← Back to sermon library

Let's pray. Our Father, we thank 
you for the Lord's Day. We thank you for the privilege 
to gather together as the people of God to call upon your great 
and holy name. And we pray that that name would 
be hallowed in our meeting, that your kingdom of grace would come 
through the preaching of the truth, that your will would be 
done among us, that we would not depart from what Scripture 
commands in terms of our approach to you. And may you look with 
favor upon this congregation. May you bless us with temporal 
benefit, and with spiritual graces. And we ask this through Jesus 
Christ, our Lord. Amen. We can turn to chapter 
1 in the Confession of Faith, our last study in chapter 1 for 
this time around. I wanted to bring out some hermeneutical 
principles in paragraphs 5 to 10. Paragraphs 5 to 10. So I'll 
review some of that as we move through the lesson this morning, 
but I just want to read the section. So beginning in paragraph 5 in 
chapter 1. 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. unto 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 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. 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 directly. 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. Well, if you look at the 
particular chapter, the paragraph that deals specifically with 
what is called hermeneutics, or the interpretation of scripture 
is paragraph nine. But I think that beginning in 
paragraph five all the way to the end of the chapter, you see 
various principles that are helpful for persons as they set to the 
task of interpreting the Bible. So hermeneutics is a technical 
term. Broadly defined, it is the science 
that teaches us the principles, laws, and methods of interpretation. General hermeneutics is applied 
to any body of literature. When you study Shakespeare, there's 
a hermeneutic that you need to have when you study that. As 
well, there is special hermeneutics, in that case, Shakespeare, and 
then sacred hermeneutics. And the term was first used by 
Plato, the philosopher, as a technical term. So the science that teaches 
us the principles, laws, and methods of interpretation. So 
this is the science, this is the theory, exegesis is the application 
of it. So as I would suggest, Doug prepares 
the blueprints, they go out to the job site, and then the construction 
workers put that or execute that plan and put it into practice. 
So you've got the theory, you've got the doctrine, you've got 
the development of the principle, and then you have the application 
of it in the actual task of interpreting scripture. And it is a most important 
discipline, because if your hermeneutic is wrong, what you put into the 
interpretation of the scripture is going to come out wrong. And 
so method is very important when it comes to scriptural interpretation. Now when we look at these several 
paragraphs just by way of review, remember that in paragraph 5 
we see specifically the authority of scripture, paragraphs 4 and 
5. But in terms of a hermeneutical principle, what we find in paragraph 
5 is the scope of the whole. Notice, the consent of all the 
parts and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to 
God. In other words, as we come to 
interpret Scripture, it's good to have an understanding of the 
scope of the whole. What is the intention? What is 
the purpose? What is the grand design of the 
entirety of the Word of God? And as we see here parenthetically, 
which is to give all glory to God. Richard Barcella said, for 
the 17th century Reformed Orthodox and their Reformed predecessors, 
Christ was the scope of Scripture, being the primary means through 
which God gets glory for Himself. And William Ames, in his helpful 
Marrow of Theology, says the Old and New Testaments are reducible 
to these two primary heads. The Old promises Christ to come, 
and the New testifies that He has come. And so I think hermeneutically, 
if we understand scope of scripture, when we come to David in the 
Valley of Elah in 1 Samuel chapter 17, we don't conclude that the 
primary message there is on how we deal with our giants that 
plague us in the modern world. That's not the issue. That's 
not the purpose. David is a type of the seed of 
the woman who delivers a skull crushing defeat over the enemy 
of God most high. So the scope of the whole is 
absolutely crucial in terms of interpretation. Notice secondly 
in paragraph six, you have the sufficiency of scripture. And 
with reference to the sufficiency of Scripture, we notice that 
it's not only the expressed statements of Scripture or those things 
that are explicitly given, but also good and necessary consequences. Those things that can be deduced 
by logic do stand on par with the expressed statements of Scripture. 
