Distinctives
Tragically, solid seminaries rarely, if ever, stay faithful longer than a generation.[1] Many institutions start out committed to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, but over time they compromise. Anti-biblical ideologies infiltrate the faculty as relevance begins to overshadow faithfulness. New seminaries, therefore, are always needed as older ones begin the downgrade. By God’s grace and the courage the comes from biblical convictions, these distinctives (along with our doctrinal statement) will help protect Redeemer Seminary from sliding into apostasy. Not even one of these distinctives should ever be compromised. What follows is a more extensive expression of the themes in previous parts of this catalog.
We Believe in Unity in the Essentials & Stress Love in the Non-Essentials
Jesus high priestly prayer emphasized unity for His followers (John 17:20-21); the same unity that the Father and Son have (John 17:22). As part of a worthy walk for believers, the Spirit produces a humble, loving, peaceful unity among believers in the Lord Jesus Christ—a unity we are all expected to protect vigorously (Eph. 4:1-3).
Because of this, Redeemer Seminary believes that unity is a mark of the fruit of the Spirit, even though God’s people may not always be united in non-essentials. Not only is unity critical, but Jesus also made it clear that the mark of His true followers was love (John 13:34-35). We seek to practice this with unity and love in mind for the whole of God’s Church, while fully acknowledging that sound doctrine must at times divide (1 Tim 1:3-11; 4:6; 6:3; 2 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1). This does not mean that we will deviate from our doctrinal statement; it means we will love fellow believers who disagree with us on doctrines that do not impact salvation.
We Believe in Biblical Inerrancy
God tests every generation of believers for faithfulness. He allows doctrinal problems to challenge us to hold fast to the faithful Word in both the OT and NT (Titus 1:9; 2 Tim. 2:2). One of the contemporary issues that has repeatedly been fought in church history concerns the “inerrancy” of the Scriptures. “Inerrant” means “exempt from error,” and dictionaries consider it a synonym for “infallible” which means “not liable to deceive, certain.” However, due to the onslaught of historical-critical ideology and rationalism starting in the 19th century, these terms have unfortunately been distinguished, so that some could assert that while the Bible is “infallible” in faith and practice, it is not inerrant in its content.
A survey of church history shows that the inspiration and authority of Scripture as absolutely without error was an assumed and evident fact. Early faithers, such as Origen (AD 185-254) and Augustine (AD 354-430), stood steadfast in these beliefs.[2] The Protestant Reformers, reacting to the falling away of the church in their day from this belief, restored the proper emphasis on inspiration and infallibility. Calvin referred to the Scriptures as the “sure and infallible record”[3] and the “unerring standard.”[4] Luther also strongly affirmed the infallibility of Scripture. About the canonical books, he said, “I confidently believe that not one of their authors erred.”[5]
Our modern period has witnessed an unprecedented attack on this issue. Few understand that there are multitudes of philosophical motivations that crept in and deceived even more conservative elements in the church.[6] Serious warnings have been issued to Christians in academia who have been strongly influenced to move away from the historic belief in inerrancy.[7] Sadly, few heed such warnings. With Evangelicalism being infiltrated by rationalism, existentialism, and historical criticism in Christian seminaries, colleges, and schools, the result has been that propositional truth—that the Bible means what it says and says what it means plainly—is dismissed and deconstructed.
So, how can a pastor have any clarity or certainty while preaching if the Scriptures are fallible? He cannot! However, the Scriptures consistently assert its infallibility and inerrancy. Jesus spoke of the Spirit of Truth (John 10:33-36; 14:24; 16:13; 1 John 4:4-6) that would guide the NT authors in the record of their writings. Second Peter 1:20-21 affirms that they were “carried along” by the Spirit so as to produce 66 written documents where God is the ultimate author (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16). In the end, to deny the inerrancy of Scripture is to defame God Himself.
This divine element of Scripture is the guarantee that the human element did not err while writing God’s Word. No one who truly understands inerrancy and infallibility denies that interpretive problems exist, but these problems are not inherent to the Bible. They lie within us since it’s the Bible, not humans, that are infallible. Regardless, would the Spirit of the Living God lead His followers away from confidence in God’s Word (cf. 1 John 2:27; 4:13)? Of course not! That is why we believe a denial of the doctrines of the inspiration and the inerrancy of the OT and NT is not from God and deeply damages all who embrace this lie.
We Believe in the Priority of Scripture
Only the 66 books of Scripture are God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16)—what the Bible says, God says! In contrast, “systematic” or “dogmatic” theology, though a worthwhile endeavor, is a product of men. Admittedly, some systems of theology are better than others as that system prioritizes an inductive formulation of its beliefs through careful exegesis of Scripture.
Since the Bible, not theology, is inspired and inerrant, we believe that it must have priority in theological education. It must stand as judge of all theological systems (Heb. 4:12; 2 Tim 2:2-3). We examine all theology in light of the Bible; theology is only true as it conforms to Scripture.
We Believe in Literal Interpretation
Closely allied to the inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture is literal interpretation. The technical term for this is “grammatico-historical interpretation.” This means all of Scripture should be trusted and allowed to speak for itself as evidenced in its plain, normal understanding by an examination of the immediate context, the study of words and grammar in the original languages, figures of speech and genre, as well as a text’s historical and cultural backgrounds. This method was championed in the Early Church by the Antioch School (AD 347-407) as well as the Reformers who led the modern revival of literal interpretation in the modern church.
