For the martyrs die not only for themselves, but also they effect a common benefit. Their courage becomes an exhortation to others, and by the blood of the saints the knowledge of God is built up.

Oecumenius – Commentary on Revelation 6:9-11

God has not chosen to exempt the Bible by a miracle from the fate of other books, but has wisely left room for the diligence and research of man, who is responsible for the use of all the facilities within his reach for the study of the Bible. He has not provided for inspired transcribers any more than inspired printers, nor for infallible translators any more than infallible commentators and readers. He wastes no miracles. He desires free and intelligent worshippers. “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” The Bible, in its origin and history, is a human as well as a divine book, and must be studied under this twofold aspect.

From “Introduction” by Philip Schaff in American Edition of The New Testament in the Original Greek, eds. B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1881), xii-xiii.

Man could not possibly have had any knowledge of God, if God had not made Himself known. Left to himself, he would never have discovered God. We distinguish between God’s revelation in nature and His revelation in Scripture.

Berkhof’s Summary of Doctrine

The Bible gives the only reliable account of the origin of religion. It informs us of the existence of God, the only object worthy of religious worship. Moreover, it comes to us with the assurance that God, whom man could never discover with his natural powers, revealed Himself in nature and, more especially, in His divine Word, demands the worship and service of man, and also determines the worship and service that is well-pleasing to Him. And, finally, it teaches us that God created man in His own image, and thus endowed him with a capacity to understand, and to respond to, this revelation, and engendered in him a natural urge to seek communion with God and to glorify Him.

Berkhof’s Summary of Doctrine

I recently wrote about Preparatory Grace over at Ad Fontes Journal.

Belief must determine practice. The repudiation of Christian dogma must, then, mean the destruction of Christian ethics. He who denies the cross of Christ cannot live the life of Christ.

“THE PRESENT CRISIS IN ETHICS” BY WILLIAM BRENTON GREENE, JR. IN THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW (JANUARY, 1919), 6.

There has been a revival of paganism. Our Lord has been denied as “the ideal man” as he had been rejected as “the mighty God.” Formerly Christians were charged with hypocrisy, because though professing to follow Christ, they were not Christlike. Now they are maligned because they would be Christlike. The accusation is not that we do not come up to our ideal, but that we have an ideal so unworthy. Our Lord himself is scorned, not because he is the revealer of love, but because he is.

“THE PRESENT CRISIS IN ETHICS” BY WILLIAM BRENTON GREENE, JR. IN THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW (JANUARY, 1919), 2.

We must insist on the historical character of our religion. As Christian conduct draws all its power from a supernatural religious experience which in its turn is based upon a supernatural creed, so this creed must be summary of supernatural facts. It is not, as many hold, a matter of indifference whether these are facts. On the contrary, this is what is of supreme importance. “If Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain.” This would seem to be self-evident. It is only as we have been raised with Christ by “the power of his resurrection” that we can share his life; and it is only as we share his life that we can know it and realize it. But how can we share his life and know and realize it, if he himself is lying dead in a Syrian grave? That cannot be shared which does not exist.

“The Present Crisis in Ethics” by William Brenton Greene, Jr. in The Princeton Theological Review (January, 1919), 17.

The Mosaic code did, it is true, employ the death penalty more frequently than we do, yet it never employed or allowed cruelty in punishment. Its criminal legislation was vastly more humane than that of England only 150 years ago. This, particularly in that barbarous age, is worthy of notice.

We may not, however, content ourselves with negative proofs, when positive ones are so numerous that we can mention only a few of them.

For example, the provision made for the poor, “When ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger. I am the Lord your God” (Lev. 19:9, 10). To this add other provisions for the poor. It was said that the poor were never to cease out of the land (Deut. 15:11). Therefore, “Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land” (Deut. 15:11). Every man was to have a care for his neighbor, and if he saw him “waxing poor and falling into decay” — getting behind-hand, we should say — he was by law to relieve him (Lev. 25:35-37), even though he was a foreigner. No interest was to be taken of such an one, nor any increase; i.e., no payment in any kind over and above the amount loaned. In this and in other respects the law of the Old Testament was much more humane than the best legislation today. A law of Massachusetts, for example, allows pawn-brokerage. It sets no limit, and makes no provision with regard to it, except a fine for carrying it on without a license. The poor man who is compelled to pawn his watch or his furniture is at the mercy of the broker for the best bargains that he can make; and it generally turns out that the article is lost for a tithe of its value. Our system of pledges by its attachments, mortgages, and bonds, under which, in failure of redemption, the law knows no mercy, and is always in favor of the creditor — never of the debtor.

Set now in contrast with this the Mosaic law. pledges might be taken; but certain articles, for instance the upper and nether millstones and the widow’s raiment might not be taken. But when pledges were taken of the poor they were not to be kept over night. When it was raiment especially it was to be returned before sundown. It was a law in favor of the poor. Still further, with reference to the poor, the fatherless, and the stranger, as if the provision noticed were not enough, every third year there was to be a tithing of the increase for them. The stranger also was not to be vexed or oppressed, as was the custom among the surrounding and barbarous nations, the remains of which custom are to be found in modern legislation in the form of passports, imposts, prohibitions and disabilities laid upon the foreigner and his traffic.

“The Ethics of the Old Testament” by William Brenton Greene, Jr. in Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, ed. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., 233-234.

Most husbands are eager enough to reprove, but few do it in meekness and moderation. They cannot do it but in company, not without bitter words . . . This being the preposterous practice of many husbands, is it any wonder that ordinarily so little good, and so much hurt is done by reproving? No, would it not be a wonder, if any good and no hurt should be done by it? This therefore, though it is a duty, it is a duty to be used rarely and with great moderation.

William Gouge, Building a Godly Home: A Holy Vision for a Happy Marriage, 223-224.