← Back to sermon library

One of the Holy Scriptures. Cam's 
been traveling quite a bit. I hope to use him, God willing, 
coming up to Chapter 2 when we get to Of God the Holy Trinity. I'll probably do a few sessions 
here in Chapter 1. This morning we'll focus on paragraphs 
1 to 3. We'll look at the necessity of 
Holy Scripture in paragraph 1, and then secondly, the identity 
of Holy Scripture in paragraphs 2 and 3. The rest of the chapter 
can be outlined as follows. So we've got the necessity, paragraph 
1, identity, paragraphs 2 and 3, the authority of Holy Scripture 
in paragraphs 4 and 5, the sufficiency of Scripture in paragraph 6, 
what's called the perspicuity of Scripture in paragraph 7, 
simply meaning the clarity of Scripture, the authenticity and 
availability of the Scripture in paragraph 8, the interpretation 
of Scripture in paragraph 9, and then the finality of Scripture 
in paragraph 10. So that's a bit of an overview 
of the chapter. I'll read the chapter, and then 
as I said, we'll focus on paragraphs 1 to 3. So paragraph one starts, 
the Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible 
rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. 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, yet are they not sufficient to give 
that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto 
salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord 
at sundry times and in diverse manners to reveal himself and 
to declare that his will unto his church and afterward 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, which maketh the Holy Scriptures 
to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing His will 
unto His people being now ceased. 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." And then it goes 
through both. all of which are given by the inspiration of God 
to be the rule of faith and life. The books commonly called Apocrypha, 
not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule 
of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority to the Church 
of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than 
other human writings. The authority of the Holy Scripture, 
for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony 
of any man or church, but wholly upon God, who is truth itself, 
the author thereof. Therefore it is to be received, 
because it is the word of God. We may be moved and induced by 
the testimony of the Church of God to an high and reverent esteem 
of the Holy Scriptures, and the heavenliness of the matter, the 
efficacy of the doctrine, and 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, and many other incomparable excellencies, 
and entire perfections 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. The whole 
counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own 
glory, man's salvation, faith, and life is either expressly 
set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture. under 
which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation 
of the Spirit or traditions of men. 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, and that there are some circumstances concerning 
the worship of God and government of the Church common to human 
actions in 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. All things in 
Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear 
unto all. 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 
ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of 
them. 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 authentic. So as in all controversies of 
religion, the Church is finally to appeal to them. But because 
these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, 
who have a right unto and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded 
in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are 
to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto 
which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in 
all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through 
patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope. 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 by other places that speak more clearly. 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 
Scripture delivered by the Spirit. Into which Scripture so delivered 
our faith is finally resolved. Amen." So a wonderful summary 
statement concerning of the Holy Scriptures. Of course, 2 Timothy 
chapter 3 looms large in the background. We looked at this 
a couple weeks ago in our Wednesday night study. Paul says, "...all 
Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 
that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every 
good work." That statement is not alone. All throughout Scripture 
we have these testimonies or evidences that it is, in fact, 
the Word of the living and true God. So let's look first at the 
necessity of Holy Scripture in paragraph 1. You'll notice a 
general statement. It says, in the very beginning, 
the Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible 
rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. So it is 
the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule. Now, as 
we move through this chapter of the Confession, we see an 
emphasis on what has historically been called sola scriptura. We 
need to understand that sola scriptura does not mean you can't 
read other things. Sola Scriptura does not mean 
sola, solo scripture, that you only can read the Bible alone. 
In fact, over in the chapter concerning the Apocrypha, it 
says at the end, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use 
of than other human writings. Not a condemnation of reading 
the Apocrypha, just like in paragraph 10, there's not a condemnation 
of decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines 
of men, private spirits. It's not a condemnation of those 
things, but it is to suggest, or say rather, that the Scripture 
alone is the authoritative word of the living and true God. So 
we can use other writings, we can appeal to decrees of councils, 
we can look at the various creeds and confessions in the Church, 
but they do not bear the same authority, they do not have the 
same nature as what we find in Holy Scripture. So the Holy Scripture 
is the only sufficient rule of all saving, knowledge, faith, 
and obedience. And that's a good sort of summary 
statement concerning the comprehensiveness of Scripture. You've got saving 
knowledge, faith, and obedience. So everything necessary for a 
man to understand who God is and what God requires of man 
is sufficiently revealed in the Scripture. You see that over 
in paragraph 6. Nevertheless, we acknowledge 
the illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the 
saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the 
Word, 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. The Confession 
also recognizes the revelation of God in general. General revelation. We'll look at that in just a 
moment. but also with reference to what the Confession calls 
the light of nature. There is sufficient data that 
God provides concerning God through the created order. It's not salvific, 
it doesn't bring redemption, but it does leave man inexcusable, 
but it also instructs him concerning the fact there is a God, there 
is a Creator, there is one Sovereign over all things, and the Confession 
constantly refers to that. So the scripture is the only 
sufficient rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, 
and it is the only certain rule of all saving knowledge, faith, 
and obedience. Notice these modifiers. Sufficient, 
certain, infallible. Now, when you look at the world 
religions, the various books that the world religions have, 
they don't claim to be the word of God. As far as I know, it's 
only the Quran, and the Book of Mormon that claims to be the 
Word of God. The other writings do not make 
that particular claim. So at that level, then we examine 
those particular documents to see if there is in fact consistency 
and cohesiveness, if there is in fact what is divine qualities 
or attributes that ought to be associated with the Word of God. 
