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.

Though in outward compliments [husband and wife] may seem very kind, and in the outward things of this world, very generous, yet if they pray not for one another, they are neither kind nor generous. Hearty, fervent, frequent prayer is the greatest token of kindness and best part of giving to each other that can be.

William Gouge, Building a Godly Home, Vol. 2: A Holy Vision for a Happy Marriage, 65.

Where love abounds, there all duties will readily and cheerfully be performed. Where love is lacking, there every duty will either be altogether neglected, or so carelessly performed, that it might as well not be performed at all.

William Gouge, Building a Godly Home, Vol. 2: A Holy Vision for a Happy Marriage, 49.

The Westminster Confession, to which libertarian and authoritarian American Presbyterians profess allegiance, has a chapter on the liberty of conscience, one of the only Reformed creeds to devote an entire section to this subject. Because of the Whiggish reading of Calvinism that has gained so wide a hearing in the church and academy, many readers would expect to see in this chapter some evidence that directly connects liberty of conscience to civil liberty. But the authors of the Westminster Confession clearly assert that the Chrisian idea of liberty of conscience may not be used for any kind of political liberty. On the one hand, Christian liberty pertains exclusively to the liberation from the bondage of sin and the penalty of death through the merits of Christ. On the other hand, the confession teaches that any who “upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God” and may be “proceeded against by the censures of the church, and by the power of the civil magistrate” (original Westminster Confession of Faith, 20.4). This clear differentiation between civil and spiritual liberty was unremarkable among sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed theologians and creeds. Only after the Enlightenment and the American framers’ idea of a “new science of politics” did Calvinists begin to blur that distinction. . . .

As the experience of American Presbyterianism shows, to rally behind the liberties promoted in the American founding, ministers and theologians in the mainstream denominations needed a version of the Westminster Confession that had been gutted of the idea that the state holds responsibility for the health of the church. Conversely, American Presbyterians who still clung to the politics that had informed the writing of the Westminster standards, namely, the Covenanters, took a different and non-Whiggish view of the American experiment. These Calvinists were law abiding and recognized the legitimacy of the United States, while they also refused to become involved in the affairs of the nation that would compromise the kingship of Christ over both the church and the state.

“Implausible: Calvinism and American Politics” by D. G. Hart in John Calvin’s American Legacy, ed. Thomas J. Davies, 84-85.