by Michael Haykin | Jul 26, 2022 | Church History
“Aut Christus aut nullus”: The witness of Hugh D. Brown[1]
It would have been in the late 1880s, when the ministry of C.H. Spurgeon was drawing to a close, that a Dubliner by the name of Hugh Dunlop Brown (1858–1918) attended worship at Spurgeon’s Tabernacle with a few thousand other men and women and children. As Spurgeon came to preach he caught sight of Brown in the congregation and immediately exclaimed, “I see my friend Brown from Dublin; will he please come round and help me.”[2] One can well imagine that it was a rare occasion for Spurgeon to invite a man out of the vast audiences that attended on his preaching to help him in the pulpit. But then Hugh Brown was a remarkable man, though I dare say his name has been forgotten a little over a century since his stepping into heaven.
Material wealth & spiritual riches
Hugh Brown came from wealth. His father, also Hugh Brown (d.1882), had founded the department store now known as Brown Thomas with a James Thomas in 1848 on Grafton Street in Dublin. The wealth that accrued to him enabled him to raise his family in comfort. Such wealth has proven to be a snare to many, but Hugh Brown and his wife Marianne (d.1912) were evangelical Christians, faithful members of the Church of Ireland, and sought to use their wealth for the advance of God’s kingdom.
For instance, when their son became the pastor of the Baptist congregation that met in Lower Abbey Street, Dublin, and whose origins stretched back to the seventeenth century, it soon became evident to Hugh Dunlop Brown that the church needed a new building. His widowed mother, Marianne, generously paid for the entire cost of the new building on Harcourt Street, which was between seven and eight thousand pounds, a huge sum in those days.[3]
The auditorium of the new church could seat up to a thousand people. To the amazement of many in Dublin, and even to the thirty-eight men and women who were the members of the church when it moved to Harcourt Street in 1887, hundreds soon came to hear the young preacher in his mid-twenties. By the close of 1887, the membership of the church had increased to 135, and seven years later, it stood at 380. Seventeen years later, in 1904, the membership was over 400, where it remained to the end of Brown’s ministry in 1914.[4]
Witness to the Word
Brown’s friendship with Spurgeon through the desperate days of the Downgrade Controversy over the Scriptures in the 1880s was rooted, in part, in a shared conviction of the necessity of upholding the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. A dozen years after Spurgeon’s death, Brown published a book on this key subject. As he noted:
Beyond all doubt, the great battle of the twentieth century must rage around the Inspiration of the Word of God. Has the Almighty really spoken to erring mortals? Or are we mere derelicts, tossed to and fro upon the ocean of life’s enigmas, without a chart or compass? Beside this issue, all other questions, how ever important, dwarf into comparative insignificance. For if the Bible goes, all vanishes; our preaching is vain, our faith is also vain, we are yet in our sins.[5]
Patent throughout the book, which runs to nearly 400 pages, is Brown’s conviction that the embrace of views that undermine confidence in the divine authorship of the Scriptures is a direct rejection of the authority of Christ, who “never fails to express unstaggering belief” in the Old Testament.[6] To accept any other view, Brown asserted, is to cast
a direct vote of censure upon the claims and utterances of our Divine Redeemer Himself. “Aut Christus aut nullus”[7] must therefore in the present conflict be the war-cry and rallying-point of all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth.[8]
[1] For a small biography of Brown, see L[ouis] E. Deens, Man of Stature: Hugh D. Brown, Baptist Leader in Ireland 1884–1914 (Belfast: Baptist Union of Ireland, 1968).
[2] [Louis E. Deens,] “C.H.S. and H.D.B.: Gleanings from an Old Scrap Book,” The Irish Baptist (April 1934): 14.
[3] Deens, Man of Stature, 7.
[4] Deens, Man of Stature, 10.
[5] Hugh D. Brown, God’s Witness to His Word: A Study of the Self-Witness of the Holy Spirit to His Own Writings (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904), 2.
[6] Brown, God’s Witness to His Word, 122
[7] Latin for “either Christ or nothing.”
[8] Brown, God’s Witness to His Word, ix.
Born in England of Irish and Kurdish parents, Michael A.G. Haykin serves as professor of church history & biblical spirituality. Haykin has a B.A. in Philosophy from the University of Toronto (1974), a Master of Religion from Wycliffe College, the University of Toronto (1977), and a Th.D. in Church History from Wycliffe College and the University of Toronto (1982). Haykin and his wife, Alison, have two grown children: Victoria and Nigel.
He is the author of a number of books, including The Spirit of God: The Exegesis of 1 and 2 Corinthians in the Pneumatomachian Controversy of the Fourth Century (E. J. Brill, 1994); One heart and one soul: John Sutcliff of Olney, his friends, and his times (Evangelical Press, 1994); Kiffin, Knollys and Keach: Rediscovering Our English Baptist Heritage (Reformation Today Trust, 1996); ‘At the Pure Fountain of Thy Word’: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist (Paternoster Press, 2004); Jonathan Edwards: The Holy Spirit in Revival (Evangelical Press, 2005); The God who draws near: An introduction to biblical spirituality (Evangelical Press, 2007).
Course taught for CBTS: Biblical Spirituality.
by CBTS Student | Jul 21, 2022 | Church History, Church Planting, Missions
There are many heroes and role models in the history of the Christian faith to admire and try to emulate. Though it can be pushed to a sinful extreme, the impulse is good because it fulfills an aspect of the command to honor our fathers and mothers that is often overlooked in 21st-century America. Today, many seem to view Christian history as an interesting sidenote or maybe even as completely irrelevant to believers today. This kind of “chronological snobbery”, a term coined by C.S. Lewis, believes that because we come later in the history of the world, we surely have more clarity into the things of God and more wisdom than those who came before us. We can’t look to the past to solve or help today’s problems, the thinking goes.
Yet, contrary to this thinking, there is, in fact, much to learn from our brothers and sisters from different times and places. The circumstances of their lives and the context of their ministries prove that the Word of God is eternally relevant and true. In times of triumph and times of struggle that current-day believers may never face, the lives of past believers can help us see the truth and practical outworking of Scripture removed from the biases and ways of thinking imposed on us by our own culture and context.