And when we do that with the Quran, we come up short. When 
we do that with the Book of Mormon, we come up short. When you do 
that with the Bible, you do not come up short. because it's the 
only sufficient and certain rule of all saving knowledge, faith, 
and obedience. And interestingly, there are 
those who condemn the Bible. They say, well, the Bible is 
not the Word of God. Those are typically people that 
don't have an advanced degree in biblical studies. Those are 
people that typically have never read the Gospel of Matthew, the 
Gospel of John, or the Book of Genesis. They just know that 
there's something wrong with it. They just know that it cannot 
be the Word of the living and true God. And it's intriguing 
when it comes to the matter concerning the debate over the veracity 
or truthfulness of the Word of God. Persons don't want to listen 
to the Word of God. In other words, if there was 
a criminal case, a proceeding involving a defendant, We get 
the defendant on the stand so that we can ask him specific 
questions. There are those that won't ask the Bible any specific 
questions. They just condemn it outright. 
Well, it can't be the Word of God because it's filled with 
inconsistencies, or it's filled with contradictions. Well, let's 
put it on the stand and ask it, and let us see what its testimony 
is concerning itself. When you look at 2 Timothy chapter 
3, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Persons have 
to reckon with that. They have to deal with that. 
They have to wrestle with that. If it is in fact the Word of 
God, as it says, then that should be manifest throughout its pages. And of course, we, by the power 
and presence of the Holy Spirit, are moved to that conviction. 
There are those who do not have the Holy Spirit that are not 
moved to that conviction. Nevertheless, we point them to 
the truth of Scripture, and we tell them to search the Scriptures. 
Try and show those inconsistencies. Try and show those contradictions. 
So it's the only sufficient rule of saving knowledge, faith, obedience. It's the only certain rule. And 
then the confession uses the word infallible. Notice it is 
infallible. And that's something that is 
unique to the Scriptures alone. We can have a document that is 
inerrant. If I wrote 2 plus 2 equals 4 
on a piece of paper, that would be an inerrant statement without 
error, right? There's no error in that statement. 
2 plus 2 equals 4. In fact, there's a particular 
Baptist pastor that passed away a few years ago. And he would 
say this. And it was to the chagrin of 
sort of anti-confessionalists. He would say, our confession 
is inerrant. And that would cause people to 
flip out. But listen to what he's saying. It doesn't have 
errors. He didn't extend that to every jot and tittle, but 
he would use it to sort of get the goat of those who are anti-confessionalists. But insofar as we have a statement 
like this that is true, then it's without error, right? Inerrance 
simply means it doesn't have error. Now, infallible takes 
that one step farther. Infallible says it cannot. It 
does not have the possibility to error. And as I've mentioned 
before, over the last couple of generations, the debate with 
reference to the Bible has focused upon inerrant. And those who 
are arguing against inerrancy point to the Confession and say, 
well, it doesn't say it's inerrant. If the Bible is infallible, then 
it necessarily follows that it's inerrant. If the Bible cannot 
lie, then it necessarily follows that it does not lie. So infallible 
is the stronger word, the strongest word that you can use, and it 
alone is applicable to the Holy Scripture. We don't have infallible 
documents written by men apart from the Holy Spirit. Rather, 
we have an infallible document written by men under the guidance 
and government of the Holy Spirit, and that is the Scripture. Now 
notice the specific limitation addressed in paragraph 1. This speaks to the necessity 
of Holy Scripture. So notice after that opening 
statement, Although the light of nature and the works of creation 
and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power 
of God, In the chapters on creation and providence to follow, guess 
what it says God manifests when he creates or when he governs. 
It demonstrates his goodness, his wisdom, and his power. You'll 
notice certain phrases or clauses that are used consistently throughout 
the confession, which underscores the systemic or the systematic 
presentation of truth that we have in the confession of faith. 
So clauses and phrases introduced in the very beginning are then 
built upon or used or referred to throughout the confession 
to show that it's held together. It's not just a random collection 
of thoughts by some good godly men that are supposed to make 
us inspired, but it's a wonderful compendium of Christian doctrine 
at the point here of the Holy Scriptures. So notice, 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. So this is a reference to general 
revelation. You can turn to the book of Psalms. 
