by CBTS Student | Mar 31, 2025 | Biblical Worship, New Testament, Practical Theology, Systematic Theology
*The following is a poem based on C.H. Spurgeon’s sermon, “Christ, Destroyer of Death” by CBTS student Luke Schmeltzer. You can read that sermon here.
The King of Glory conquers still,
Yet the final foe remains.
Christ, the God-man, upon Calvary’s hill,
Struck to free us from Death’s chains.
Death appeared when man was young,
No part of good creation he.
Unwelcome guest of the curse begun,
The cost of Adam’s sin to be.
Born to do the Devil’s work,
Tearing the work of Maker’s hand.
Across the ages, and in darkness lurk,
Snatching prey from every land.
No man yet living has fully fled,
For Death respects no family crest.
All saints and sinners still join the dead,
As newborns snatched from loving breast.
The souls of saints now gather around,
The great white throne where Christ is seated.
For justice and vic’try, these martyrs crowned,
Cry for bodies restored and Death defeated.
The Reaper comes to in due season,
Yet that time to every man unknown.
He comes without warning, rhyme, or reason,
And he comes with never mercy shown.
Death, our enemy, is not all yet destroyed,
But Christ, the Conqueror, has already won.
Christ came, all grace and glory employed,
To ransom the sinner and to make him a son.
The Spirit’s work already applies
New spiritual life to Christ’s elect.
His work of healing already defies,
And justifies souls without defect.
The cross was the place His mercy displayed,
And justice satisfied for our vindication.
He arose with all glory and honor arrayed;
Now the tomb is for us only preparation.
The resurrection proved to be the pledge,
The hope to which all believers may turn.
A future share of which believers allege,
For Death itself shall die at Savior’s return.
Death entered the world as consequence of sin,
And so following sin, shall suffer downfall.
When all the glorious saints enter in,
Death will be defeated, last foe of all.
Death remains only a tool in His hand,
For love displays most in the martyrs cry.
Death is now turned against all Satan’s band,
And used to bring Savior’s chosen on high.
Death is still our hateful foe,
And its damage to our world we lament.
Yet Christ shall put an end to its woe,
When trumpet sounds and sky is rent.
About the author
Luke Schmeltzer has been an M.Div student at CBTS since 2022. He is currently the church planter of Shepherd Reformed Baptist Church near Joliet, IL, and he is especially interested in studying the Doctrine of God and early Particular Baptist ecclesiology. Luke is husband to Jess and father to Olivia and Annabelle.
This blog post is authored by a student of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.
by Timothy Decker | Mar 26, 2025 | Historical Theology, Old Testament
Is Psalm 12:6–7 a Proof Text for Scripture’s Preservation?
A Historical Examination | Timothy Decker
When it comes to the prooftexts of our Confession’s statement on the preservation of Scripture at §1.8, we have to admit that there are none offered for the statement “by his singular care and Providence [Scripture has been] kept pure in all Ages.”
The Westminster Confession cited some passages at this point in §1.8 (such as Matt 5:18), and the Larger Catechism will cite Psalm 12:6 for the purity of Scripture as part of its self-authenticating nature (Q 4). But many who advocate a “received text position,”[1] which states that God’s Word has been perfectly preserved (whatever they may mean by “perfectly”) in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew OT and the Textus Receptus of the NT, maintain that Psalm 12:6–7 is a prooftext that expressly sets down the doctrine that God has kept his Word pure throughout the ages.
Psalm 12:5–7 KJV
For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy,
Now will I arise, saith the Lord;
I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
The words of the Lord are pure words:
As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Whether Psalm 12:6–7 expressly sets down the doctrine of providential preservation of Scripture is to be decided elsewhere. The goal of this blog article is not to argue for one interpretation over another. By surveying more than 30 documents or expositions, I simply want to point out some misconceptions as well as historical inaccuracies that have been taken up with the “received text position.” My hope is to convince some Christians to pause before using the reformed history of interpretation of Psalm 12:6–7 as a prooftext for the doctrine of Scripture’s providential preservation, despite efforts by some.[2]
Where might one find a list of reformed writings and commentaries on the Psalms? I have found the website www.reformedbooksonline.com to be a wonderfully helpful resource in providing a list, quick author’s bio, and links to digital version of the books. I will use this website as a jumping off point, as well as many other relevant sources not there listed.
Interpretive Issues
There are two main issues to evaluate in the survey of literature. These exegetical issues could be broken down even further, especially pertaining to the Hebrew grammar, but we’ll keep it fairly broad for now:
1) Does the expression “the words of the LORD” from Ps 12:6 refer to Scripture specifically or God’s words more generally, such as in promise or the gospel?
This is not always stated plainly, and we often assume a commentator has the same idea of “God’s words” that we do. Yet those of us reading these commentators need to be careful we do not assume “the words of the LORD” (or synonymous terminology) automatically equates to Scripture. Many commentators, as we will see, have taken v. 6 to mean the purity and thus surety of God’s promises. Yet some within this “received text position” have confused the view of a commentator when he is still using the Scriptural language of “Your Word” or the “Word of God.” Take John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes of Ps 12:7. Some have argued that he was advocating for the view of Scripture’s preservation as the express interpretation. Yet Wesley said, “Thou shalt keep them—Thy words or promises…” He understood v. 7 to be a reference to God’s word in promise, and thus v. 7 was God’s keeping or preserving that promised word. Therefore, he was not teaching that Ps 12:6–7 teaches the doctrine of providential preservation of Scripture.
2) Does the referent in Ps 12:7 even refer back to God’s words in v. 6 or the poor and needy in v. 5?
Grammatically, the Hebrew would not allow for v. 7’s masculine pronoun “them” to have as its refer v. 6’s feminine “words” (except under rare conditions… maybe), and so most affirm it has its antecedent in v. 5’s poor and needy. However, many commentators who do opt to understand v. 7’s referent to be God’s words from v. 6 simply take it the keeping of v. 7 to mean that of God keeping his promises. Therefore, even among those who read v. 7 in light of v. 6 rather than v. 5, very few (none really) will actually make a clear case that this is a prooftext for the preservation of the written Word of God, e.g. Scripture.
Historical Survey of Various Reformation and Reformed Expositions of the Psalms
Where to begin? I’ll start with Howard Milne. In his Has the Bible Been Kept Pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the providential preservation of Scripture, he gives a brief list of works citing Psalm 12:6–7 as a reference to the preservation of Scripture (p. 108n215). This list includes the Westminster Larger Catechism, the English Annotations, the Dutch Annotations, John/Giovanni Diodati, and Matthew Poole. He even qualifies that when Psalm 12:6 is referring to “the words of the LORD” as God’s promises, the text of Scripture is implied. Such an implication seems very unlikely, as the comparison is between the wicked words spoken by the enemies (vv. 2–4) contrasted with the pure words of God in v. 6, whether proclaimed by a prophet, revealed in a dream, sung by a psalmist, or written in Scripture. The point is, Ps 12 is a contrast not of written texts but of God’s promises to preserve his people over against the vile and violent threatenings of the enemy to destroy God’s people.
Certainly, the Westminter Larger Catechism used Ps 12:6 to defend the purity of the Scriptures as a proof to the self-authenticating nature of the Word of God (“The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity…”). But it does not include v. 7 regarding preservation; indeed, none of the Westminster standards include Ps 12:7 at all.
Matthew Poole is often cited as a commentator who allowed for Ps 12 to teach the preservation of Scripture. He actually offered 2 options, neither of which argue for the preservation of Scripture view: “Thou shalt keep them; either, 1. The poor and needy, ver. 5, from the crafts and malice of this crooked and perverse generation of men, and forever. Or, 2. Thy words or promises last mentioned, ver. 6. These thou wilt observe and keep (as these two verbs commonly signify) both now, and from this generation for ever, i.e. Thou wilt not only keep thy promise to me in preserving me, and advancing me to the throne, but also to my posterity from generation to generation.” Notice in option 2, even when Poole allowed for “that shalt keep them” to refer back to “Thy words” in v. 6, he took this to mean “words or promises” and later explained that to mean “Thou wilt not only keep thy promise to me in preserving me… but also to my posterity from generation to generation.” This was not used as a prooftext for Scripture’s preservation. In either option, Poole took vv. 6–7 to mean the fidelity and faithfulness for God to uphold his promise to preserve the psalmist.
The English Annotations, often the source behind the Westminster Confession’s prooftexts, make their view very clear. Of “the words” of God in v. 6, they wrote, “It is like he means the promise of the kingdom made to him [David], though it be true of all God’s word.” At best, one could say that the English Annotations understand v. 6 to mean Scripture only by necessary consequence. What Ps 12:6 expressly sets down is God’s words in v. 6 are the promises of the kingdom to David. As to the referent of v. 7a, they wrote, “‘Thou shalt keep them’ meaning the poor and need, spoken of, v. 5.” Of the singular in v. 7b, they explained, “Heb. him; that is, every one of them.” Therefore, this is not taken as a direct reference either to Scripture (v. 6) nor the doctrine of Scripture’s preservation (v. 7).
The Dutch annotations are translated to take v. 6 as “the sayings of the LORD.” This was then explained to mean “As all in general, so especially his [God’s] gracious promises which the Prophet insisteth on in the next verse.” Again, this is only by inference that v. 6 can “in general” be taken as Scripture. Specifically or “especially” it refers to God’s promises. Then in v. 7 (v. 8 in the Annotations, v. 8 in MT), “‘Thou, LORD, shalt keep them;’ Understand the godly and innocent, against the practices of the wicked, which haunt them like roaring and raging Lions.” There can be no doubt that the Dutch Annotations do not understand Ps 12:7 as affirming the doctrine of preservation, and only by necessary consequence can Scriptures be included in the statement of Ps 12:6.
I found Giovanni Diodati’s Annotations on the Whole Bible to be silent on v. 7. However, Milne either misread or misrepresented Diodati, for he interpreted v. 6’s “the words of the LORD” to mean “namely the promises he hath made me to raise me to the Kingdom.” That is, Diadati took v. 6 as a Davidic promise, not Scripture.
Thus far, Milne’s list has come up short.
A couple of other relevant citations from the so called “traditional Protestant translation” tradition would also include the Geneva Bible and the original 1611 KJV. The Geneva (1560 ed.) has two pertinent marginal notes. Their explanation of “the words of the LORD” in v. 6 explained, “Because the Lordes words and promise is true & unchangeable, he will perform it & preserve the poor from this wicked generation.” Then the note at 12:7 concerning the words “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou wilt preserve him from this generation for ever,” said, “That is, thine though he were but one man.” And thus in addressing the explanation of the plural and singular pronouns of v. 7, the Geneva marginal note took v. 7’s referent back to the humans of v. 5 or the psalmist himself. They did not cite this as a prooftext for Scripture nor Scripture’s preservation.
