Frankly, I do not regard myself a “born writer.” In fact, for the longest time I rather sympathized with the author who stated, “I love to have written, but hate to write.” I think many of us are in this predicament. Nevertheless, when the invitation came to make regular contributions to The Aquila Report, I felt a strong urge to avail myself of this opportunity. During my nearly fifty years in the ministry I did accumulate a number of nuggets from God’s Word that I sincerely desire to disseminate.

So here I come with nuggets that are designed to stimulate and provoke. They intend to “stimulate” folks to do some hardnosed thinking and to “provoke” them to corresponding action. However, before I turn to the first nugget, one further word! It is my firm conviction that all “theology” should be “practical theology” in the sense that it must (aim to) “make a difference.” Eventually I would like to focus on the very nugget in Scripture that in my estimation demands this. But this must await another occasion. Still, what follows now should illustrate this conviction.

We all know that one of the burning issues in Christianity revolves around the (apologetic) question, “Why do I, or anyone for that matter, believe that the Holy Scriptures are the (inerrant) Word of God,” and furthermore, “How do I come to this conviction?” This is, indeed, is a burning issue historically as well as practically. We were faced with these questions in the controversy with Roman Catholicism, and we are faced with them today when we meet idolatrous religions, secular humanism as well as atheistic secularism.

The answers to these questions usually are given on two tracks. The first one is what I would call the “environmental” and the second the “intrinsic” track. On the first track, “tradition,” embodied in the Church, the Family, the Christian School, etc., seeks to instill in its adherents that Scripture is the Word of God, and well it should! On the second track “evidences,” such as the awesome quality of Scripture in terms of its uniqueness, its beauty, its uniformity, its impact, etc., are laid out as means to this end, and well they should!

The Reformation approved of both these tracks, but also recognized that they are ultimately not persuasive (on the heart’s level) apart from the “Testimony of the Holy Spirit.” Still, while we must fully endorse this Reformation insight, there remain some lingering questions regarding the exact make-up, operation, and scope of this testimony. What is it precisely? How does it occur? How far does it extend itself? Furthermore, how is it experienced and how can it be verified by its recipients?

A recent theologian of Reformed persuasion called attention to the process of the original acceptance of Scriptures by the Church. He emphasized that it took time for the Church to acknowledge the divine origin and nature of Scripture. Some books, such as The Epistles of Paul, were received at an earlier, others, such as The Epistle of James, at a later date. However, eventually, all of the NT Scripture was recognized in full.

This resembles the way in which the OT canon was recognized. It required a historical process as an essential component. This is a very worthwhile contribution. But it still does not answer all questions, especially in an apologetic context. It appears to me that the only proper response to the question why either the Church in its early goings or an individual believer in the history of the Church history, did, does, or will come to embrace Scripture as God’s Word is the following.

“We, the Church corporately and I personally, hold without any equivocation that Scripture is the inerrant Word of the living God because through it the Holy Spirit gave us our life in regeneration and sustains our life in sanctification. In short, it was and it is our twofold ‘life line!’”

After all, what if “Tradition” fails us, which it often does, and “Evidences” seem murky, as at times they do? If we place put all our eggs in these two baskets the embrace of Scripture for what it truly is will soon become shaky, and may well disappear. This undoubtedly explains the fact that in the West by far and away the majority of so-called Christianity, whether in terms of regular Churchgoers or not, has given up on Scripture! The deepest reason? It never was their “life line in regeneration.” Neither is it their “lifeline in sanctification.” Frankly, if it is not the former, it cannot be the latter!

In an academic setting I once quoted Herman Bavinck, one of the greater systematic theologians in the recent century, if not in Church history, to the effect that the denial of Scripture as the inerrant Word of God was either a serious aberration in theological method or an even more serious matter of the unregenerate heart!

The context was an analysis of another systematic theologian whose adamant defense of Scripture as God’s infallible Word had completely evaporated through the influence of Karl Barth, which had literally saturated his thinking, and turned his defense of Scripture into a not so subtle attack upon Scripture. Even the bare reference to Bavinck’s suggestion that such theologian might have an unregenerate heart was regarded as preposterous on the face of it and severely criticized. However, a few years later one critic shared with me that a personal encounter with the systematic theologian in question severely shook him.

From a spiritual perspective the latter appeared to have virtually shriveled up! This, the former critic admitted, gave him pause seriously to reconsider Bavinck’s suggestion!

The bottom line is this. The church, the family as well as the Christian school should not confine itself to either the “environmental” or the “intrinsic” track. It should through the Word and the Spirit invariably and constantly aim at regeneration and sanctification. Ultimately regeneration through the Spirit (John 3:5) and sanctification through the Spirit (Rom. 15:16) is the biblical definition of what the Reformation called the “Testimony of the Holy Spirit.” I have read only one systematic theologian who pointed out that this testimony becomes evident in regeneration. I applaud this. But I would add sanctification to this scenario as well and speak of the “Twofold Testimony of the Holy Spirit.” When regenerate hearts are pulsating through the Word (1 Pet. 1:23) and sanctified lives are shining through the Word (John 17:17), the “owners” will never give up on that Word, but “defend” it to the death! After all, it is their (only and exclusive) twofold “life line!”

However, when “lukewarmness” of heart and life creeps in for whatever reason, but always hand in hand with the neglect of the Word, one can be certain that the heart-felt and life-felt embrace of that Word for what it is will grow lukewarm as well, and eventually vanish, if not in them, definitely in their “children.” This is the ironic “twofold testimony of history.”

Not so incidentally, all this explains Church history. Historically Paul’s Epistles circulated widely and were soon powerfully effective in producing regeneration and sanctification. Hence they were recognized soon. In short order this recognition reached Rome through Asia Minor and Europe. Historically James’ Epistle had tougher and slower going. It took the southern route through Egypt and North Africa and reached Rome much later. But ultimately they were both victorious for the same twofold reason. Both were instruments in the hand of the Holy Spirit to regenerate and to sanctify. This put them squarely in the heart and life of the (true) Church (of Christ) never to give them up again or give up on them again!

However, all this brings several other nuggets into our line of vision, specifically the issue of the heart in regeneration. What is it, and how does it function? I aim to enlarge on this in my next column!