“The Scriptures…are…the words of men…This is the heart of the issue of the new confession as it relates to the Bible. Thus, as far as the Bible is concerned, according to this 1967 confession, we are dealing only with the words of men, while in the Westminster Confession we are dealing specifically with “the Word of God.” Chapter I of the Westminster Confession, upon which the entire Confession is built, is entitled, “Of the Holy Scriptures.”

This difference, “the words of men” versus “the Word of God,” is the reason for the new confession. The church and its leaders had given up this faith and the truth based on it.

Everything in the new confession is related to the rejection of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the only infallible rule of faith and practice. This is unbelief, and shrewd unbelief has dictated the new confession.

The tactic which is employed is the use of Biblical words and Scriptural terminology so that the ordinary Christian may not detect the basic change. When, however, the strategy is exposed and the differences are defined, the truth is discernible.

Already we have reported that at the meeting of the General Assembly in Boston, in 1966, virtually all opposition to the new creed melted away. It was left, however, to a Presbyterian Lay Committee, Inc., 200 Fifth Ave., New York City, to alert the entire nation by way of a major advertising campaign in the newspapers of the land to this unbelief and deceptive tactics.

The ad said: “As often happens with the written efforts of committees, the resulting product is so full of compromises, concessions, contradictions, and obscure sentences that it promotes serious disagreements in the way it is interpreted and applied.

“Far more serious, however, is the radical nature of some of the proposals that shatter the very foundation of our faith…

“Did you realize that the Bible will no longer be considered as the inspired and infallible word of God?…”

Then the ad expresses the simple faith which is in the hearts of true believers and certainly among these laymen:

The Bible contains over 3,000 references to “the word of God” as put into the mouths of the Prophets. Christ himself accepted the revelations of the Prophets as the true Word of God, and Christ, being Divine, could not have made a mistake.

Are you willing to give up your belief in the Bible as the true and infallible Word of God? Are the Scriptures a divine guide or is the Bible a human and, therefore, unreliable document?

The Rev. Theophilus M. Taylor, secretary of the General Council of the United Presbyterian Church, issued a statement concerning the December 27, 1966, advertisement of the Presbyterian Lay Committee, Inc., in which he actually admits the main point that they have sought to establish. Dr. Taylor said: “The sponsors of the advertisement have at least made clear their fundamental objections…They choose to ignore the obvious fact, which is true of all human literature including the Bible, that the words and thoughts of all human authors are inevitably conditioned by the times in which they live.” Thus he includes the Bible in “all human literature” and with “all human authors,” and rejects the divine nature of the Holy Scriptures and their inspiration by the Holy Ghost.

He obviously rejects the claims of Christ, “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven” (Psa. 119:89), and “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). What Christ said about Heaven and hell were in no way conditioned by the times in which He lived, for He insisted, “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12.)

Dr. Taylor insists that on this point the laymen “are still fighting a battle that was lost a full century ago when most American theological schools of whatever denominational or confessional persuasion recognized the necessity of teaching the grammatico-historical method of interpretation of the Scriptures. This by no means denies what Christians have historically believed, that they hear the voice of God in the Bible.” But whatever this “voice” may be for Dr. Taylor, as represented in the new confession, it is not the voice which is speaking in divinely inspired and infallible words. The God who speaks with certain and infallible words is not the god whose voice is heard in a book of errors and human fallibility. And to claim, as Dr. Taylor does, that this voice, whatever it may be in the twentieth century, is what the church has always recognized and believed, is indeed dishonest. The laymen see the deception of such a claim.

The Bible has universally been accepted in the Christian church, until these latter years, as the infallible, inerrant Word of God. It is inspired of God. The new confession rejects this. It is from the Scriptures themselves that there has come the knowledge of this inspiration and the truth that they are infallible. The Westminster Confession summarizes and speaks of these excellencies-the unity of the plan of redemption, the consent of all the parts-all of which we are told abundantly evidence it to be the Word of God.

The Apostle Paul taught young Timothy, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3 :16, 17) .

The Apostle Peter insisted that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:21). Peter insists that we have “a more sure word of prophecy” (2 Pet. 1:19), and concerning his own writing he said:

“Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of Lis majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; . . .” (2 Pet. 1:15-19) . And then he adds, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (v. 21) .

The testimony of the risen Christ to the Scriptures, however, has been the delight of the people of God. He said, “He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me” (John 14:24) . This was His emphasis, “If a man love me, he will keep my words” (John 14:23) . Concerning the Scriptures He said, “They are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). And He said to the unbelieving Jews, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46, 47.) When He came to deal with Satan in the mountain of temptation our Saviour used the words, “It is written,” “It is written,” and He took His text from Moses. He was emphatic, “The scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

The Gospel according to Luke in chapter 24 records the testimony of our Saviour, as He gave it first to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and second, to His disciples when He appeared in their presence.