Psalm 19, an Old Testament passage that declares general revelation, 
or says something concerning general revelation. Psalm 19, verse 1, to the chief 
musician, a psalm of David, the heavens declare the glory of 
God, and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utter 
speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no 
speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line 
has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the 
end of the world. In them he has set a tabernacle for the 
sun, which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and 
rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from 
one end of heaven and its circuit to the other end, and there is 
nothing hidden from its heat." Spurgeon says, he who looks up 
to the firmament and then writes himself down as an atheist, brands 
himself at the same moment as an idiot or a liar. God reveals 
himself in the created order. The heavens declare the glory 
of God. The firmament shows his handiwork. A New Testament counterpart to 
that is Romans chapter 1. And I believe that these are 
sufficiently familiar passages to you, but it's always good 
to review. It's always good to reflect. It's always good to 
be reminded. as to what Scripture says concerning general revelation, 
and what Scripture says concerning special revelation, and what 
our Confession says is the necessity of special revelation. Notice 
in Romans 1.18, for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven 
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth 
in unrighteousness. Because what may be known of 
God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For 
since the creation of the world is invisible, attributes are 
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, 
even as eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. 
So what does Paul say? Paul says that the created order 
reveals some truth concerning God. We look at the effect, and 
it's supposed to lead us back to the cause. We look at the 
creature, and it should lead us back to the Creator. Now the 
reason it doesn't do that is because of sin, and that's what 
the confession is going to address. in a moment. But if there was 
no sin, if there was no original sin, if there was no corruption 
in our hearts, when we looked at a day like this, we would 
be drawn to praise and worship and adoration. That is the reflex 
from God's creature. When they see other aspects of 
the creature, it leads them to the Creator, so that they praise 
and honor and adore. Notice in verse 21, because although 
they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, 
but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were 
darkened. Professing to be wise, they became 
fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into 
an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed 
animals, and creeping things. So Paul says, like the psalmist 
says, that general revelation is sufficient to communicate 
to man the existence of God Most High. And here, specifically 
in the book of Romans, he speaks concerning the invisible attributes 
of God are clearly seen. And then he indicates a couple 
of things that man can know apart from the gospel concerning our 
blessed God. It says, "...for since the creation 
of the world is invisible, attributes are clearly seen, being understood 
by the things that are made, notice even His eternal power." 
So the fact that God is eternal is communicated through the created 
order. Now, there have been those who 
have suggested that material or creature is eternal, but that's 
not been the sort of dominant position philosophically. We 
see creature, we see matter, we see something, and it should 
again lead us back to the One who is eternal that has made 
these things. So His eternal power and Godhead, 
the fact that He is divine, the fact that He is sovereign, the 
fact that He is majestic. And then verse 32, the fact that 
He is righteous. Notice what He says. Who? Knowing 
the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such 
things are deserving of death, not only do the same, but also 
approve of those who practice that. We are made in God's image, 
we are surrounded by God's general revelation, so we know certain 
truths about God. The problem is, is that we try 
to suppress that truth in unrighteousness, but that's ultimately a fool's 
errand. The wickedest people still have some vestige of the 
knowledge of God in their conscience. They try very hard to obliterate 
that and eradicate that, But ultimately, we believe Paul. 
Paul says that man knows that God exists because God has communicated 
His existence through the created order. Belgic Confession, Article 
2 says, we know Him, God, by two means. First, by the creation. preservation, and government 
of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful 
book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters 
to make us ponder the invisible things of God, His eternal power, 
and His divinity, as the Apostle says in Romans 1.20. And then 
notice as the confession goes on. So it highlights the revelation 
of God through the created and providential order. So 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. So we need to appreciate that 
or understand that. The revelation of God through 
creation and providence renders a man damnable, but it does not 
save him. There is not the communication 
of blood atonement on a beautiful day like this. There's not the 
communication of without the shedding of blood there is no 
remission when you scale Mount Sham and you look at the beauty 
of the panorama. This is not knowledge. Redemptive saving knowledge is 
not communicated via the general revelation. And Paul highlights 
that when he says specifically in Romans 1.20, he says, "...for 
since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are 
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, 
even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." 
They are literally without an apologetic. They are without 
a defense. They cannot say, well, I didn't 
know. Romans 1 tells us the opposite. They did know, but they did not 
use that knowledge for good. It did not bring them to ask 
questions about the Creator slash Governor. It didn't bring them 
to the church to find out more about this gracious God and the 
redemptive plan He's orchestrated through His Son, the Lord Jesus 
Christ. So they're without excuse, they're without a defense, they're 
without an apologetic. So that's what we see in our 
confession. Again, Belgic Confession 2 again 
says, all these things are enough to convict men and to leave them 
without excuse. So when we look at paragraph 
1, we see the insufficiency or the limitation of general revelation. Now, I should qualify that. That 
doesn't mean that General Revelation is bad. We say, you know, it 
does what it's designed to do. It's not bad. Just like the Old 
Covenant. It's not bad. It did what it 
was designed to do. It's just to say that the New 
Covenant is better. It's superior. It's founded on 
better promises, affords a better hope, and it reveals a better 
surety of the covenant. And so we have this statement 
in the confession concerning the limitation of general revelation, 
but we ought not to conclude, therefore, that general revelation 
is bad. No, it's good. It functions the 
way God intended for it to function. But we need special revelation 
in order that, as sinful men and women, we can hear the gospel 
of Jesus Christ. So after the statement as to 
leave men inexcusable, yet are they not sufficient to give that 
knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation. So in the first general statement 
in paragraph 1, the Holy Scripture is the only sufficient rule of 
all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. So the light in 
nature does what God intended it to do. General revelation 
functions in the manner that God designed for it to. But it 
is not sufficient to give man a saving knowledge of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. As I said, looking at Mount Shem 
today doesn't reveal the triunity of God. Looking at Mount Shem 
today does not reveal, in the beginning was the Word, and the 
Word was with God, and the Word was God. Looking at Mount Shem 
does not tell us of the incarnation of the Only Begotten Son, who 
took on our humanity, who identified with us, so that He could live 
for us, die for us, and be raised again. And so for those who say, 
well that's not fair for the heathen out in the bush if he 
has enough knowledge of God to damn him but not to save him. 
