1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; (Rom. 2:14–15; 1:19–20; Ps. 19:1–3; Rom. 1:32; 2:1) yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation (1 Cor. 1:21; 2:13–14). Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church (Heb. 1:1); and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing (Prov. 22:19–21; Luke 1:3–4; Rom. 15:4; Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; Isa. 8:19–20): which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary (2 Tim. 3:15; 2 Pet. 1:19); those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased (Heb. 1:1–2).
Natural revelation provides enough rope for unconverted men to hang themselves. But in order for them to come to salvation, God must intervene. In ancient times, He had done this in His own person, and in various other ways. In later days, in order to make His Word more secure in the world—for both defensive and offensive purposes—He committed the way of salvation “wholly unto” writing. He also did this to protect His Church against the world, the flesh, and the devil. The Scriptures have entirely replaced God’s former specific ways of revealing Himself in the world. This does not mean that Scriptures have replaced God’s work in the world, but rather that we have been given a final and ultimate Word. God’s general revelation, of course, continues as it did before.
2. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these,
Of the Old Testament.
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk , Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
Of the New Testament.
The Gospels according to Matthew, to Mark, to Luke, to John, the Acts of the Apostles, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the first and second Epistles of Peter, the first, second, and third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, the Revelation of John.
All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life (Luke 16:29, 31; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 22:18–19; 2 Tim. 3:16).
The canonicity of the books of the Bible is a confessional issue for classical Protestants. These books, and not other books, are the only infallible and ultimate rule of faith and life. By faith, we mean
credenda, those things which are to be believed. By life, we mean agenda, those things which are to be done. In referring to these books of Scripture as the only infallible and ultimate rule of faith and life, this does not mean there are no other rules. It means there are no other ultimate and infallible rules. Remember that the Table of Contents in the Bible was no more given by inspiration than were the maps, concordance, or ribbon. At the same time, they do represent an authoritative voice—that of the Church. But as we shall see in a moment, the Church’s authoritative voice does not make anything Scripture. Rather, it is an uninspired recognition of that which already is inspired. John the Baptist pointed at Christ and declared Him to be the Lamb of God. This true testimony did not make Jesus the Lamb of God, but rather authoritatively recognized it. It is a similar case with the Church and the Scriptures.
3. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings (Luke 24:27, 44; Rom. 3:2; 2 Pet. 1:21).
This is not a rejection of the Apocrypha; it is a rejection of the Apocrypha as Scripture. The Apocrypha has many valuable things to teach us, but just not with the authority of Scripture. This part of the Confession is an example of the Reformed cry
ad fontes, “back to the sources.” The Apocrypha comes to us courtesy of the Septuagint (LXX), and was not contained in the form of the Old Testament as it was used in Palestine. That is, it was not in the Bible used by Christ when He read the Scripture lesson in the synagogue. The Apocrypha as Scripture is part of the legacy of Hellenism and, as such, needs to be rejected. But the Apocrypha can and should be read for edification. There are things in there that are pretty silly, but most of it is better than most of what you can get in a modern Christian bookstore.
4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God (2 Pet. 1:19, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 5:9; 1 Thess. 2:13).
The Word of God is to be believed and obeyed because it is self-authenticating. Being what it is, how could it be otherwise? How could the authority of the Word depend upon another authority without that other authority taking the higher place? Men, whether individually or collectively, cannot be the source of divine authority. But there is an important qualification. Self-authenticating does not mean “authenticating to the individual self.” Rather, it means that the authority resides within the text. That self-authoritative statement commends itself to the Church which, being the body of Christ, receives it gladly.
5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture (1 Tim. 3:15). And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts 1 John 2:20, 27; John 16:13–14; 1 Cor. 2:10–12; Isa. 59:21).
Does this mean that we offer no apologetic for the role of the Church in praising the Scripture? Not at all. The authority of the Church may lawfully lead us to respect the Scriptures. The self-authentication of the Scriptures does not remove the various arguments we may consider for its inspiration. Rather, the self-authentication of the Bible is the basis for all such arguments. Arguments do not explain the way to the Word of God; the Word of God explains the way to the arguments. The Word of God is objectively what it is. But it cannot be seen for what it is unless the Holy Spirit illuminates the text. In accordance with His sovereignty, He may do this by various means. And, as it says here, the inward work of the Holy Spirit is done in
our hearts. This is not a place that affirms a “just me and my Bible” approach.
6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (2 Tim. 3:15–17; Gal. 1:8–9; 2 Thess. 2:2). Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word (John 6:45; 1 Cor. 2:9–12): and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed (1 Cor. 11:13–14; 14:26, 40).