In a similar manner, the 1611 KJV marginal note will teach a similar interpretation as the Geneva. As it happens, there is no explanatory note in for v. 6 except for some cross-references. Psalm 12:7’s note was to explain the KJV’s plural translation of the singular Hebrew pronoun reads, “Hebr. ‘keep him.’ i.[e.] every one of them,” again addressing the singular/plural issue just as in the Geneva note.
Now, let us do a brief survey of historical sources that took up the Psalms as a matter of exposition.
Early on in church history, Augustine in his Exposition of the Book of Psalms said of v. 7 “here as needy and poor, there as wealthy and rich.”[3] As to the matter of God’s words in v. 6, he took it to mean the preaching of the prophet saying “This is in the person of the Prophet himself… He says pure, without the alloy of pretence. For many preach the truth impurely; for they sell it for the bribe of the advantages of this life.” He then relates it to the preaching of the Sermon on the Mount and the seven beatitudes proper. The point is, for Augustin the “words of the LORD” of Ps 12:6 was an expression of the preached Word of God.
Martin Luther very similarly took v. 6 as a reference to the gospel “to express its purity and spirituality” (p. 102, First Lectures on the Psalms). He says nothing of v. 7. However, in his commentary, he allows multiple possibilities for v. 7. Nevertheless, he ultimately concludes, “David here prays to be guarded.” (p. 28 of Luther’s Complete Commentary on the First Twenty-Two Psalms tran. by Henry Cole, vol. II, London, 1826). Of the option for the preservation of God’s Word, he cited Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation.
Victorinus Strigel [1524-1569], a Lutheran who accepted the Reformed view of the Supper, took v. 6’s “words of the LORD” to mean “Gods promises and threatenings are ratified and most assured.” Then he applied v. 7 to the preservation of the Church: “Here is a most sweet promise, which witnesseth that the Church of God shall remain not only amongst the ruins of kingdoms, but even if the world should utterly come to an end. Let vs therefore comfort our selves with this consolation, and in this hope let vs maintain and propagate the scriptures and doctrine given us from God.” Clearly, he did not interpret Ps 12:6–7 as a prooftext for the preservation of Scripture. See his Part of the harmony of King Davids harp Containing the first XXI at Psalm 12.
John Calvin’s Commentary could not be clearer. He understood “the words of the LORD” of v. 6 to mean “that God is sure, faithful, and steadfast in his promises. … [calling believers] to meditate on God’s promises in their afflictions.” Of the referent of v. 7, he said, “Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to me to be suitable. David, I have no doubt, returns to speak of the poor, of whom he had spoken in the preceding part of the psalm.” And so Calvin does not take this as a prooftext for the preservation of Scripture.
Thomas Wilcox (puritan, c.1549-1608) expressly explained in his 1591 Exposition upon the Whole Book of Psalms that v. 6 “the words of the LORD” to mean “the promises, the general (no doubt of it) comprising the particular. Q.d. Doubt not of that which hath been said before vers. 5, for they are God’s words, and his promises, and therefore shall be performed.” Then on v. 7, he explained, “‘for those wilt preserve him’ which I allow better of ‘from this generation’ i.e. from the men that live in this age, see verse 1 of this Psalm.” Wilcox is the only one I’ve seen thus far to handle the referent question of v. 7 not only to v. 5 but all the way back to v. 1. This is, in my opinion, the best option. In his summary of Psalm 12, he wrote, “Verse 6, Teacheth us to make God’s promises always [always] the assured grounds of our prayers. Verse 7, Teacheth God’s providence and protection over his Children, if we read it as in the Geneva text, or else, that we ought to pray for God’s favour toward them.” Neither view takes v. 6 as Scripture nor v. 7 as teaching Scripture’s preservation.
Henry Ainsworth (d. 1622, puritan), understood God’s words of v. 6 (v. 7 in his commentary) as “The sayings or, the words, promises.” And then he wrote, “Ver. 8. [7 in English] — ‘Preserve him,’ That is, every one of them: so before in the end of the sixth verse [fifth verse in English], and often in the scripture, like sudden change of number may be observed.” (434). Therefore, he stated plainly that v. 6 is about God’s promises whether written or spoken and v. 7 refers back to the poor and needy of v. 5. See his Book of Psalms, or Hymns on Psalm 12.
George Abbot (reformed Anglican, 1604–1649) had his Brief Notes upon the Whole Book of Psalms published posthumously in 1651. In it, he not only took v. 6 to refer to God’s promises (not Scripture per se), but he said of v. 7, “Thou wilt ever be to all them that trust in thee a faithful keeper and preserver in all ages hereafter, as thou hast been to me, whom thou hast made an example of thy truth and goodness to all Generations.” In other words, v. 7 was about the preserving of God’s people not Scripture.
John Ewart, whom Spurgeon did not think all that highly of, wrote in three volumes his Lectures on the Psalms. It reads more as devotional literature than a true commentary. What he wrote concerning v. 6 likely only indicates that he took God’s words to be his promises to encourage in “the sad vicissitudes of life.” However, he stated v. 7 to mean, “By ‘this generation’ is meant bad men, who are permitted, for a time, often to injure the good.” This infers that v. 7 is taken back to v. 5 and those Christians who suffer. Scripture’s preservation was nowhere in sight.
The Arminian Anglican, Henry Hammond (d. 1660), whose work A Paraphrase and Annotations upon the Psalms was published posthumously, wrote what he believed to be the easiest understanding to v. 7’s “thou shalt keep them” as “the words of the Lord, in the praecedent verse [v. 6].” Yet he went on to explain “to keep, is to observe and perform, whether statutes or promises, as ordinarily ‘tis used.” He undoubtedly was referring to God’s words of v. 6 as promises to be kept in the performing of them. Therefore, while Hammond took v. 7’s referent back to v. 6’s “words of the LORD,” he does not understand those words of God to mean Scripture. Indeed, the singular “him” of v. 7’s B-line, he took not as words of the Lord but to mean “preserve the just man, to whom those words or promises were made.” Thus he renders in translation “Thou, O Lord, shalt keep, or perform those words, thou shalt preserve the just man from [the wicked].”
Arthur Jackson, a Presbyterian royalist in the 1600’s, wrote in 1658 Annotations upon Job, the Psalms, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, & the Song of Solomon. Its value is limited as he is not clear either on what the “words of the LORD” mean in v. 6 nor in identifying “them” of. v. 7.
William Nicholson (1591–1672, a reformed Anglican) wrote a work on the Psalter in 1662 called David’s Harp Strung & Tuned; or, an Easy Analysis of the Whole Book of Psalms. He took vv. 7–8 as the conclusion of Ps 12. This means that it is free from answering the question of the referent by way of the immediate context but can be any part of Psalm 12 (including v. 1 or v. 5). He did write of v. 7 that the expression “though shalt keep them… intimates David’s confidence of God’s care and protection over his people, that in the overflowings of wickedness they shall be kept from contagion.” Therefore, he does not take v. 7 as God preserving Scripture but believers. As to v. 6, he never clarifies what he believes “the words of the LORD” to mean, however it seems that he follows the standard “promise” view. He concluded his exposition of v. 6 by leaving this implication, “I am confident then the answer he hath given in the former verse, he will perform.” This sounds like the keeping of a promise.
John Trapp took v. 6 as the promises of God and not Scripture (“All God’s promises are infallible, and such as a man may write upon, as they say.”). But in v. 7a, he linked the plural pronoun back to the words/promises of v. 6. However, he makes it clear that those words are specifically not the written word but more specifically the Verba praedicta or “the word being preached.” In Muller’s Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, the entry of praedicatio says, “Preaching is a praedicatio, or predication, because it affirms something of God and of God’s promises.” So clearly, Trapp understood v. 6 in similar terms. Concerning v. 7a, he offered two options for the plural pronoun referent. The first just quoted and then the second to David and those with him. When addressing the singular pronoun of v. 7b, he took it back to the needy of v. 5 which included David. See his 1649 Commentary on Psalm 12.
David Dickson (Scottish Covenanter, 1653, who would much know about the subject of Ps 12) said, “This promise the Prophet commendeth to the Church, as a precious truth, which will be found forthcoming to the full, in experience. … Let men persecute the godly, as much as God pleaseth to suffer them, yet shall God preserve a Church of godly persons at all times to the end of the world: For God shall preserve the godly from this generation for ever. Albeit the discomforted godly, under persecutors, are not always able to draw presently comfort from this promise, yet it is a truth which God will own, which God will keep in his hand to us, when we come to him, and which every believer must own, though no man should take it off his hand. Therefore doth David turn himself to God, in delivering this Charter of the Church’s safety, Thou, saith he, shalt keep them.” Clearly, he understood v. 6 as God’s promises and v. 7 as a reference to v. 5—the preservation of saints not Scripture. See his A Brief Exposition of the first Fifty Psalms, at Psalm 12.
Edward Leigh is a good example of taking Ps 12:6 as expressly meaning God’s promises in his exposition while by necessary consequence generally applying that truth to Scripture in his systematic theology. In his Annotations on Five Poetical Books of the Old Testament: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Canticles of (1657), he briefly noted of Ps 12:6, “Vers. 6. As silver tried in the furnace of earth. He speaks de experiontia viva sanctorum [concerning the living experiences of the saints], every time any promise is fulfilled, there is a trial of the sincerity of Gods intention.” He is relating the trials of the saints, especially from v. 5 with the promises of God to be fulfilled. This, then, is not taken to be Scripture. However, in his systematic theology Body of Divinity, he will on at least four occasions cite Ps 12:6 with regard to the purity of God’s Word. This he does by what is necessarily contained in the subject matter of Ps 12:6. Leigh does not, however, include v. 7 in his citations, nor does he link it to Scripture or Scripture’s providential preservation.
Thomas Fenton gathered many other interpreters and compiled them in his Annotations of Job and Psalms, 1732. For publication, he included the following explanations: v. 6’s purity of God’s words were “a pious reflection which the Psalmist makes, to guard himself against imitating the artifices and dissimulations of worldly men.” For v. 7: “‘Keep them,’ The Poor and Oppressed, of whom God is the Avenger; [referring back to] ver. 5.” He does not even hint at either Scripture in v. 6 or its preservation in v. 7.