That's just not fair. Ultimately it's his sin that's 
the reason he's going to go to hell. But if that's our response, 
we need to pray, we need to give, we need to send men forth so 
that they can preach to the heathen that they may hear the glory 
of Jesus Christ revealed in the gospel. So with the specific 
necessity of the scriptures, we see it is due to the limitations 
of general revelation. So after the statement, yet are 
they not sufficient to give the knowledge of God and His will, 
which is necessary, unto salvation. So general revelation does what 
it's supposed to do, but it's not sufficient to reveal to sinners 
their need for Jesus Christ and blood atonement. So look at the 
specific necessity or look at rather the divine response. Therefore 
it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in diverse manners 
to reveal himself. So God revealed himself in a 
way that accompanied general revelation. It doesn't mitigate 
against general revelation. It doesn't mean you can't go 
sit out on Mount Shem and praise God, the Creator, for all the 
good things that He's done. Of course you do. You should 
be led by the effect to the cause, and it should evoke worship and 
adoration. But it pleased the Lord at sundry 
times and in diverse manners to reveal Himself and to declare 
His will unto His church." So God reveals Himself in a whole 
host of ways. When you look at, say, from Genesis 
on to the book of Revelation, you'll see that God used dreams, 
God spoke specifically to man, God communicated by way of vision. Well, this is called special 
revelation, but on this side of the closed canon of the New 
Testament, we typically apply the language of special revelation 
to the Bible alone. Special revelation contains those 
dreams, contains those visions, contains that prophecy, contains 
the tongue speaking, and the revelatory means by which God 
communicated to his people. But now on this side of the closed 
canon, it's the Bible that is special revelation. And so notice, 
it pleased the Lord to reveal and to declare His will unto 
His church. And then it gives specific reasons 
for that. Notice, and afterward, for the 
better preserving and propagating of the truth. If we ask the question, 
why the Bible? Why written documentation? Because 
this is what the infinite mind and wisdom of God chose to preserve 
the knowledge of God. And we see it, if you do any 
study in terms of the early church and canonicity and that sort 
of thing, it wasn't as if the Bible just fell out of heaven. 
It wasn't, you know, 1611, the King James Bible fell out of 
heaven and, you know, now we have the Word of God. It was 
pretty organic in the early part. of the early church, they didn't 
determine which books were canonical, we'll speak to that in a bit, 
in a moment, but they recognized those books that possessed those 
divine qualities, that were received by and large from the church, 
that were recognized as having apostolic origin. It was those 
things that sort of forced its way upon the church, and the 
church recognized this, and then the church has held to it. And 
when it comes to even the translation of scripture, the confession 
isn't silent there. Paragraph 8 deals with that under 
its availability. So translations are helpful and 
translations are needful because we don't all speak in Hebrew 
and Greek. We don't all read in Hebrew and Greek. So, when 
we look at the history of the transmission of Scripture, again, 
it wasn't some supernatural, you know, the Bible fell out 
of heaven into the laps of certain men, and then they said, now 
we need to print this and disseminate it. No, Matthew, Mark, Luke, 
and John wrote, we have a great tradition in terms of the Old 
Testament, the Jews and the Mazarites, they preserved that very well. 
So, we are the benefactors and inheritors of that. But he does 
this, he communicates it to having it written for the better preserving 
and propagating of the truth. Again, that passage in 2 Timothy. The passage in Titus chapter 
1 and verse 9. What is the elder supposed to 
do? Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that 
he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convict those 
who contradict. We're supposed to defend, we're 
supposed to propagate that truth of God's Word. Jude 3, contend 
earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to 
the saints. Again, that's not your faith, 
your subjective attachment to the Lord Jesus, but contend earnestly 
for the faith, the propositional revelation that we call the Christian 
system of truth. We are to defend that. And how 
do we defend it? We have it inscripturated, we 
have it in book form, so that we may preserve it and that we 
may propagate it. And then it goes on to say, and 
for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church. So 
it's a blessed benefit, and when it comes to, say, specifically, 
the Reformed tradition, we have a high regard for scripture. 