One such life was that of Johann Gerhard Oncken. Born in Varel, Germany, on January 26, 1800, Oncken was raised by his Lutheran grandmother because his father was in political exile.[1] However, it wasn’t until he was thirteen or fourteen, when he became an apprentice to a Scottish merchant, that he first received a Bible.[2] While apprenticing, he traveled all across Europe, but it was in Scotland where he first came into contact with Evangelical Christianity in the form influenced by Robert and James Haldane.[3] His business travel took him to London, where he stayed with an Independent family, attending chapel and family worship with them.[4] This had an impact on him for the Gospel, but it was at Great Queen Street Methodist Church in London where he experienced conversion from a sermon preached on Romans 8:1, and immediately, Oncken became zealous for spreading the Gospel.[5]
Oncken would later come to Baptist convictions while serving as a missionary in Hamburg, Germany. Germany being largely Lutheran and Roman Catholic, Oncken reached out to Robert Haldane, who suggested he baptize himself. Oncken saw no Scriptural precedent for this practice, however, and reached out to Baptist historian Joseph Ivimey for advice.[6] Ivimey invited Oncken to the church he pastored in London to receive believer’s baptism, but Oncken refused because he was busy with preaching and teaching duties and could not bring himself to leave this work to travel.[7] He rather decided to wait for a “Phillip” to come baptize him, and by providence, God brought him into contact with American Baptist pastor and professor Barnas Sears, who was on sabbatical in 1833. Sear had learned of Oncken from a sea captain named Calvin Tubbs, who Oncken had met before and sought him out. On April 22, 1834, Oncken and six others were baptized by Sears in the Elbe River and were formed as a Baptist church in Hamburg.[8]
The evangelistic efforts of Johann Gerhard Oncken deserve high recognition, and a deep study will provide encouragement and instruction for how believers today ought to participate in evangelism and missions. As Baptist historian, H. Leon McBeth puts it, “the greatest pioneer of the Baptist faith in Europe was J. G. Oncken. He stands head and shoulders above all others; some have suggested that Oncken’s life and ministry could form the framework for the history of Baptists in Europe.”[10] It is important that Christians know of Oncken. A survey of the personal evangelism of Johann Gerhard Oncken, his mission work, and his influence on others for missions provides us with a role model for missions and evangelism.
Personal Evangelism
The first place any evangelist can start is with the people that cross his path in the course of his life. Oncken began evangelizing almost from the moment of his conversion. He saw the need for sinners to be converted and began doing whatever he could to get the gospel into the hands of those around him.
Johann Oncken was a major advocate for the use of tracts, Christian literature, and Bible distribution in evangelism. Early on, he spent as little as he could from his meal allowance so that he could purchase gospel tracts with the remaining money and begin distributing them freely.[11] He used earnings from his work as a merchant to buy Bibles and tracts, and in 1823 he was appointed as a missionary to Hamburg, Germany by the Continental Society of London, which focused on distributing these things.[12] He and his wife Sarah were tasked with operating a small book store and distributing Bibles and tracts, as well as preaching evangelistic sermons in the home where he was staying.[13]
In 1828, he connected with the Edinburgh Bible Society (EBS). He believed revival would follow if he could get the Word of God into the hands of the German people. Over the next fifty years, he and those he worked with distributed Bibles from the EBS across Europe. The Society records that he distributed two million Bibles during that time.[14]
After coming to Baptist convictions, Oncken was disowned by the congregationalist Continental Society of London but wrote to the Baptist Tract Society urging them to have tracts translated into German for the spread of the gospel, including the memoir of Mrs. Ann Judson, wife of famous missionary Adoniram Judson. In the letter, he says, “The Tract Society at Hamburg is flourishing and doing much good—it issued upwards of 300,000 tracts last year, a considerable proportion of which were sent to Russia, the south of Germany and Switzerland.”[15] The evangelistic use of literature played a significant role in Oncken’s ministry.
In addition, Oncken remained committed to evangelism and overseeing the growth of his congregation as pastor of the new Baptist church in Hamburg. With Hamburg being a major center of commerce and transportation, Oncken spent time visiting ships docked there. He distributed literature to the sailors and proclaimed the gospel to them. God prospered this work. Allan Effa shares, “One report states that three-fourths of the men baptized in Hamburg in the first 15 years of his (Oncken) ministry were traveling men.”[16]
Oncken had a heart for evangelism, which led him to find ways to get the Gospel into the hands of as many as he could. He felt that not only by proclaiming the Gospel verbally but by distributing written literature, he could effectively contribute to the advance of the Gospel. This played a significant role in his personal evangelism but also contributed to his mission work, taking the Gospel across cultural boundaries and planting churches.
Missions Work
As discussed above, Johann Oncken was sent to his home country of Germany as a missionary when he was living in London as a merchant. However, this doesn’t mean that his evangelism was confined to the borders of Germany. Baptist churches in Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, France, Poland, Holland, Russia, Turkey, Austria, Romania, Australia, Bulgaria, West Africa, and the Baltic states were established in some way connected to Oncken’s church in Hamburg.[17]
“Jeder Baptist ein Missionar” (every Baptist a missionary)[18] was his motto, and it showed its significance in his ministry repeatedly. Oncken’s church was sending out three missionaries and raised funding for the planting of 20 churches in Germany by 1850.[19] They were committed to be involved in and supporting missions.
One example of the church planting impact Oncken had can be seen when Oncken was imprisoned in Hamburg in 1837 due to a public disturbance. His followers scattered but they evangelized wherever they went, and new congregations sprouted up in Stuttgart and Oldenburg, as well as the establishment of the first Baptist congregation in Denmark, followed by Sweden.[20] “The brethren continue to exert themselves in the spread of the truth,” he said in a letter dated February 8, 1839, “and many sinners have through their instrumentality been brought under the sound of the gospel. Several of them have visited different parts of Holstein during the winter, and have distributed tracts and bibles.”[21] He had instilled the essence of his motto into his followers.
In 1842, a fire destroyed many homes, injuring one hundred people and killing fifty.[22] Oncken was among the people who reached out to help the city. The Baptists had recently secured a large warehouse for their use, so Oncken invited the authorities to use three of the four stories of the building for emergency housing for the 30,000 people displaced by the fire.[23] Their work and care for the people of Hamburg had a major impact, not only on the standing of Baptists in the eyes of the authorities who persecuted them but also on missions. John Viczian, a president of the Hungarian Baptist Union relayed the story of how Baptist work started in Hungary to Jim Elliff this way:
Back in 1842, one-third of Hamburg, Germany, had been burned. Hamburg issued a summons over the European world for workers to come to Germany to help them rebuild the city of Hamburg in exchange for good wages. Some young men left Hungary to find their fortunes in Hamburg.
In Hamburg, they met a merchant turned itinerant Baptist preacher named Johann Gerhard Oncken. He was a zealous Baptist who worked principally among the working class people. And now the world was coming to him! He befriended them and brought them into his little Baptist church. And some of those people were converted to Jesus Christ.
