'Ought Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the first two books of the Maccabees, Baruch, the additions to Esther and Daniel to be numbered among the canonical books? We deny against the papists.' (We deliberately omitted comment on these four pages of material because of our subject matter and not because they are not good or important. We recommend their reading.

'By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.'

'Rather the question is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so corrupted either by copyists through carelessness (or by the Jews and heretics through malice) that they can no longer be regarded as the judge of controversies and the rule to which all the versions must be applied? The papists affirm, we deny it.'

Turretin says, 'The providence of God proves that the sources have not been corrupted.' 'The following arguments prove that the sources have not been corrupted. (1) The providence of God which could not permit books which it willed to be written by inspiration (theopneustois) for the salvation of men (and to continue unto the end of the world that they might draw from them waters of salvation) to become so corrupted as to render them unfit for this purpose.... (2)The fidelity of the Christian church and unceasing labor in preserving the manuscripts. (3)The religion of the Jews who have bestowed upon the sacred manuscripts great care and labor amounting even to superstition.... (4)The carefulness of the Masoretes not only about verses and words, but also about single letters (which, together with all the variations of punctuation and writing, they not only counted, but also wrote down, so that no ground or even suspicion of corruption could arise). (5)The multitude of copies; for as the manuscripts were scattered far and wide, how could they all be corrupted either by the carelessness of librarians or the wickedness of enemies?... (6)If the sources had been corrupted, it must have been done before Christ or after, neither of which is true. Not before because Christ would not have passed it over in silence (for he does censure the various departures in doctrine), nor could he bear to use corrupted books....Not afterward, both because the copies circulated among Christians would have rendered such attempts futile, and because no trace of any such corruption appears..... (7)The Jews neither would nor could corrupt the sources....' Turretin argues that if the Jews had corrupted any scripture it would have been concerning the Messiah and prophecy used by Christians. On the other hand, Christians would immediately have noticed any changes made by the Jews since the time of Christ.

Turretin made a difference between corruption and variants: 'A corruption differs from a variant reading. We acknowledge that many variant readings occur both in the old and New Testament arising from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny corruption (at least corruption that is universal).'

'ELEVENTH QUESTION: THE AUTHENTIC VERSION -- Are the Hebrew version of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New the only authentic versions? We affirm against the papists.'

'Of the versions of the Scriptures; some are prototypoi or archetypoi ('original' and 'primary') which the authors themselves used. Others are ektypoi (or 'secondary'), namely versions flowing from them into other languages.' After explaining how the papist differed concerning the degree of certainty in the Hebrew or Greek texts, He quoted the Council of Trent Session 4, which says that 'the Latin Vulgate should be held as authentic in the public reading, disputations, preaching, and expositions, so that no one should dare to reject it under any pretext' 'Hence Mariana complains that after this promulgation of the Council of Trent, 'the Greek and Hebrew fell at one blow.'

Turretin said, 'Our opinion is that the Hebrew of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament have always been and still are the only authentic versions by which all controversies of faith and religion (and all versions) ought to be approved and tested.'

Rejected Scriptures Introduction Quotes

What is an authentic writing? 'An authentic writing is one in which all things are abundantly sufficient to inspire confidence; one to which the fullest credit is due in its own kind; one of which we can be entirely sure that it has proceeded from the author whose name it bears; one in which everything is written just as he himself wished.'

'However, a writing can be authentic in two ways: either primarily and originally or secondarily and derivatively. That writing is primarily authentic which is autopiston ('of self-inspiring confidence') and to which credit is and ought to be given on its own account....The secondarily authentic writings are all thecopies accurately and faithfully taken from the originals by suitable men....'

'Again, the authority of an authentic writing is twofold: the one is founded upon the things themselves of which it treats and has relation to the men to whom the writing is directed; the other is occupied with the treatise itself and the writing and refers to the copies and translations made from it. Over all these this law obtains - that they ought to be referred to the authentic writing and if they vary from it, to be corrected and emended.'

'Finally, authenticity may be regarded in two ways: either materially as to the things announced or formally as to the words and mode of annunciation. We do not speak here of authenticity in the former sense for we do not deny this to versions when they agree with the sources, but only in the latter which belongs to the sources alone. The reasons are: (1) because the sources alone are inspired of God both as to the things and words; hence they alone can be authentic. For whatever the men of God wrote, they wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit , who, to keep them from error, dictated not only the matter but also the words, which cannot be said of any version..... (2)They are the standard and rule to which all the versions should be applied, just as the copy (ektypon) should answer to the pattern (archetypon) and the stream be distinguished from its source.... (3) These editions were authentic from the very first and were always considered to be so..... (4)If the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are not authentic (authentias), there would be no authentic version, since none besides this has a divine testimony of its own authenticity.... (5) Our opponents acknowledge that in certain cases it is right to have recourse to the sources.'