We oppose what is known as “historical-criticism.” Historical-critical ideology should never be confused with grammatico-historical interpretation. The rise of modern philosophy gave birth to historical-critical ideologies that assault the plain sense of God’s Word.[8] This wolf in sheep’s clothing has made strong inroads into evangelical scholarship today. Though evangelicals reject many extreme conclusions of liberal scholars, some have adopted their same methodology in the interpretation of Scripture, creating a crisis in evangelical scholarship. We reject this outright and without qualification. We will always affirm grammatico-historical interpretation.
We Believe in Premillennialism
Closely allied to grammatico-historical or literal interpretation of the Bible is premillennial theology. Every biblical text has only one meaning, the literal meaning. The goal of the interpreter is to reproduce the author’s intended meaning. That, and only that, yields the correct interpretation of any text. A text can never mean what it never meant to the original author.
Literal interpretation is the default setting for all human communication that endeavors to yield true understanding, which we assume was the goal when the Holy Spirit moved the biblical authors to write what they did (2 Peter 1:20-21). Therefore, we see no reason to interpret any part of the Bible, even prophetic passages, in a non-literal way, unless the text itself demands that we do so (e.g., God, who is spirit, having a shadow in Ps 91:1).
As a result, we agree with our non-premillennial brother, William Masselink, who wrote, “If all prophecy must be interpreted in a literal way, the Chiliastic [i.e., premillennial] views are correct.”[9] In other words, premillennialism is the result of a consistent, literal interpretation of all Scripture, including prophecy; it is not a theological a priori for us.
We Believe in the Historicity and Factuality of Genesis 1-11 & the Gospels
Two areas of Scripture that have received constant attack are Genesis 1-3 and the canonical Gospels. A prominent reason for these attacks may be that these they constitute the foundational aspects of Christianity (i.e., the Fall and Redemption of Man). As the Scriptures relate, “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3). The whole plan of creation and the redemption of mankind rests on these two foundations. If man is not created in the image of God, yet fallen in sin, then the Lord Jesus Christ died needlessly.
In light of this, we affirm Genesis 1-11 as historical fact, with a plain, normal understanding of its interpretation throughout, e.g., creation in six literal days; the immediate creation of man in God’s image (Gen. 1:27; 2:7, 22); a historical Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:7, 21-25); the fall of man (Gen. 3:1-7); the promise of redemption (Gen. 3:15); the Flood (Gen. 6-7); and the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11). We affirm their factuality in totality, just as Moses originally wrote them.
Similarly, the Gospels have received numerous attacks. In the first three centuries of Christianity, the physical reality of Jesus was denied, constituting a denial of redemption (Heb. 2:14-17; 1 John 1:1-4). Today, Jesus’s existence is assaulted with a denial of the Virgin Birth (Matt. 1:29-25) and the miracles in Jesus’s ministry, as well as the necessity of His vicarious, substitutionary atonement, and His physical resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:4; 1 Cor. 15:1-19). We affirm the literal, historical reality of Jesus’s life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection as faithfully presented in the four canonical Gospels.
We are Not Ashamed of the Gospel
We firmly stand for the bold proclamation of condemnation (Rom. 1-3); salvation by faith apart from works (Rom. 4-5) with the result being the need for sanctification (Rom. 6-8). Only through the genuine experience of the New Birth (Jer. 31:31-33; Ezek. 36:25-27) can one enter the Kingdom and be truly acceptable before God through the redemptive work of the Son (John 3:3, 7). This salvation is a gift of God received solely on the basis of faith in Christ’s redemptive work as a substitutionary atonement for sin (Eph. 2:8-9).
Any transformation of a believer’s life is due to the work of God’s Holy Spirit who is given to every believer at salvation (Gal. 5:16). Sanctification (i.e., conformity to the image of Christ [Rom. 8:29-30]) occurs through the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor .1:30). Good works demonstrate genuine faith as a result of the New Birth (James 2:14-17) and do not cause or contribute to salvation in any way (Rom. 3:21-5:21; Gal. 2:15-21).
[1] We strongly urge readers to obtain a copy of the following works that are an important sample of warnings to the churches: R. A. Torrey, A. C. Dixon and others, The Fundamentals, 4 vols. (1972 [1917]); Charles Feinberg, The Fundamentals for Today (1958), and J. C. Ryle, Warnings to the Churches, [1967]. These are a mere sampling of warnings to the present from past men desiring to remain faithful to God and His Word.
[2] For example, see Augustine, Epistolae, 82, i.3.
[3] Calvin, Commentary on Job, p. 744.
[4] Calvin, Institutes, I, 749.
[5] M. Reu, Luther and the Scriptures, 24.
[6] Norman L. Geisler, Eds. Errancy, An Analysis of Its Philosophical Roots (Zondervan, 1981).
[7] Norman L. Geisler, “Beware of Philosophy,” JETS 42/1 (1999) 3-19.
[8] See F. David Farnell, “The Philosophical and Theological Bent of Historical Criticism,” in The Jesus Quest.
[9] William Masselink, Why Thousand Years? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930), 31.