by Tom Nettles | Sep 30, 2024 | Old Testament, Practical Theology
As Elihu winds down his theodicy presented to the destitute Job, he condenses his presentation to two truths. We find these in verses 22 and 23: “Behold, God is exalted in power; … and who has said, ‘You have done wrong?’” God is all powerful and nothing can hinder his accomplishing his will. God is perfectly just, so that the will he accomplishes is an expression of justice. In verses 19-21, Elihu mentions three refuges that sinners seek in order to avoid reconciliation with God’s holy wrath. These attempts at refuge from divine judgment show their disdain for the ransom God provided.
One of these hiding places to which men look is riches. Do riches have strength to give final fulfillment to life? Can they guard them from the coming of righteous judgment? They need to hear the warning of James: “Come now, you rich, and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are motheaten” (James 5:1, 2).
Others simply yearn for death as an escape from earthly troubles. “Do not long for the night,” says Elihu. People vanish from their place but their life before God does not end. Earlier, Job simply wished not to be (Job 3:1-19). But death, early or late, does not eliminate the appointment we have with God: “It is appointed unto man once to die and after that the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).
Others simply throw aside any sense of personal responsibility before God and move toward deeper indulgence in evil (21). They reason that unbounded pursuit of pleasure will anesthetize the pain of judgment. They forfeit the lesson that God’s affliction is bringing them.
Mere men in any of these conditions either of power or privilege should not exalt themselves but remember that God alone is exalted and he alone judges and reveals truth (22-23). God is the omnipotent one and there is no manifestation of power in the world but that it is derived from him (John 19:10, 11). God knows all things and acts always according to his purposes, so we may ask with Elihu, “Who is a teacher like him?” God knows, not through investigation or logic, but through invention. All things that exist and their relations with all other things are the products of his making. He made all things that are not himself and he continues to uphold all of these very things. Nothing exists that he does not know and maintain in being perfectly, and all he says about anything is true. “Who is a teacher like him?”
God works all things after the counsel of his own will (Ephesians 1: 11), so no one may question his operation of the world or of their own lives. Is anyone above him or does anyone give directions to the eternal, all-wise, all powerful one? “Who has appointed him his way?” (23a). He is the thrice holy, all righteous One. He makes no mistakes and there is no moral flaw in him. What he determines for the testing, sanctifying, and judging of men all is in accord with a perfect righteousness that is endemic to his very nature. “Who has said, ‘You have done wrong?’”
Elihu then points to the evidence that clouds, rain, and lightning give of the power and moral purpose of God. Lightning is unpredictable, terrorizing, and impressively beautiful, and all is in the hand of God to accomplish his precise purpose (36:32; 37:2-5, 11-13). With the mystery that such everyday phenomena pose before human observation, who can place a limit on the wisdom, power, or being of God? The curling, color, and movement of the clouds, along with their distillation into rain or snow for terror or for life-giving sustenance (36:31; 37:5-10), show that God does not bend his power or his sovereign purpose to the control of man.
As we exalt his work, we are led to exalt him (36:24, 26; 37:1). Considering, however, the magnitude of his work and how little of it we know, surely we must acknowledge that he is truly incomprehensible. “Do you know about the layers of the thick clouds, the wonders of one perfect in knowledge?” (37:16). His infinity in all that is excellent combined with his eternity of being defy any finite being—all his creatures—from laying claim to any kind of knowledge that would justify complaint against him (37:14-20). His power is uncontrollable and reflects his “awesome majesty” (37:22). As his might is illimitable and an absolute expression of his nature, so his justice and righteousness ride on the wings of his power in absolute purity (37:23).
Given this combination of power and good, we must concede that there is no such thing as innocent suffering except in the one case of the One who suffered the “just for the unjust.” (1 Peter 3:18). When we proportion temporal suffering to apparent temporal evil, we might be puzzled as to why the apparently good suffer and the apparently less-good prosper; but this sense of disproportion finds plausibility only because of our limited and dull reflections on divine holiness. If our knowledge of the moral character of a fallen world and fallen human beings were truly commensurate with the reality, we would immediately concede the justice of God in any infliction of punishment or sanctifying discipline.