He told his people, “Every Baptist a missionary!” He zealously encouraged them with this motto and tried to enthuse them with the idea that they could return to start churches in the countries where they lived. So some of these young men who had been converted in the ministry of Oncken went to the outskirts of Buda (Budapest is divided into two sections, Buda and Pesh, which have a river running between them) and said, “We now establish the first Baptist church of Hungary.” Now there are eleven or twelve thousand members and twenty thousand in attendance. It’s an active work for God, but it all began with Johann Gerhard Oncken. Through the ministry of Johann Gerhard Oncken, the gospel and the Baptist message began to spread throughout Europe.[24]
He organized the United Congregations of Baptized Christians in Germany and Denmark at a general conference in Hamburg in 1849. The conference had fifty-six delegates representing thirty-seven Baptist congregations, with over 2,000 members.[25] The charter of the Union emphasized discipleship and disciple-making, urging each church in the union to have a missions committee that took up regular offerings for missions and participated in missions conferences. It also recommended that churches start youth groups wherein youth were taught how to evangelize and mobilized to do so. In addition, it encouraged laymen in the churches to evangelize in their daily work arrangements and even set up funds for those who suffered financially because they devoted time to evangelism.[26] This intense focus on evangelism and missions was “truly revolutionary in its time.”[27]
Oncken’s insistence on missions being deeply ingrained in the church’s activity led to the planting of churches worldwide. The organization of the United Congregations of Baptized Christians in Germany and Denmark was an extension of this insistence. John Hunt Cooke shares that the Union reported more than 150 churches, 31,438 members, and 17,000 children in Sunday Schools at the time of Oncken’s death. He also helped establish Baptist centers in Austria, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Holland, Switzerland, Russia, South Africa, and the United States of America, among other countries.[28] Mission work was central to Oncken’s life and shows how seriously he took the Great Commission.
Influencing Others in Missions and Evangelism
The vast influence Oncken had on missions and evangelism is further seen in how he trained and led people to become missionaries and evangelists. Some of this is seen in what has been stated above, but how he trained and perpetuated missions is fascinating. His ability to not only engage in evangelism and missions himself but to enlist others also spoke to the way he saw the Great Commission as a call for disciples to make more disciples who make more disciples. The work was for all believers in service to God.
It has already been shown that Oncken was convinced of the power of literature in evangelism. Tracts were involved in his own path to faith, and he saw them as an effective means to spread the Gospel and the Baptist movement.[29] He established a printing press[30] and society for tract distribution.[31] He wrote to the American Baptist Tract Society for materials and joined the Edinburgh Bible Society for Bible and tract distribution. The use of Bibles, tracts, and literature ensured that the message continued with those it was shared with, even after Oncken or his congregants and friends could not be with them.
In addition, Oncken exerted mission influence by associating with other churches and helping to train believers. He founded Germany’s first Sunday School and began an institution for training gospel preachers after learning of Charles Spurgeon’s Pastors’ College.[32] As mentioned above, one of the items listed in the charter for the United Congregations of Baptized Christians in Germany and Denmark was the establishment of youth groups for training youth in evangelism. According to Spurgeon, the German Baptist churches even included work for Christ, such as evangelism, as a duty of their members. “The German churches, when our dear friend, Mr. Oncken, was alive, always carried out the rule of asking every member, “What are you going to do for Christ?” and they put the answer down in a book. The one thing that was required of every member was that he should continue doing something for the Saviour. If he ceased to do anything, it was a matter of church discipline, for he was an idle professor and could not be allowed to remain in the church like a drone in a hive of working bees. He must do or go.”[33]
Furthermore, he helped influence the Baptist churches in Germany and abroad by his involvement in composing the German Baptist Confession of Faith, printed in 1847 “at the urgent demand of Oncken.”[34] Like the more well-known English Baptist confessions, this confession of faith was written to disprove accusations against them and “indoctrinate the churches in the teachings of the Bible.”[35]
Oncken exerted influence in the planting of churches, as well. Like the Apostle Paul, he made a practice of selecting qualified men to lead congregations in the places he helped to establish churches and frequently visited and corresponded with them. Gottfried W. Lehmann and Julius Köbner were two such men. Together, the three were known as the “Kleeblatt”, or cloverleaf by German Christians, and worked together throughout Germany, founding Baptist churches and distributing tracts, literature, and Bibles.[36]
Köbner was won to Baptist views and baptized by Oncken in 1836.[37] A Danish Jew, he and Oncken made missionary trips to Denmark. In 1839, Köbner traveled to Denmark at the suggestion of Oncken. He faced opposition which drove him to Copenhagen, where he had not intended to visit, but sensing the leading of God he recounts, “I deposited the seed, small indeed as a grain of mustard seed, but which has already become a flourishing plant having put the forth three branches [churches].”[38] Köbner was also a prolific hymn-writer[39] and was heavily involved in crafting the German Baptist Confession.[40]
Gottfried W. Lehmann was born in Hamburg but raised in Berlin.[41] He met Oncken because of their shared interest in Bible distribution, but Lehmann wasn’t won to Baptist views until later in their friendship and he was baptized on May 13, 1836, along with his wife and four others and they were formed into a Baptist church with Lehmann as pastor the next day.[42] Lehmann would travel throughout Europe evangelizing and planting churches[43] and was also involved in the adoption of the German Baptist Confession. [44]
Johann Gerhard Oncken was not a one-man show. Though there is some evidence that he struggled with giving up control of organizations and churches he planted[45], his impact as a facilitator is enormous. By leveraging the talents and skills of other men and training the congregations and future generations of believers in evangelism, Charles Spurgeon was not wrong to refer to him as “the Apostle Paul of Europe.”[46]
Conclusion
The life of Johann Gerhard Oncken is fascinating. Unfortunately, many are unaware of how God used this man to build His church in Germany and Europe. The only English-language biography of Oncken is John Hunt Cooke’s Johan Gerhard Oncken: His Life and Work, written in 1908, and it is now out of print and hard to find. Because of the language barrier, it is especially difficult to locate primary sources for further study.
He is a man worth studying, nonetheless. His tireless work in evangelism provides believers with a role model for how the Great Commission can drive the actions of believers. Evangelism was not an optional recreation or a drudgery of duty, it was the glorious work of God. In a letter to his son, William, Oncken writes, “There is, after all, nothing great on earth, my dear Willy, but to glorify God in our own salvation, and then to be honoured in saving others.”[47]
Churches were planted because Oncken and his followers not being content with the Gospel dwelling richly in their own midst. They desired to see it grow elsewhere. Whether in Hamburg, elsewhere in Germany, or in lands as far as South Africa and the United States, Oncken knew that Christ had called people out of every tribe, tongue, and nation, so he sought to be a part of that mission.
Historian Leon McBeth calls Oncken “a one-man mission society, theological seminary, and literature distribution center.”[48] He was prolific in training, equipping, and sending people into the mission field to be the means of conversions and to plant churches. He worked tirelessly to be a disciple of Christ that made more disciple-making disciples, and he was happy to suggest and send gifted Christians to areas of Europe and the world that he felt would advance the Gospel for the glory of God.