Notice in paragraph 6. The whole counsel of God concerning 
all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, 
and life is either expressly sat down or necessarily contained, 
or as the Westminster has it, or by good and necessary consequence 
may be deduced. It's not only the explicit truth, 
but also implicit truth that can be justly concluded from 
a study of Scripture. Thirdly, we have the perspicuity 
or clarity of Scripture in paragraph 7. And essentially what the divines 
recognize is that not everything in Scripture is as clear as other 
things. But that doesn't mean that all 
of Scripture is impossible to understand. You shall not murder 
is pretty clear cut. Not a lot of difficulty in terms 
of how to interpret that. As well, not a lot of difficulty 
in Jesus' statement in John 14, 6. I am the way, the truth, and 
the life. No one comes to the Father except 
through me. And so what the divines recognize is that while there 
are some difficult things in there, nevertheless, the things 
that are necessary for man's salvation and God's glory are 
very clearly opened up. Notice, they 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 that. And that due use of 
ordinary means is sort of explained later in chapter 14. The ordinary 
means, reading the Bible, praying, The means of baptism and Lord's 
Supper, corporate worship, those means of grace that God gives 
us are the means by which we come to an understanding of the 
written word of God. We don't need to go sit on top 
of Mount Sham and chant in order to understand Romans 9. No, that's 
not the way we do it. We read Romans 9. If we want 
to do it on top of Mount Sham, hey, more power to us. But the 
bottom line is that it's a due use of ordinary means. And then 
the next principle is in paragraph 8, the availability or translation 
of Scripture. We spent a little bit of time 
here last week. We're going to finish early this 
morning, so if there are any questions about anything in the 
chapter, probably they'll come from paragraph 8, so I'll just 
give a quick overview now. Notice what the divines emphasize, 
that the Bible, the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, is 
given by inspiration of God. Now, the fact is that it was 
given by inspiration of God in the Old Testament through the 
language of Hebrew and some Aramaic, and then in the New Testament 
through the language of Greek. Now that we live in this modern 
era, we don't all know Hebrew and Greek, so this confirms or 
affirms the validity of translations. God immediately inspires what 
is called the autographs, the original writing that came from 
the Apostle Paul, but as well, it goes on to say, by his singular 
care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic. So the bottom line is, it's not 
just the autograph written by the Apostle Romans 9, or Romans, 
that came from his hand. But translations, copies of those 
have been kept by the providence of God such that what we have 
today in the modern translations is in fact the word of God. And 
so that's what the emphasis of this paragraph deals with. Now 
that brings us to interpretation or to hermeneutics proper. Notice in paragraph nine, it 
says the infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is John Calvin. It's not what it says. 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. Now, there 
are two principles that we need to understand that are hermeneutical, 
those things that help us in our approach to Scripture. The 
first is called the analogy of Scripture. That is what is highlighted 
specifically here in paragraph 9. And then you have, secondly, 
what is called the analogy of faith. Now, in terms of the analogy 
of Scripture, Richard Muller defines it this way. It is the 
interpretation of unclear, difficult, or ambiguous passages of Scripture 
by comparison with clear and unambiguous passages that refer 
to the same teaching or event. Now, when typically Christians 
hear these hermeneutical principles, they don't go, wow, I would have 
never thought that. Typically, when they hear these 
principles, they say, yeah, that makes perfect sense. We should 
take the clearer passages and shine their light on the not 
as clear passages because that will undoubtedly help us with 
the not so clear. Makes perfect sense, doesn't 
it? That's the emphasis in paragraph nine. 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. Now let's illustrate 
this particular point. You can turn to Matthew 28. Matthew 
chapter 28. We're going to run through a 
series of passages pretty quickly, just reading them. Matthew chapter 
28. Notice in verse 18, And Jesus 
came and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given 
to me in heaven and on earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples 
of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father 
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe 
all things that I have commanded you, and, lo, I am with you always, 
even to the end of the age. So if we ask this passage, what 
is baptism? Well, we'd first have to define 
the word, understand that it means immerse. If we understood 
sort of the larger religious practice and background, we'd 
understand that it's a religious right that persons do this when 
they come to a particular sort of conviction in a body of doctrine. So, they identify with the truth 
of those doctrines and they get baptized. But in terms of the 
actual practice, notice Jesus says in verse 19, "...make disciples 
of all the nations, baptizing them." I don't think that modifies 
all the nations. I think it means the disciples 
that have been made out of the nations. So, in other words, 
go to the various nations of the earth, preach the gospel 
to them. When they confess saving faith in Jesus Christ, then you 
baptize those persons, and you baptize them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and then you 
teach them all things that Jesus has commanded to obey them, and 
lo, He promises that He'll be with the church in this activity 
until the end of the age. Now turn over to Acts chapter 
2. Acts chapter 2, we're just gonna illustrate this principle 
of the analogy of faith, or I'm sorry, the analogy of scripture. 
So Acts chapter 2, notice in verse 38, then Peter said to 
them, repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name 
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and 
to your children and to all who are afar off, as many as the 
Lord our God will call. Now notice what happens in verse 
40. And with many other words, he 
testified and exhorted them saying, be safe from this perverse generation. 
Then those who gladly received his word were baptized. And that 
day, about 3,000 souls were added to that. Thus far, what do we 
see? Thus far, we see the apostles 
taking seriously the commission of our blessed Savior in terms 
of their instruction with reference to churchmanship. Go make disciples, 
baptize those disciples, encourage those disciples to join the church, 
and then teach those disciples. That's precisely what happens. 
Notice in verse 42, they continued steadfastly in the apostles' 
doctrine and fellowship in the breaking of bread and in prayer. 
