IN all matters of controversy between Christians the Scriptures are accepted
as the highest court of appeal. Historically they have been the common
authority of Christendom. We believe that they contain one harmonious and
sufficiently complete system of doctrine; that all of their parts are
consistent with each other; and that it is our duty to trace out this
consistency by a careful investigation of the meaning of particular passages.
( For the most exhaustive and scholarly treatment of the doctrines of
Inspiration and Revelation, see Warfield, "The Inspiration and Authority of
the Bible," 1948, edited by Dr. Samuel G. Craig.)
"The Word of God,"
says Warburton, concerning these doctrines, "is the great and final tribunal
before which they must be brought, and by which they must be tried. And the
truth or falsity of our belief is measured by the corresponding agreement
with, or diversity from, that form of doctrine which is set forth in the
unerring revelation that God has given to us in His inspired Word. It is by
this criterion that Calvinism must be tried. It is by this criterion that
Arminianism or Pelagianism must be tried. It is by this criterion, and by this
criterion alone, that every form of belief, be it religious, or be it
scientific, must be tried; and if they speak not according to this Word, it is
because there is no light in them . . . We believe in the full, verbal
inspiration of the Word of God. We hold it to be the only authority in all
matters and assert that no doctrine can be true, or essential, if it does not
find a place in this Word." (Calvinism, p.21)
It is obvious that
the truth or falsity of this profound doctrine of Predestination can be
decided only by divine revelation. No person, acting merely on his own
observations and judgments, can know what are the basic principles of the plan
which God is following. Philosophical speculation and all abstract reasoning
should be held in abeyance until we have first heard the testimony of
Scripture, — and when
we have heard that
testimony, we should humbly submit. Would that we had more people with that
noble character of the Bereans who searched the Scriptures daily to see
whether or not these things were so.
In connection with
each of the doctrines discussed in this book we have presented a large mass of
Scripture evidence — evidence both direct and inferential — evidence which
cannot be answered or explained away — evidence greatly superior in strength,
extent and explicitness, to any that can be adduced on the other side. The
Bible unfolds a scheme of redemption which is Calvinistic from beginning to
end. and these doctrines are taught with such inescapable clearness that the
question is settled for all those who accept the Bible as the Word of God.
These doctrines are set forth in the most impressive way; and the unstudied
naturalness and simplicity with which they are given makes them all the more
impressive. Should any one ask us the question, Are there any stars in the
heavens? Our answer would be, The heavens are full of stars, Ps. 8:3, 4. Or
again, Are there any fishes in the sea? Our answer would be, The sea is full
of fishes, Ps. 104:25, 27. Or again, Are there any trees in the forest? We
would again reply, The forest is full of trees. And in like manner should we
be asked the question, Is the doctrine of Predestination in the Bible? Our
answer should be, The Bible is full of it from Genesis to Revelation.
That such doctrines
as the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, the
sinfulness of man, and the reality of future punishments, are Scriptural is
not denied even by those who refuse to accept them as true. It is a common
thing for rationalists and so-called higher critics to admit that the apostles
believed and taught the evangelical and Calvinistic doctrines, and that with a
strict application of the rules of exegesis their statements cannot admit of
any other interpretation; but of course they do not consider themselves bound
to accept the authority of any apostle. They ascribe the apostles' belief in
these doctrines, for instance, to "the erroneous notions of a crude and
uncivilized age." This, however, does not detract from the value of their
testimony that these passages, critically interpreted, can have no other
meaning. Furthermore, we would prefer to say with the rationalists that the
Scriptures teach these doctrines but that the Scriptures are no authority for
us, rather than to profess acceptance of their teaching while ingeniously
evading the force of their argument.
We shall show that
there is no great difficulty — no undue violence or straining required — to
interpret consistently with our doctrine the passages which are brought forth
by Arminians, while it is impossible, without the most unwarrantable and
unnatural forcing and straining, to reconcile their doctrine with our
passages. Furthermore, our doctrine could not be overthrown merely by bringing
forth other passages which would contradict it, for that at most would only
give us a self-contradictory Bible.
In the light of
modern scientific exegesis, it is quite evident that the objections which are
raised against the Reformed Theology are emotional or philosophical rather
than exegetical. And had men been content to interpret the language of
Scripture according to the acknowledged principles of interpretation, the
faith of Christians might have been far more harmonious. Our opponents, says
Cunningham, are able to "argue with some plausibility only when they are
dealing with single passages, or particular classes of passages, but keeping
out of view, or throwing into the background, the general mass of Scripture
evidence bearing upon the whole subject. When we take a conjunct view of the
whole body of Scripture statements, manifestly intended to make known to us
the nature, causes, and consequences of Christ's death, literal and figurative
- view them in combination with each other - and fairly estimate what they are
fitted to teach, there is no good ground for doubt as to the general
conclusions which we should feel ourselves constrained to adopt." ( Historical
Theology, H, p 298.)
So long as we hold to
the Reformed principle that the Scriptures are to be accepted as the sole
authority in matters of doctrine the Calvinistic system will stand as the only
one which adequately treats of God, man, and redemption.