We must not forget that God’s granting of pleasure in this life should drive us to see the bountiful nature of his goodness and mercy. Any interruption of our pleasure in this life, whether mild or severe, is designed to bring us to a knowledge of sin and the need for a mediator that can restore righteousness, for God will not be finally reconciled to us apart from true and complete righteousness. “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:1, 2).
Elihu has played the role of John the Baptist. He has been the voice of one crying in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord. Now the Lord shows up to speak to Job.
Dr. Tom Nettles is widely regarded as one of the foremost Baptist historians in America. He joined the faculty of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary after teaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School where he was professor of Church History and chairman of that department. Previously, he taught at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. He received a B.A. from Mississippi College and an M.Div. and Ph.D. from Southwestern. In addition to writing numerous journal articles and scholarly papers, Dr. Nettles has authored or edited nine books including By His Grace and For His Glory, Baptists and the Bible, and Why I Am a Baptist.
Courses taught: Historical Theology of the Baptists, Historical Theology Overview, Jonathan Edwards & Andrew Fuller.
by Timothy Decker | Sep 24, 2024 | New Testament
*Editors Note: This is part 3 in an ongoing series titled “TEXTUAL ODDITIES OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS IN 1 JOHN.”
Read part 1 here: https://cbtseminary.org/textual-oddities-of-the-textus-receptus-tradition-in-1-john-part-1-printing-oddities-within-the-tr-tradition-timothy-decker/
Read part 2 here: https://cbtseminary.org/textual-oddities-of-the-textus-receptus-tradition-in-1-john-part-2-printing-oddities-within-the-tr-tradition-continued-timothy-decker/
TEXTUAL ODDITIES OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS IN 1 JOHN
Part 3: Strange Textual Readings in the TR
In the first two articles, I pointed out some unique and strange occurrences in the TR tradition, including print/typesetting errors, strange accenting that seemed to increase exponentially with each successive edition,[1] nearly unique readings in Scrivener’s 1881 TR, and the instability of the TR tradition itself at 1 John. And so while comparing the TR tradition to itself, we noted several oddities. However, when we compare the TR tradition to the manuscript (MS) tradition of 1 John, yet again, the TR tradition bears many oddities that are unusual for its typical tendencies. These peculiarities include rare shorter readings in the TR tradition as well as departures from the Byzantine text form. In part 3, we’ll take up the latter, leaving part 4 for the former.
TR Departures from the Byzantine
According to the forthcoming R-PByzT2024 w/ apparatus, the TR departs from the Byzantine Textform a total of 15 places in 1 John.[2] Erasmus and the rest of the TR tradition primarily made use of a few Byzantine minuscules. Therefore, when it departs from the Byzantine Textform, there is cause to pause, ponder, inquire, and discern what they were using in order to reconstruct their text.
1 John 2:23
We start with a major departure from the Byzantine text form, where even the Byzantine uncharacteristically follows the shorter reading. First, John 2:23 can be compared below:
The longer reading is almost certainly original. Though the majority of Byzantine MSS rendered the shorter reading (the Text und Textwert lists 402 that omit the clause), over 100 MSS include it, most of them also being of Byzantine origin.[3] Therefore, roughly 1/5 of the Byzantine witness contains the longer reading. These also agree with the Alexandrian and Western textual clusters, confirmed by most of the ancient translations that also include the longer reading.
Text und Textwert, p. 140
The explanation for the omission is easily explained by homeoteleuton or “similar ending.” More than likely, after the scribe finished writing the phrase of v. 23a, which ended τὸν πατέρα ἔχει /ton patera echei, he went back to dip his reed for more ink and his eyes returned to the parent exemplar manuscript looking for those same words. It seems he returned to the wrong location, skipping to the second occurrence of v. 23b’s identical words: τὸν πατέρα ἔχει /ton patera echei. This would cause him to bypass all of v. 23b, believing he had already copied those words.
Now, while this is an instance where Scrivener’s TR contains the better reading, it nevertheless departs from the Byzantine text form. Additionally, the TR tradition is not so clean-cut. Indeed, only a handful of TR editions read as Scrivener’s 1881 TR: Colinaeus1534, BezaFol1588, Fol1598, BezaOct1590, Oct1604).[4] The vast majority of TR editions in the tradition, including some very notable editions, follow the shorter Byzantine reading: Erasmus1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, CompPoly1514/22, Aldine1518, Gerbelius1521, Köpfel1524, Stephanus1546, 1549, 1550, 1551, BezaLat1557, BezaFol1565, BezaOct1565, Oct1567, Oct1580, Elzevirs1624, 1633, and Oxford1873. Therefore, this may or may not be a good example of the TR tradition departing from the Byzantine as most of them indeed follow the Byzantine text. It wholly depends on which TR you use.