Again, sola scriptura, not solo. We read the Fathers, we read 
the Medievals, we read the Reformers, we read the post- Reformation, 
Puritans, we read moderns and contemporary, but we bring it 
all back to the light of Holy Scripture to make sure that what 
they're teaching is absolute truth. So it's not a condemnation 
of reading other stuff, it's a condemnation of seeing other 
stuff as inspired, infallible, inerrant. No, that's for Scripture 
alone. So, for the more sure establishment 
and comfort of the Church. And then notice the three foes 
that are against the truth of Scripture. Against the corruption 
of the flesh. See, we need to be disciplined 
and we need to be held in check by the Word of God. That's why 
when Paul discusses the profitability or the utility of Scripture, 
he uses that specific language. He says it is profitable for 
doctrine for reproof. Yes, for the church in general, 
but for us as individuals in particular. I mean, brethren, 
if you love a particular sin that's condemned in the Bible, 
You need to give credence to what the Bible says and not to 
what your heart says. You might be one of those professing 
believers that's okay with fornication or adultery. Well, the scriptures 
are written to give check against that kind of a mindset. And so 
that's what the confession highlights. It says the corruption of the 
flesh, and then of course the malice of Satan. The devil is 
always known. If he can attack the church at 
this foundational level of Holy Scripture, well then the rest 
is just a mop-up exercise, right? If you can You can convince the 
church that her book is not the authoritative, the sufficient 
and only infallible rule of all saving knowledge and faith and 
obedience. If you can get that in the life 
of the church, the battle's won, right? And this is something 
that we see is rampant today. We see it relative to sexual 
perversion. We see churches or professed 
churches saying, well, you know, it's okay to kind of do this, 
that, and the other. It's not okay. And so we need 
to have a check against the flesh, against the malice of the devil, 
and then of the world. Yes, quick question. That's right. It's the hiss of the serpent. That's right. It's the hiss of 
the serpent trying to attack us at the foundational level. 
And when you look at, say, modern society, it's about every step 
of the way you're seeing the Bible inverted. Whatever God 
has said, no, we want to do it this way. Whatever God has said, 
no, we're going to reorder it in this particular way. It is 
an unfortunate reality, but it is the world in which we live. 
So it's the malice of the corruption of the flesh, the malice of Satan, 
and of the world. And so, as a result, we have 
God committing the same, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through 
the authors that were set apart to write His Scripture. So, to 
commit the same holy unto writing, which makes the Holy Scriptures 
to be most necessary. So again, when it comes to life 
in the church, or life as God's people, when pastors or preachers 
say, you need to read your Bible. You need to attend a Bible study. 
They're not just doing that to get numbers. They're not just 
doing that to get people in the seats. They're doing that because 
that's the conviction of God's people throughout the history 
of the church. which maketh the holy scriptures 
to be most necessary." Now notice this statement, those former 
ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. So you've got this statement 
concerning what used to be called cessationism. Cessationism is 
typically the representation in the reformed world that the 
revelatory gifts have ceased. So when you look at the New Testament, 
you see tongues speaking and you see prophesying. Well, the 
cessationist says those were means by which God revealed his 
word to the church before the New Testament was completed. 
So a cessationist does not say that God has no power. A cessationist 
does not say that God can't do miracles. A cessationist does 
not say that God can't raise the dead. A cessationist simply 
says that those supernatural gifts that were revelatory in 
function have ceased. And why do we say that? Because 
the New Testament is completed. And there is a grand argument 
to be made in support of cessationism. So as I said, before we used 
to call it cessationism, and those who believed in the ongoing 
revelation of God were called non-cessationists. You get that? Cessationism means that I believe 
that the supernatural revelatory gifts have ceased. Non-cessationists 
opened the door for Charismatics or Pentecostals, so that there 
was this sort of revelatory gift that continued in the church 
today. The language has shifted a bit. Cessationist and non-cessationist 
was used when I was younger. Now it's continuationist and 
non-continuationist. So a continuationist or continuationism 
teaches that those revelatory gifts continue in the church 
today. So they continue. So when you 
go to a Charismatic or Pentecostal church and somebody has a word 
from the Lord, and they speak in tongues or they prophesy, 
then they see that as a revelatory gift that continues in the church 
today. So obviously the contra to that 
would be non-continuation is up. So I would say, no, these 
revelatory gifts do not continue in the Church today. Why? Because 
we have the closed canon of the New Testament. So we have what 
God intended for us. Prior to having what God intended 
for us, there were these revelatory gifts that Paul addresses in 
1 Corinthians, for instance. When they spoke in tongues, and 
when they prophesied, they were revealing the will, and mind, 
and word of God. Now that we have the revelation 
of the will, and the mind, and the word of God, we don't need 
those continuing gifts. We have cessation with reference 
to those revelatory gifts. Again, the argument is not that 
God doesn't do great things, that God doesn't do miraculous 
things, that God doesn't do glorious things. That's not it. One man 
has critiqued this position by suggesting it's deistic. Mark 
Driscoll actually had the gall to suggest that a cessationist 
approach was deistic. That is absolute folly. It is 
not deism. It is not setting God on the 
shelf, and then we just kind of do our own thing. It speaks 
to the revelatory gifts, tongue speaking and prophesying in particular. Now, some of the Puritans use 
the language of prophesying for preaching. In fact, Perkins has 
a book called The Art of Prophesying. There he is not using prophecy 
in the manner of, you know, getting a word from the Lord and speaking 
the truth. Sometimes they used it with a bit of a broader appeal 
or application in terms of prophesying as preaching. If that's what 
people mean by prophesying, fine. But if by prophesying you mean 
what is the bulk of the New Testament use, a revelatory word from God 
to others, then that's what ceased. And tongue speaking, if you've 
never witnessed it, is gibberish. It is just a bunch of empty language 
and sounds placed together. That's not what it is in the 
New Testament. That's not what it was in the book of Acts. That's 
not what it is in the book of 1 Corinthians. Tongue-speaking 
was not sort of, you know, let go and let God. It wasn't Timothy 
Leary taking acid and trying to connect with some higher power. 