So both legs of the commission take place. The disciples are 
made, the disciples are taught. Now turn over to Acts chapter 
8. Acts chapter 8, verses 36 to 38. Now as they went down the road, 
they came to some water, and the eunuch said, See, here is 
water. What hinders me from being baptized? Then Philip said, If you believe 
with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe 
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So he commanded the chariot 
to stand still, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into 
the water, and he baptized him. Again, what's the emphasis? They 
took seriously the Lord's commission in the Great Commission. Acts 
chapter 10, a passage we looked at a few weeks ago when we had 
a baptism. It's Peter preaching to the household 
of Cornelius. The Holy Spirit comes upon them. 
They obviously believe the gospel. And then in verse 46 it says, 
for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then 
Peter answered, Can anyone forbid, water, that these should not 
be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit, just as we have? 
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then 
they asked him to stay a few days. Turn over to Acts 16. Acts 16 at verse 29, Paul the 
apostle and the Philippian jailer. 29 Then he called for a light, 
ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And 
he brought them out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 
31 So they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will 
be saved, you and your household. 32 Then they spoke the word of 
the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he 
took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. 
34 And immediately he and all his family were baptized. And 
look at 18. 188, then Crispus, this is in 
Corinth, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all 
his household. And many of the Corinthians, 
hearing, believed and were baptized. Now turn to 1 Corinthians 15. 
1 Corinthians chapter 15, verse 29. 1 Corinthians 15, verse 29. Otherwise, what will they do 
who are baptized for the dead if the dead do not rise at all? 
Why then are they baptized for the dead? Now, if this was Sesame 
Street and we lined up all these texts and I said, one of these 
texts is not like the other, which one would you surmise? 
It's 1 Corinthians 15, 29. What is Paul talking about in 
terms of baptism for the dead? Well, this much we must know 
and confess. He's not talking that every other 
passage dealing with living people, believing the gospel, then entering 
into the waters of baptized is to be overturned. He's not saying 
in 1 Corinthians 15, 29, everything you thought you knew about baptism, 
forget it. Everything you thought you understood 
about living people, believing the gospel, getting baptized 
and joining churches, all of that is undone. So whatever Paul 
means, he is not overturning what the rest of the Bible means. 
This is the analogy of scripture. We take the clear passages to 
help us with the not-so-clear. Verse 29 is a not-so-clear passage. And to be honest with you, brethren, 
I don't know what Paul means. But I know what he doesn't mean. 
And sometimes just knowing what an author doesn't mean is very 
helpful. He doesn't mean that the Mormons 
are right baptizing people for the dead. He doesn't mean that 
any sect or religious body that baptizes for the dead is right. Most likely, this is an ad hominem 
argument in the context dealing with the resurrection. There 
must have been people that were practicing this, and Paul is 
using it in the way of, Again, appealing to the practice of 
some and showing the absurdity of it in the larger context of 
the resurrection of the dead. When it comes to baptism, again, 
not just with reference to whether we baptize living persons or 
dead persons, but in terms of the subjects of baptism. Very 
important, again, to weigh the scripture, to see what the focus 
is, to see that the emphasis is, again, on persons who receive 
the word of God, who believe that gospel by God's grace, and 
then identify with God in the waters of baptism. So with reference 
to paedo-baptism, while there are some passages that at times 
may suggest the practice, the overarching trend in terms of 
the analogy of scripture indicates that it's not just adults, but 
believers, whether they are young or old, who have heard the Word 
of God, who have believed the Word of God, and who have received 
it. Therefore, those are the ones to be baptized. So the analogy 
of Scripture, which this particular paragraph indicates, is something 
that is so fundamental, and something that is so elementary, and it's 
something that I think is practiced by most Christians, at least 
subconsciously, that it does demand underscoring that we need 
to appreciate the focus with reference to it. So many people 
abandon the principle when it comes to baptism, for instance, 
and then with reference to another situation that I want to outline. 
Since you're already in 1 Corinthians 15, look at verse 20. Verse 20 
says, now Christ is risen from the dead and has become the firstfruits 
of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, 
by man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all 
die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in 
his own order, Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's 
at his coming. Notice that reference, at his 
coming. So what happens when Jesus comes? Verse 24, then comes 
the end. When Jesus comes again in glory, 
then comes the end, the end of this order, the end of this age, 
the end of this particular system, and it will usher in the consummated 
glory of God most high. So then comes the end when he 
delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when or after he puts 
an end to all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign 
till he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that 
will be destroyed is death. So if, based on 1 Corinthians 
15, somebody were to ask you, what's gonna happen at the end? 
What's gonna happen at the end of the world? You'd answer, well, 
Jesus will come, Jesus will offer up the kingdom and usher in the 
eternal state. It's pretty simple, isn't it? 
