If [as purported by critics of biblical Christianity] the early church was a theological quagmire, if apocryphal books are as valid as so-called canonical books, and if scholars are convinced the New Testament is filled with forgeries, then on what possible basis can Christians have confidence that they have the right twenty-seven books? How can Christians ever know such a thing? It is here that we come to the precise question this book is designed to answer. This volume is concerned with the narrow question of whether Christians have a rational basis (i.e., intellectually sufficient grounds) for affirming that only these twenty-seven books rightfully belong in the New Testament canon. Or, put differently, is the Christian belief in the canon justified (or warranted)? (Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origin and Authority of the New Testament Books, 20)

Certainly, there can be no New Testament theology if there is no such thing as a New Testament in the first place. Thus, questions about the canon can take on more foundational significance than other types of questions (Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origin and Authority of the New Testament Books, 16).

The Trinity created us with a capacity to live in him, as creatures in and with our Creator. The incarnation proves it. If it were not so and could not be so, then Jesus Christ–God and man–could not be one person, for the difference between Creator and creature would be so great that incarnation would not be possible. But now our humanity in Jesus Christ is in full and personal union with God, and so in union with Christ we are brought into union with God (Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity, 470).

The presbyterial government hath no such liberty nor arbitrariness, as civil or military government hath, there being in all civil or temporal affairs a great deal of latitude left to those who manage the same, so that they command nor act nothing against the word of God. But presbyterial government is tied up to the rules of Scripture, in all such particulars as are properly spiritual and proper to the church, though, in other particulars, occasional circumstances of times, places, accommodations, and the like, the same light of nature and reason guideth both church and state; yet in things properly spiritual and ecclesiastical, there is not near so much latitude left to the presbytery, as there is in civil affairs to the magistrate (George Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, Or, The Divine Ordinances of Church Government Vindicated, 84).

What further is the duty of the members of each particular church, towards those of every other denomination?

It is their duty to pray for them–to exercise charity towards them–to live peaceably with them–to remember, that to their own master they must give account–while rejoicing in the truth, to hold it in love–and, as far as no sanction is given to error in doctrine or practice, to co-operate with them in every good word and work (Thomas Smyth, An Ecclesiastical Catechism of the Presbyterian Church, 27).

The temple services were designed for maximum sensory impact because they were typical of deeper realities to which attention needed to be drawn. The rituals demanded and received the full attention of all who were present. It was impossible to ignore them. But with the death of Christ, the temple veil was torn in two from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51) and all the hustle and bustle came to an abrupt end. The sacrifices which could never take away sins (Heb. 10:8-11) have been replaced by the sacrifice of praise to God (Heb. 13:15). The priesthood has become the body of Christ, and believers have become spiritual stones in a spiritual temple offering up “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter. 2:5, 9) (Michael Bushell, Songs of Zion, 157).

But the chief contention with us is not a rubric, or a series of canons, or even the parochial episcopacy which we know to be scriptural, but the scriptural doctrines of the gospel. We aim at a careful discrimination between the essential and the non-essential. We propose orthodoxy of faith as the object of supreme regard, and relegate to the rear a punctilious churchmanship. . . . Honest investigation is the honorable way to exchange party for party, and sect for sect. I want all restless Presbyterians to examine first, and venture upon no change without study and prayer. And let them be firmly resolved to serve God for life in a Christian association which they conscientiously regard as the most faithful to the word of God (J. A. Waddell, Letters to a Young Presbyterian, 102).

The psychology of faith has been studied, from the theological standpoint not always felicitously, because the Biblical data have not been carefully ascertained. It may be useful to know something about the psychology of faith, but it is of far greater importance to understands its religious function in redemption, and unless the latter is apprehended, the psychology is apt to turn out, from the Biblical point of view, sheer foolishness (Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, 83).

In May 1964 the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and those of us who were the graduating students (thirty or so men) met for a banquet, students and professors sitting informally together in an atmosphere of affection and thankfulness. One by one, the professors got up and said a few words of exhortation and encouragement. When John Murray got up he suggested that we should not slip out of the habit of studying, but rather we should seek to make our own some area in which we would read as fully and exhaustively as we could over the next years. Mr. Murray said, “There might arise an issue in the church in twenty years’ time which is directly related to what you have studied, and then you could make a valuable contribution, guiding and enlightening the church.”

From Preface, Geoffrey Thomas, The Holy Spirit, ix

The Bible makes no attempt to minimize the extent to which David fell into great sin. At a minimum, he was guilty of adultery and murder in the episode with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11). But the measure of a man of God is not in his sin but in his repentance. Psalm 51 is a beautiful testimony to how deeply David was grieved at the depth of his own sin (Psa. 51:1; 2 Sam. 11:26) (Michael Bushell, Songs of Zion, 87).