George Fenwick, in his The Psalter in Its Original Form, 1789, translated v. 7a not as “Thou wilt keep them” but “Thou wilt be ever mindful of them.” In an explanatory note, he clarified himself to mean “keeping in mind the foregoing words or promises [from v. 6].” Therefore, he does see the referent to v. 7a to be v. 6, however, he does not understand v. 6 to refer to Scripture but the mindfulness of God keeping his promises. On the other hand, he takes the latter portion in v. 7b (the singular pronoun) as a reference to v. 5’s meek ones.
Samuel Eyles Pierce, an 18th and early 19th century Particular Baptist, wrote An Exposition of the Book of Psalms, now part of the Newport Commentary Series by Particular Baptist Press. He very plainly understood Ps 12 messianically and Ps 12:6 to be a reference to the Covenant of Grace specifically. Therefore, these “words of the LORD” are to be taken as the promise of the Gospel. Therefore, v. 7 is understood to be the beneficiaries of the Covenant of Grace—the church of God! “They were preserved from the tremendous wrath and judgments, which came down on that wicked, sinful, and adulterous generation.” This interpretive conclusion was already indicated in his overview of Ps 12 where he said, “Surely this Psalm may well be dedicated to celebrate the praise of Christ the conqueror. It is in him, and by him, his people are more than conquerors over all their enemies, and over their oppressors.”
George Horne (reformed Anglican, d. 1792), understood God’s words in v. 6 as affirming “the church rejoices in the promises of God her Savior.” He then offered this explanation to v. 7: “thou wilt keep thy poor and lowly servants, as thou hast promised, from being circumvented by treachery, or crushed by power ; thou wilt preserve them undefiled amidst an evil and adulterous generation ; thou wilt be with thy church to the end of the world, and then admit her to be with thee for ever [sic.].” See his Commentary on the Book of Psalms at Psalm 12.
John Gill takes v. 6 as including all aspects that could be included in God’s words. That involves Scripture, God’s promises, the Gospel, the doctrines; these are all said to be pure and uncorrupted. However, he is clearly in opposition to the Jewish rabbi Aben Ezra and takes the referent of v. 7 to v. 5’s poor and needy (in agreement with rabbi Kimchi). See his Commentary on Psalm 12.
Spurgeon’s Treasury of David clearly takes “the words of the LORD” in v. 6 as God’s promises. He said, “What a contrast between the vain words of man, and the pure words of Jehovah. Man’s words are yea and nay, but the Lord’s promises are yea and amen.” Now he would understand in such a notion to include a reference to the written word by what is necessarily contained. And even then, he speaks of the purity of the Bible as having “passed through the furnace of persecution, literary criticism, philosophic doubt, and scientific discovery, and has lost nothing but those human interpretations which clung to it as alloy to precious ore.” However, he never connects Scripture to v. 7. Indeed, he explains v. 7 as saints being preserved through the persecutions of the enemy.
W. Hengstenburg’s Commentary on the Psalms, 1847, is both technical and evangelical. He clearly understood v. 6’s “words of the LORD” to be prophetic (or as an “inward oracle”) as he clarified it as synonymous with v. 5’s “thus saith the LORD.” He quotes Luther to have said, “It is not necessary, by God’s words, to understand only such as are taken from Scripture into the mouth; but also what God speaks through men, whatsoever it may be, and whether the speaker be learned or unlearned; also what He spake through His apostles, apart from the use of Scripture, and what He still speaks from day to day, through His own people.” He says at Psalm 12, “Ver. 7 ‘Thou, O Lord, shalt keep them,’ thy people suffering wrongfully.” The grammatical explanation given for the singular suffix “is to be explained as a personification. In order to mark the contrast more pointedly between the pious and the ungodly, and to indicate that it is not of certain individuals against certain others, ‘the pious man’ is often set in opposition to the ungodly, the righteous to the wicked, the former as the object of Divine oversight, the latter as the object of Divine punishment.” His point being, this is clearly to take v. 7 back to the saints of v. 5.
Keil & Delitzsch, a very well-known and still used commentary from the middle to late 1800’s, were conservative Lutheran Hebrew and OT scholars. They did join Ps 12:6–7 together in their handling of explanation. But they are using the Hebrew numbering, which in English is vv. 5–6. They opened their discussion of v. 5 saying, “In v. 6 [English v. 5] the psalmist hears Jahve Himself speak; and in v. 7 [English v. 6] he adds his Amen.” Taking the expression “words of the LORD” as YHWH speaking is not the same as written Scripture. Moving to vv. 7–8 (or in Hebrew and K&D, vv. 8–9), they wrote, “The suffix ēm in v. 8a [v. 7a in English] refers to the miserable and poor; the suffix ennu in v. 8b [7b in English] (him, not: us, which would be pointed תצרֵנוּ, and more especially since it is not preceded by תִשְׁמְרֵנוּ) refers back to the man who yearns for deliverance mentioned in the divine utterance, v. 6 [v. 5 in English].” This again connects v. 7 to v. 5 and not preservation of Scripture. Also take note that they keep vv. 7–8 together as its own strophe.
Another technical commentary in the 1800’s, one that Spurgeon (Commenting and Commentaries, p. 87) said, “A refreshing book; the notes being out of the ordinary run, and casting much light on many passages. To thoroughly appreciate this author one should be a Hebrew scholar.” This is referring to The Psalms, Translated from the Hebrew, with Notes Chiefly Exegetical of William Kay. He doesn’t give much comment on v. 7, but he plainly said of “the words of the LORD” from v. 6 to be “the promises contained in the preceding verse [v. 5].” This is not a work that supports the interpretation of the preservation of Scripture from Ps 12.
Andrew Bonar (a Presbyterian, wrote Christ and His Church in the Book of Psalms in 1859) addressed the matter indirectly. After quoting v. 6, he went on to say, “All He has spoken about the Woman’s Seed from the beginning’; all He has spoken of Him in whom all nations shall be blessed; all He has spoken of David and David’s seed; all is sure, all shall come to pass. And so they sing, (ver. 7), ‘Thou shalt keep them (i.e., thine own), and shalt preserve them from this generation,’ — a generation so corrupt and evil that one may say of it —” and then quotes from v. 8 (p. 42). This kind of exposition is somewhat different in nature because his work is a Christological reading of the Psalter. Nevertheless, it appears Bonar took v. 7 figurally as a reference to God’s chief Holy One and not the preservation of Scripture.
J. Stewart Perowne (Anglican scholar) in his The Book of Psalms: A New Translation, with Introductions and Notes, Explanatory and Critical, 1864, made it clear of both vv. 6 and 7: “6. The poet dwells on the purity and perfect truth of God’s promises. … 7. The faith and hope which rest upon the fact just before stated, that the words of Jehovah are pure words. ‘THEM,’ i.e. ‘the afflicted and poor,’ in ver. 5, and then immediately us, placing himself in the number; with the usual opposition between the two classes, the Church and the world.” Again, v. 7 is taken with v. 5 and not preservation of Scripture. Indeed, v. 6 is not said to be about Scripture, per se, but the promises of God wherever they may be found. Spurgeon noted this commentary to be a “masterpiece.”
Conclusion
As best as I can tell, of the 30+ sources and expositions cited, there are at least 2 or 3 broad interpretations concerning Psalm 12:6–7 among those reformed or evangelical writers cited above who were directly dealing with an exposition of Psalm 12. Most limited “the words of the LORD” from v. 6 to the promises of God, at times to preaching or prophecy, while others allowed for a more general concept that includes Scripture by necessary consequence. None, however, took “words of the LORD” as an exclusive, specific reference to Scripture except for the prooftext of the Westminster Larger Catechism. The majority referred v. 7 back to v. 5 while some back to v. 6. And some even divided v. 7a back to v. 6 and v. 7b back to v. 5. However, the interpretation that Ps 12:6–7 is expressly teaching the purity of Scripture and its providential preservation is absent in every single one of the sources cited in this survey. This is not an interpretation that is known within the reformed tradition of interpretation.
There may be more authors to include, but this list (ranging from early reformed, puritan, and all the way to 19th century evangelical commentators) covers a broad, sweeping tradition that never offers up this passage as a prooftext for the preservation of Scripture. At best, Ps 12:6 can be used by good and necessary consequence to infer the purity of Scripture. And to that, I say amen! But I am hardly alone in tracing its specific meaning to the preached promises of God. Furthermore, it seems that nearly none among the reformed tradition followed those of the more recent “received text position” that takes Ps 12:6–7 as a prooftext for providential preservation of Scripture. The majority understood the Hebrew grammar of v. 7 (whether in whole or in part) to have for its referent v. 5 not v. 6.
Therefore, the overwhelming consensus among the reformed commentators of the book of Psalms is that Ps 12:6-7 is not a prooftext expressly set down for the doctrine of the providential preservation of Scripture. At best, it is a minority view within the reformed exegetical tradition and a more recent interpretation.
[1] See the new book by Taylor DeSoto who used this term to describe his position. He said, “The label ‘Received Text’ is essentially adequate because it describes the text that the people of God received at the end of the Reformation. . . While the ‘Received Text’ may be the weakest in terms of explanatory power, it probably has the highest name recognition, so it should still be regarded as adequate.” Taylor Desoto, The Received Text: A Field Guide (Reedsburg: Kept Pure Press, 2024), 85.
[2] See Peter Van Kleeck, Sr., An Exegetical Grounding for A Standard Sacred Text: Toward the Formulation of a Systematic Theology of Providential Preservation, self-published, 2021, pp. 45-79.
[3] Augustine, Expositions of the Book of Psalms, translated by John Henry Parker. London: F. and J. Rivington, 1847: 1:104.
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 Student | Mar 24, 2025 | Book Reviews
Bayes, Jonathan F. A Tidy Faith: Systematic Theology from a Reformed Baptist Perspective. Eugene, Oregon: Resource Publications, 2024. 648 pp. $66.
Introduction
Jonathan Bayes is a pastor in the United Kingdom and has served in Christian ministry for several decades. He has written books on various theological topics, including the Apostles’ Creed, a theology of revival, and exegetical treatises, among other works. He has a PhD from the University of Sunderland and is a lecturer in systematic theology at the Carey International University of Theology.