To the two He said: “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:25-27).

His words to the disciples were: “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things” (Luke 24:44-48).

Nowhere in the new confession is the testimony of Christ to the Holy Scriptures accredited or mentioned. The new confession separates Christ from the Scriptures in these matters, and I shall point out, when we reach the next chapter which deals with Jesus Christ, that the Christ of the new confession is an entirely different person, with an entirely different mission, from the one offered to us in the Holy Scriptures.

In the Westminster Confession, the first chapter deals with “Of the Holy Scripture,” and everything is built upon the Scriptures. The ministry of the church is to declare what the Holy Scriptures themselves teach and all doctrine is obtained out of the Scriptures.

In the new confession the section dealing with “The Bible” is at the very end of Part 1, which is headed, “God’s Work of Reconciliation.” The Bible now comes last in the schedule of consideration and it is not difficult to see why the Bible is placed last. It is this Book that has produced the difficulties and the problems that these clerics face and that they now have sought to resolve :n their own thinking by an entirely different approach to the Christian religion. They must write a confession that gets around and away from the Bible.

There are only four paragraphs in the section dealing with the Bible and it is the third one, consisting of five sentences, that describes best the new attitude toward the Holy Scriptures. Let us discuss these five sentences separately and in order.

1. “The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God’s work of reconciliation in Christ.”

This indeed is an entirely different approach and concept from that which the church has previously had in dealing with the Scriptures. The Shorter Catechism asks, “What do the Scriptures principally teach?” and answers, “The Scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.” Yet, according to this new approach, we are to decide what God’s work of reconciliation in Christ is, and then from this vantage point interpret everything else in the Scriptures. The Scriptures are judged by the 1967 church’s concept of its message, not the church of 1967 judged by the Holy Scriptures, infallible.

At the close of the preface to the new confession we are told, “Accordingly this Confession of 1967 is built upon that theme.” The theme is “reconciliation.” Those who designed this confession with this orientation said in the second sentence of the Confession, “In every age the church has expressed its witness in words and deeds as the need of the time required.” This need now, according to their appraisal, is reconciliation, and this explains the emphasis upon the social, political, economic, and the final action section of the confession, which is Part II, “The Ministry of Reconciliation.” Here are raised questions concerning the church, a world church; concerning the pagan religions and syncretism; and then certain questions that we shall develop-reconciliation in society, which deals with civil rights, poverty, peace, sex, and the adjustments necessary for rapprochement with the Communist world.

As one studies the total confession in the context in which it is written, it is apparent that it has been the desire on the part of men to accomplish certain things primarily in society, which has determined this approach. Indeed, we may say very frankly that here is an approach and a confession that is being imposed upon the Bible, a Bible which they do not accept as God’s infallible rule of faith and practice. Instead of the Bible speaking for itself and determining the doctrine and giving men the faith that they must preach and believe, the opposite approach is made. Men come with the program that they themselves feel is the needed “present witness” of the church “to God’s grace in Jesus Christ,” and this is foisted upon the old Book. God’s work of reconciliation in Christ has expanded and broadened far beyond the meaning and purpose of the cross on which Christ was crucified. I shall discuss this in the next chapter. The truth of what I am seeking here to point out, however, unfolds so naturally as we consider this section sentence by sentence.

2. “The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written.”

Our Saviour, however, as I have just quoted above from Luke, indicated that the Scriptures were given to testify of Him. Moses, He insisted, wrote of Him. The language of the Scriptures could hardly be conditioned by the thought forms and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written when they were specifically written to reveal and testify to a Christ who in the fullness of time would come to earth and literally fulfill the predictions that were made concerning Him. The truth is that they were so conditioned, as they were written by the Holy Spirit, that they were indeed the Words of God, and their language was so designed in the use that the Spirit of God made of it as to be understood by men of all ages; yea, even the wayfaring man though he be a fool could not err therein.

Psalm 22, written by David a thousand years before Christ was crucified, describes the death of Christ in minute detail and reports His resurrection from the dead. The Old Testament saints were saved by the same kind of faith as the New Testament saints as they looked forward to the coming of Christ and His death and resurrection. Such prophecies which abound in the Scriptures and which have been literally fulfilled and some of which are yet to be literally fulfilled hardly can be classified as “thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times in which they I were written.” Just plain, Satanic-inspired unbelief in the highest circles of the Presbyterian Church have penned these miserable words.

