The language of theological principles signals the dependence human reason maintains on the gifts of the Triune God for any knowledge of God. The seventeenth-century divine Johannes Wollebius prods us toward a distinction: “The principle of the being of theology is God; the principle by which it is known is the Word of God.” That is, the ontological principle of all such knowledge is God himself, the only one who possesses this knowledge. God’s overflowing wisdom comes to humans in two forms. “The Church is creatura verbi divini: the creature of the divine Word. The Church is constituted by God’s action and not by any human action. . . . And the way in which the Church is constituted by divine action determines the character and scope of human action in the Church.” The church’s life and knowledge are enjoyed in a creaturely manner determined — in both character and scope — by their dependence on the divine Word. The Word’s activity takes two forms: external and internal.

The external principle is a person, the incarnate Son of God. . . . The internal principle is the pledged Spirit, who illumines the Word and not only enables but also actualizes reception of that Word in the minds of God’s people.

“Knowledge of God” by Michael Allen in Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, edited by Michael Allen, and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 20-21.

Reformational thinking about divine illumination would do well to return to its catholic posture wherein the operation of Word and Spirit renders human mental work operative rather than optional . . .

Here our approach to the order of Christian theology cuts across some common claims regarding the supposed distinction between biblical theology and systematic theology. When done according to the discipline of the gospel, systematic theology follows the canon’s own order. It does so with greater resolve than most biblical theology, inasmuch as it realizes that the Bible begins with theology proper (“In the beginning God . . .”). Redemptive history must be rooted in God’s own character; its salvific missions flow from the inner divine processions of Son and Spirit. Biblical theology can easily sound like nothing more than ancient history precisely because it lacks a doctrine of God to provide a metaphysical framework for its narrative.

“Knowledge of God” by Michael Allen in Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, edited by Michael Allen, and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 26.

This collection — and the wider practice of dogmatic theology of which it is but a piece — is not meant to replace the reading of Holy Scripture but to illuminate it. Just as pastors and evangelists serve to equip the saints for the work of ministry (Eph. 4:12), so these essays seek to equip saints for a more faithful hearing of and testimony to the words of the prophets and apostles. Zacharius Ursinus reflected that the “highest” purpose for studying church doctrine is to prepare us “for the reading, understanding, and exposition of the holy Scriptures. For as the doctrine of the catechism and common places (loci communes) are taken out of the Scriptures, and are directed by them as their rule, so they again lead us, as it were, by the hand to the Scriptures.” Dogmatic reasoning is meant to flow from and send one back to the task of exegesis. Like good art criticism, it is drawn from careful viewing of a specimen, but it is beneficial only if it aids further interaction with the specimen itself.

From “Introduction” in Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, edited by Michael Allen, and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016).

The critics hold that Exodus 6:3, which the RV renders, “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob as God Almighty (El Shaddai); but by my name Jehovah I was not known unto them,” belongs to P and that P means to say that El Shaddai and not Jehovah was the name of God known to the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Therefore they assign four passages, Genesis 17:1, 29:3, 35:11, and 48:3 to P., since El Shaddai is found in them . . .

In conclusion, the evidence clearly shows that the Hebrews who translated the Old Testament, or part of it, into Samaritan, Syriac, Greek, and Arabic, knew nothing of a god called Shaddai or of Shaddai as a name for God. Only in the Greek of Ezekiel 1:24 and in the Syriac of Genesis 17:1; 35:11; and Exodus 6:3 is there any indication that either El Shaddai or Shaddai was ever considered to be a proper name like Jehovah . . .

Questions in Hebrew and other Semitic languages may be asked either with or without an interrogative particle. The following evidence goes to show that the last clause of Exodus 6:3 might be read “was I not made known to them?” This interpretation would remove at once blow the whole foundation of the critical position, so far as it is based on this verse . . .

On the basis of the investigation of the verse given above the writer would suggest the following renderings: And God spake unto Moses and said unto him; I am Jehovah and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob in the character of the God of Might (or, mighty God) and in the character of my name Jehovah I did not make myself known unto them. Or, if the last part of the verse is to be regarded as a question, the rendering should be: And in the character of my name Jehovah did I not make myself known unto them? Either of these suggested translations will bring the verse into entire harmony with the rest of the Pentateuch. Consequently, it is unfair and illogical to use a forced translation of Exodus 6:3 in support of a theory that would destroy the unity of authorship and the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch.

“Yahweh (Jehovah) and Exodus 6:3” by Robert Dick Wilson in Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation.

If evangelicals continue to work in isolation or ignorance of this heritage [i.e., evangelical OT biblical scholarship], they shall waste much of their time solving problems already completed by another generation and a situation will obtain which will be similar to that of the days of the last war when scholars working on opposite sides of the battle lines often reduplicated each other’s efforts in total ignorance of what other men were doing because of the conditions of those days.

From “Introduction” by W. C. Kaiser, Jr. in Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972).

Wrote about theological prolegomena and three forms of Word of God over at Ad Fontes Journal.

Theological Prolegomena and the Three Forms of the Word of God – Ad Fontes (adfontesjournal.com)

For the person whose mind has the fire of the Spirit comes to maturity, since the senses have been trained to distinguish that which is good from that which is evil, and that person is spiritual.

Comment on Revelation 3:14-22 in Commentary on the Apocalypse by Oecumenius (Translated by William C. Weinrich)

Just as those who received the disciples received Christ in and through them, so we today in receiving their written words also receive Christ, and with him also the Father. In addition to Christ and Scripture, [Karl] Barth also thinks of the proclamation as a form of the Word of God. The church’s preaching today is the concrete means of God revealing himself and of men receiving the Word of God. In practice these three forms of the Word of God are inseparable. There is no revelation apart from Christ, but no knowledge of Christ apart from the Scriptures. In practice we know Christ and the Scriptures through the proclamation of the church, but we must test that proclamation by Scripture.

“Revelation in Contemporary Theology” by C. Brown in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3, 326.

Whether a man ought to look to the good government of his house is a question beyond all doubt. He is the highest in the family, and has both authority over all, and the responsibility of all is committed to him. . . . That the wife also ought to be a help to him there, is very evident, for the apostle makes it plainly their responsibility that they govern the house (1 Tim. 5:14). Would the wise man have so highly commended a wife for well governing her husband’s house if it had not applied to her (Prov. 31)?

William Gouge, Building a Godly Home, Vol. 2: A Holy Vision for a Happy Marriage, 88.

Yet there remains one thing more about which husbands and wives ought to manifest a mutual provident care over each other, and that is about the goods of this world. Though the husband, while he lives with his wife, has the truest property in them, and the greatest title to them, yet I refer this to those mutual duties which husband and wife owe to each other, in three respects. First, because in conscience they pertain to the use of the wife, as well as the of the husband. Secondly, because the wife is appointed by God’s providence a joint governor with the husband of the family, and in that respect ought to be a help in providing such a sufficiency of the goods of this world, as are needed for that state where God has set them, and for that responsibility which God has committed to them. Thirdly, because the wife, if she survives the husband, ought to have such a portion of those goods, as are fitting for her status and responsibility.

In these respects we see it required, even a binding duty, that husband and wife, in a mutual regard for one another, be as thoughtful and diligent as they can be with a good conscience in getting, keeping, and using sufficient goods and riches for the mutual good of one another.

William Gouge, Building a Godly Home, Vol. 2: A Holy Vision for a Happy Marriage, 82.