Summary
Bayes aims to develop what he calls a “tidy faith,” using the analogy of a feast. Everything at this theological feast is properly organized and its proper place, all while maintaining a delicious variety. Bayes states his purpose of exploring what the entire Bible has to say on various themes and to do so from a Reformed Baptist perspective. (vii-viii)
Bayes explores many of the classic loci of systematic theology in an order that roughly follows that of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). He starts with the doctrine of God and the doctrine of revelation. He proceeds to the doctrine of creation and the doctrine of the divine decree. From there, he moves to the doctrine of man and the doctrine of Christ. After this, Bayes spends extensive time on the doctrine of salvation, starting with the atonement, moving to the three tenses of salvation, then the further aspects of salvation (e.g., union with Christ), and concluding with the eternal basis of salvation in election. Bayes concludes his volume with chapters on the Holy Spirit, the church, worship (which he groups with preaching and the sacraments), angels and demons, and eschatology.
Bayes constructs each chapter (or parts in lengthy chapters) with a unique structure: Biblical Foundation, Doctrinal Formulation, Historical Elaboration, and Practical Application. While Bayes does not say so explicitly, the Biblical Foundation section serves as Bayes’ biblical theology (the discipline) for the chapter, where Bayes explores the Old Testament discussion of the chapter’s theme and then moves to the New Testament. He then identifies and briefly exposits key Scriptural passages. (viii) The Doctrinal Formulation section explores what the ecumenical creeds of the church and Reformed confessions say on that topic. One unique element of Bayes’ volume is that he intentionally includes Reformed Confessions from outside the Western Hemisphere, such as the Confession of Faith of House Churches in China. (viii-x) Bayes’ section on Historical Elaboration explores the doctrine throughout Christian history, including controversies, notable debates, or other contemporary questions. (x) Bayes concludes each chapter with a thorough discussion of practical applications for each doctrine. (x-xi)
Strengths
Bayes’ volume has a couple strengths. The first is perhaps the most obvious: there are no other known contemporary volumes whose purpose is to be distinctively Reformed Baptist. While others may be Reformed Baptist-adjacent (e.g. Beeke and Smalley, Wellum), and others have existed historically (e.g. Boyce, Gill), Bayes stands alone in developing such a work of systematic theology in our era of revived interest in confessional Baptist thought.
A second strength is that in each chapter, Bayes studiously grounds his work in the Scriptures and aims to develop a robust biblical foundation for each doctrine. He does this alongside how the doctrine was formulated in the creeds and Reformed confessions of the church (both historic and contemporary). He demonstrates an admirable desire for ecumenicity with Reformed thought and catholicity with the broader Christian tradition while remaining first and foremost grounded in the Scriptures. Bayes does so without losing sight of various challenges Christians have addressed throughout history, and he ensures all doctrine ultimately has a practical application. Bayes maintains a good balance across these four elements, and his unique structure helps readers new to the task of systematic theology understand the constituent elements of the task.
Weaknesses
Despite its strengths, Bayes’ work has numerous problems which must be addressed. There are more issues in Bayes’ volume than can be addressed in this review, so we will focus on two main categories: technical and theological. Within the technical category, we will look at issues of underdeveloped bibliography, unsupported or under-cited assertions, and misinterpretation of primary texts. Under the theological category, we will look at some of the problematic and often contra-confessional stances Bayes takes, and the absence of any meaningful Reformed Baptist covenant theology.
The first technical issue is Bayes’ underdeveloped bibliography. While his bibliography is large and includes some major Reformed theologians, there are key names who are not listed in Bayes’ bibliography and whom it would be reasonable for readers to expect to be present. A Reformed Baptist systematic theology should have significant engagement with early Reformed Baptists like Nehemiah Coxe and Benjamin Keach, contemporary Second London scholars like James and Samuel Renihan, and other leading Reformed scholars and theologians, both past and present, such as James Petrigru Boyce, Stephen Charnock, James Dolezal, Michael A.G. Haykin, Richard Muller, David Steinmetz, and Geerhardus Vos. Yet every name listed here is absent from Bayes’ bibliography. What makes this especially peculiar is sources Bayes does choose to enlist. Bayes includes Lutheran confessions of faith among the list of Reformed confessions of faith, which he seeks to synthesize. (ix) When discussing impassibility, Bayes only cites Bishop Gilbert Burnet (Anglican), Lactantius (early church), and Kazoh Kitamori (Japanese Protestant). (16-18) He employs Robert Reymond (a Presbyterian) to argue against the Filioque (483-484). He uses the Canons of Dort (written by paedobaptists) to explain the status of infants dying in infancy. (459) These are all topics Reformed Baptist theologians have discussed and topics which the Second London Confession of Faith (2LCF) itself explicitly address! Bayes is free to employ whomever he wishes for his volume, but his eclectic bibliography and the absence of these leading Reformed writers, and in particular the Reformed Baptist ones, necessarily calls into question to what extent this volume is grounded in the Reformed Baptist tradition.
The second technical issue is a pattern of assertions without proper argumentation or citation. One such example appears immediately in Chapter 1, Part 1, where Bayes says that the “key quality which sums of the Old Testament teaching about God is that He is merciful.” (1) While it is possible Bayes is correct, this is a significant assertion. While Bayes attempts to back it up by pointing to the repeated Old Testament references to God’s mercy, an assertion of this magnitude is going to be highly controversial. Bayes does not cite any Old Testament scholars to substantiate his argument, and he fails to engage with other scholars who might present an alternative view. Another example is in Chapter 16, where Bayes asserts without citation that the Reformers were predominantly postmillennial in their eschatology, which he clarifies could include amillennialism (626-627). While Bayes could be correct (Waldron argues that the 2LCF precludes premillennialism[1]), this assertion is by no means a given and must be evidenced.
The third technical issue is the misinterpretation of primary texts. In my cursory review, this occurred on at least three occasions (twice with John Calvin and once with Thomas Aquinas). Bayes does correctly interpret some primary sources, such as Herman Bavinck on angels (590), so the cases where he does misinterpret a primary text are thus more notable. Space precludes a more extensive examination, so we will focus on one example, his interpretation of Calvin’s views of the divine decree in his commentary on Deuteronomy 13:3.
Bayes discusses Deuteronomy 13:3 in engaging with open theistic objections to divine foreknowledge. While open theists would argue that this passage points to God’s lack of knowledge, Bayes cites Calvin as an alternative way to read the text. Citing Calvin’s commentary on the passage, Bayes says, “Calvin cites Augustine, who suggested that the Lord meant that the test would enable the people to know their own hearts. Calvin prefers to distinguish God’s knowledge as it arises from his hidden wisdom, which needed no verification, and his knowledge arising from experience, which the test would provide.” (156) In other words, Bayes reads Calvin as positing two types of knowledge in God (natural and experiential), and this test in Deuteronomy 13:3 reflects this distinction. However, Calvin says nothing of the sort and, in fact, makes the very argument Bayes says Calvin rejects. To quote Calvin: “Moses thus anticipates it, by reminding them, that God does not meanwhile lie idle or asleep, having abandoned the care of His Church; but that He designedly brings the truly pious to the proof, in order to distinguish them from the hypocrites; and this takes place, when they constantly persevere in the true faith against the assaults of their temptations, and do not fall from their standing.”[2] It is true that Calvin cites Augustine and rejects his view, but Calvin’s own view could hardly be more plain when he says, “God proves men’s hearts, not that He may learn what was before unknown, but to lay open what was before concealed.” Calvin objects to Augustine’s view, not because it was wrong, but because it was too limited. Calvin argues God’s purposes in such tests go beyond merely causing us to know, as Augustine argues, but serve God’s greater purposes, that God’s purposes are different from the “malice and wiles of Satan.” Therefore, Calvin’s reference to “experimental” (i.e. experiential) knowledge cannot be to posit two types of knowledge in God, and Bayes has misinterpreted Calvin on this point.
These technical issues could potentially be overlooked if there were not theological problems with Bayes’ volume as well. These theological problems are not isolated to subtle, debatable matters; those and others we will leave aside. Problems arise in theology proper, Christology, soteriology, and the atonement, all on topics addressed by the 2LCF.
The first issue we encounter is the absence of key Reformation doctrines. Chapter 2, Part 1 on the doctrine of Scripture contains no reference to sola scriptura. While Bayes clearly holds to it (otherwise, his section on scriptural sufficiency (70) would be different than it is), its absence from this chapter, including in the Doctrinal Formulation and Historical Elaboration sections, is a strange omission. Likewise, Chapter 1, Part 1 on the nature of God fails to meaningfully discuss God’s attributes of love, holiness, aseity, and simplicity. Love and holiness are absent entirely except as passing references in the discussion of God’s mercy. (20) Aseity receives only three sentences. (16) Simplicity is reduced to the idea of divine unity, where the idea that God has no parts results from God not having a body. (16) This contrasts with the confessional view, which, Renihan says, asserts that God is altogether free of parts and that all that is in God is God.[3] Finally, in Chapter 9, Part 1 on justification, Bayes provides a definition of faith as “the personal appropriation of the promises [of God].” (325) No reference is made to the historic Reformed view of the three parts of true faith: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.[4]
Another issue is that Bayes denies the historic Reformed understanding of divine immutability and impassibility. Bayes asserts that God is immutable (20) and not subject to change. (11, 19) While these statements are good, Bayes makes other comments which not only undermine divine immutability, but which call into question what he means by immutability. Bayes openly denies divine impassibility. Bayes argues that God is passible and capable of suffering, but that He does so voluntarily. (16-18) Bayes concedes to open theists that “[God] is not unaffected by human decisions.” (161) He asserts that “Christ’s atonement made an impact upon God.” (275) Moreover, it should be noted that in those aforementioned where places Bayes does affirm immutability, they are placed under the umbrella of God’s sovereignty. What we see, then, is a pattern where immutability is not inherent in God’s very nature but is instead derived from God’s sovereignty. Bayes makes key concessions to open theism by allowing change in the divine nature in God’s suffering and in the atonement. It becomes difficult to square Bayes’ assent to immutability with his assertions that God can change in light of human decisions, the atonement, and His own sovereign choices. What we can say for certain is that Bayes’ views do not comport with the 2LCF. The 2LCF is plain that God is both immutable and impassible, which is due foremost to His aseity, but also His infinity and spirituality.[5]
Likewise, Bayes makes concerning comments regarding the person of Christ. Bayes expressly affirms the unity of Christ’s person, that there is no human person of Jesus, and that Christ’s human nature never acted independently. These statements are orthodox. The trouble is that in this same paragraph, Bayes acknowledges and questions the idea of Christ’s “impersonal humanity” to guard against a gender-neutral Jesus. It is clear that Bayes is referencing the idea of the hypostatic union being anhypostatic. But where Bayes begins to show signs of Christological trouble is when he states that it is inconceivable to imagine a human nature which is not personal, whereas “he [Jesus] is an authentic human personality”. (245-246) A charitable reading would assess that Bayes is attempting to articulate the hypostatic union as being enhypostatic,[6] though it is unclear as to why he does not employ this terminology.