The writers of this confession have introduced at this point a view of guidance by the Holy Spirit which is entirely different from that which the Bible itself teaches concerning the work of the Holy Spirit in dealing with the Holy Scriptures. It is perfectly obvious that in the new confession the guidance of the Holy Spirit only produced the words of men. As the sentence is phrased it leaves the suggestion that perhaps they ought to have been the words of God because of the Holy Spirit. Thus we read, “The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless…” Something was wrong with the Holy Spirit at this point He did not produce the Words of God! He was content at this point simply to have a record that was “words of men,” and whatever His guidance may have been, it was not sufficient to give a record that was inspired of God. One sees how carefully this language has been chosen. How different the situation would have been had it read, “The Scriptures, given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are therefore the Words of God…” It is this position and belief, so clearly manifest at this point, from which the new confession was actually designed to remove the church. Thus we are ready for the third sentence, and it progresses naturally in this area of unbelief.

3. “They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current.”

This directs us to the early chapters of Genesis where we have the description of the cosmos. The authors of the new confession feel that the views of the cosmos today somehow reflect against the views of the cosmos then. The Genesis account of creation, for example, the alleged differences and contradictions between the account of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, enter into this appraisal. In fact, this is the basis for the whole appeal to science and the knowledge of man as of the present, and the relegating of the Genesis report to the realm of myth, fable, parable, allegory. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) is beyond science to testify to; and “All things were made by him” (John 1:3 ) has to be a statement of revelation and nothing else.

The order of these sentences as they build up in this paragraph is significant. For the next one follows naturally and is a fuller explanation of what produced this attitude toward the cosmos and the views of life and history.

4. “The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical understanding.”

It is this so-called literary and historical understanding, which is the destructive higher criticism, which rejects “special revelation.” This took shape in the well-known Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis. It is this which is at the basis of all the current attack upon the Scriptures, particularly the Old Testament-the so-called documentary hypothesis in which various authors are recognized as having a part in the writing of Genesis and the Pentateuch, and with the complete redating of all these Scriptural writings. Thus we are told, on the basis of literary and historical understanding, that Moses did not write the Pentateuch; David did not write his Psalms; there were a number of Isaiahs who put the Book of Isaiah together; and Daniel, of course, could not have written his prophecy.

These are the matters which in recent years have been introduced even into the Sunday school publications, in the “New Curriculum.” First, this unbelief entered the seminary-and we shall see the effect of this in the trial of Charles Briggs (Chapter 15) ; then into the colleges, the pulpits; and the effort to bring it down to the pews finally took place under the leadership of the National Council of Churches and its co-operative curriculum project.

All of this came to public attention in the civil court in June, 1966, in the State of Washington, where two Bible Presbyterian clergymen-the Rev. Thomas Miller and the Rev. Harold Webb–challenged the University of Washington’s course entitled, “The Study of the Bible as Literature.” There in the syllabus prepared by a university professor this higher critical assault upon the Scriptures was being offered as the truth, the various documents- “J,” “E,” “P,” “D”-being explained as the way in which the Pentateuch was put together at least a thousand years after Moses lived.

Dr. Allan A. MacRae, professor of Old Testament in Faith Theological Seminary and a distinguished scholar with a massive accumulation of facts, went on the witness stand to testify that there is no basis in history, no evidence of any kind, no findings in archaeology, that any such documents as “J,” “E,” “P,” and “D” ever existed. Yet it is this delusion-and let me say “fraud” which has been perpetrated against the Christian church and which is at the basis of this entire twentieth century attack upon the Bible. It is this which is responsible for the unbelief that brought about the demand for this Confession of 1967.

Furthermore, it must be emphatically said that the Bible carries its own credentials and that it was written for the ordinary man to read, that reading it he might believe its message of salvation and receive the gift of everlasting life and be born again.

If, in order to understand the Scriptures, the church has such an obligation, then we must say that only the church is in a position to explain and to expound the Scriptures, and that the ordinary man must first attend to the church’s appraisal of such literary and historical understanding before he can proceed in any responsible manner to examine and consider the Scriptures. In this way the devastating effect of this so-called historical and literary criticism has elevated the church to a position over the Bible where the church tells its constituents what they are to believe concerning Moses and his relationship to his writings. This, however, reflects against the statement of Jesus Christ, who says that Moses wrote of Him. And so Jesus Christ is only a creature of His day. The distance that we have traveled from the Bible as the only infallible rule of faith and practice may now be seen in the last sentence.