Such uncertainty in the received text may indicate why the 1611 KJV rendered the longer clause in a different font:
In a similar way, the Geneva included the longer reading in the margin, but the main text only included the shorter reading.
Note the || sign that indicates a marginal reading. And then over in the margin and down three inches or so:
The later 1599 Geneva Bible edition would no longer include the marginal note but only render the shorter reading.
1 John 3:1
Like the major variant at 2:23, the TR tradition is not consistent here either. However, unlike 2:23, this variant is small by comparison. Occurring in many places throughout 1 John, textual variants concerning the personal pronouns abound, in large part because they look and sound similar. In this case, we have a difference between the NA28 and TR reading ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς “the world does not know us” and the ByzT ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ὑμᾶς “the world does not know you.”
The TR tradition, culminating in Scrivener’s 1881 edition, would ultimately follow the ἡμᾶς/ hēmas/“us” reading. However, the tale of the tradition is quite varied early on. Following the standard Byzantine reading was Erasmus1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, Aldine, Gerbelius, Köpfel, Bebelius, Colinaeus, and Sessa editions (all prior to the first edition of Stephanus1546).
1 John 3:15
The TR and NA28 find agreement of the personal pronoun (ἐν αὐτῷ μένουσαν) over against the Byzantine text of this verse and the reflexive pronoun (ἐν ἑαυτῷ μένουσαν). The only difference here is the addition of one little letter (underlined): an epsilon. Thankfully, the difference in translation amounts to a very minor distinction, hardly noticeable at all: “does not have eternal life abiding in him” versus “does not have eternal life abiding in himself.”
Among the TR tradition, only the Colinaeus edition of 1534 would follow the Byzantine Textform and print the epsilon. The rest of the TR tradition departed.
Colinaeus1534
Sort of.
As I indicated in footnote #1, Dr. Peter Gurry pointed out to me that the incident of what I believed to be strange breathing marks on the word αυτῳ and αυτου (see article 1) may, in fact, have been contracted forms of the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτος.[5] If that is the case, and the difference between the two is the “smooth breather” (αὐτῷ) versus the “rough breather” (αὑτῷ), then the TR tradition is rather divided among itself. For example, in Stephanus’s first edition (1546), he rendered this with the rough breather, thus indicating the contracted form of ἑαυτῷ. However, in his next edition (1549), he switched back to the smooth breather (αὐτῷ). Then, in his important 1550 and 1551 editions, he reverted to the initial abbreviated form (αὑτῷ).
Stephanus1546
Stephanus1549
Stephanus1550
In 19th-century editions of the TR, the confusion remained and perhaps even worsened. In Scrivener’s initial 1860 text (claiming to represent the Stephanus1550 text), he includes variant readings from other published texts such as Beza (1565), Elzevirs (1624), Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. Oddly, at 1 John 3:15, he does not accurately display the Stephanus1550 text with the rough breather that represented the abbreviated longer ἑαυτῷ but instead purposefully printed the text with a smooth breather αὐτῷ.[6] Scrivener did list among the variants the longer ἑαυτῷ of Lachmann and Tischendorf. Nevertheless, he failed to include Beza1565 and Elzevirs1624, which both have the rough breather rather than the smooth breather, indicating those in the TR tradition also were cases of the contracted form of the longer reflexive pronoun reading. This smooth, breathing printing would continue in the Oxford 1873 TR and Scrivener’s later 1881 edition.
So, to which reading should a TR adherent cling? The personal pronoun or the reflexive pronoun? I’m not entirely sure Scrivener would know. The TR tradition did, after all, switch back and forth.