Yet Bayes’ Christological problems do not end here. While the previous paragraph could be seen as a misunderstanding, this becomes more difficult to maintain when Bayes repeatedly refers to Christ as a “divine-human person.” (248, 251, 255) Moreover, in discussing the Chalcedonian Definition, Bayes says that Christ “had a unified experience of life and the world” and that when the Definition says that Christ was not “parted or separated into two persons”, this means that Christ was psychologically an integrated personality. (253) It is difficult to understand Bayes’ intent here. Chalcedonian orthodoxy speaks of Christ as a divine person,[7] and the 2LCF in Chapter 8 clearly sees Christ as a divine person. While such language from Bayes, combined with his statements about Christ being an authentic human personality, would suggest Nestorian tendencies, Bayes enthusiastically embraces Mary as theotokos (252) and affirms the communicatio idiomatia (255-256), which would militate against a Nestorian Christology. Charity would assume Bayes intends Christological orthodoxy. Yet his imprecise and contra-confessional language is not only confusing but concerning for a work of systematic theology and demonstrates some form of disconnect from the theological tradition in which he seeks to ground himself.
Likewise, Bayes seems confused on the classic Reformed law/gospel distinction. In Chapter 2, Part 1, in establishing the Old Testament foundation for the doctrine of Scripture, Bayes expounds Psalm 19:7-11. In this exposition, Bayes says, “The Bible recognizes no antithesis between law and gospel.” He makes this statement in contrast to what he sees as the Dispensational tendency to see the Old Testament as law and the New Testament as grace, rather than seeing the gospel message as being proclaimed even as early as Genesis. (55) While his assessment of Dispensational theology may be true, to flatten the law and gospel as he does is not only concerning, but contrary to historic Reformed thought.[8] A charitable reading of Bayes, especially in light of his discussion of the tripartite division of the law in a later chapter (352-356), suggests that Bayes means something different in this statement than an outright rejection of the law/gospel distinction. We can certainly hope so. Nonetheless, Bayes’ statement is imprecise at best, and contra-confessional at worst.
One surprising issue is found in Bayes’ discussion of Exodus 3:14 and the covenantal name of God. Bayes argues that the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14 is an incomplete statement which God must later complete, which He does in Exodus 33. To quote Bayes, “But on its own the verb ‘to be’ is incomplete. The way in which the LORD introduces himself to Moses leaves us asking, you are – what? What word or phrase will complete the sense?” (2) Yet historic Reformed commentators had no such difficulty with this passage. Matthew Henry, for example, uses this to explain that God is self-existent and absolute and thus the “inexhaustible fountain of all being and bliss.”[9] Moreover, Bayes’ view is contrary to the confessional view. The 2LCF cites Exodus 3:14 in defense of God’s infinity and incomprehensibility,[10] something Bayes’ view of Exodus 3:14 cannot do. Confessional and theology proper issues aside, Bayes’ view presents exegetical problems. If God’s covenantal name is incomplete, what are we to do with the repeated use of this name throughout the Old Testament? What are we do to with Jesus’ use of ἐγὼ εἰμί in John 8:58? Moreover, God uses this “incomplete” name later in this same conversation with Moses in Exodus 4:11, without any hint that it is incomplete.
One of the more bewildering issues in Bayes’ book is his assertion that Christ’s death served to appease the wrath of God against creation as a whole, not just against sinful humanity. Citing 1 John 2:2, Bayes argues that the genitive construction of the phrase ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου means that creation itself was in a condition of sinful fallenness, and Christ’s death served to preserve the world for the preaching of the Gospel. (301-302)[11] Setting aside the fact that Bayes provides no evidence for this beyond his own reading of the Greek text (see the discussion earlier of underdeveloped argumentation), what makes Bayes’ view astounding is that it is one proposed by no less than Thomas Collier, as cited by Nehemiah Coxe.[12] While neither Collier nor Coxe appear in Bayes’ bibliography, it is astonishing that Bayes would adopt a view of the atonement that overlaps significantly with one of the great opponents of the early Reformed Baptists.
These are not the only theological issues present in Bayes’ work. We could have explored others, such as his views on the unknowability of revelation in creation (94-96), regeneration as a temporal rather than instantaneous process (378-379), fatherhood as a creedally-defined attribute of God (12-13), the efficacy of Noah’s sacrifice (281), a peculiar view of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (479), some questionable language on perseverance and “final salvation” (438), and his dismissal of the Filioque as “speculative” (481-484). Nonetheless, the areas discussed highlight some of the serious concerns surrounding the doctrines expounded by Bayes.
The final theological issue we must address is that Bayes’ treatise has no meaningful development of a Reformed Baptist distinctives, outside of a few pages in the sections on baptism (548-552), doctrine of the church (524-525), and sanctification. (352-356) Even this section on sanctification is common to those who confess the WCF, Savoy Declaration, and other Reformed confessions; even Lutherans could affirm it. There is no dedicated discussion of covenant theology and how Reformed Baptists and Reformed paedobaptists differ on this subject. Covenant theology is vital to understanding the differences between Reformed Baptists and paedobaptists on baptism and ecclesiology, yet Bayes gives no attention to this subject.
This lack of covenant theology has a corollary weakness, namely, that Bayes does not establish what “Reformed Baptist” means. It appears that Bayes assumes the reader will understand the term, but since the volume is meant to be specifically Reformed Baptist (as stated in the book’s title), this term requires both definition and contrast to some of the theological traditions to which it is adjacent.
And perhaps this is the book’s most significant shortcoming – it is not distinctly Reformed Baptist. It is not distinctly anything. What it gets right is not particularly unique to the Reformed Baptist tradition, and other times it takes contra-confessional and sometimes bizarre stances. The various errors we discussed raise the question of how familiar Bayes is with his own theological tradition. It is not that Bayes understands his theological tradition and rejects it; sometimes he seems entirely unaware of it. A truly “Reformed Baptist” work should reasonably be assumed to have extensive engagement with the Reformed Baptist tradition. There ought to be an organic link between this volume and the two seventeenth-century Baptist confessions of faith. And so, while Bayes aims for a kind of Reformed ecumenicity, he ends up unmoored from any Reformed theological tradition.
Conclusion
Bayes should be applauded for attempting the monumental task of developing a contemporary work of systematic theology that is distinctly Reformed Baptist, especially where no such other work exists. As the interest in confessional theology among Baptists grows, Bayes has made a worthy effort to fill the void with a work that is biblically faithful, historically grounded, and pastorally helpful. However, Bayes’ tome has shortcomings that will limit its usefulness, not only in the academy, but in the pulpit and the pew as well. Its underdeveloped bibliography and argumentation, its inaccurate engagement with key authors, its non-confessional stances, and its absence of covenant theology means Bayes’ volume lacks both the rigor to be used in the academy and the thoroughness to be used in the church. Despite its shortcomings, though, we can pray that God will use Bayes’ work to inspire more theologians to engage our confessional heritage to develop a robust work of Reformed Baptist systematics.
About the Book Reviewer
Paul is a ThM student at CBTS. He lives in Florida with his wife, Felicity, and serves as a deacon in his church. A systems engineer by trade, Paul loves Lord of the Rings, strategy games, and reading all things theological (especially systematic theology). “Come, Lord Jesus!”
[1] Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 5th ed (Welwyn Garden City, UK: EP Books, 2016), 473.
[2] John Calvin and Charles William Bingham, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 445. Logos.
[3] James M. Renihan, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2022), 85.
[4] Renihan, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader, 309.
[5] Renihan, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader, 84–85.
[6] Stephen J. Wellum, God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ, ed. John S. Feinberg, Foundations of Evangelical Theology Series (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 318.
[7] Wellum, God the Son Incarnate, 321–322.
[8] Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Spirit and Salvation, vol. 3, Reformed Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 293–294.
[9] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 78–79.
[10] Chad Van Dixhoorn, Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms: A Reader’s Edition (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022), 243.
[11] Strangely, Bayes follows this by asserting that 1 John 2:2 in no way teaches the universal atonement for every man in the sense of providing propitiation for every man’s sins.
[12] Nehemiah Coxe, Vindiciae Veritatis, ed. James M. Renihan (1677; repr. Broken Wharfe, 2023), 81–82, 95–96.
This blog post is authored by a student of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.
by Sam Waldron | Mar 18, 2025 | Apologetics
Many passages might be brought to bear on the subject of how we know that God exists through natural or general revelation. There are three passages, however, which are of special importance. Probably the chief, most comprehensive, and most foundational of these three passages is Romans 1:18-23. In the same general section of the same book of the Bible is Romans 2:12a, 14, 15. This passage confirms and, in some respects, adds to the basic teaching of Romans 1:18-23. These two passages in Romans give us Paul’s doctrine or theory of how we know God exists. In the last passage we will study, we will notice how Paul practically applied this theory in his ministry. Here we will study Acts 17:16-34. Tremendous light on how men know of the existence of God (theological epistemology) will be given to us by our study of these passages.
Romans 1:18-23
A. It’s Context
1. A Simple Overview of the Different Views of the Relevant Context
It is generally recognized that Romans 1:18‑3:20 is the backdrop for Paul’s treatment of the revelation of the righteousness of God in the gospel. The theme of Romans 1:18-3:20 is the revelation of the wrath of God. Different views are entertained by expositors, however, on the precise development of Paul’s thought in this section of Romans. Note that this overview deals only with 1:18‑3:8 as 3:9‑20 is less relevant for our purposes and not a matter of so much debate.
i) The View of Hodge and many others: “The Common View”
1:18‑32 Gentiles
2:1‑3:8 Jews
ii) The View of Bruce and many others: “The Moralist View”
1:18‑32 Gentiles
2:1‑16 Moralists
2:17‑3:8 Jews
iii) The View of Cranfield: “The Concentric View”
1:18‑32 Men in General
2:1‑3:8 Jews in Particular
iv) The View of Waldron and Nichols: “The Modified Concentric View”
This is a variation of views b and c.
1:18‑2:16 Men in General
2:17‑3:8 Jews in Particular
Here is an illustration of the modified concentric View:
2. Several Considerations Supporting the Proper Viewpoint
According to my view of the passage, the entirety of 1:18‑2:16 is concerned with all men in general. The following arguments support this view:
(1) 1:16 speaks of Jews and Greeks. There is no narrowing of the scope in verse 18, where those considered are called men, i.e., men in general.