Believers today can learn from and model their evangelism and missions focus on the life of Johann Gerhard Oncken and his followers. By studying his life and ministry, we can find inspiration for how to use our gifts in the face of persecution or comfortable living. We can see the impact that emphasizing the planting of churches can have on a country and a continent. Studying men such as Oncken will also show us that no man, no matter how gifted, can accomplish everything on his own. Therefore. we should look to build up and encourage others in the work of evangelism and missions, as well. Charles Spurgeon said of Oncken on the occasion of his death, “Germany has lost in Oncken a much greater man than she will to-day believe. Few have been more faithful to truth, or more practically wise in that faithfulness. Will not the Lord raise up for sceptical Germany other firm believers?”[49] May God raise up for our world other firm believers that will advance God’s mission like Johann Gerhard Onck.
Author: Garrett Kerber
Garett Kerber is an MDiv student at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary and a member at Church of the Cross in Mahomet, IL. He lives in Gibson City, IL with his wife, Heather, and their four children. Garett is interested in Baptist History, Hymns of the faith, and furthering the work of Bible Translation. He lists family, birds, and sports among his favorite things.
References
[1] G. Gieselbusch, “Oncken, Johann Gerhard,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: Embracing Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology and Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Biography from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1908–1914).
[2] David Saxon, “Every Baptist a Missionary: Johann G. Oncken and Disciple-Making in Europe.” Lecture, The Conference on the Church for God’s Glory, Accessed November 2, 2021. https://ccggrockford.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Saxon-David-Johan-Gerhard-Oncken-Full-Manuscript.pdf, 2
[3] Allan Effa, “Diaspora Strategist: The Missionary Work of Johann Oncken.” July 2007. “Featured Article” at www.globalmissiology.org: 1-11. Accessed November 2, 2021. http://www.globalmissiology.org/francais/docs_pdf/effa_on_johann_oncken.pdf, 2
[4] Saxon, “Every Baptist,” 2.
[5] Effa, “Diaspora,” 2.
[6] Wayne Alan Detzler, “Johann Gerhard Oncken’s Long Road to Toleration.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36, no. 2 (1993), 227.
[7] George M. Ella, “Johann Gerhard Oncken: Germany’s Baptist Pioneer,” Biographia Evangelica, Accessed November 2, 2021, http://evangelica.de/articles/biographies/johann-gerhard-oncken-germanys-baptist-pioneer/
[8] H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1987), 471.
[9] Anthony L. Chute, Nathan A. Finn, and Michael A. G. Haykin, The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement, Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015, 163.
[10] McBeth, Baptist Heritage, 470.
[11] Ella, “Johann Gerhard Oncken”
[12] Effa, “Diaspora,” 2-3.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Saxon, “Every Baptist,” 3.
[15] Ibid., 350.
[16] Effa, “Diaspora,” 4-5.
[17] Effa, “Diaspora,” 5.
[18] McBeth, Baptist Heritage, 472.
[19] Saxon, “Every Baptist,” 9.
[20] Gieselbusch, “Oncken,” 240.
[21] H. Leon McBeth, A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1990), 349.
[22] Detzler, “Long Road to Toleration,” 231.
[23] Saxon, “Every Baptist,” 7.
[24] Jim Elliff, “Global Evangelization and God’s Sovereignty,” Reformation and Revival 2, no. 3 (1993), 68.
[25] Gieselbusch, “Oncken,” 240.
[26] Saxon, “Every Baptist,” 9.
[27] Effa, “Diaspora,” 5.
[28] Saxon, “Every Baptist,” 17.
[29] Effa, “Diaspora,” 6.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Eric Hayden, “Johann Gerhard Oncken: Friend of Spurgeon,” Banner of Truth, accessed November 7, 2021, https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2017/johann-gerhard-oncken-friend-spurgeon/
[32] Ibid.
[33] C. H. Spurgeon, The Greatest Fight in the World (Final Manifesto), Toronto; New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1891, 44
[34] W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, (Philadelphia; Boston; Chicago; St. Louis; Toronto: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911), 332.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Saxon, “Every Baptist,” 6.
[37] Ibid.
[38] McBeth, Sourcebook, 352.
[39] McBeth, Baptist Heritage, 473.
[40] McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions, 331.
[41] McBeth, Baptist Heritage, 473.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid.
[44] McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions, 331.
[45] Saxon, “Every Baptist,” 16.
[46] Hayden, “Friend of Spurgeon”
[47] Saxon, “Every Baptist,” 18.
[48] McBeth, Baptist Heritage, 470.
[49] C. H. Spurgeon, The Sword and Trowel: 1884 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1884), 278.
This blog post is authored by a student of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.
by Sam Waldron | Jul 19, 2022 | Reformed Theology, Systematic Theology
Preface:
There is a great deal of discussion in Reformed Baptist circles about What Sola Scriptura Does and Does Not Mean. I thought it might be helpful to you if I offered you some reflections on this issue. There are those who are decrying what they call biblicism. These folks warn us constantly that sola scriptura does not mean solo scriptura or biblicism. There are others to whom I have spoken who have a really hard time thinking of biblicism as something bad and wonder what all the concern is about.
In order to address this subject, I will first attempt to provide a confessional definition of sola scriptura and in this way show what sola scriptura does mean. Having done that, I want to explain briefly what is wrong with biblicism properly defined and how it differs from sola scriptura.
I want to assert that chapter 1 of our Confession (which is entitled, Of the Holy Scriptures) provides us with an extended explanation of what our Baptist forefathers understood sola scriptura to mean when they affirmed it. It takes the diamond of sola scriptura turns it in different ways to show us the various brilliant facets of sola scriptura. With this venerable and extended explanation of sola scriptura in hand, we will attempt to distinguish what is condemned as biblicism from it.
Section 1: What Sola Scriptura Does Mean
I. Paragraph 1: The Necessity of Holy Scripture
The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience, although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
2LCF 1:1
Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone provides the saving knowledge which men require to be saved. The 1689 adds the words that I have placed in bold italics at the beginning of the first paragraph of the Confession. The very first assertion distinctive to the 1689 as opposed to the Westminster is sola scriptura. The light of nature has the power to condemn men, but it does not have the power to save them. Scripture alone provides that.
II. Paragraphs 2-3: The Identity of Holy Scripture
Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these: [There follow the names of the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New.] All of which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.
2LCF 1:2
The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.
2LCF 1:3
Sola Scriptura means that Scripture consists in the 66 books of the Hebrew and Greek testaments alone and does not include the Apocrypha or any other merely human writings.
III. Paragraphs 4-5: Its Authority
The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.
2LCF 1:4
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
2LCF 1:5
Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is self-authenticating and self-attesting. We do not believe in Scripture because of the testimony of any man or church. The testimony of the church of God in a secondary and subordinate way may move us to esteem Scripture. Yet, the great assertion of Calvin and the Reformed tradition following him is that Scripture is self-attested and not church-attested. Cf. Calvin’s Institutes Book 1, Chapter 7. It attests itself and the Holy Spirit enables fallen men to accept that powerful and self-authenticating testimony.
