Chapter 3
Revealed Theology and Prophecy
92. What is revealed theology?
The system of doctrine contained in the Word of God.
93. How can it be proved that a revelation has been made?
It is evident that a revelation is practicable, and we have seen that from the nature and
situation of man, it is both probable and necessary. And that it has been made is certain
from the internal and external evidences accompanying certain communications
professing to be from God.
94. By what means was a revelation made?
By immediate converse with God, by the ministry of angels, by Urim and Thummim [Ex.
28:30], by voices, visions, and inspiration in these last times that God has spoken to us by
His Son.
95. Why was it necessary that it should be committed to writing?
1. It was necessary to preserve it as a constant rule of faith and practice
2. To vindicate it from fraud and corruption
3. To propagate it to posterity and to those afar off
96. Is everything that God has revealed to man contained in the sacred Scriptures?
No, although they comprehend all that is necessary to salvation, as is proved because
1. A curse is pronounced against those who should add or detract from the Word
2. The end of the Scriptures requires their perfection
3. Traditions are forbidden: "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men"
4. No reason can be given why God should wish one part of the Word to be written
and another part delivered viva voce [by living voice]
97. How can it be proved that the sacred Scriptures contain a divine revelation?
First, from the internal evidence they possess, which is
1. That from them may be extracted a system of religion entirely new, both with
regard to object and doctrines, not only infinitely superior to but unlike everything
that had before entered into the mind of man.
2. That from them also may be collected a more extensive, correct, and pure system
of morals than is to be found in all the works of the wisest men of preceding ages.
3. That such a system of religion and morality could not possibly have been the work
of any man or set of men, much less of the obscure and illiterate persons who
actually did discover and publish it to the world. It must be from God.
Second, from the external evidence of miracles and prophecy.
98. How can the authority of the sacred Scriptures be established?
It rests on the credibility of the apostles and prophets as witnesses of facts and as
deliverers of doctrines; and since them, it is supported by the strongest historical
evidence.
99. What is the difference between genuineness and authenticity?
A book is genuine when it is the production of the man whose name it bears, authentic
when what it communicates is correct.
100. What is a miracle?
It means in the original import of the word, "a wonder"; more definitely, it is an effect
contrary to the established constitution or course of things, or a sensible deviation from
the known laws of nature.
101. Are miracles of different kinds?
Yes:
1. Such as none but God Himself can perform, implying omnipotence
2. Such as require supernatural agency but may be supposed to be within the power
of good or evil spirits
102. How do miracles prove a divine revelation?
They are the testimonies of God in favor of the truth they are wrought to maintain.
Neither can their authority be diminished by observing that even demons have performed
miracles. For this objection bears only against the second kind of miracles mentioned
above, and these are always attended by circumstances that determine their origin.
103. Is any testimony sufficient to prove a miracle?
Yes. It is plain that it is possible that a miracle may be wrought under circumstances that
render deception impossible.
104. What was Hume's argument against miracles, and how is it answered?
He maintained it to be contrary to experience that a miracle should be true but not
contrary to experience that testimony should be false. Therefore the argument against
miracles he thought to be stronger than any drawn from testimony could be in their favor.
His argument is founded on the principle that experience is the ground of our confidence
in testimony, which is just the reverse of the truth since the most experienced are
generally the most incredulous. This doctrine of Hume's is fully confuted by Dr.
Campbell, by Dr. Gleig, by Professor Prince, and so on.
105. Wherein are the miracles of the sacred Scriptures different from those related in other
books?
Other miracles are defections in the number, circumstances, or character of those who
bear testimony for them, or the miracles themselves are such as may be accounted for by
supposing them to be merely false perceptions. Or they are only tentative miracles, or
exaggerated stories, and so on. See [William] Paley's Evidences.
106. Can the success of the gospel be accounted for without miracles?
No, the success of such a system as the gospel, in spite of the most uniform and powerful
opposition, and [in being propagated] by the weakest instruments would, except on the
supposition of miracles, be a greater miracle than any contained in the sacred Scriptures.
107. Could the witnesses of Christ's miracles have been deceived?
No.