5. “As God has spoken his word in diverse cultural situations, the church is confident that he will continue to speak through the Scriptures in a changing world and in every form of human culture.”

At last we have arrived. Really to find the Word of God we must search “in every form of human culture.” Having deserted the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments as the only infallible rule of faith and practice, now we are to search through all the forms of human culture and there we may find God speaking just as He speaks through the Scriptures which in the new confession are only the words of men in our present changing world. But whatever this God is who is speaking through these various forms of human culture and who is alleged here to be speaking through the Scriptures in our present world, He certainly is not the God who gave to us the Holy Scriptures as they now stand.

This conclusion is inescapable, for this reference here to God speaking “his word” is “in diverse cultural situations.” This unites us directly with the whole approach to the Scriptures that the liberals have adopted-that the Bible is not a special revelation; it is the report of the struggle of various religious peoples, particularly the Israelites, through a long history, and out of their experience in their various cultural circumstances God has spoken “his word.” The Bible is not the Word of God; it is the words of men; but out of the report of these “cultural situations,” then and now we are supposed in some way to discern this word. This fits in exactly with the phraseology of the ordination vows that we considered in our previous discussion. Moreover, as we pointed out at that time, this “word” is spelled with a small “w.” Here again it is a small “w” as are, of course, “the words of men.”

What kind of Bible, therefore, do we have left? It has been ruined, fragmented, and discredited by a Satanic assault which entered the church through the liberals and carried on a Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis. Satan, who has sought to attack the Word from without through all the centuries, has now successfully assaulted the Word of God inside of the United Presbyterian Church and brought about an open and confessed rejection of that Word as inspired, inerrant, infallible.

Thus, I think we have been able to point out that in these five sentences the story of the last eighty years has been told and completed. This is the stance of twentieth century liberalism. It crosses all denominational lines and is at the heart of the whole ecumenical movement-the building of a world church. The strategies employed by the liberals to retain within the church all that they could and to avoid any serious break were brilliantly conceived and executed.

First, they placed the entire emphasis upon Jesus Christ. This is a proper emphasis in the Bible when both are accepted as infallible. The written Word and the living Word are one and the same in the Holy Scriptures. But in this confession, the appeal to Jesus Christ is used to replace the appeal to the infallible Scriptures, which have been rejected. And even the Christ to whom they appeal is one whom they have gotten out of their book which they say is only “the words of men.”

Here then is the opening sentence of the section dealing with the Bible, which is designed to deceive. It reads:

“The one sufficient revelation of God is Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate, to whom the Holy Spirit bears unique and authoritative witness through the Holy Scriptures, which are received and obeyed as the word of God written.”

Jesus Christ indeed is a sufficient revelation of God. He is indeed the Word of God incarnate, when that is understood in its Scriptural meaning, but He is not “the one sufficient revelation.” The Holy Scriptures are the fullness of that revelation and He is presented by that revelation. The Westminster Confession recognizes this in its very opening paragraph. The light of nature is not sufficient, therefore God has given unto us a special revelation which is sufficient, and the Westminster Confession identifies this revelation with the Holy Scriptures, which includes all that God has been pleased to reveal to us concerning His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. At this point, therefore, the new confession commits the gravest of error. The church of Christ in the name of Jesus Christ can never be separated from the Bible or taken away from the Bible. This is indeed an aggravated sin.

Moreover, the reference to the “Word of God incarnate” has a capital “W,” while in the same sentence the reference to “the word of God written” has a small “w.”

The insertion of the phrase “as the word of God written” was made as a verbal concession to those in the church who still hold to the Westminster concept of the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Yet it does not mean that, and was not inserted to mean that. This was clearly manifest in the General Assembly at the time of a historic discussion. Certain liberals wanted this phrase eliminated. They thought that it was a hindrance to a consistent statement of the position that the confession took. This had been inserted since the first reading of the confession a year ago, and yet, both the committee that prepared the document and the Committee of Fifteen appointed to study it for the year said that what changes they had made were essentially verbal and in no way modified the position or the direction of the confession. When, therefore, the question of deleting the phrase “which are received and obeyed as the word of God written,” was presented, the chairman of the drafting committee, Dr. Edward A. Dowey, was asked to state his position. He stepped slowly and deliberately to the podium and said, “I favor the amendment,” which was that it should be deleted. And then he added, “But I recommend that it be left _n.” There was a gasp. The audience seemed stunned, and then there was a spontaneous reaction of laughter throughout the entire assembly.