Concerning the papist argument of Hebrew points being added late by the Masoretes as an argument for tradition, Turretin rejects, arguing that the points were of divine origin.

'TWELFTH QUESTION: Is the present Hebrew text in things as well as words so authentic and inspired(theopneustos) in such a sense that all the extant versions are to be referred to it as a rule and, wherever they vary, to be corrected by it? Or may we desert the reading it supplies, if judged less appropriate, and correct it either by comparison of ancient translators, or by suitable(stochastike) judgment and conjecture, and follow another more suitable reading? We affirm the former and deny the latter.'

'As the authority (authentia) of the sacred text is the primary foundation of faith, nothing ought to be held as more important than to preserve it unimpaired against the attacks of those who endeavor either to take it entirely away or in any manner to weaken it.' 'Far different however is the opinion held in common by our churches; viz., that no other codex should be held as authentic then the present Hebrew one, to which as to a touchstone, all the ancient and modern versions should be referred and if they differ from it to be corrected by it, and not to be amended by them.' 'That this has ever been the opinion of all Protestants is perfectly clear. The controversy carried on previously with the papists about the authentic edition sufficiently confirms it. The illustrious author in question cannot deny it, for in the beginning of his Critica Sacra, he says, 'The first and most ancient Protestants have said that all things should be examined and corrected by the Hebrew text, which they call the purest source...'

Turretin warns of the danger of conjectures on the sacred text: 'If it is lawful to make conjectures on the sacred text, even when the Hebrew codices agree with the versions (as the learned man (Cappel) says, Critica sacra 6.8.17 (1650), p. 424), there could no longer be any certainty of the authenticity (authentias) of it, but all would be rendered doubtful and unsettled and the sacred text would be subjected to the will of each conjecturer. Whether this is not to divest it of all authority anyone can readily tell....Now who could be the judge whether these conjectures are made rightly and truly?...But what will become of this sacred book, if everyone is allowed to wield a censorious pen and play the critic over it, just as over any profane book?'

Turretin not only believed the original text was still used at that time by both Jews and Christians, but added: 'And all the theologians who thus far have in any way argued concerning the Hebrew text and its authenticity have meant no other than the common and now received text.'

'THIRTEENTH QUESTION: VERSIONS -- Are versions necessary, and what ought to be their use and authority in the church?'

'This question has two parts. The first relates to the necessity of versions; the second to their authority...' The arguments for the necessity of versions: (1) The reading and contemplation of the Scriptures is enjoined upon men of all languages, therefore the translation of it into the native tongues is necessary...(2)The gospel is preached in all languages; therefore it can and ought to be translated into them. The consequence holds good from the preached to the written word because there is the same reason for both and the same arguments (which induced the apostles to preach in the native tongue) prove the necessity of versions....(3)Vernacular versions are necessary on account of the constant practice of the church, according to which it is certain that both the oriental and western churches had their versions and performed their worship in the vernacular tongue, as their liturgies evince...(4) The numerous Greek versions of the Old Testament follow these....Hence it is evident that it has been the perpetual practice of the church to use versions.'

The arguments for the authority of the versions:

'Although the versions are not authentic formally and as to the mode of enunciation, yet they ought nevertheless to be used in the church because if they are accurate and agree with the sources, they are always authentic materially and as to the things expressed.'

'Hence we gather what the authority of the versions is. Although their utility is great for the instruction of believers, yet no version either can or ought to be put on an equality with the original, much less be preferred to it. (1) For no version has anything important which the Hebrew or Greek source does not have more fully, since in the sources not only the matter and sentences, but even the very words were directly dictated by the Holy Spirit. (2) It is one thing to be an interpreter, quite another to be a prophet....The prophet as God-inspired (theopneustos) cannot err, but the interpreter as a man lacks no human quality since he is always liable to err. (3)All versions are the streams; the original text is the fountain whence they flow. The latter is the rule, the former the thing ruled, having only human authority.'

'Nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions. Here we must carefully distinguish a twofold divine authority: one of things, the other of words. The former relates to the substance of doctrine which constitutes the internal form of the Scriptures. The latter relates to the accident of writing, the external and accidental form. The source has both, being God-inspired (theopneustos) both as to the words and the things; but versions have only the first, being expressed in human and not in divine words.'

'Hence it follows that the versions as such are not authentic and canonical in themselves (because made by human labor and talent). Therefore, under this relation (schesei), they may be exposed to errors and admit of corrections, but nevertheless are authentic as to the doctrine they contain (which is divine and infallible). Thus they do not, as such, formally support divine faith as to the words, but materially as to the substance of doctrine expressed in them.'

'There is one perfection of thing and truth to which nothing can be added and from which nothing can be taken away; another perfect ion of the version itself. The former is strictly divine work and is absolutely and in every way self-credible (autopiston). Such perfection is in the word carried over into the versions.. The latter is a human work and there liable to error and correction - to which indeed authority can belong, but only human (according to the fidelity and conformity with the original text), not divine.'

'The certainty of the conformity of the versions with the original is twofold: the one merely grammatical and of human knowledge apprehending the conformity of the words in the versions with the originalthis belongs to the learned, who know the languages); the other spiritual and of divine faith, relating to the agreement of things and doctrines (belonging to each believer according to the measure of the gift of Christ, as he himself says, 'My sheep hear my voice,he that is spiritual discerneth all things,'. Although a private person may be ignorant of the languages, he does not cease to gather the fidelity of a version as to the things themselves from the analogy of faith and the connection of the doctrines: 'If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself'

'Conformity to the original is different from equality. Any version (provided it is faithful) is indeed conformable to the original because the same doctrine as to substance is set forth there. But it is not on that account equal to it because it is only a human and not a divine method of setting it forth.'

'Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources even as the word which the minister of the gospel preaches does not cease to be divine and infallible and to establish our faith, although it may be expressed by him in human words. Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of the things contained in the versions.'

'If a version could contain the pure word of God in divine words, no correction could take place. For the sources neither can nor ought to be corrected because they are God-inspired (theopneustoi) in things as well as in words. But because it sets forth to us in human words the word of God, it follows that it can admit of correction, not with regard to the doctrine itself (which still remains the same), but with regard to the terms which especially in difficult and obscure passages can be differently rendered by different persons according to the measure of the gift of Christ.'

'FIFTEENTH QUESTION: THE VULGATE -- Is the Vulgate authentic? We deny against the papist.'

'In order to shun more easily the tribunal of the Scriptures which they know to be opposed to them, the papists endeavor not only to overthrow their authentical (authentian) and integrity, but also to impeach their perfection and perspicuity. Hence arises this question concerning the perfection of the Scriptures between us.'

'The question relates only to things necessary to salvation - whether they belong to faith or to practice; whether all these things are so contained in the Scriptures that they can be a total and adequate rule of faith and practice (which we maintain and our opponents deny).'

'The question then amounts to this - whether the Scripture perfectly contains all (not absolutely), but necessary to salvation; not expressly and in so many words, but equivalently and by legitimate inference, as to leave no place for any unwritten (agraphon) word containing doctrinal or moral traditions. Is the Scripture a complete and adequate rule of faith and practice or only a partial and inadequate rule? We maintain the former; the papists the latter, holding that 'unwritten traditions pertaining to faith and practice are to be received with the same regard and reverence as the Scriptures.'

'....We give to the Scriptures such a sufficiency and perfection as is immediate and explicit. There is no need to have recourse to any tradition independent of them.'

'Finally, they were intended to be the contract of the covenant between God and us.'

'SEVENTEENTH QUESTION: THE PERSPICUITY OF THE SCRIPTURES -- Are the Scriptures so perspicuous in things necessary to salvation that they can be understood by believers without the external help of oral (aprophou) tradition or ecclesiastical authority? We affirm against the papists.'

'EIGHTEENTH QUESTION: THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES -- Can the Scriptures be profitably read by any believer, and ought he to read them without permission? We affirm against the papists.'

'NINETEENTH QUESTION: THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURES -- Whether the Scriptures have a fourfold sense: literal, allegorical, anagogical and tropological. We deny against the papists.'

'TWENTIETH QUESTION: THE SUPREME JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES AND INTERPRETER OF THE SCRIPTURES -- Whether the Scriptures (or God speaking in them) are the supreme and infallible judge of controversies and the interpreter of the Scriptures. Or whether the church or the Roman pontiff is. We affirm the former and deny the latter against the papists.'