(2) 1:18‑32 is not concerned with Gentiles only. Verse 23 alludes to Psalm 106:20 and Jeremiah 2:11, which speak directly of Jews.
(3) There is nothing to indicate a change of scope in 2:1. The language is universal: “every man of you who passes judgment.” The language is consequential (having to do with the results of something already said). “Therefore,” connects this with the foregoing. The language of passing judgment, while appropriate to Jews, is also applicable to Gentiles (2:15).
(4) Both Jews and Greeks are considered in the body of 2:1‑16. Cf. especially 2:6‑15. How inappropriate to put these verses in a passage that is supposed to be dealing with Jews only!
(5) Note the occurrence of the term men (αvθρωπoς) in both 1:18 and 2:16. Its occurrence brackets the section and suggests that, in its entirety, it deals with men in general.
(6) The transition or shift to Paul’s treatment of Jews in particular is clearly marked. Note verse 17. Throughout 1:18‑3:8, this is the only clear transition or shift in the scope of reference.
3. Several Conclusions from the Proper Viewpoint
(1) 1:18‑2:16 is dealing with the wrath of God on men in general. We may, therefore, expect from this passage to learn about the light which men have by nature. We may expect to learn about the light, the violation of which exposes them to God’s wrath. As a matter of fact, both 1:18‑23 and 2:12a, 14, 15 are intended to justify the justice of God’s wrath by showing the knowledge men have of God outside the circle of special revelation. We are not taking these passages out of context, then, when we ask about how men, by nature, know of the existence of God. They are precisely intended to answer the question, “Do men know God?” They address themselves to the nature and origin of men’s knowledge of God outside the boundaries of special revelation.
(2) It is interesting to note that the two classic passages occur at the beginning and end of this section:
[1:18—————————‑2:16]
(1:18b‑23) (2:12a,14,15)
(3) Some have thought that 2:12a, 14, 15 are speaking of regenerate Gentiles. This is a serious misinterpretation of the text. The context shows that these verses cannot be speaking of saved Gentiles. When they speak of those who “do by nature the things of the law” and have “the work of the law written in their hearts,” they are speaking of those who have only the light of nature and who, therefore, cannot be saved.
B. Its Theme
As has been said, our passage falls in the section dealing with the wrath of God on all men in general. This raises an obvious question which Paul proceeds to answer in the opening verses of this section. How is it just for men to be punished who didn’t have the law? What is the basis of God’s wrath (not just on the Jews who had the written law but) on all men in general? What about all those men who didn’t have any knowledge of God? The theme, therefore, of verses 18‑23 is the justice of God’s wrath against men. Paul refers to this theme when he says that God’s wrath is just because it is revealed against truth‑suppressors. Men-‑all men‑-are truth‑suppressors (v. 18b).
The word translated suppress may mean either to “hold fast” or to “hold down” the truth. The meaning “hold fast,” is found in 1 Corinthians 7:30 and 1 Thess. 5:21, but it cannot be the meaning here. Men cannot hold fast the truth in unrighteousness. Rather, they hold down, repress, or suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Cf. for this meaning 2 Thessalonians. 2:6, 7, and Luke 4:42. Dr. James White uses the illustration of someone actively trying to hold down a beach ball under the water!
C. Its Structure
The entire passage flows out of verse 18b. Both verse 19 and verse 21 begin with the same word, dioti, because. Verse 18b is, then, the thematic statement: Men are truth suppressors:
- 19–Because they have the truth
- 21–Because they suppress the truth
These facts about the passage provide us with our outline:
A. Men have the truth [Their Knowledge of God] (vv. 19, 20)
B. Men suppress the truth [Their Ignorance of God] (vv. 21‑23)
II. Men have the truth [Their Knowledge of God] (vv. 19, 20)
In verses 19 and 20, Paul reveals seven things about the knowledge all men in general have of God.
- Its Reality (v. 19a)
The reality of their knowledge of God or the fact that they know God is set before us in the clause “that which is known about God is evident within them.” Two things in this clause assert the reality of their knowledge of God.
(1) Paul mentions “that which is known about God.” In some translations, this clause is translated as “that which may be known about God.” The NIV translates it this way. The word in the original, however, may mean either (1) what is known or (2) what may be known. In the other 14 occurrences of this word in the NT, it always means “what is known.” This makes it certain that its meaning here is “that which is known about God.” Thus, Paul begins by asserting that men do know God. These truth‑suppressors do really possess a certain knowledge of God.
(2) Paul goes on to say that what is known about God by these truth‑suppressors is evident in them. Paul is not satisfied to say, as the NIV translates, that this knowledge is evident to them. No, he uses the Greek preposition meaning “in.” It is evident in them.[1] The point is that this knowledge men have of God is neither distant nor obscure. It is revelation of the divine glory in them. God has made the kind of revelation that actually does make something manifest in men, in their hearts, and in their minds. Men are not totally oblivious to or unaware of God’s revelation. God’s revelation results in men really knowing him.
- Its Author (v. 19b)
The author of their knowledge is revealed in the words, “for God made it evident to them.” These words teach that it is none other than God Himself who is the ultimate source of the knowledge Paul has been discussing. The point is that men may not excuse their deeds by claiming that the knowledge they possess is faulty. No, God, in all the fullness of His power, wisdom, and goodness, is the author of their knowledge. It is not, therefore, faulty in any way. God is not like a poor bugler whose notes are too confused or soft to rouse the soldiers for battle.
- Its Duration (v. 20a)
I believe that it is the duration of their knowledge or possession of the truth which is stated in the words, “For since (or from) the creation of the world.” There is, however, some discussion of the proper translation and interpretation of this phrase: (1) Is Paul saying that men’s knowledge of God is derived from creation? (2) Is Paul saying that men’s knowledge of God has been available “from the world’s creation on?” Though both are true, Paul’s point in this phrase is stated in the second of these choices. Later in the verse, he tells us the means or source of the knowledge of God. Thus, Paul is not emphasizing the source of their knowledge here. Rather, “from the world’s creation on,” men have had the truth. The access men have had to the truth has been neither rare nor uncommon. No, it has been their continuous possession “from the world’s creation on.” It is not like the student who was unable to buy the textbook for a course till the week before the exam. The student might plead this as an excuse. Men, however, have had their textbook on the existence and character of God “from the world’s creation on.”
- Its Means or Source (v. 20b)
The means or source of the truth men have about God is displayed in the words “through what has been made.” The means or source of their knowledge of God was implied in the previous statement. Paul implied this by telling us that from the world’s creation on this truth has been clearly seen. Now he states this plainly. Man knows God through God’s works of creation. Psalm 19, with its emphasis on the duration, source, and clarity of this creation revelation of God’s glory, is a parallel passage. Psalm 19 was probably in Paul’s mind when he wrote these words.
- Its Clarity (v. 20c)
Paul proceeds to emphasize the clarity of their knowledge of God in the words, “have been clearly seen, being understood.” Throughout the passage, Paul emphasizes the crystal-like clarity of God’s revelation to men. Twice he has used the word, evident, in verse 19. This word may be translated as plain, clear, manifest, etc. In verse 20, he reiterates this by saying that God’s invisible attributes are “clearly seen, being understood …” The verb translated “are clearly seen,” is intensive. Its root means to see, but a preposition is added, which intensifies the meaning. God’s glory is really and clearly seen by men. There is a kind of paradox in the original language. Paul literally says that God’s invisibles are clearly visible. In these two verbs, Paul affirms that God’s revelation is clear and that it is understood by men.
- Its Content (v. 20d)
Verse 20d, “his eternal power and divine nature,” is the most important description of the content of the knowledge which all men in general have of God. The phrase may be translated as “not only his eternal power, but also his divine nature.” Many commentators agree that while the first part of this phrase, “eternal power,” is a specific reference to one attribute of God, “divine nature” is a general reference to what John Murray calls “the sum of the invisible perfections which characterize God.”[2]
Paul singles out God’s “eternal power” for mention. The emphasis on this is increased by the use of the modifier or adjective eternal. Why is there such emphasis on this attribute? The reason seems to be this. If men know God’s eternal power, mere self-interest ought to make them fear Him. Man’s failure to fear God is, thus, inexcusable. Though men do not fear God, they do have a deep, innate awareness of God’s power and of their vulnerability before that power. This deep awareness provides us and our preaching with a point of contact in men.
Man’s knowledge of God is not limited to this. The “not only … but even‑-te … kai” construction in the original seems to indicate that this is the really surprising or striking thing about the content of men’s knowledge of God. Paul is asserting that the knowledge of men even includes the divine nature. In other words, it is more extensive than often is realized. Their knowledge is not limited to one attribute. It is the entire divine nature with which they are confronted. Specifically, this knowledge includes not only the power of God but also part of the divine nature:
(1) The Goodness of God (Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:21; 2:4)
(2) The Wisdom of God (Prov. 3:19; Ps. 104:24; Ps. 139:13f.)
(3) The Justice of God‑-including the law of God and the wrath of God (Rom.1:18, 32; 2:14, 15)
(4) The Offspring of God‑-In other words, men know all this about God from the posture of being the offspring of God (Acts 17:28, 29). This knowledge, therefore, is not abstract. Men as the offspring of God know themselves to stand in immediate practical relation to the God they know as eternal, mighty, good, wise, and holy. They have a certain awareness of its demand of fear, thanks, worship, and repentance.
- The Result of their Knowledge
The practical result of all this knowledge is emphasized in the final words of verse 20, “so that they are without excuse.”[3] All that Paul has said, and especially what he has said about the extensive content of their knowledge, comes together to justify and emphasize this conclusion “without excuse.” Literally, Paul says they are without an apologetic or defense. Paul uses the same root as is found in 1 Peter 3:15. These Gentiles have no defense for themselves.
The connection instituted by Paul here must be underscored. It is because of what these Gentiles know that they are without excuse. Their responsibility is grounded in their knowledge of God. Knowledge of our duty is the prerequisite for accountability.
III. Men suppress the truth [Their Ignorance of God] (vv. 21‑23)
Having expounded the fact that men have the truth, Paul shows now how they suppress the truth and become ignorant of God.
- Its Starting‑Point (v. 21a)
There is a progression in the four parts of verse 21. The starting point of the progression is found in the first phrase: “They knew God.” In this phrase Paul confirms our interpretation of vv. 19, 20 and summarizes them. As a result of divine revelation, men not only could know God, but they actually did know God.