108. Was it possible for them to have obtained credit if what they said had been false?
No, for those to whom they preached were addressed as witnesses of the truth of the facts
they asserted.
109. Can any reason be assigned for their attempting to establish an imposture?
None, for men do not choose evil for its own sake. And from the nature of the religion
which they propagated: the worldly prosperity of its first teachers was incompatible with
success. As they knew themselves to be impostors, they could be activated by no hope of
future reward, and here failure and success were alike to be attended with misery.
110. Is a man's suffering for his opinions any proof of their truth?
None, men have died on different sides of the same question. Error can boast almost as
many martyrs as truth.
111. Is it an evidence of his sincerely believing them?
Yes, "all that a man hath will he give for his life."
112. If Christianity had been an imposture, could its propagators have avoided betraying
themselves?
They could not. The history they record is so long and circumstantial that their perfect
harmony appears not only to require the truth of what they communicate but also a
superintending care of providence.
113. If miracles are important to prove a revelation, why have they ceased?
Because their frequency would destroy their authority, since it would then be difficult to
distinguish the interruptions from the regular course of nature. Besides, there may be
reasons with which we are not acquainted why it is best that they should not now be
wrought. See App. p. 7.
114. Is the evidence of miracles as strong now as at first?
It is. At present our belief in miracles rests on the testimony; at first it rested on the
witness of the senses.
115. If miracles should now be wrought in favor of doctrines opposite to the Bible, what would
be the consequence?
It is impossible that miracles of the first class should be wrought in opposition to the
Bible since God cannot deny Himself, and the tendency of miracles of the second kind
being bad proves their origin to be evil and thus destroys their authority.
116. How does prophecy prove a divine revelation?
Because it argues a knowledge of futurity that can only be derived from God.
117. Are prophecies always obscure?
Generally, before their accomplishment.
118. Why is prophecy so often involved in obscure and symbolical language?
1. Because they were not intended so much for those to whom they were at first delivered
as for ages then future
2. Were they more obvious it would be objected that the event was made to correspond to
the prediction by those interested in the accomplishment
119. Does the obscurity of some prophecies weaken the evidence of those that are plainer?
No, our not understanding all does not prove we can understand none.
120. What particular prophecies have been remarkably fulfilled?
Of the deluge; of the number of Abraham's posterity; of the superiority of Jacob over
Esau; of the destruction of Nineveh, Babylon, Jericho, Jerusalem; of the Messiah, the
time of His coming as mentioned in Daniel, His character, fate, chapter 53 of Isaiah, and
so on.
120. Can it be proved that these prophecies were written before the events occurred to which
they refer?
Yes, they are found in the most ancient book in the world, preserved by those who are
unfriendly to the cause many of them are produced to support.
121. Are any prophecies fulfilling now?
Continued dispersion of the Jews, independence of the Arabs, progress of the gospel.
122. Does the evidence of prophecy become stronger or weaker by the lapse of time?
Stronger.
123. Have there been any true prophecies besides those contained in the Bible?
It is very probable that many predictions uttered by men divinely inspired were never
recorded in the Bible, but as the knowledge of futurity belongs only to God, there never
could have been a true prophecy not derived directly or indirectly from Him.
124. What judgment should we form of the heathen oracles and the books of the Sibyls?1
1. The testimony respecting many is unsatisfactory.
2. The responses were often so given as to suit the event, should it happen either way.
3. They failed much more frequently than they proved correct.
4. The truth of the event may often be accounted for by the skillfulness of the prophet or
prophets in conjecturing, or by the assistance of demons whose wonderful sagacity
and great experience might enable them to conjecture what was future with
considerable certainty.
The books of the Sibyls were merely a collection of Jewish, Christian, and
heathen sayings turned into wretched verse. This collection was made by some
1 [A collection of oracular, often prophetic, utterances written in Greek hexameters ascribed to the Sibyls, who were thought to be prophetesses who uttered divine revelations in an ecstatic state. Fourteen books and eight fragments of Sibylline Oracles survive in an edition of the sixth or seventh century AD]
indiscreet Christian about the time of Antonius Pius;2 this is what is now extant. But
besides these there were ancient oracles of the Sibyls mentioned by Plato, Aristotle,
Varro,3 and Livy.4 Who or how many the Sibyls were is not known. The character of
the authors must have been bad as they often directed to wicked and superstitious
services. Hence if they were inspired it must have been by demons.