As it happened, there was even confusion among some Greek MSS over this very matter, as demonstrated by scribal correction. According to the ECM apparatus, there are three minuscules that correct from the shorter αυτω to the longer εαυτω (GA 323 468 720). GA 323 (a 12th-century minuscule) had the shorter reading, but a corrector is believed to have added a clear and dark rough breathing mark to demonstrate the contracted reading of the longer εαυτω:
GA 323
Deciding which variant is no easy task. The MSS data is quite evenly split. Displayed thusly are the NA28 and [CNTTS] apparatuses:
The Alexandrian and Byzantine witnesses are pretty evenly split. There are, in my studies, certain MSS of 1 John that are very reliable: such as A and 1739. When they are combined with many Byzantine MSS as well as important Alexandrian MSS (א C), I’m led to believe that this is the better reading. Therefore, they help tip the scales toward the longer reflexive pronoun reading for me.
1 John 3:18 2x’s
The final example of the TR atypically departing from the Byzantine text contains two instances:
The first case of the TR not following the Byzantine is the article (τῇ) absent in front of γλώσσῃ/tongue. Here, both the ByzT and the NA28 agree over its presence. In his first edition, Erasmus omitted the article, perhaps at the prompting of his use of GA 1 and 2816, which also omitted it. However, Erasmus also used GA 2815 for his first edition which includes the article. For his second edition, he used GA 3, and his third edition he had GA 61. Both 3 and 61 include the article as well. Speculation might suggest that it was omitted on the part of Erasmus because it was reflecting the Latin (which has no articles!) and continued thereafter. This seems to be suggested from Beza’s annotations, though he doesn’t take up the matter of the article at all. He gives no hint of an awareness of the variant but simply repeats the Latin phrasing. Nevertheless, while the TR departs from the Byzantine text form, it is not in bad company, as the ECM includes some 42 MSS (including א/01 and 33!) that also omit it.
A more significant departure from the Byzantine text at 1 John 3:18 is the TR’s omission of the preposition ἐν/“in,” represented in both the NA28 and the R-PByzT. As before, the omission is fairly well attested; the ECM lists some 49 Byzantine MSS. However, there is not the same weight of MSS as in the prior omission. Indeed, of all the MSS Erasmus would consult, only GA 1 omits the preposition. The rest of the MSS that Erasmus would use (GA 3 61 2815 2816) include it. The reading that includes both the article and the preposition (represented in both the NA28 and ByzT!) yet left out of the TR seems to be the original reading.
Summary of Part 3
The TR tradition was not beholden to the Byzantine text. It followed it primarily because the MSS that Erasmus had available to him and utilized were of the Byzantine family. An important goal for any researcher looking into the unique readings of the TR would be to examine those times that the Byzantine text was not followed and why. Typically, when departing from the Byzantine text type, there is a pattern of following Western readings in general and Latin renderings specifically. In part 4, I hope to look at a few uncharacteristic shorter readings in the TR of 1 John.
[1] Since part 1 has been published, Dr. Peter Gurry has pointed out to me that some of the strange accenting matters could be potential alternate spellings for the possessive pronoun (as cited in BDAG and LSJ). This increases the amount of variants among the TR tradition quite a bite.
[2] Not included in this (currently unpublished) apparatus would be the places where the TR cleans up the Greek. Usually, the TR departs from the Byzantine when it is correcting the Greek spelling by adding more proper endings to words (e.g. 1 John 1:5 and the second occurrence of ἐστι in the TR rather than the ByzT’s ἐστίν). For the most recent update on this project, view Dwayne Greene’s YouTube video, “An UPDATE on the PROGRESS of the BYZANTINE TEXT project!” accessed here: https://youtu.be/WV4W8bYXRFY?si=P1JW7JAmeF71Eh3V.
[3] Kurt Aland, ed., Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: Die Katholischen Briefe, Text und Textwert (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1987), 139–40.
[4] The BezaFol1582 edition also follows the longer reading but with a slightly different word order. Beza comments that there were to his knowledge 4 Greek MSS that contained the longer reading, along with the Latin and Syriac translations.
[5] LSJ said, “Attic contraction αὑτοῦ, etc., which is the usual form in Tragedy, though ἑαυτοῦ, etc., are used (though rarely) when the metre requires, A.Pr.188 (anap.), al.; in Attic Inscription αὑτοῦ prevails after b.c. 300.” BDAG (2000) would say, “Editors variously replace contract forms αὑτοῦ and αὑτῶν of later mss. with uncontracted forms or with αὐτοῦ.” The previous BAGD (1952) put it a bit bolder, “The contract form αὑτοῦ and αὑτῶν are deleted in the new editions and replaced by the uncontracted forms or by αὐτοῦ.” Thayer and Grimm’s Wilke’s lexicon put it this way, “αὑτοῦ, -ῆς, -οῦ, of himself, herself, itself, equivalent to ἑαυτοῦ, It Is [sic.] very common in the editions of the N. T. by the Elzevirs, Griesbach, Knapp, al… ἑαυτοῦ, -ῆς, -οῦ, etc. or (contracted) αὑτοῦ, -ῆς, -οῦ.”
