . . ."

What prophecy or revelation is in the Book of Esther?

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10: 43 KJV)

What a canonical rule for judging inspiration! What does the book, claiming inspiration, speak about? Does it speak of God and Christ? Of the forgiveness of sins? Of faith?
Does the Book of Esther give this "witness" that all the prophets give? Is Esther a "prophetic" book?

"...unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3: 2 KJV)

What are the "oracles" of God? Are all books of a particular "bible" the "oracles" of God? Can we call a particular book, claiming inspiration and canonicity, the "oracles" of God?

Can the Book of Esther be properly called the "oracles" or God? When it has no utterances of God in it?

The three rules I have presented thus far are a trinity that, when taken together and applied, leads one to a correct faith knowledge of inspiration.

Canonical Rule 4

Does the professed sacred scroll contradict itself? Does it have errors? Doctrinal, theological, historical, grammatical, etc.?

Jesus said "the scripture cannot be broken." (John 10: 35 KJV)

"The scripture(s)" is synonymous with "word(s) of God." And, the "word of God" is the same as "word of truth." (II Timothy 2: 15 KJV)

"And now, O Lord GOD, thou art that God, and thy words be true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant." (II Samuel 7: 28 KJV)

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119: 160 KJV)

"But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay." (II Corinthians 1: 18 KJV)

"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful." (Revelation 21: 5 KJV)

"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless." (II Samuel 22: 31 NIV)

"The word of the Lord is flawless." (Psalms 12:6 NIV)

"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless." (Psalm 18: 30 NIV)

"Every word of God is flawless." (Proverbs 30: 5 NIV)

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (I Thessalonians 2: 13 KJV)

The inspired books are infallible and without error. They are inerrant. Though there are seeming contradictions in the holy books, yet these are not real, but may be shown to harmonize.

Not only must an inspired scroll not contradict other sacred books, but it must not contradict itself or contain other verifiable errors in fact. Though the bible is no history or geography book, yet the things it says about these subjects are truthful and error less.

Canonical Rule 5

Thus far we have discovered four cardinal rules that determine inspiration and canonicity.

1. Messianic Test - does it witness to Christ per John 5: 39, Luke 24: 27, 44?

2. Profitability Test - Does it do the things scripture is said to do per II Tim. 3: 15, 16?

3. Origination Test - Did it originate by divine initiative and revelation? Is it cited by other scripture writers and consistent with other scripture? Is it from a prophetic or apostolic source? (Per II Peter 1: 20?)

4. Consistency or Truth Test - is it free of error and contradiction? (Per John 10: 35?)

5. Does it contain the oracles or utterances of God per Rom. 3: 2?

"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us." (Acts 7: 38 KJV)

"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3: 1, 2 KJV)

"For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God..." (Hebrews 5: 12 KJV)

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God..." (I Peter 4: 11 KJV)

Strictly speaking, no accepted inspired book of the Bible contains only the oracles of God. For instance, all of the Book of Genesis is not the direct verbal utterances of God, or his "oracles." It does contain God's verbal utterances. Yea, the very first oracle is the one given to Adam and Eve, which announced to them the coming "seed of the woman" and his victory over the "seed of the serpent." But, the other parts of Genesis are the words of Moses in commentary, explanation, and narration. Yes, these are true and inspired, but they are not the utterances of God.

Genesis is inspired because it contains the oracles or very words of God spoken to a prophet by the mouth of God. Thus the prophets were often recorded as saying, "the word of the Lord came unto me" or "thus says the Lord," or "these be the words God has given me," etc.; And, where these divine utterances are recorded, they become his written oracles. But, strictly speaking, they are different from other parts that are not the express utterances of God. Can we say that the chronologies and genealogies in the Old Testament books are the utterances or oracles of God? We can say they are truthful and accurate, as a result of God's providence, but can we say they are the "oracles" of God? No, clearly not.

But, if a book contain an "oracle" or "thus says the Lord," or other such markers of inspiration and revelation, then it passes this test of inspiration and canonicity.