But an important objection must be answered here. In both the NIV and NASB the verb used here is translated in the past tense. They knew God. Someone might ask, “Doesn’t this indicate that men no longer know God?” Aren’t verses 21‑23 speaking of only a past generation? Someone might think, “Surely long ago at the beginning men knew God, but not today.” You may remember that this was Kuyper’s understanding of these verses. Others have also held this view. This view leads to radically different practical conclusions about the meaning of this passage and the nature of biblical apologetics. Therefore, we must respond to it.
My response to this interpretation is that this is emphatically not what Paul is saying. Several important thoughts will show the misguided character of this view.
(1) The aorist tense used here, especially in participles like the one used here, does not always indicate past action. It may indicate the idea of a logical starting point of a process.[4]
(2) The fact that men still know God today‑-present tense‑-is evident in several respects from the context. Both the preceding and succeeding contexts point to this.
Verse 21 is tied to the preceding verses by the connective “because.” It is likely that there is a double reference in this connective. It likely refers to both v. 20 and verse 18.
Whether the reference, however, is to one or both of these verses makes little difference. The point is that both verse 18 and verses 19 and 20 are talking not about a past situation but a present situation. Note the present tenses of verse 18: “is revealed” and “who suppress.” Note the present tenses of verses 19 and 20: “is” and “being understood, are clearly seen.”
Verses 21‑23 are tied to the succeeding context. (Note the “therefore” of verse 24.) This passage, verses 24‑32, is descriptive of a present situation. In verse 31, men are described as God‑haters. In verse 32, they are described as those who, knowing the ordinance, approve of evil men. Verse 32 is clearly descriptive of the present situation. Our conclusion must be that men still know God and yet, in another sense, are at the same time ignorant of Him. Their knowledge of God and ignorance of God co‑exist. Their knowledge of God is the starting point of their ignorance. This is a paradox, but it is an all-important biblical paradox for apologetics.
(3) The misguided view under discussion might appeal to verses 23, 25, and 28 to support the idea that men have lost their original knowledge of God. We will deal first with verses 23 and 25 and then with verse 28.
What about verses 23 and 25, which assert that men exchanged God and the truth of God for an image and a lie? Reymond responds to this question by saying, “They exchanged not in the sense of `giving up’ for this would contradict the earlier assertion that they `suppressed,’ but in the sense that they were satisfied to substitute as the immediate object of their worship the created thing for the Creator. The knowledge of the latter they suppressed.”[5] In other words, Paul is not talking about their innate knowledge of God but about their religion. Natural theology and not natural revelation is under discussion. As to the object of their worship, they substituted idols for the true God. Note verse 26 for a parallel use of this word where it clearly has the meaning, substitute. They substituted a lie for the truth by means of suppressing the truth. The truth of God in verse 25 is the truth about God. The lie is the false god.[6]
What about verse 28? It may be translated “They did not see fit to have God in knowledge, so God gave them over to a depraved mind.” It could be asked, “Doesn’t this teach that men are given over to a state of absolute ignorance of God?” The answer to this question is no. The word Paul uses here for knowledge always designates practical, religious, and moral knowledge in the noun form (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 3:7). It speaks of the saving knowledge of God. The knowledge spoken of in Romans 1:28 is the opposite of merely intellectual knowledge or awareness of God. It is the knowledge which is eternal life (John 17:3). Men may refuse to know God spiritually and savingly, as Romans 1:28 says, but they cannot cease to know God in the sense of Romans 1:18‑21, 32.
- The Efficient Cause of Their Ignorance, v. 21b
The cause of their ignorance of God is revealed in the words, “they did not honor him as God or give thanks.” Men do know God. How is it, then, that they manifest such amazing intellectual ignorance and mental darkness with respect to divine truth? Did God do something? Is this condition a result of some divine intervention? No. (Verses 24, 26, and 28 speak of a divine judgment, but this judgment falls upon men for and because of this pre‑existing state of ethical and intellectual ignorance and wickedness.)
The ignorance of God is due, in the first place, to a failure to properly respond to the knowledge of God they possess. It is their fault, a result of their own actions. The root of men’s ignorance of God is moral. It springs from, is caused by ethical rebellion against the demands of what they know. The problem, then, is not with God’s revelation. The problem is not, first of all, intellectual. The problem is not with the mental equipment God has given man. The problem is not with the rationality of God’s existence. The problem is moral. The rest of the Bible confirms this conclusion by describing atheism as the position of a fool (Ps. 10:4; 14:1). A fool, however, is not one without knowledge but one who hates it (Prov. 1:22).
- The Instrumental Means of Their Ignorance, v. 21c
The means by which they became ignorant of God and suppressed the truth in unrighteousness is stated in the words, “they became futile in their speculations.” The word translated “speculations” is a most interesting word. It means “thoughts” and thus designates intellectual activity. However, every occurrence of this word in the New Testament has strongly ethical shades of meaning. It frequently designates intellectual activity controlled by or arising from an evil heart (Matt. 15:19; Luke 5:22). In Romans 1:21, it designates intellectual activity arising from men’s refusal to honor God. Therefore, I believe it has reference to the intellectual rationalizations of men for this wicked refusal. Conscience says, for instance, “you haven’t honored or thanked God.” Heart replies, “I must have a good reason.” So, it orders intellect to provide a justification or excuse for its sin. Paul goes on to say that out of such reasonings flow atheism, false philosophy, and false religions.
Paul adds one further thought. Such thoughts or reasonings are futile. They are totally fruitless. There can be no intellectual justification for man’s ingratitude. Also, all intellectual systems grounded in refusal to ethically honor God can never attain true knowledge (1 Cor. 3:18‑20).
- The Resultant Condition of Their Ignorance, v. 21d
The condition or state resulting from this process is summarized in the words, “their foolish heart was darkened.” This is the final step in the progression of verse 21. Having given the starting point, efficient cause, and instrumental means of their ignorance, Paul now states the condition that results from this evil moral‑intellectual process. Their foolish heart was darkened.
We have already seen that Paul does not mean to say that they lost or erased their knowledge of God. We have seen that this cannot be Paul’s meaning. Rather, the knowledge of God they possess ceases to be a practical, working, conscious principle that can guide their lives (Prov. 3:19).
- The Pompous Claims of Their Ignorance, v. 22
Verse 22 states, “professing to be wise they became fools.”
Men totally failed to admit or recognize the folly and futility of their intellectual systems. Instead, the authors and adherents of these systems proudly claimed the title of wise men. We must not be upset by the claims of modern wise men. They have always made such claims. God says in the very making of such claims, they become fools.
- The Monstrous Extent of Their Ignorance, v. 23
They substituted idols for the true God in their religion, going so far as to worship animals and crawling creatures. Paul here informs us that false religions are the height and climax of man’s ignorance of God. This is the opposite of the common opinion that the natural man’s religions and philosophies are his closest approach to true knowledge of God. Some have viewed natural religions as partial and valid attempts to worship God, needing only to be supplemented by Christianity. The following diagram contrasts the view of such people with Paul’s view.
Paul views false religions, then, as the worst expressions of human depravity and ignorance. They are emphatically not commendable approaches to God and true religion. This means that we are not to measure man’s knowledge of God by what he admits to knowing in his false religions. He knows far more, which he is suppressing. In fact, everything he admits is perverted. Otherwise, he would not admit it.
This study must not close without noting the progression of three important steps in this passage: Suppression (v. 18), Substitution (v. 23), and Reprobation (v. 24). An illustration of this progression may be helpful. The human heart is like a house with a large light in a big bay window in the front room. Even when the occupants of the house unplug the lamp, it continues to shine. In order to avoid its light, they take the lamp and bury it in their basement–drilling and jack-hammering through the concrete and, then, after burying the lamp, re-cementing the basement floor. Soon they notice, however, that there is a strange glow on the basement floor just where the lamp is buried. In order to disguise the glow, they purchase black lights (ultra-violet lamps), which cast an eerie or ghostly glow in the basement and tend to obscure the glow coming from the basement floor. It is even so when men suppress the truth. The glow of their innate knowledge of God must be obscured by the black lights of false religion.
[1]The commentators, Lenski, Murray, Calvin, Wilson, Hodge, Griffith-Thomas, Denney, Alford, John Brown, and David Brown, all support the translation “in”. Cranfield, Barnes, Erasmus, and Grotius translate “among”. Haldane and Hendriksen translate “to”. The practical importance of insisting on the translation, in, and opposing the translation, among, or, to, is that this translation underscores that this revelation actually “gets through”. It is not simply externally available, but internally known. The translations, among or to, obscure or deny this fact, and it is this fact that is crucial to Paul’s argument. Several considerations constrain the rejection of the translations among or to and the adoption of the translation, in. First, in is the normal and natural translation of this preposition. Second, in alone clearly conveys the idea that God’s revelation “gets through” and grounds human responsibility in an actual knowledge of God. Paul later assumes this in verse 21 in the words, dioti gnontej ton qeon. The assumption of their actual knowledge of God conveyed in these words there is best explained and grounded by the translation in here. Third, the translation, among, ignores Paul’s purpose and does nothing to further it in this context. To what purpose or of what importance is it for Paul to tell us that God’s knowledge is among them? Fourth, the translation, among, if adopted virtually says that God’s revelation in creation is among them. This is a very awkward thought. Fifth, the translation, to, makes en autoij synonymous with autoij in the next clause. If Paul intended these two phrases to have synonymous meaning, one wonders why he did not make it more clear. Sixth, the interpretation of en as equivalent to the dative is rare to non-existent in the New Testament. Of the four possible instances given by BAG only one appears to have substance to it. A. T. Robertson in his Grammar … lists this use of en with a question mark.
[2]Qeioteij is to be distinguished from qeoteij (deity‑Col. 2:9) and means divinity i.e., the divine nature. Cf. 2 Pet. 1:3, 4.
[3]The more common meaning of eij to einai seems to be to convey purpose. Grammatically, therefore, purpose rather than result could be intended by this phrase. The idea of purpose, however, seems unnatural here. It is extremely unlikely that Paul is saying that the purpose of God’s revelation of Himself in nature was to leave men without excuse.
[4]Lenski describes this process when he says, “The idea that Paul here describes the historical origin of Paganism … misunderstands his purpose … In spite of the fact that they knew, knew at that very time, they did not let this knowledge control or even check them” in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, (Augsburg, Minneapolis, 1961), 101-102. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1967) on p. 197 assert that “a generally accepted fact or truth may be regarded as so fixed in its certainty or axiomatic in its character that it is described by the aorist.” Dana and Mantey call this the gnomic aorist. It is likely the gnomic aorist which is used here. For the gnomic aorist cf. 1 Peter 2:9, Matthew 23:3, and James 1:24.
[5]Robert Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge, 25.
[6]BAG supports this meaning of lie (yeudei).