If we need to know or do something of a spiritual nature, then God has told us in the Bible expressly what that is, or He has placed all the premises in the Scripture, from which we may draw the necessary conclusions. We may not add anything necessary for God’s glory, our salvation, or doctrine or life on the basis of tradition or new revelation. Put simply, tradition and new revelation cannot bind the conscience. If someone tells you that in order to be saved, you must believe what the little voices in their head tell them to tell you, then you must walk away. “New revelation” does not trump what Scripture plainly teaches. In the same way, “old tradition” cannot be used to set aside the Word of God either.
At the same time, because men are sinners, inward and spiritual illumination is necessary to keep the Bible from being a closed book with regard to salvation. It does not follow from the fact that the Bible objectively teaches what it does that dead men can read it. A man must be born again if he is to see the kingdom. In addition, he must be born again if he is to really see the passages of Scripture that point to the kingdom.
Further, the statement of this paragraph should not be taken as implying that we cannot make decisions concerning our worship and government based upon the light of nature and Christian prudence, provided such decisions are in general submission to the Word. How long should the service be? How should we configure or decorate the sanctuary? Go ahead and make your own decisions, the Westminster divines said. Just don’t get crazy—which would rule out the junior high interpretive dance teams.
7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all (2 Pet. 3:16): yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them (Ps. 119:105, 130).
The Bible is not an esoteric book. There are hard places, but on the subject of salvation, the Scriptures on the whole are within reach of ordinary men. God did not give us the Bible to have something for seminarians to study. The Scriptures are the covenant document for all God’s people.
8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical (Matt. 5:18); so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them (Isa. 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39, 46). But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them (John 5:39), therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come (1 Cor. 14:6, 9, 11–12, 24, 27–28), that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner (Col. 3:16); and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope (Rom. 15:4).
The original is “authentical.” This means the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament. This creates an interesting confessional issue—what of those small portions of the Old Testament which were written in Aramaic? It is common for people to take a trivial exception to the Confession at this point, but I don’t think this is necessary. The New Testament calls Aramaic Hebrew in much the same way that we could call
Canterbury Tales English.
These authentical writings were kept pure in all ages, which means that the WCF stands squarely against modern searches for the “original and historical text.” This means that it is unconfessional to believe that the original text of Scripture was lost in the early centuries and then recovered over a millennium and a half later, as virtually all modern text criticism affirms. Not to put too fine a point on it, to follow modern textual criticism is to disagree with this portion of the WCF. Worse things have happened, but historical honesty requires a man who uses (say) the UBS text to take an exception at presbytery.
At the same time, these authentical writings which are the Word of God are to be translated for the people of God into the vulgar tongues of all nations. Scripture in the original has a dual authority, both with regard to the substance—
quoad res—and with regard to the words themselves—quoad verba When they are translated, they retain their authority quoad res. But the final authority in controversies is the original. This is distinguished from the authority of ordinary teaching and preaching.
According to Westminster, the originals that were the final arbiter were the apographic texts, not the original autographs that nobody has. The apographs were the Word of God in both substance and words. The translations were the Word of God with regard to substance. The modern (and common) statement of faith that the Bible is inerrant in the autographs would have been considered by them as hopelessly irrelevant. What good is an inerrant Bible that nobody has? You might as well affirm the inerrancy of the one copy of the Bible in heaven that Jesus has in His Library.
9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (2 Pet. 1:20–21; Acts 15:15–16).
An obscure text is to be interpreted by plain texts, and not the other way around. The expositor should search for the one meaning of the text in question. The appeal here is to the true and full sense. The manifold sense (meaning the four layers of medieval interpretation called the
quadriga) is to be rejected. According to the medieval hermeneutic, every text had a four-fold meaning: 1. the literal or historical meaning 2. the tropological or moral meaning 3. the allegorical or doctrinal meaning and 4. the anagogical or ultimate eschatological meaning. The rejection of this system of interpretation does not necessitate a rejection of these various kinds of meanings in various parts of the Bible; it is a rejection of this as an a priori system in approaching any given text.
This approach is not a rejection of allegory, or typology, which may be the sense of a particular place. It is a rejection of the allegorical method, which assumed all texts had the same four sedimentary layers of meaning. This part of the confession does not exclude complex meanings, or require that every meaning be simple.
10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture (Matt. 22:29, 31; Eph. 2:20; Acts 28:25).
The standard of
sola Scriptura sets up Scripture as the supreme judge. This no more destroys lesser spiritual authorities than the existence of the Supreme Court excludes the existence of lower courts. Those entities, which have true spiritual authority, and which may come under scriptural review are conciliar decrees, ancient fathers, the teaching of Brother Love on TBN, and just me and my Bible. Notice that the supreme judge is the person of God, the Holy Spirit, speaking in Scripture.