Instead, I have determined that I am most grateful for the Great Doctrines of the Faith. Today, I want to express my gratitude for one of those: The Perspicuity of Scripture. 

Now I know that “perspicuity” is one of those big theological words the meaning of which most of my readers will be ignorant. This is one reason why most of you should never be pastors or elders in your local church. But I digress. For simplicity’s sake, let me give a quick summary definition of The Doctrine of Perspicuity (as it was taught to me by my systematics professor at a Major Reformed Seminary): “The Doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture is that doctrine which informs, elucidates, and (not to put too fine a point on it) enlightens us to the truth, the dictum, the (one might say) principium uber allis, which is to say, namely, that anything in Scripture that is discussed in the Westminster Confession of Faith (and/or its attendant Catechisms, both Long and Short) is therefore, by definition, indubitably, made clear and settled in its meaning for all time and all places.”

Don’t you agree that this is a most precious doctrine for which we should sing high praises? Of course you do, knowing that if you disagree I will challenge the basis of your faith. Do you have other Great Doctrines for which we should be supremely thankful as we come into a new year? If so, I may do future posts about them.

I find his reason #10 particularly compelling. “Wherever two or more of you agree as touching anything…”

We hear much today about an “incarnational analogy” that supposedly provides the proper balance between the allegedly “equal” divine and human aspects of Scripture. The first thing I would want to point out to Mr. Leading Postmodernist is the title right on the cover of his Bible. What does it say, Sir? Go ahead, don’t be shy. Read it nice and loud so we can all hear. That’s right. It says “Holy Bible.” Not “Human Bible.” Holy. Now the Bible itself affirms for us that “there is none holy but the Lord.” Therefore, it stands to reason that the Holy Bible can only be the product of  God and not of men! 

Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that humans were involved in the writing down of the Bible. How can we reconcile that with our assertion that the Word of God is Divine above all? I believe that a proper understanding of a proper incarnational analogy is our guide.

It has been stated elsewhere that Mr. Leading Postmodernist has a defective incarnational analogy. A correct incarnational analogy (as set forth by B. B. Warfield, so enough said!) recognizes that just as God in Jesus, when he became incarnated, never sinned, so the Word of God, when placed in written form cannot have any error. Sin = human error, what could be more biblical than that?

I, however, believe we need to press the incarnational analogy of Scripture into our service even further. When God became incarnate in Christ, there were not many Christs. There was only one. Therefore, it follow logically and indubitably that there could have been only one human author of Scripture. Let me be perfectly clear about this: it is the inescapable consequence of a proper application of an incarnational analogy to Scripture that one and only one human being composed the entire thing, from Genesis to Revelation.

Now liberal reprobates will scoff at this. They will point out that we “know” that the Bible was written over some 1500 years. They will appeal to godless science to assure us that no single human being has ever lived 1500 years. But I say let Reformed dogmatics be true and all men liars! I will cast science and common sense on the burning pyres of Gehena in order to embrace the glorious truth: One Divine Author – One Human Author! Sola Scriptura – Sola Humana!

Today’s Turretin Talk comes from Volume I, Second Topic, Question XIV: Is the Septuagint version of the Old Testament authentic? To which Father Frank gave his frank appraisal: We deny! (O for those pre-post-modern days when Real Men who were Real Christians had the right male parts enough to see everything in glorious Black and White!).

For those of my readers who will be barely fit for heaven because they have not attended a confessional seminary (and/or read at the least Calvin’s Institutes on the daily reading plan), let me provide some background. The Septuagint (usually abbreviated LXX because it was the Super Bowl of translations in its day) was the first of the many sorry and sinful attempts of mere men to “translate” God’s Perfect Inspired Word into the “languages” of “people” who did not know the Holy Tongues of Hebrew or Greek. Specifically, the LXX was a “translation” of the Old Testament from Hebrew (heavenly) into Greek (earthly). Now this might seem confusing, as we had just stated above that Greek is one of the two Holy Tongues. But “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33) so hang in there! You see, the Greek of the New Testament in which the Holy Spirit spake unto the Apostles was koinonia Greek, a special Holy Greek spoken only by Apostles and Holy Ghosts. So, anyway, the LXX was a translation of the Hebrew of the OT into Greek, but it was the wrong Greek!

So it is that Father Francis (hereinafter “FF”), can so affirmatively deny the inspiration of the LXX. 

However, FF did run into what might appear at first to be a significant problem. It seems that the Holy Apostles were quite happy to quote freely and frequently from the LXX as their proof texts for the systematic theologies they laid out in the New Testament. But of course FF quickly saw through to the truth so plain to any truly believing, Christ-loving heart. To wit, the apostles knew all along that the LXX was a defective Bible, but they used it anyway because they were writing to “those who are weak.” Now it is self-evident that the best way to minister to weak people is to pull the wool over their eyes. 

Let you who aspire to minister to the “people of God” (i.e., “weaklings”) strive to follow the Apostolic example!

So I want an original spelling WCF. Nothing left out of my confession!

What, you ask, could be so severe that I would take time away from adding five highlight colors (one for each point of the TULIP) to my set of Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics to begin this blog? Brace yourself: It has come to my attention that there are some out there calling themselves “Christians” who (try to stifle your laughter) do not believe that Calvinism is Pure Christianity. Clearly, it is time for I, Erronius Turretin, last in the line of my beloved forefather Francis Turretin, to rise up and save Christianity from the non-Reformed. Can one blogger really save the true faith? Let’s say Luther’s 95 Theses were a blog post. That one blog post saved Christianity from the infernal errors of the papists. Therefore, this one blog can do it now.

Here is the foundational idea of the “I Am Reformed (And So Can You!)” blog: the Reformed Faith is the Purest Form of Christianity. Here is the foundational corollary to the foundational idea of this blog: If the Reformed Faith is the Purest Form of Christianity, then by the divinely-given process of antithesis, it clearly follows that anything not Reformed is not Christianity. I’m sure you agree.