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 Sam Waldron | Mar 11, 2025 | Apologetics
I. The Logical Importance of the Two Kinds of Revelation
The intimate relationship of epistemology and apologetics has already been emphasized in Part 1 of this course. Because any defense of the faith must assume or presuppose a doctrine of how we know about God, we may even say that epistemology is preliminary or fundamental to apologetics. In light of how foundational epistemology is for Christian apologetics, the structure of apologetics must be ruled by the structure of our epistemology. Epistemology, of course, deals with our knowledge of God. To put this another way, when we defend our faith, we must realize that our faith is the same as our knowledge of God. Therefore, defending our faith demands defending our knowledge of God.
When we study theological epistemology or the doctrine of the knowledge of God, we learn that the Bible itself distinguishes two sources by which we come to the knowledge of God. There are, in other words, two kinds of revelation. Because this distinction of two sources of our knowledge of God, or two kinds of revelation from God, is so foundational for the structure and study of apologetics, some time must be given to presenting the biblical evidence for this distinction and understanding its significance.
II. The Historical Background of the Two Kinds of Revelation
The historical introduction to apologetics has repeatedly suggested to us that there are two kinds of revelation. Again and again, we have seen the great defenders of the faith working with this distinction. Justin Martyr spoke of the operation of the Logos in the Greek philosophers and contrasted this with the revelation of the Logos to Christians. The Medieval Scholastics struggled with the relationship of faith and reason. Calvin, in the doctrine of the knowledge of God with which he began The Institutes, spoke first of the sense of deity and seed of religion planted in man and confirmed by God’s creation. He then came in the second place to speak of God’s revelation in the Bible. The early Princeton theologians spoke of reason or nature and contrasted this with revelation which for them meant only the Bible. Warfield learned to call the evidence for God given in nature, general revelation. Kuyper contrasted the natural and special principium. Finally, Van Til, following Vos, divided revelation into two categories, with each of these categories having two distinct phases or stages. Thus, in all sorts of ways our historical introduction has shown us the theologians of the church struggling with a distinction between two kinds of revelation. At the same time we have noticed all sorts of differences between these teachers of the church as to the exact character and significance of this distinction. We must, therefore, come to the Word of God and ask, “What is the exact nature of this distinction between the two sources of our knowledge of God?” An additional reason for this study is that this distinction is foundational to our whole approach to apologetics. We must, therefore, understand this foundational and controlling distinction as well as we can. Misunderstanding here would be like a crack in the foundation of our house of apologetics.
III. The Biblical Basis for the Two Kinds of Revelation
There are two passages which are very helpful in establishing the biblical basis for a distinction between two kinds of revelation and understanding the significance of this distinction. They are Psalm 19 and Romans 1:18-3:20.
Psalm 19
An examination of Psalm 19 makes plain that its thrust or theme has to do with God’s revelation to men. The psalmist worships and praises God for the glory of His revelation to men. In strict accordance with this theme and on the surface of Psalm 19 lies the fact that there are two great sources of the knowledge of God. In other words, God reveals Himself to men in two distinct ways. The significance of this distinction can be best understood and viewed by means of a graph comparing the revelation of verses 1-6 with the revelation of verses 7-14.
Romans 1:18-3:20
Romans 1:18-3:20 in many details follows Psalm 19. This is not surprising because a close examination of Paul’s reasoning in the passage shows that he was thinking of Psalm 19 when he wrote it. Again a chart will help us to place its teaching about the two kinds or categories of revelation clearly before us.
Other Biblical Considerations
Both in Psalm 19 and in Romans 1:18-3:20, the basic distinction between two kinds of revelation is the same. There is God’s revelation in creation. There is God’s revelation in the written law of God. The written law of God is the means of the redemption of God’s people. Therefore, the New Testament, which is both written and the means of redemption, must be viewed as part of the second category or kind of revelation.
The boundary line between the two categories of revelation is, therefore, becoming clear. Yet confusion may still exist with reference to some of the questions raised above. One key question has to do with what category the revelation of Genesis 2:4-25 should be placed in. Kuyper thinks because it is before the fall that it is part of the natural principium. This would make it part of general revelation. Others only distinguish between redemptive and non-redemptive revelation. Because the fall has not yet occurred in Genesis 2:4-25, it cannot be redemptive revelation. This would also mean that it is general revelation.
Contrary to such reasoning, this revelation must be seen, like the revelation of Psalm 19:7-14 and Romans 2:17f., as special or positive revelation. There are the following considerations:
(1) The source of the revelation of Psalm 19:1-6 and Romans 1:18-2:16 is creation. The revelation of Psalms 19:7-14 and Romans 2:17f. had its source in part at least in the physical appearance or theophany of God at Mount Sinai. The revelation of Gen. 2:4f. definitely fits into the latter category.
(2) This view of Gen. 2:4-25 is confirmed by an interesting parallel between Psalm 19 and Genesis 1 and 2. Jehovah, we know, is God’s covenant title; both in Gen. 1:1-2:3 and in Psa. 19:1-6 this title is absent with the title, Elohim, used without exception (1 time in Psalms 19:1-6, 29 times in Gen. 1:1-2:3). In both Gen. 2:4 and Psalms 19:7, there is a striking commencement in the use of the title Jehovah. (11 times Jehovah God in Gen. 2:4-25; 7 times Jehovah in Psalms 19:7-14). In these same passages the use of Elohim by itself is absent.
(3) The objections to this view can be answered. For instance, some say that the revelation of Gen. 2:4-25 is not redemptive, while that of Psalms 19:7-14 and Romans 2:17f is. The solution to this difficulty lies in remembering that there is a pre-fall and post-fall phase in both “general” and “special” revelation. Romans 1:18f. definitely teaches that after the fall, God’s wrath is revealed via creation, but this could not have been the case before the fall when there was no sin in creation. In the same way, the goodness of God originally revealed in creation now after the fall becomes a revelation of common grace: God’s goodness to sinful men. Thus, after the fall, general revelation reveals God’s wrath and common grace, things it did not reveal before the fall. Likewise, that kind of revelation, which we now know as redemptive, existed in a different phase before the fall. If we call this covenant revelation, we may say that the Scriptures (the present form of covenant revelation) are redemptive because they are post-fall covenant revelation. Even pre-fall covenant revelation had the same ultimate goal as redemptive revelation: the confirmation of man in an eternal life of happiness and holiness.
It appears that the Bible teaches that there have always been two kinds of revelation but that both these categories of revelation were modified at the fall of man. But what shall we call these two kinds of revelation? Many names have been given to these two kinds of revelation.
The most common names are general and special revelation. The problem with this name is that it implies that all special revelation was given to a selected portion of mankind. Before the fall, however, all mankind (both Adam and Eve) had special revelation. Thus, special revelation was general.
Another set of names for the same distinction is natural and positive revelation. The name natural revelation asserts that the first kind of revelation comes to us through nature. The name positive revelation implies that the second kind of revelation comes by means of something in addition to nature. It is true that “special revelation” originates in things that go beyond the natural order: theophanies, miracles, prophecies, etc.
Another set of names for this distinction is creation and covenant revelation. Again, creation revelation tells us that “general revelation” is given through creation. This is certainly an emphasis of Scripture. Covenant revelation reminds us that all “special revelation” is not redemptive. Before the fall, God intended to confirm mankind in a “covenant” relationship with himself through appearing to him in theophany and speaking with him face to face.
Whatever names we use it is important to understand the distinction. There have always been two kinds of revelation, but these two kinds of revelation were both modified in important ways by the fall and redemption.
We must conclude, therefore, that Geerhardus Vos (and Van Til following him) were the most precisely biblical of all the men we studied with regard to this matter. Let me remind you again of the diagram by which their position on this matter was summarized. It summarizes the biblical view as well.
Before we leave this study of the biblical teaching regarding two kinds of revelation, we must notice one more thing. General, natural, or creation revelation was always intended to form the context or theatre in which God revealed Himself to men. His revelation of Himself in creation was the backdrop of His personal dealings with Adam in the garden. It is still the backdrop or background of His dealings with sinful men. He comes to them in the gospel against the background or in the framework of His wrath and common grace now revealed through general revelation. Special, covenant, or positive (now redemptive) revelation was always the heart of divine communication to man in which a personal or direct relationship with man was initiated and on the basis of which it was to be conducted. Only the kind of direct, personal communication between God and man that takes place by means of this second kind of revelation could be the means of bringing man into a personal relationship with God. God reveals Himself at a distance in creation. He speaks face to face with men in the special revelation which has for its means theophany and prophecy.
IV. The Unavoidable Relevance of the Two Kinds of Revelation
The fundamental apologetic questions revolve around these two kinds of revelation. It is the business of apologetics to present the authentication of natural revelation as the context of our redemptive relationship with God and the authentication of redemptive revelation as the basis of our redemptive knowledge of God.
Even though Christian apologetics has frequently been distorted or has deviated from its true character, this basic structure of apologetics can be discerned in many treatments of it. Classical Apologetics in both its Catholic and Princetonian varieties distinguished natural and special theology beginning with the proofs for the existence of God and then moving to the argument for the Bible as His revelation to man.
It is difficult to avoid the idea that the logic of apologetics requires the distinction between the apologetics of natural revelation and the apologetics of special revelation. A caution is, however, in order at this point. There must be no strict separation of these two areas. As mentioned above, there was always the divine intention that natural and positive revelation supplement one another and function together. This inseparable relationship will be evident in the following exposition. It is the biblical doctrine of the authentication and apologetics of natural revelation that will be expounded first because it is the context in which positive revelation makes sense.[1]
[1]I want to make clear at this point that I am both aware of and in agreement with Van Til’s concern that we not defend, first, theism in general and, then, Christianity in particular. Cf. Greg Bahnsen’s emphasis on this as crucial to Van Til’s apologetic in Van Til’s Apologetic–Readings&Analysis, (Presbyterian and Reformed, Phillipsburg, 1998), pp. 102f. This is not the intention, and I do not believe that, this is the effect of my insistence that there are two kinds of revelation and, therefore, that apologetics may be structured around the issue of the authentication of this twofold revelation. I have made the point above that these two kinds of revelation were originally indissolubly related and that natural revelation continues to be the indispensable theatre and background of positive revelation. When I deal with the authentication of natural revelation, it will not be my intention to authenticate or vindicate an abstract theism, but Christian theism. When I deal with the authentication of positive revelation, it will be evident that it is only the existence of the God of the Bible (and not the existence of some abstract god) that provides the foundation and context for the authentication of Scripture.
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.