[6] Scrivener did say in the preface that he would replace the rough breathers for smooth breathers of αυτου and αυτῳ.
Dr. Timothy Decker is one of the pastors of Trinity Reformed Baptist Church of Roanoke, VA, having joined them in 2018. He holds a B.A. and M.A. biblical studies from Carolina University (formerly Piedmont International University), a Th.M. in New Testament from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Capital Seminary and Graduate School. In his dissertation research, he examined the style of biblical Hebrew poetry in the New Testament. He has presented various papers at academic society meetings and authored numerous articles in several different scholarly journals. He is a member of ETS and IBR. When he is not reading or researching, he enjoys spending time with his wife and four children.
Courses taught at CBTSeminary: Elementary Greek I, Elementary Greek II
by CBTS | Sep 19, 2024 | Systematic Theology
Systematical Divinity, I am sensible, is now become very unpopular. Formulas and articles of faith, creeds, confessions, catechisms, and summaries of divine truths, are greatly decried in our age; and yet, what art or science soever but has been reduced to a system? physic, metaphysic, logic, rhetoric, &c. Philosophy in general has had its several systems; not to take notice of the various sects and systems of philosophy in ancient times; in the last age, the Cartesian system of philosophy greatly obtained, as the Newtonian system now does. Astronomy in particular has been considered as a system: sometimes called the system of the universe, and sometimes the solar, or planetary system: the first that is known is what was brought by Pythagoras into Greece and Italy, and from him called the Pythagorean system; and which was followed by many of the first and ancient philosophers, though for many years it lay neglected; but has been of late ages revived, and now much in vogue: the next is the Ptolemaic system, advanced by Ptolemy; which places the earth in the centre of the universe; and makes the heavens, with the sun, moon, and stars, to revolve about it; and which was universally embraced for many hundreds of years, till the Pythagorean system was revived by Copernicus, two or three hundred years ago, called, from him, the Copernican system. In short, medicine, jurisprudence, or law, and every art and science, are reduced to a system or body; which is no other than an assemblage or composition of the several doctrines or parts of a science; and why should divinity, the most noble science, be without a system? Evangelical truths are spread and scattered about in the sacred Scriptures; and to gather them together, and dispose of them in a regular, orderly method, surely cannot be disagreeable; but must be useful, for the more clear and perspicuous understanding them, for the better retaining them in memory, and to show the connexion, harmony, and agreement of them. Accordingly we find that Christian writers, in ancient times, attempted something of this nature; as the several formulas of faith, symbols or creeds, made in the first three or four centuries of Christianity; the Stromata of Clemens of Alexandria; the four books of Principles, by Origen; the divine Institutions of Lactantius; the large Catechism of Gregory Nyssene; the Theology of Gregory Nazianzen; the Exposition of the Apostles’ Symbol, by Ruffinus; and the Enchiridion of Austin, with many others that followed: and since the Reformation, we have had bodies or systems of divinity, and confessions of faith, better digested, and drawn up with greater accuracy and consistence; and which have been very serviceable to lead men into the knowledge of evangelical doctrine, and confirm them in it; as well as to show the agreement and harmony of sound divines and churches, in the more principal parts of it: and even those who now cry out against systems, confessions, and creeds, their predecessors had those of their own; Arius had his creed; and the Socinians have their catechism, the Racovian catechism; and the Remonstrants have published their confession of faith; not to take notice of the several bodies of divinity published by Episcopius, Limborch, Curcellæus, and others. The Jews, in imitation of the Christians, have reduced their theology to certain heads or articles of faith; the chief, if not the first that took this method, was the famous Maimonides, who comprised their religious tenets in thirteen articles; after him R. Joseph Albo reduced them to three classes, the existence of God, the law of Moses, and the doctrine of rewards and punishments.