That's not what tongue-speaking is. It was the revelation of 
God's Word in known languages. That's why the call for an interpreter. 
If there's no interpreter, then don't speak in tongues. If you 
don't have somebody in an English-speaking church to interpret Spanish, 
then don't speak Spanish in the English-speaking church. Pretty 
simple argument, but for some reason they bring a lot of baggage 
to bear upon 1 Corinthians 12 to 14. So, our confession speaks 
of cessationism. Now, I should tell you there's 
a debate about that, because some at the Westminster Assembly 
held to a non-cessationist point of view. But my answer, and I 
stole this from Jim Renahan, I wish it was original to me, 
but the confessions of faith are consensus documents. They 
are consensus documents. In other words, it's the majority 
report. We don't take the minority and 
use that in our confessional statements. And by saying that, 
that doesn't mean we condemn those who are in the minority 
to hell. We recognize they have a bit 
of a different approach. Turn to chapter 11 in our confession 
for just a moment. Chapter 11, a place where 2nd 
London far excels even Westminster. Westminster is of course the 
confession or one of the confessions that 2nd London is dependent 
upon. But notice in paragraph 1, "...those 
whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth, not 
by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their 
sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous, not 
for anything wrought in them or done by them, but for Christ's 
sake alone." not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, 
or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness, 
but by imputing Christ, notice the language, active obedience 
unto the whole law and passive obedience in his death for their 
whole and soul righteousness. So at the Westminster Assembly, 
there were some that did not believe in the imputation of 
the active obedience of Christ. So what did they do at Westminster? 
They had a consensus document approach. They dropped that language. I mean, they're not deists, they're 
not preaching heresy there, but it's not as full and robust as 
what the Baptists adopt here in terms of the imputation of 
the active and passive obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ. So 
a consensus document tries to include and tries to involve 
as many people as it can. I mentioned this last time as 
we introduced the confession. The purpose of the confession 
isn't to penalize weak sheep. It isn't to keep at bay weak 
sheep. It's to drive away the wolves. 
It's to keep out the god-haters. It's to keep out those who would 
ravage the wolves. And so a consensus document is 
ecumenical in the best sense. It tries to include as many people 
as we can. But again, that's not at the 
expense of truth, but it's at the dealing with biblical truth 
in a way that most or a lot of people can sort of subscribe 
and confess. So, with reference to the Holy 
Scripture, we see its necessity in paragraph 1, based on the 
fact that the work of God, or rather the revelation of God 
in creation and providence, it manifests and it shows and it 
displays certain truths about God, and yet it's not sufficient 
to communicate the gospel of Jesus Christ to sinners. Any 
questions or comments on paragraph 1? Yes. Was the general consensus about 
this that scripture was infallible and non-linear? Well, see, we do what's called anachronism. We take something in our modern 
debate and then we try to read it back into history. We do that not just religiously. 
We do that with political documents. We do it with, you know, wokeism. I mean, the things that we're 
seeing, rampant and woke, we now look back at our forefathers 
and condemn them. It was a different It was a different 
context. They would have affirmed inerrancy 
because they affirmed infallibility. But the battle at the time in 
the 17th century, if you go back to the 17th century, the atheists 
believed that the Bible was the Word of God. There was this predominant 
view of God active in creation and providence. Prior to Darwin 
and the wholesale sort of promotion of evolution and a materialistic 
world, up until that time frame, persons, again, maybe atheists 
wouldn't confess that it was the Word of God, but unbelievers, 
they would treat the Bible, yeah, that's God's Word. You know, 
I just don't believe it or I don't care about it. but there was 
a different mindset. So the debate about inerrancy 
is a pretty relatively new one, and based on, in many respects, 
science. Well, science, you know, the 
King James refers to bats as birds. Therefore, it's wrong. It's wicked. Bats aren't birds, 
so therefore, We take a modern issue or problem and then we 
read it back into history. So if you ask the question, did 
the particular Baptist in the 17th century confess or affirm 
an inerrant Bible, I'd like to say, yeah. That they confess 
and affirm an infallible Bible, it's not able to err, therefore 
it doesn't err. The Bible seems to indicate geocentricity, 
that it's not the earth that revolves around the sun, but 
it's the sun that revolves around the earth. Well, obviously, that's 
presented a whole lot of fodder for, you know, modern God-haters 
to say, well, look at that, you know, the Bible believes in geocentricity, 
and just try to write it off. So anachronism is when we take 
a modern issue and then we read it back into history and then 
we blame them for not coming to the sort of same conclusions. 
