God's Word Alone, Part 3 & Against the Darkness, Ch. 5

Works under review:

Barrett, Matthew. God’s Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture. The 5 Solas Series: What the Reformers Taught… and Why It Still Matters, edited by Matthew Barrett. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016.

Cole, Graham A. Against the Darkness: The Doctrine of Angels, Satan, and Demons. Foundations of Evangelical Theology, edited by John S. Feinberg. Wheaton: Crossway, 2019.

Summary

In Part Three, “The Character of God’s Word and Contemporary Challenges,” of God’s Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture, Matthew Barrett systematically argues that Scripture is inspired by God or “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16), that its authority proceeds from its inspiration by the Holy Spirit, and that it deserves the most profound respect (p. 223-224). He does so through four chapters. In the first chapter of Part Three, Chapter Seven, “God Speaks with Authority: The Inspiration of Scripture,” Barrett defends the authority of Scripture. He defines Scripture’s authorship as both divine and human (pp. 229-235), a view known as “verbal plenary inspiration theory” (pp. 225-226), and that the Scripture’s authority is not only the ideas of God but the very words of God, in that not a single word or phrase of the Bible is not inspired (pp. 235-236). He then spends the rest of the chapter examining the Old and New Testaments’ inspiration and briefly argues that negligence or denial of this doctrine is a grave error (pp. 262-263). However, Scripture is not only authoritative but also inerrant.

Barrett defends the inerrancy of Scripture in Chapter Eight, “God Speaks Truthfully: The Inerrancy of Scripture.” He defines inerrancy as Scripture being authentic in everything it affirms, specifically in the autographical or original manuscripts (pp. 265-268). He then spends much of the chapter similarly to the previous one, describing the inerrancy of the Old and New Testaments and their self-testifying truthfulness (pp. 274-285). Then, answering the question, “What does inerrancy have to do with sola Scriptura?” (p. 285) Barrett enters a conversation with various positions and characters through church history. He posits that without inerrancy, there is no assurance, for if the Bible can get small things wrong, It can also err in significant ways (p. 297-299).

In Chapter Nine, “God Speaks to Be Heard: The Clarity of Scripture,” Barrett further defends Scripture as clear. He argues that, like its authority and inerrancy, the clarity of Scripture proceeds from God Himself, who is authoritative, inerrant, and an “effective communicator” (p. 303). Again, he acknowledges that Scripture witnesses to its own clarity (pp. 307-315) and defines the clarity of Scripture in this way: The clarity, or perspicuity, of Scripture means that the Bible can be comprehended and understood by all who are aided by the Holy Spirit and by ordinary means” (p. 315). He then refutes the ideology that declares that humans cannot understand the Bible, for it was written in a subjective rather than objective language (p. 324). Barrett responds and calls language “a good gift from God,” who has chosen to speak through the medium of various languages (p. 328). Without God stooping down to lisp to humans, as John Calvin has said, they would not be able to know Him or be saved by Him (p. 329).

Chapter Ten, “God’s Speech is Enough: The Sufficiency of Scripture,” argues that Scripture is sufficient. According to Barrett, this means that all doctrines and disciplines that must be believed and practiced to be saved and to live the Christian life well are found in the Scriptures (p. 334). Again, Barrett demonstrates that the Scripture confirms and witnesses this characteristic of Itself (pp. 339-343). Barrett then discusses Scripture’s relation with tradition, science and reason, and experience and culture, concluding that these things need not add to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, for the Scripture is all that Christians need (pp. 343-370).

This authority, inerrancy, perspicuity, and sufficiency of Scripture is demonstrated to a high degree in the fifth chapter of Graham Cole’s book Against the Darkness: The Doctrine of Angels, Satan, and Demons. Chapter Five is titled “Demons, the Devil’s Entourage,” and Cole argues that Satan is not alone in his evil endeavors but is assisted by an evil entourage. He demonstrates this fact by explaining the nature of demons as sentient celestial beings (p. 112), explaining the fall of the angels called demons by examining interpretations of verses such as Genesis 6:1-4 (pp. 114-120) and teaching on the activity of demons: false worship, possession, deception, and war (pp. 120-125). He then argues that Satan and demons can hinder and oppress believers but that demons cannot possess, inhabit, or occupy them and that the spiritual gifts, including exorcisms, persist today (pp. 127-133). He concludes the chapter by declaring that demons have propositional belief in God but not personal in the way that Christians do (pp. 137-138).