Francis Turretin (1623-87)
On The Scriptures Presented at:
The 1995 Annual Meeting of The Dean Burgon Society
Rev. D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D. President
Hosted by:
Pastor Denis Gibson
CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH
7975 Hurontario Street
Brampton, Ontario, Canada
Presented by:
Dr. Robert J. Barnett, Pastor
CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH
Route #4 Box 4103c
Grayling, Michigan 497838

I have been dealing with a lot of hurt from rejection lately. I would like to tell you that I have it all together. I mean, on the outside I look good: I dress nicely and put makeup on. Unfortunately what we see on the outside really doesn’t say much for what is on the inside. On the inside, I am a hot mess. I am full of pain, anger and all kinds of negative emotions. I can’t even fake being OK anymore. The other day someone asked how I was doing, and I replied “terrible”. Well, it’s the truth.

Aren’t you tired of lying to people about the condition of your heart? Don’t you want to stop playing nice and start being honest? I mean, if you are having a terrible day, or are going through a rough patch, don’t you want to stop telling people you are “good” or “fine” when you are not? I know that we are supposed to have social standards as to how are greetings go, but it has gotten so that we cannot be real with each other anymore. No one has the time to listen to another’s problems, nor do they want to be burdened with it. Since when did our problems become burdens on other people? What happened to the days where we all shared our burdens with one another, helping each other and sharing our lives together? Isn’t this one of the foundations of the New Testament Church? Yet here we are, 2016, and we have fallen so far away from that concept it’s foreign.

Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

Galatians 6:2

I have felt very alone for my entire life. I was raised by a family that was emotionally unavailable and was abusive. I had no concept of healthy relationships and very few friendships because of it. I was shy, timid, and a homebody. I did not have many opportunities to develop healthy social skills. As a result I kept to myself most of the time, rarely looked people in the eye, and never smiled at people for the most part. I wanted desperately to have friends, to be loved, and to have a social community in my life as an adult. I would have done many things in the name of being approved of by another human being, just to feel wanted and good. Yet I continued to be alone and rejected by the world, as I perceived it.

When I first started going to church, I took all this pain and rejection by man with me. It is impossible to drop baggage that easily, unless God steps in and takes it for you. I did not even realize I had an issue with feeling rejected and unloved at that point. I was functioning in it, and it was normal for me. I was ecstatic to have a place of community, finally. I began to try to reach out to others as we met people, hoping to make friends and relationships that would last. Especially for my children. What I got in return was more feeling of rejection that led to more pain and a big ball of anger. Anger is a secondary emotion to pain. Pain is the root of many emotions. It is much easier to lash out at others, than to deal with our own pain. It got to the point where within a few months I was ready to leave the church. Hurt after hurt was piling up, and I just couldn’t take it anymore.

That is when I let Jesus in, and begged Him for help. I did not want to be so angry at people anymore. What I did not realize was all that anger came from the pain and perceived rejection I felt. I also did not realize that I had already been immensely hurt by the church, and that was causing a lot of feelings of rejection by the people I met at church. When I first decided to give my anger at others to God, it went pretty well. I tried praying for those I was angry at (aka hurt me) and within a short amount of time I saw myself becoming less easily angered by other peoples actions in my life. Then I went from not looking people in the eye and not smiling at people, to truly learning how to love people. How to see them for something more than their behavior in my life, or what they appeared to be on the outside. I would smile at people as I walked by them, I would listen to people when they talked to me (instead of thinking about myself), and I would pray for them and encourage them. It was truly a miracle in my heart.

There should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.

1 Corinthians 12:25

I thought I was completely changed and I was so very thankful to Jesus for the work He had done in me. But while my anger at those in my life changed into love, my anger still swelled within the privacy of my home. I would lash out continually at my husband and children, and frankly, I was the most abusive to myself. I could never see the way I would tear into myself with horrible thoughts as abuse. It was just how I had always been. And I deserved it all. It is easy to think that we can make changes in our lives without the work, but that is not reality. Yes, Jesus can work miracles inside of us, and even heal us in many ways, but that does not take away the work that we need to do for our part.