So I would say yes, they would confess and in Aaron's Bible. but it was an issue that came 
up over the last couple of generations as the church got soft in terms 
of biblical infallibility and as the church made some bad strategic 
moves. And I don't mean, you know, the 
Charismatics and the Pentecostals. There are brethren in our heritage 
that did not do well at the time of Darwin. There was Charles 
Hodge and there were B.B. Warfield. It pains me to bring 
it out. Makes me want to cry when I talk 
about this, but they had far more sympathy with a modernist 
approach to the book of Genesis than I hope that we do based 
on our confession of faith. Even, and this is really where 
it's painful, C.H. Spurgeon. He had a view that 
the world was a million years old, at least. You've probably 
seen that statement. You read it and you go, no, no! So, all of that to say, there 
are a lot of factors that fight against the Church that, you 
know, are modern in some sense that they really weren't debating 
or dealing with. That's why, in the study of the 
Confession of Faith, what is very helpful is to go back and 
look at the writings of those men. It's very helpful to see 
what the intention was. And we can understand or know 
their intention when we see certain guys that signed off on the confession, 
and then we read the books that they wrote. So we see that, yeah, 
they had this view. You know, it's going to come 
to pass, or it's going to be really strong here in chapter 
4 of creation. It says, in the beginning, paragraph 
1, it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for the 
manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and 
goodness. There's those three terms we see in the paragraph, 
chapter 1. To create or make the world and 
all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of 
six days, and all very good. There's Westminster Confession 
churches that subscribe to that language that still have in their 
practice and in their doctrine a non-literal six-day creation 
view with a young earth. They say, well, you know, it 
was a convention. Well, that's why you read the 
original writers and you ask the question, did they believe 
in special creation by the hand of God in the space of six days 
and all very good? So when they say, yeah, that's 
what we believe, well, then that's obviously what they meant when 
they wrote their confession. And then if it says six days 
there, then it means six days. So we argue based on the Bible, 
first and foremost, but we also argue confessionally from what 
these men subscribe, what these men testified to in these consensus 
documents. Any other questions? Yes? In 
order to ask a question properly, I have to read three verses. 
You go right ahead. And the word I'm going to ask 
is the word there, T-H-E-I-R. So in Psalm 19, verse 2, 3, and 
4, day after day after day, night after night, reveals knowledge. 
Their is no speech or language word. Their voice is not heard. 
Their line has gone up the world the earth, and their words to 
the end of the world. Does that mean that God's creating glory 
of the heavens and the firmament is what is crying out for? Yeah, 
that's how I've always taken it. The general statement... 
See, the confession follows that pattern. General statement and 
then particular details. Well, they're in good company. General statement, heavens declare 
the glory of God, the firmament shows his handiwork. And then 
specific details as to what that looks like. And then notice, 
while we're in Psalm 19, notice the shift. You've got this statement 
concerning general revelation in paragraphs 1 to 6, and then 
you have this statement concerning special revelation in verse 7 
following. The law of the Lord is perfect, 
converting the soul. The testimony of the Lord is 
sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are 
right, rejoicing the heart. The commandment of the Lord is 
pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, 
enduring forever. The judgments of the Lord are 
true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than 
gold, yea, than much fine gold. Sweeter also than honey in the 
honeycomb. Moreover by them your servant 
is warned, and in keeping them there is great reward. Manton 
says there is more of God to be seen in his word than in all 
the creatures of the world, and in all his other works besides. So the confession highlights, 
the psalmist rather, highlights the reality of general revelation, 
but notice it's the law of the Lord that is perfect. It's the 
law of the Lord that converts the soul. It's the testimony 
of the Lord that is sure. It makes wise the simple. So 
this recognition on the part of the psalmist of general and 
special revelation. Turn back to Romans, you see 
the same thing with reference to Paul. Paul highlights the 
place of general revelation and the fact that it renders men 
without apologetic, without defense, without excuse. So in chapter 
1, beginning in verse 18, all the way to chapter 3, verse 20, 
he makes his case. He says that God has shown himself, 
God has revealed himself, God has made this evident to himself. 
So in chapter 1, he indicts the Gentiles. They have come up short. 
They're without defense. But in chapter 2, he points his 
cannon at the Jews. He says, you're no better. You've 
got big problems as well. You've got the same sorts of 
sins that these Gentiles have. And then in chapter 3, verses 
1 to 9, chapter 3, verses 1 to 20, Rather, he brings his argument 
to a conclusion. He invokes the Old Testament. 
He brings it to bear. He's highlighting the problem. 
The man is in sin and rebelling against the Holy God. And then 
notice in verse 21, But now the righteousness of God, apart from 
the law, is revealed, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. 
We have wrath revealed as a result of man's disregarding general 
revelation, as a result of even the Jews disregarding what they 
had in terms of special revelation. The special revelation of the 
gospel is what Paul celebrates in 321 and following. He opens 
up the cross. He expounds the glory of Jesus. He highlights justification by 
faith alone for the salvation of guilty Gentiles and guilty 
Jews. So there is this emphasis in 
Scripture on the beauty and the glory and the power of general 
revelation, but a recognition of its limitation. And then the 
emphasis on special revelation and the knowledge of Jesus Christ 
as Lord and Savior, that is absolutely requisite or man will not be 
saved man will not enter into heaven. We should probably do 
one more question so that we can save paragraphs two and three 
for next time. Yes, go ahead. Right, law can be used, and this 
is a weaselly way out, but I was gonna say something about that. 