The story of the three books sold to Tarquin5 is a mere fraud. Those laid up in the
capitol were subject only to the inspection of the sacred college. When those were
burned with the capitol in the time of Scylla and search being made in order to restore
them, abundance of prophecies under the name of the Sibyls were produced so that
about 80 years BC, the world was filled with them. Augustus6 is said to have burned
two thousand volumes of them. These contained many prophecies relative to the
Messiah, derived probably from the Jews scattered among the nations.7
125. What is the internal evidence of the truth of the sacred Scriptures?
Those proofs that are founded on the nature of their doctrines and the character of the
dispensation itself.
126. How do the matter, scope, and style of the sacred Scriptures prove their divinity?
2 [Antoninus Pius (AD 86–161) was a Roman emperor.] 3 [Marcus Terentius Varro (116–27 BC) was an ancient Roman scholar and writer.] 4 [Titus Livius (64 or 59 BC–AD 17) was a Roman historian.] 5 [Lucius Tarquinius Superbus was the semi-legendary last king of the Roman kingdom. This story of the acquisition of the Sibylline books is one of the famous mythic elements of Roman history.]
6 [Augustus (63 BC–AD 14) was the first Roman emperor.] 7 [There is an illegible note on the inside margin.]
The matter or contents testify to its divine origin by the sublimity of its mysteries and
purity of its precepts extending even to the thoughts; their scope in tending to glorify
God, sanctify and save man; their style, by its majesty, simplicity, and gravity.
127. Is there any evidence to be derived from Jewish and heathen authors?
Yes, Tacitus, Suetonius, the younger Pliny, and Juvenal8 all speak of the Christians, and
Tacitus especially gives a succinct account of their origin. There is in Josephus9 several
allusions to the Christian history; the genuineness of the most important of those,
however, is disputed.
With respect to the Old Testament, many of the facts there recorded are to be
found preserved in obscure allusions in the works of early heathen writers, such as the
state of innocence, the fall, the deluge, and so on. See Butler, p. 67.10
128. Are there any contradictions in the sacred Scripture?
There is a most wonderful harmony in all the sacred writers, considering their
circumstances, such as admits of no other explanation than a divine superintendence.
Those inconsistencies that do exist may in general be accounted for by recurring to the
similitude of things done at different times and the ambiguity of names (one person or
place having several names). It must, however, be admitted that there are some
8 [These were all Roman writers in the first two centuries AD.] 9 [Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) was a Jewish historian during the first century.] 10 [Possibly Joseph Butler (1692–1752), The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed.]
discrepancies, particularly in numbers, only to be reconciled on the supposition of the
corruption of the text.11
129. Are there any doctrines contrary to reason?
None, though there are many incomprehensible.
130. Does the chronology, geography, and history of sacred Scripture coincide with what other
writers teach on this subject?
In general they do. Where there is a disagreement, the sacred Scripture, apart from their
inspiration, are the best entitled to credit.
131. Do the sentiments, customs, and manners mentioned or alluded to in the sacred Scriptures
agree with what is known of Eastern nations?
Very exactly, even as they are at the present day, for in the East, national character and
manners have changed much less than in the West.
11 [Alexander probably has in mind the histories and numbers of the lists of kings in Chronicles and the numeric accounts of Ezra and Nehemiah, as numerous kings had the same name and as this numerical data is particularly not easy to harmonize. However, Alexander's allowance of the permanent and irremediable corruption in the transmission and preservation of the Scriptures is contrary to Matt. 5:18 and many other express statements of the Scriptures themselves. The numeric data in Ezra and Nehemiah can be harmonized (as books on Bible difficulties demonstrate), as well as the chronologies of the kings. For the latter, see Floyd Nolen Jones, Chronology of the Old Testament: A Return to the Basics, 14th ed. (The Woodlands, Tex.: KingsWord Press, 1999).]