But what makes most for our purpose, and is worthy of our example, are the Scripture compendiums or systems of doctrine and duty. What a compendium or body of laws is the decalogue or ten commands, drawn up and calculated more especially for the use of the Jews, and suited to their circumstances! a body of laws not to be equalled by the wisest legislators of Greece and Rome, Minos, Lycurgus, Zaleucus, and Numa; nor by the laws of the twelve Roman tables, for order and regularity, for clearness and perspicuity, for comprehensiveness and brevity; being divided into two tables in the most perfect order; the first respecting the worship of God and the duties owing to him, and the other respecting men and the mutual duties they owe to each other. As prayer is a very principal and incumbent duty on men with respect to God, our Lord has given a very compendious directory, as to the matter of it, in what is commonly called the Lord’s prayer; which consists of petitions the most full, proper, and pertinent, and in the most regular order. And as to articles of faith or things to be believed, we have a creed made mention of in Heb. 6:1, 2; consisting of six articles, repentance from dead works, faith towards God, the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. These are commonly thought to be so many articles of the Christian faith; but I rather think they are so many articles of the Jewish creed, embraced and professed by believers under the Jewish dispensation; since the Christian Hebrews are directed to consider them as the principles of the doctrine of Christ, as an introduction, and as leading on to it, and which were in some sense to be left and not laid again; they were not to stick and stop here, but to go on to perfection, by searching into and embracing doctrines more sublime and perfect, revealed in the gospel; at least they were not to be any longer instructed in the above articles in the manner they had been, but in a clearer manner, unattended with legal ceremonies, to view them and make use of them. Thus for instance, they, the believers, Christian Hebrews, were not to learn the doctrine of repentance from slain beasts, or to signify it by them, as they had been used to do; for every sacrifice brought for sin, which they were no longer obliged to, was a tacit confession and an acknowledgment of sin, and that they repented of it, and deserved to die as the creature did; but now they were to exercise evangelical repentance in the view of a crucified Christ, and remission of sin by his blood: and whereas they had been taught to have faith towards God, as the God of Israel, they were now moreover to believe in Christ as the Son of God, the true Messiah, the Saviour of lost sinners, without the intervention of sacrifices, see John 14:1. The doctrine of baptisms is to be understood of the divers baptisms, or bathings among the Jews, spoken of in Heb. 9:10; which had a doctrine in them, teaching the cleansing virtue of the blood of Christ to wash in for sin and for uncleanness; which they were no more to learn in this way, but to apply immediately to the blood of Christ for it. And the doctrine of laying on of hands, respects the laying on of the hands of the priests and people on the heads of the sacrifices, which instructed in that great and evangelical truth, the transfer and imputation of sin to Christ offered up in the room and stead of his people; and which was to be taught and learnt no longer in that manner, since Christ was now made sin for his people, and had had their sins imputed to him, which he had borne in his own body on the tree: and as for the doctrines of the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment, they were such as distinguished Jews and Gentiles, which latter were greatly strangers to a future state; and though they were common to Jews and Christians, yet the believing Hebrews were not to rest in the knowledge they had of these, as enjoyed under the former dispensation; but to go on to perfection; and to press forward towards a greater share of knowledge of them and of other more sublime doctrines; since life and immortality were brought to life by Christ in a clearer and brighter manner through the gospel. But all that I mean by this is, that the principal doctrines of faith under the Jewish dispensation are reduced to a system, though to be improved and perfected under the gospel dispensation. Those articles were but few; though Gregory observes, that according to the increase of times, the knowledge of saints increased, and the nearer they were to the coming of the Saviour, the more fully they perceived the mysteries of salvation: and so the articles in the formulas and symbols of the first Christians were but few, suitable to the times in which they lived, and as opposite to the errors then broached; and which were increased by new errors that sprang up, which made an increase of articles necessary; otherwise the same articles of faith were believed by the ancients as by the later posterity. It is easy to observe, that the first summaries of faith recorded by the most ancient writers went no farther than the doctrine of the Trinity, or what concerns the three Divine Persons; the doctrines of the heretics of the first ages being opposed to one or other of them: but when other heresies sprang up and other false doctrines were taught, it became necessary to add new articles, both to explain, defend, and secure truth, and to distinguish those who were sound in the faith of the gospel, from those that were not.
John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity: Or A System of Evangelical Truths, Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures, New Edition., vol. 1 (Tegg & Company, 1839), viii–xii.