IV. Paragraph 6: Its Sufficiency
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
2LCF 1:6a
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
2LCF 1:6b
Sola Scriptura means that we need nothing else to know what is for God’s glory, man’s salvation, faith and life. It further means that the proper way to worship God formally and corporately is entirely contained in God’s holy Word. Cf. 22:1: “But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.”
V. Paragraph 7: Its Clarity
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.
2LCF 1:7
Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is clear enough in itself that unlearned men may by ordinary means obtain a sufficient knowledge for their salvation and life. Though learned studies of the grammatical and historical backgrounds of the Scripture may deepen our knowledge of Scripture, they are not necessary for ordinary men through ordinary means to understand sufficiently what they teach for his salvation and life. If unlearned men may with ordinary means attain a sufficient understanding of Christian doctrine, clearly courses in philosophy are not necessary to rightly divide the Scriptures.
VI. Paragraph 8: Its Availability
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old),1 and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar [i.e. common] language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
2LCF 1:8
Sola Scriptura means that God will preserve the Scriptures so that men have an authentic understanding of their message. Thus, the church may appeal to them as the final authority in religious controversies and is not forced to appeal to other religious foundations.
VII. Paragraph 9: Its Finality (For the Interpretation of Scripture)
The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.
2LCF 1:9
Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is sufficient for the interpretation of Scripture. It is self-interpreting. Sola Scriptura is seen in the fact that the Scriptures are self-interpreting.
VIII. Paragraph 10: Its Supremacy (For the Resolution of Controversies)
The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.
2LCF 1:10
Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is sufficient for the resolution of all religious controversies. Scripture alone is the supreme court of religious truth. Heresy is discovered and determined not by the ancient creeds but by the teaching of Scripture.
Section 2: What Sola Scriptura Does Not Mean
This is a very extensive and variegated understanding of sola scriptura with which the Confession provides us. Clearly, its place in the Confession (as the very first chapter) and its prominence in the Confession (as one of the longest chapters) show its importance for our Baptist forefathers. Given this, the question might be asked, What could remain to be said?
Yet much remains to about what Sola Scriptura does not mean. There are some common misunderstandings of sola scriptura which bedevil contemporary Christian thought. The Confession itself mentions and rejects many of them. Together these deficiencies have been described as biblicism. That is, they compose an exaggerated and unqualified understanding of Sola Scriptura. They are “solo scriptura” and not Sola Scriptura. Let me identify seven such distortions of Sola Scriptura.
I. Sola Scriptura does not mean that all of Christian doctrine is found explicitly in Scripture.
Scripture truth is composed not only of what is taught explicitly in Scripture, but also what is “necessarily contained in Scripture.” This is what the Westminster calls in the same paragraph: good and necessary consequence. This is the meaning of the contrast in paragraph 6a between expressly set down and necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture. This is a contrast between what is explicit and what is implicit in Scripture. What is necessarily contained in Scripture by good and necessary consequence is Scripture.
Of course, the key word in both the 1689 and Westminster is necessary. The consequences which logical analysis draws from Scripture must necessary. Sola Scriptura means that such consequences as we may draw must be more than compatible with Scripture. They must be deductions which it is necessary to draw from Scripture. Otherwise, we are on the path back to oral traditions that may be compatible with Scripture, but which are not necessary deductions from Scripture.
This means, however, that we must arrive at some truth by the synthesis of Scripture like that in which systematic theology engages. We do not need an explicit proof-text to prove a doctrine if it may be deduced from a synthesis of scriptural premises. Modern, New Testament theologians have fallen into this problem and sadly rejected doctrines like double imputation because of such an insensitivity to the proper synthesis of Scripture. D. A. Carson in Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates (Edited by Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier. Downers Grove: IVP, 2004) properly critiques this.
II. Sola Scriptura does not mean that we may safely ignore the witness of the Christian tradition in the way we interpret Scripture.
Christ has been giving the gift of pastor-teachers to the church for 2000 years. It is a proud man who thinks he may safely ignore those teaching gifts in his own approach to the interpretation of Scripture. Such a man is practicing solo scriptura not sola scriptura.
Nevertheless, two things must be remembered and not concealed.
- The value of this tradition is only to help us understand Scripture itself. It has no authority in and of itself. It is only helpful as it assists us to see the meaning of Scripture.
- The emphasizing of this tradition must never assume that this teaching tradition is monolithic and unvarying. It is not. It is Roman Catholicism which speaks of what has believed by all everywhere. St. Vincent of Lerins epitomized this when he wrote in his Commonitory(ca. 434) his famous maxim: “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”
III. Sola Scriptura does not mean that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture.
As we have seen, paragraphs 1 and 6 of the Confession are very clear in limiting the sufficiency of Scripture to saving truth. We must distinguish between such truth and other truth not sufficiently contained in Scripture. The Bible is not a textbook on auto mechanics or biology. It is not sufficient for such studies.
IV. Sola Scriptura does not mean that the light of nature fails to proclaim truth to men for which they are held accountable and may be condemned.
Paragraph 1 makes clear that the light of nature reveals the existence and character of God and that by this truth men are justly condemned for what they know.
V. Sola Scriptura does not mean that the divine revelation found in Scripture does not assume the light of nature and reason in men.
Paragraph 6 makes clear that the light of nature is necessary to apply properly the principles of the Word of God to the circumstances of corporate worship and the government of the church. This in turn implies that the light of nature or natural reason is assumed in the interpretation of Scripture.
VI. Sola Scriptura does not mean that the work of the Spirit in understanding Scripture is unnecessary.
The Spirit’s work is necessary because the natural reason just mentioned is fallen and inevitably twists the light of nature and scriptural teaching. Thus, the testimony of the Spirit is necessary to untwist the fallen reason and make the truth known to men. Cf. Matthew 16:17.
Cf. 1:5: our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
Cf. 1:6b: Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word.
VII. Sola Scriptura does not mean that a “simple” grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture is sufficient.
I was taught in my Bible college that the right method of interpreting Scripture could be summarized as grammatical-historical interpretation. This was wrong.
The Reformed tradition (Cf. Louis Berkhof’s Principles of Biblical Interpretation and many other treatises.) is committed to the need to supplement such grammatical-historical interpretation with a theological interpretation of Scripture which remembers that the Scripture has a divine author as well as human authors. Thus, the canonical trajectory of Scripture, its divine authorial intention, its unfolding interpretation of its earliest parts, its typological character, and its messianic metanarrative must be considered in its interpretation. (Remember according to 1689:1:9 that Scripture is self-interpreting.) Thus, we may attribute meaning to Scripture which goes beyond what the human author might have comprehended. “Us” in the creation narratives (Cf. Genesis 1:26) may refer to the Trinity even if Moses would not have comprehended this meaning. The meaning of the divine author may go beyond the understanding of the human author of Scripture. Thus also, the meaning of Genesis 2:3 is illumined and confirmed by the canonical trajectory of Scripture. Cf. the comments of Yahweh in Exodus 20:8-11 and Jesus in Mark 2:27 on Genesis 2:1-3.