Here was the contradiction. These words were not essential to the position and the true meaning of the confession. If they were left out, it would eliminate any possibility of confusion or question. But if they were left in, the conservatives who wanted to remain in the church would have something to which they could vainly point. Thus his desire to keep the unity of the present organization was greater than his desire to have a confession that consistently stated his view. This is true ecumenism. At this point expediency replaced principle, accommodation replaced integrity, unity and a desire for unity overruled the obligation to state the truth. Yet one may say that since these gentlemen are not clear as to what the truth exactly is, and they are rejecting the truth of the infallibility of the Scriptures, this weakness is manifest in them and is a part of their very disposition.

Dr. Robert Lamont, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Pittsburgh, who had been placed on the Committee of Fifteen to review the confession as proposed in 1965, actually spoke in behalf of the new confession in this matter as it relates to the Holy Scriptures. He insisted that the new confession, as they had brought it before them, had what he called a very high view of Scripture. And he quoted the next sentence in the confession, “The Scriptures are not a witness among others, but the witness without parallel.” Let it be said that no matter what the parallel or what the comparison or noncomparison may be, as long as the Scriptures are not confessed to be the infallible Word of God, the highest of praise coming short of this truth is an offense to that Word and to God, Himself. Thus we have eulogies and exaltations, praise and adulation of the Scriptures on the part of the conservatives, a sort of “whistling in the dark” we would characterize it, which is carried on to justify their acceptance of a position that does not give to the Bible its due and its glory. It is the Word of God!

This leaves Dr. Lamont and men in his position in a difficult place in the presence of this very section dealing with the Bible.

In the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I, Paragraph II, we read, “Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written.” Here the Word is spelled with a capital “W,” equated and identified with the Holy Scriptures, and immediately in this paragraph we have the names of the sixty-six books. There can be no possibility of misunderstanding, evasion, or doubt. Now in the new confession we have the phrase “word of God written,” with a small “w.”

And lest there be any possibility of anyone, after this, thinking otherwise, as we have already pointed out, the confession says, “The Scriptures…are…the words of men…” Thus in one place we have “the word of God written,” a small “w,” and in another place, “The Scriptures…are…the words of men,” small “w.” It is, therefore, out of these words of men, uninspired, that the individual preacher, as we saw in the previous chapter on the ordination vows, is to determine by the Holy Spirit the “word [“God’s word,” small “w”] to you.” Thus the liberals have carried the day, and at this point they made the transition, declaring their position, but leaving behind a few phrases to which some men may cling in a desire to remain within the church, to use its properties, to benefit by its pensions, and to stay with the “church of their fathers”-even though it is now in apostasy. Thus the hearts of men are made bare and the liberals have been successful in maintaining their inclusivist concept of the church and carrying along with them the conservative who no longer can say, “As long as the confession is not changed, I will stay in the church.” But now that the confession has been changed and even the Westminster Confession’s testimony to the Word of God has been abandoned, they still remain. Indeed it is interesting to see throughout this confession how Scriptural language and terminology is used again and again to say a most un-Biblical thing. Satan used Scripture to tempt Christ, and now Satan is using the familiar words to deceive, if it were possible, even the elect.

The Presbyterian Lay Committee, Inc., in its commanding ad of December 27, 1966, appraised the situation correctly:

The 1967 Confession does not ring true. It is so filled with ambiguities, undefined statements, involved meanings, and obscure language that it becomes possible to rationalize almost any point of view the reader seeks to establish.

As I close this discussion on the Holy Scriptures, I wish to call attention to a statement in the Westminster Confession’s first chapter which explains exactly what has happened in the production of this new confession.

Section V, after referring to the “incomparable excellencies” of the Scripture which “abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God,” declares, “Yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” The men who drafted this Confession of 1967 could not have had that witness in their hearts or they would have believed the Bible to be the Word of God and would have rejoiced in the original ordination vows which their unbelief required that they lay aside. It is this work of the Spirit in the heart of each believer, not separated from and independent of the Holy Scriptures, but “by and with the Word,” which establishes and seals that faith that no man or even Satan is able to assail. For this reason it is important that, when the Bible is translated, the translators be believers, for this factor is essential to any scholarly handling of God’s Word. This explains the reasons the King James Version is so harmonious and such a unit, and on the other hand why the Revised Standard Version, copyrighted and authorized by the National Council of Churches, rejects the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 and is full of all manner of contradictions and reflections against the deity of Jesus Christ.

When men who do not have this inward work of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, turn to the Scriptures, they come from their study with a different book, a different Christ, and a different cross. And the true Christian can understand what the Apostle Paul meant when he said, “We also believe, and therefore speak”—we confess.