Jesus could have taken away all my pain and healed me completely from my emotional wounds and set me free. That is 100% possible. I think I would have entirely missed the point though. The real miracle is not in the immediate healing of my heart and emotions, but of the willingness I had to submit myself to Jesus in the midst of all the pain. To surrender my heart to Him and face my anger and pain, and go to the root of it with Him. In this surrender, I have been able to see God for who He truly is. I have been able to understand why I have behaved the way I have, and felt the way I have. Yes, I could have gone through my life never dealing with the root of my pain and rejection, but what good would that really have done me? It is through facing our pain that we come to know true strength, love and compassion for one another. It is this compassion that has driven me to continue working on my blog, and Youtube videos and answering emails, even when I can barely function some days. It is because I know suffering, pain, rejection and hell, that I am motivated to help others going through the same things.

That is why I am struggling again as I go to church. I have been in the pit of despair for months now. I have been unable to be that person that smiles as she passes people by, or who offers encouraging words and prayer. I have not even been able to look people in the eyes as much, but instead find myself looking down to the ground. Sometimes I am just swallowed by pain, fear, rejection and even shame. And then I hate myself for not even being able to be that person I know God made me to be. That person seems far off and distant now. It seems almost cruel to have given me such a sweet taste, and then rip it away. But it is not. What God did for me is to give me hope. To show me who He did make me to be, in comparison with who I have been living as. It is indeed a wonderful gift, as bad as it sounds.

Rejected Scriptures Introduction Definition

Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 9 Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.

2 Peter 5:8-9

In the meantime, I have pushed everyone in my life away, and especially people at church. I cannot bear the thought of being rejected and hurt again. Yet it seems every little thing causes me to feel rejected by others. It is as if I have open wounds, visible to the world, and that I am completely vulnerable. Yet that is not how the world sees me. They still see me as that well put together women who is kind and loving. I will bet that I have unintentionally hurt others by not engaging with them, and pushing them away. I don’t even say hi to people anymore. I just walk by, looking the other way. It is the best I can do, because often times interaction with others is so painful, it is all I can do to not cry. It is as if my pain is an ocean, and I am a lone and remote island in this sea.

Rejected Scriptures Introduction Of Psalms

One of the things that hurts the most is knowing others have seen this change in me, and can obviously recognize something is wrong, yet never approach me. There are no consoling words when they see me cry, not hugs when they sense something seems off, no prayer offered when I drop out of my Bible studies, etc. That is where my strong feelings of rejection come in. And isolation. It seems that when you are going through something really tough and you are afraid to reach out, that it is better to stay alone. To keep your problems to yourself so as not to burden others. Or, so you don’t look weak, or foolish, or like a freak. That is how I have felt. Like a freak. I mean, who has a story of satanic ritual abuse? Not many that I have heard. Sounds freakish to me. So when others don’t reach out, and you are constantly looking in, it is so easy to just let the rejection and pain become your reality. That is exactly the spot the devil wants you in.

Why is it that we find it so easy to keep our lives to ourselves, never reaching out to others? Are we all harboring fear of rejection? Is it really easier to live life with a select few people in your close knit circle? As Christians, why are we continually putting on this facade of “everything is great” or “I am perfect”? We are the ones who should be wearing our hearts on our sleeves, our pain not hidden. It is because of this brokenness we ever came to Jesus in the first place. It is because we realized we were not perfect but actually pretty rotten that we were open to Jesus and the need for a Savior.

Don’t you realize that you become the slave of whatever you choose to obey? You can be a slave to sin, which leads to death, or you can choose to obey God, which leads to righteous living.

Romans 6:16

So why are we putting on airs, especially at church? Church is like a hospital, and everyone is sick with one disease or another. Yet we walk around like it’s social hour and no one wants to admit they need help. If you ask me, that is the sickest disease of all. If we all stopped pretending to be great and started living the truth out in front of one another, we would open up a space not only for community to grow within the church, but outside as well. All of the broken people in the world who don’t want to go to church because they don’t fit in with the perfect people club, will finally stop feeling not good enough and start seeing that they are just right after all.

God has a much bigger plan for the church, but it is people like you and me, people who understand the rejection and not fitting in that are going to help make that change. God uses all things for are good, especially the bad things. He loves us to much to let us stay stuck in it, but instead wants to show us how He can redeem it. We have to be willing to walk in the pain with Jesus, and let Him heal us first though. Once we are willing to do that, we can see the immense blessings that will come from it. Those blessings are going to spill out into every part of our lives, blessing many others in the process. If you are going through it, just know it is for a purpose greater than what you can see at this time. Open yourself up to God’s love and let it pour out into your life, bringing healing. It is a painful process, but you will be rewarded in the end. Imagine what healing you can bring to the church, and others going through similar circumstances, by walking in it.

But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

1 John 3:17-18