Conclusion:
The 1689 Baptist Confession gives us an extensive doctrine of sola scriptura. This is a glorious inheritance from our Baptist forefathers. We must not truncate its meaning or significance.
Nevertheless, there is abroad an exaggeration of sola scriptura in the ways I have attempted to explain in the second half of this short paper. We need to be wary always of our fallen, human tendency to swing from one extreme to another which is equally in error.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Ben Carlson | Jul 14, 2022 | Hermeneutics
Introduction:
Some of you will remember the hanging chad debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In the state of Florida, some ballots were punched but still had little pieces of paper hanging from them. These ballots were considered incomplete and controversy erupted concerning how to properly count them.
Well, in the realm of biblical interpretation, I believe human authorial intent is the hanging chad of hermeneutics. Grounding the full meaning of any text of Scripture in the mind of the human author may seem like a sufficient method of interpretation but upon further investigation it is found lacking. The results lead to partial, truncated, and incomplete interpretations that do not fully “punch out” the teaching of the Word of God. Let me offer four reasons why I think this is so.
1.) Divine intent is higher than human intent.
The Bible is a theanthropic document. Men spoke and wrote down the words, but every jot and tittle originated with God and the whole process of inscripturation was supervised by God. He worked through the authors in various ways to write down exactly what He wanted to say. As such, there should be points of connection and continuity between human authorial intent and divine authorial intent. Man’s meaning and God’s meaning should not contradict each other. But who says they must be the exact same? Where in the Bible are we told that what the human author meant is entirely and exhaustively what God meant? And what makes us think this would be the case? What limits God from having deeper and higher meanings in His Word which were not tapped into by the original human authors? Could God not disclose some meaning but leave other levels or layers of meaning hidden as a mystery either for no one to know or only for future generations to come to understand? I see nothing in the Bible that would tell me otherwise. In fact, the Bible’s teaching on the nature of God and the nature of man demand this!
The fact is, the divine Author of Scripture knows things and means things that the human authors of Scripture could never dream of or fully comprehend. God says, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9) and “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love Him” (1 Corinthians 2:9). Those who push to find the full meaning of any text in the mind of the human author are in danger of flattening this biblical teaching.
2.) The understanding of the biblical authors was limited.
If all we are trying to understand in biblical interpretation is what any human author meant by the words he wrote down, we are going to be left in the dark as to the full meaning of God’s Word. Why is this so? For one, it is impossible to dive into the minds of the human authors and figure out their exact intentions. What books of the Bible did they have access to? What passages did they consult? What verses did they have memorized? Why did they choose to use the specific words they spoke and wrote down? How did they understand the fulfillment of any of their prophecies? Unless we are explicitly told in their writings, we ultimately don’t know the answer to questions like these, and we should be careful about making assumptions or using non-inspired helps to figure them out. But secondly, even though their writings are inspired by God, they themselves were not omniscient and could not know everything God was communicating to them. They were creatures, and fallen creatures at that, and therefore we have no reason to conclude that their weak and warped minds could understand the full import of God’s revelation to them. But this is not some unprovable theory or conjecture; the biblical writers themselves confess their ignorance in their own writings. We have recorded for us times when the human authors of Scripture didn’t even understand (at least didn’t fully understand) what was being revealed to them by God.
This is true in the OT. On multiple occasions, the prophet Zechariah tells the angel that he did not know the meaning of the visions being revealed to him (Zechariah 1:9, 21; 2:1; 4:4-5, 13; 5:6; 6:4). Daniel asked to understand the true meaning of what had been revealed to him (Daniel 7:16) and on one occasion it was not given to him (Daniel 12:8-9). And the apostle Peter tells us in 1 Peter 1:10-12 that all the OT prophets had to intensely and diligently search out the full implications of their own prophecies. In other words, they spoke things that they themselves understood in part but did not fully comprehend.
But this is also true in the NT. Several times Jesus’ own disciples did not understand His teaching to them (Mark 9:10, 32; Luke 9:45; 18:34; John 10:6; 16:18) and on some occasions even misunderstood what He said (Matthew 16:5-12). Caiaphas, the wicked and murderous high priest, did not understand the full import of his own words when he unwittingly prophesied about the extent of Jesus’ substitutionary atonement (John 11:49-53). The crowd standing by Jesus who heard the voice of the Father as well as those who heard the voice of the risen Christ when He appeared to the apostle Paul heard sounds but did not discern any meaning from those sounds (John 12:28-29; Acts 9:7; 22:9). The apostle Peter was greatly perplexed about the meaning of the vision he saw (Acts 10:17). And the apostle John, in the book of Revelation, confesses on one occasion his own ignorance concerning what he sees (Revelation 7:14) and on another occasion needs to be told the meaning of the vision by an angel (Revelation 17:7).
The point is, why would our single aim be to determine what the biblical authors (or those who received divine revelation) understood when at times they didn’t even understand the meaning of the things they saw and the words they wrote down? If they confessed their own ignorance to God’s revelation, and if they had to seek out additional meaning from God or simply be content with not knowing because God would not disclose it to them, how is the full meaning of any text of Scripture based on their creaturely and limited understandings? Their ignorance proves that something more must be sought after than only what they knew and what they understood and what they meant.
3.) In the case of OT revelation, on its own its meaning is difficult to understand.
Numbers 12:6-8 describes to us the extraordinary relationship God had with the prophet Moses. But it also describes to us the ordinary way God’s revelation came to all the other prophets.
Numbers 12:6-8: 6And He said, “Hear My words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. 7Not so with My servant Moses. He is faithful in all My house. 8With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?”
We are told here that the normal and ordinary way God revealed Himself to the prophets was in visions and dreams, not in a form or manifestation of His presence. And the normal and ordinary way God spoke to the prophets was in riddles or dark sayings,[1] not in clear statements.
Here’s the thing about visions, dreams, and dark sayings: although they are clear forms of God’s revelation, they are not clearly understood by people. God did not muddle any of His messages to the prophets, but He did shroud them in mystery. Meaning is embedded into them, but they are encoded. On the receiving end, these revelations were shadowy and mysterious and perplexing and difficult for any recipient to understand. Without God’s illuminating grace, all prophetic revelation was like a sealed book that no one could read (Isaiah 29:11-12).
This is not to say that the human authors had no understanding of God’s OT revelation. They had enough to be saved and to live lives pleasing to the Lord. But since OT revelation came to the prophets in the form of visions, dreams, and dark sayings, why would we expect them to have full comprehension of everything they saw, spoke about, and wrote down? Since the revelation of Christ and His gospel in the OT was a mystery which “lay hid in types and shadows, in obscure prophecies and short hints”,[2] why should we act like any OT writer had a plain and clear understanding of it? Compared to the bright daylight of the NT, they only had a little light in a dark place (2 Peter 1:19).[3] They knew in part, and if we end our quest for meaning with the human author, we will only know in part as well.