Assessment

The systematic representation of the doctrines of authority, inerrancy, perspicuity, and sufficiency, corresponding to the four chapters of Part Three, were constructive, for they present the characteristics of Scripture in an organized and perspicuous manner. This organization delivered by Barrett presents the definition of the characteristics and their background, significance, and controversies associated with them in a very understandable way. Moreover, Barrett faithfully demonstrates the treatment of the Scriptures in a reverent manner and shows that the orthodox positions regarding the four characteristics are undoubtedly biblical. For this reason, anyone with questions regarding the authority, inerrancy, perspicuity, and sufficiency of Scripture would be wise to read God’s Word Alone, specifically the third part. While it may be a little too deep for some, there is great value in Barrett’s words. Moreover, there is tremendous, even infinite, value in the Words of God, so such doctrines concerning Scripture should be taken seriously. Barrett’s work does this well.

Cole’s fifth chapter is equally commendable, for it remains faithful to the orthodox positions concerning the doctrines of Scripture in that it is incredibly cautious to go beyond the confines of what is permitted by the text concerning Satan and his entourage. However, throughout the chapter, Cole interacts with various opinions and interpretations of multiple theologians, even those with whom he disagrees. Therefore, the chapter is well-rounded, not just academically but practically also, as the next section will focus on. For this reason, anyone interested in angelology, specifically demonology, and those preparing for vocational ministry should heed Cole’s systematic theology and advice, for he does not present the topic of angelology as meaningless and academic only, but as profound with implications for the Christian life.

Reflection

I greatly benefited from reading God’s Word Alone. However, Part Three was most interesting to me, perhaps because I am partial to its systematic theology rather than the historical theology of Part One and the biblical theology of Part Two. While I love historical and biblical theology, I find the organization of biblical ideas into doctrines and categories fascinating. Therefore, I learned much from Barrett in this third part, for he captured my full attention. Specifically, I learned much about the nature of Scripture as authoritative, inerrant, perspicuous, and sufficient, but also much about tradition. Concerning his approach to authority, Barrett states, “We will allow Scripture to speak for itself, rather than placing an extrabiblical (and possibly unbiblical) grid on top of Scripture” (p. 224) and he later states, “Luther and the Reformers did not mean by sola Scriptura that the Bible is the only authority in the church. Rather, they meant that the Bible is the only infallible authority in the church” (p. 288). These two quotations demonstrate the significant relationship between Scripture and tradition. First, the Bible is authoritative, inerrant, perspicuous, and sufficient in and of itself, even being authoritative in and of itself insofar as it interprets itself. Second, these quotations show that even though Scripture is our primary and only infallible authority, other authorities remain. Yet, it is required that we do not read these traditions into Scripture but read the Scripture in light and along with these other subsequent and inferior authorities such as reason and the opinions and interpretations of various godly men. Therefore, thanks to Barrett, I am resolved to do this. I wish to be a great exegete and not a great eisegete. I do not want to make the Bible say what I want it to or what unbiblical traditions want it to say; instead, I want to understand what the Bible says for and of itself.

I also learned a lot from Cole and acquired practical knowledge from him, which helped me better understand the relationship between Scripture and tradition, teach it, and, moreover, live by it. When discussing Genesis 6:1-4, Cole quotes a profound statement from Augustine:

Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal, because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and well-ascertained succession. For though there is some truth in these apocryphal writings, yet they contain so many false statements, that they have no canonical authority. (p. 119).

Augustine’s wisdom, although errant, is commendable in this case, for he expresses an evident devotion to the Word of God and not extrabiblical sources, yet he acknowledges that such sources contain some truth. However, they by no means are comparable to Scripture as infallibly authoritative, inerrant, perspicuous, or sufficient, for extrabiblical sources, even Augustine’s statement, are only true insofar as their agreement with the Word of God. Responding to Augustine, Cole further clarifies the relationship between tradition and Scripture as a systematic theologian, and I wish to identify with his declaration. He states, “My rule of thumb as a systematic theologian who uses an evidence-based approach—and where that evidence is the biblical text—is that I draw on background studies insofar as the biblical text is illumined by them” (p. 119). Cole’s statement encourages me to say that is to say that I, like himself, never want background evidence, sources, or traditions to overshadow the biblical text and to only make use of them in a way that promotes the understanding of the text and does not confuse or contradict it.