Law can be used with reference to parts of the Bible. Usually 
it's used with reference to the Pentateuch. So when Jesus talks 
about the law and the prophets and the writings, he's appealing 
to the Pentateuch, law, Genesis to Deuteronomy. Well, there's 
gospel in the Pentateuch as well. Genesis 3.15, the promise of 
a deliverer by the woman he would crush the head of the serpent. 
There's gospel in the law, Pentateuch. So it's not saying, or the psalmist 
is not saying, that by the law and obedience to it, you're going 
to be saved. It's the law of God that brings the communication 
of God to the sinner that needs that redemptive doubt. So I would 
suggest that's how law is being used there. If you look at, say, 
for instance, Psalm 119, which is a celebration of the Word 
of God, it often uses law and commandments and precepts and 
that sort of thing. It's not to upbraid or it's not to sort 
of reverse the emphasis on justification by faith alone, because you have 
justification by faith alone in Genesis 15. Genesis 15, Abraham 
believed God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness. So 
law has a broader use. Yeah, it can have that feel, 
but then again, there's other scriptures that you would bring 
in to bear on that discussion. Sure, yeah, I mean, there's a 
whole lot that we could say under that hat, but I think it's probably 
referring to God's revelation. Yes? I was just going to say, 
not every passage will say everything that has to say on a given point. 
And that's the beauty of having the Holy Scriptures. And that's 
the beauty in paragraph 9 that we really should get into our 
sort of mind. It says, the infallible rule 
of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. So when 
we're reading Genesis, and we need help with that, it's perfectly 
fine to read Paul, Romans chapter 5. We did this on Wednesday night, 
introducing the book of Leviticus, that burnt offering in chapter 
1. You know, when it talks about a male without blemish, why shouldn't 
we go to the antitype and have him help us understand the significance 
of those particular statements? So 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 by other 
places that speak more clearly. It seems like a very intuitive 
and very general principle, but it's one that doesn't get practiced 
near enough. So the Bible helps us with the 
Bible. And it's not just, I've mentioned 
before, that years ago there was a book commentary that came 
out. It's called The Commentary on 
the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. The Commentary 
on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. So it's a multi-author 
volume from Matthew to Revelation. It's a mixed bag. I think it's 
overall a decent book, but it's a mixed bag. Some of the guys 
aren't as good as other of the guys. But what it does is it 
goes through all the Old Testament passages in the New Testament 
and then comments on it from that vantage point. And I remember 
years ago, and I think I stole this from Barcelos, saying, oh, 
they ought to have an Old Testament commentary on the use of the 
Old Testament. Guess what has recently been 
published? An Old Testament commentary on the use of the Old Testament. 
In other words, did Hosea know that there was a Pentateuch? 
Absolutely he knew that. Do the Old Testament authors 
as theologians reflect upon antecedent? That means prior revelation. 
Absolutely they do. So when Hosea in chapter 6, for 
instance, is talking about a covenant with Adam, what's he commenting 
on? I would say he's commenting on 
Genesis chapter 2 and the broken covenant of works. So you have 
authors in the Old Testament that are theologians, under the 
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, referring to previous revelation and working in concert 
with that, or expounding it, or explaining it. So I think 
paragraph 9 in our Confession is a most excellent help when 
it comes to the interpretation of Scripture. I mean, that doesn't 
mean you can't read Augustine. It doesn't mean you can't read, 
you know, Aquinas. It doesn't mean you can't read 
John Gill or John Owen or any of those guys. But first ask 
the Bible, what do you say about yourself in this regard? And 
typically most reference Bibles in our day and age, the New Testament 
has the, you know, the Old Testament, or it'll put it off in italics, 
or it'll set it off in a way that you know that the New Testament 
author is invoking Old Testament proof here. And then sometimes 
in the Old Testament, you get the printed reference Bibles, 
you get a little bit of intertextuality between old to old, but usually 
some old, mostly old to new in some of the classic passages. 
I haven't looked at Bradham's comments on that section. Bradham spends a lot of time 
on the word certain, and he also goes to the Oxford English Dictionary 
to show that historically the word certain had essentially 
encompassed what we would now call hereditary. Oh, good. Good. 
And so that would be valid out there. Now, I don't know infallibly, 
unintended, whether those guys would have signed on to the Chicago 
State with heredity, are they? Right? Yeah. I can't guarantee 
that. Yeah. But I would assume so, because if they're using 
the word certain in a way where certain means indivisible, sure, 
reliable, trustworthy, Or they might have said, why 
do you need that Chicago statement? You've got the concession. All right, well, let's pray. 
Our Father in heaven, again, we thank you for this beautiful 
day. We thank you for the fact that we can gather together as 
the church to praise and to glorify and to worship you. We pray that 
your Holy Spirit would be active in our midst, that you would 
cause sinners to see their need for the Lord Jesus and by grace 
come to him for salvation. And may you strengthen all of 
us with growth in grace and in the knowledge of our blessed 
Savior. And we pray in Jesus' name, amen.