4.) The full meaning of the OT is found in the NT.
The original intent and meaning of the OT is not limited to the OT. In order to find the full meaning of the OT, we must look to the NT. I say this for at least two reasons.
First, the OT was incomplete and stood in need of fulfillment.
Although the Old Testament is the inspired and authoritative Word of God, God never intended it to stand on its own. By itself, it is an incomplete document. This can be shown in many ways, but in essence it is a prophetic book. It is a big book full of word and event prophecies. Peter calls the Old Testament Scriptures “the prophetic word” (2 Peter 1:19). Paul calls them “the prophetic writings” (Romans 16:26). Jesus says that all the Prophets and the Law, which are the two principal parts of the Old Testament, prophesied (Matthew 11:13). But here is the thing about prophecy: it is simply a sign pointing forward to its substance. Prophecy gives us a basic but shadowy outline of the thing it is describing but the fulfillment brings it into clear view. So, if we want to understand the full meaning of any prophecy, we must look to the substance. We must look to the fulfillment. We must look to the thing it is signifying.
And if we attempt to find the full meaning of the OT in the OT, we are cutting off its meaning from its fulfillment. The fact is, on its own the OT is an incomplete book. It ends with a question mark, not an exclamation point. It is like a half-built skyscraper or a road that abruptly ends. Sam Waldron elaborates,
We are so used to seeing the Old Testament bound in one book with the New that, I think, it is difficult for us to appreciate what a strange and abnormal thing the holy book of the Jews is by itself. It is literally a book with an introduction, a plot, but no conclusion. It is, read by itself, incomplete. From beginning to end it promises a conclusion which is not contained within its borders. It begins with the great promise of the seed of the woman which is through its pages further defined as the seed of Abraham, the seed of Judah, the seed of David, but ends still waiting in the words of Malachi, its last book, for God to send “the messenger of the covenant” (Mal. 3:1).
It is filled with ceremonies, ordinances, and orders which in themselves may be described as childish -unless they as shadows look to a future substance. The Aaronic priests constantly engaged in complicated ritual with the blood and guts of special sacrifices -all this might be taken simply as the primitive superstitions of an ancient tribe, yet there is the prediction of one coming who would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Yet more clearly there is the prediction in Isaiah 53 of the righteous servant of Jehovah who like a lamb and a sheep used in those Old Testament sacrifices would “render himself as a guilt offering.” Thus, the Old Testament seems to self-consciously attribute a mysterious significance to its ceremonies which causes them clearly not to be primitive superstitions, but prophetic shadows.[4]
So, in order to completely comprehend and understand the meaning of the OT, we need to understand its fulfillment. We need to read its conclusion. We need to see its finished product. Proper exegesis cannot stop at considering the immediate context of an OT writer’s own words but must also take into account the larger context of the fulfillment of his words.
Second, the NT stands as the fulfillment of the OT.[5]
We are not still waiting for the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures. We have its fulfillment. It is called the New Testament. The prophetic writings are fulfilled by the apostolic writings. What was written in former days is fulfilled by what was written in the last days. As such, the Old Testament is dependent on the New Testament. The Old Testament needs the New Testament. The Old Testament can’t stand without the New Testament. If the OT is the shadow, the NT is the substance. If the OT is the bud, the NT is the blossoming flower. If the OT is a lamp shining in a dark place, the NT is the blazing sun that dispels the darkness and brings in the light of day. If the OT is the riddle, the NT is the truth. If the OT is the child, the NT is the grown adult. This means a couple important things.
First, New Testament revelation is God’s fullest and final word to humanity. God has spoken His last and final word to us in the days of the Messiah and the age of the gospel. As Hebrews 1:1-2 states, “1Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son,”. This means that Christ did not just bring us another revelation from God that further develops the biblical story; He brought us the final conclusion.[6] The story ends with Him. Therefore, as Fred Malone says, “The New Testament is the last and clearest revelation of God to man, and men must not add to it by alleged further revelations.”[7]
Second, New Testament revelation is God’s final interpretation of OT revelation. The NT authoritatively comments on, interprets, explains, and shines light on the OT. It is the fulfillment of the prophetic Word which came before it, and it gives coherence and meaning to the OT Scriptures. Malone states,
Because “the Old is in the New revealed,” there must be a final dependence upon the New Testament revelation to determine how the Old Testament is fulfilled in it. . . . The New Testament has priority to teach how the Old is fulfilled in it as the inspired commentary on the Old Testament. . . . The priority of the New Testament for interpreting how the Old Testament is fulfilled is fundamental. The teachings of Jesus and His apostles are the standard of Old Testament interpretation (Ephesians 2:20).[8]
The things that Jesus and His apostles taught in the NT are not just inspired applications of OT texts. Although applications are made in some instances (i.e., 1 Corinthians 10:1-13), what they are doing is legitimate exegesis of OT texts. They are not reading new meanings into OT texts; instead, they are bringing out of OT texts their full meaning and implications. For instance, Matthew does not just apply OT texts to the life of Jesus but says they are fulfilled in Him (Matthew 1:21; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 27:9). Jesus thoroughly interprets[9] what the entirety of the OT said about Himself (Luke 24:27). Peter says Joel’s prophecy is not just similar to Pentecost but is speaking about Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21). In other words, this (what occurred in the NT) is that (what was prophesied in the OT). And he also tells us that all the OT prophets proclaimed the days of the gospel (Acts 3:24).
Jesus and His apostles saw the OT as fully revealed in the NT. They saw God’s NT revelation bringing out the full meaning and implications of God’s OT revelation. The promises made to Abraham and David, the calling of the nation of Israel, the function of animal sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood, and the fulfillment of the latter-day prophecies can only be properly understood in light of the NT.
So, contrary to what some assert, reading the Bible “backwards” is not an illegitimate method of interpretation. It is not imposing eisegesis on OT texts but instead it is doing exegesis on them. If the NT is the final and fullest revelation from God, it is the final interpreter of OT revelation. It gives us the final word on God’s previous words. It helps us understand everything that came before. It tells us with clarity and finality all that was mysteriously hidden and implied in OT texts. It is the answer key that solves all the puzzling questions of the OT. It is the conclusion that makes sense of the entire OT storyline.
Conclusion:
If we limit the meaning of any text to only what the biblical author knew and understood is in essence to be satisfied with eating crumbs under the table when we have a seat reserved for us at the banquet feast. Or we could liken it to being more interested in hearing a child’s description of an event when we have the full adult version for our perusal.
The facts are, even the human authors of the Bible had limited, creaturely knowledge of what they saw, heard, and wrote down from God. And especially in regards to OT revelation, it was by nature difficult to understand and incomplete in itself. So, human authorial intent is not the be-all and end-all of biblical interpretation. We must not end our search for the true and full meaning of Scripture with the human author. Instead, if we want to fully “punch out” God’s Word, we must remember that God is the ultimate author of Scripture, that the Bible is also (and ultimately) a divine product, that God’s thoughts are much higher than our thoughts (Isaiah 55:9), and therefore in any text of Scripture we must seek to discern the revealed mind and will of God recorded for us in all of Scripture. Proper exegesis must employ a whole-counsel-of-God approach if we want to know what the Bible really teaches us. Dan McCartney sums it up best when he says,
if we believe God is the ultimate author of the whole of scripture, then the context of Christian interpretation ought to be the whole Bible, not just the immediate historical context of any particular text’s original author and audience. We are dealing with the intention of the divine Author as well as that of the human author, and though these will overlap they need not be identical. Indeed we would not expect a human author to exhaustively understand the implications of his divinely inspired words.[10]
[1] The specific Hebrew word used here is also used to refer to Samson’s unsolvable riddle (Judges 14) and the hard questions the queen of Sheba tested King Solomon with (1 Kings 10:1; 2 Chronicles 9:1).
[2] John Gill, comments on Ephesians 3:5.
[3] Matthew Poole says on this verse, “as Paul calls the times of the Old Testament a night . . . as being a time of darkness and shadows, in comparison of the light and knowledge of Christ under the New Testament; so Peter here compares the writings of the prophets to a candle, which gives some, but less light, and the preaching of the gospel to the dawning day, and day-star arising;”.
[4] Sam Waldron, “Prolegomena Apologetics I,” Lecture 16.
[5] Fred Malone states, “The New Testament is the final revelation of God and the final interpreter of fulfillment of the Old Testament in it” (http://www.tinysa.com/sermon/11160516169).
[6] Calvin in his commentary on Hebrews 1:1 says, “for it was not a word in part that Christ brought, but the final conclusion.”
[7] Fred Malone, “Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology” (PDF of lecture, Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, Owensboro, KY, January 2015), 5.
[8] Ibid, 6.
[9] The verb that is used is διερμηνεύω, which comes from the word for “hermeneutics”. So, Jesus does not apply the OT Scriptures to Himself but He “thoroughly hermeneutic-izes” the OT Scriptures to show that their full and true meaning are found in Him.
[10] Dan G. McCartney, “Should We Employ the Hermeneutics of the New Testament Writers?”, Bible Research, accessed December 8, 2019, https://www.bible-researcher.com/mccartney1.html.
Ben has been one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, Kentucky, since June 2017. In February 2018, he received his Master of Divinity from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. Ben has been married to his lovely wife Ali since September 2011. They have four children together: Liam, Luther, Cosette, and Maezie. In his spare time, Ben enjoys playing with his kids, coaching, doing yard work, and Friday family nights.
by CBTS | Jul 12, 2022 | Announcements
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 12, 2022
Today CBTS has announced the formation of a new track for their Master of Arts in Theological Studies degree program in Biblical Counseling. This track is the third MATS track that will be offered alongside the two existing tracks of Systematic/Historical Studies and Biblical Studies.
A New Program at CBTSeminary
CBTS’ mission is to help the church to prepare men to undertake the full range of pastoral responsibilities they will face in serving Christ and His kingdom and to equip Christians for effective service in the church. The main priority in CBTS’ curriculum has been to provide well-balanced programs which fill a need, particularly in areas of systematic and historical theology.
However, one area of opportunity in the seminary curriculum has been in the area of biblical counseling. Seminary leadership believes there is a need that CBTS can address in local churches by helping to equip (both pastoral and non-pastoral aspiring) biblical counselors for practical ministry with a balanced theological curriculum.
“One of the great and beneficial revolutions that took place in the 20th century was the rebirth of biblical counseling,” says CBTSeminary President Dr. Sam Waldron. “Jay Adams, in Competent to Counsel, reminded the church that counseling was the responsibility of the church. Pastors and even other (instructed) Christians were seen to be responsible to counsel on the basis of the sufficiency of Scripture alone. At CBTS we embrace that vision; and we want to further it by adding another emphasis to our Master of Arts in Theological Studies. Its distinctive advantage will be to place this counseling emphasis firmly in the context of theological studies!”
CBTS’ primary goal for the program is to train aspiring pastors who want to be better equipped in biblical counseling, but it is also hoped that the program will benefit non-pastors, both men and women, who desire to counsel under the authority of local church pastors.
As in all its ministries, CBTS is concerned that the MATS Counseling program has a biblical local-church focus as set forth within its confession of faith (Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689), and that those who are trained in the program receive a degree that is heavily saturated with a proper understanding of the local church’s role in Biblical counseling. “If you want to be a ‘lone wolf’ counselor who counsels independently from the local church, this program is not for you,” said Brice Bigham, Director of Development at CBTSeminary. “It is our desire to train well-rounded biblical counselors to be effective in ministering to believers and unbelievers in coordination with and under the authority of the pastors of their own churches.”
Faculty and Program Information
J. Ryan Davidson, Pastor of Grace Bible Chapel in Hampton, VA, has agreed to serve as the primary instructor for the counseling core. Davidson says, “Counseling that rests on the Word of God, that is informed by the light of nature, and that is attentive to the complexities of humanity is a great need of our day. Training within the seminary context provides the counselor with the benefit of both theological and practical training and seeks to particularly assist those who are counseling within the context of the local church. This new program offers students the ability to learn within a Confessional context and focus their studies on the work of counseling as a supplement to the public means of grace within the context of the church.”
CBTS plans to utilize other faculty members within the program, including Dr. Fred Malone (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA). Others will be announced at a later date.
The degree program will be 57 credit hours overall, including 15 credits in Exegetical Theology, 16 in Systematic/Historical Theology, 21 credits of Counseling core, and 4 credits of elective courses.
While subject to change, some planned courses for the degree are Marriage & Family Counseling, The History of Counseling & Pastoral Care, Biblical Counseling & Legal Issues, Counseling & the Body, Biblical Counseling in the Local Church, Counseling Children & Adolescents, and a Counseling Practicum.
Partnership with IRBC
CBTS has agreed to a partnership with the Institute of Reformed Biblical Counseling (IRBC) in an effort to bolster the practical aspects of the program and to provide standing for graduates to attain certification with IRBC as a result of the completion of their studies.
Program Start-Date
CBTS has begun accepting applications for the program now and plans to begin adding a rotation of regular live counseling courses beginning in 2023.
About CBTSeminary
The vision of CBTSeminary is to see the church of the Lord Jesus Christ strengthened and expanded worldwide, to the end that Christ would be known, loved, and exalted. Its mission, therefore, is help the church to prepare men to undertake the full range of pastoral responsibilities they will face in serving Christ and His kingdom, and to equip Christians for effective service in the church. They do this work by providing rigorous academic training and by facilitating extensive pastoral mentoring.
To learn more about Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, visit CBTSeminary.org.