It's not hard, not difficult one bit. In fact, turn back to 
John 14. John chapter 14, again, an emphasis on what happens when 
Jesus goes away from them, in the first instance, in His first 
coming, He goes away from them. Notice in John 14, 1, Let not 
your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe also 
in Me. In My Father's house are many mansions. If it were not 
so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you, 
and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and 
receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. 
and where I go you know, and the way you know. Again, if only 
you had John 14 and somebody asked you, what happens when 
Jesus comes? Jesus is gonna take me up to that mansion that he's 
prepared before for me. That's it, pretty simple. Eschatology 
shouldn't be as hard as everybody in the world makes it. Now turn 
to the book of Revelation. Revelation chapter, not 20, we'll 
look at that in a moment, but first at Revelation chapter one. 
In Revelation 1, John the Apostle gives us a hermeneutical principle 
we're not supposed to forget as we move through the book of 
Revelation. Look at Revelation 1, verse 1, the revelation of 
Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants things 
which must shortly take place. And he sent, and notice the next 
words, signified it by his angel to his servant John, who bore 
witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, 
to all things that he saw. Blessed is he who reads, and 
those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things 
which are written in it, for the time is near. Now I'm not 
even focusing on the time texts. John tells us, under the inspiration 
of the Holy Spirit, that whatever he's writing about is going to 
happen in the not-too-distant future. But it's the words he 
sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John. There's 
a group of interpreters out there that emphasize the grammatical, 
which isn't bad, it's a good thing. We need the grammar of 
passages and the literal in terms of the interpretation of scripture. 
Well, we take the scriptures literally as God has revealed 
them. We don't impose a wooden literalism 
on them, because in Revelation 13, we're gonna actually have 
a monster arising out of the Mediterranean. And nobody believes 
that. They typically think that that's 
signified, it represents something, it symbolizes something. Now 
turn to Revelation chapter 20. Revelation chapter 20, verse 
one, then I saw an angel coming down from heaven. Brethren, I 
believe that's a reference to Jesus. having the key to the 
bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. Already in verse 
one, we're struck with a few things that really shouldn't 
be interpreted literally according to some definition. We have an 
angel who is a spirit being, or this is in fact Jesus Christ, 
coming down from heaven. He has a key to a bottomless 
pit and a great chain in his hand. He lays hold of the dragon, 
who is a spirit being, that serpent of old, who is the devil and 
Satan. And he bound him for a thousand years. He cast him into the bottomless 
pit and shut him up and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive 
the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. 
But after these things, he must be released for a little while." 
Do you know that the whole Debate concerning eschatology typically 
focuses itself right here. This is the only reference to 
the thousand years, and this is where we get the eschatological 
positions. Amillennialism, premillennialism, 
and postmillennialism. Millennial means the thousand 
years. And the question is, when does 
Jesus come relative to the kingdom? That's a good way to shape the 
debate. It's a good way to consider eschatology. But the point is, 
brethren, is that we don't take a Revelation 20 and insert it 
into 1 Corinthians 15, which you have to do, because Jesus 
comes, then comes the end. Well, for those who think that 
Revelation 20 is the overarching text, they have to insert the 
millennium there. They have to say, then comes 
the end. No, not yet. Then comes the thousand years, 
and then comes the end. My point is simply this. We help, 
or we take the clearer passages, the 1 Corinthians 15's, the John 
14's, the various passages in scripture that speak to the coming 
of the Son of God in glory to judge the living and the dead, 
to help us with the not as clear. I'm not suggesting we get rid 
of Revelation 20, but I am suggesting that we read Revelation 20 in 
light of a whole bunch of other passages. The same with reference 
to the debate concerning the law. I guess we could go on forever 
at this point. That's not to terrify you. We 
may not close as early as I thought. The debate concerning the law, 
the debate concerning the abiding influence or the abiding validity 
of God's law in this new covenant era. there's a group of people 
called New Covenant Theology. They try to take the medium position 
between what's called Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology. Now, my critique here is not 
suggesting they're horrible people, they're foul fiends of hell, 
and they have, you know, horns, and they carry pitchforks. That's 
not the point. We're criticizing or critiquing theological systems. Well, what they do is take Matthew 
5, 17 to 20, and that's the keyhole by which they interpret every 
other law passage. Now, Matthew 5, 17 to 20 is important, 
and we shouldn't neglect it. It's when Jesus says, don't think 
that I came to abolish the law. I didn't come to abolish the 
law, but rather to fulfill it. And for them, everything hinges 
upon the definition of fulfilled there. Because if Jesus fulfilled 
it, then it's no longer abiding for us. The point I want to make 
is simply this. We don't look through that keyhole 
at every other passage. We look at that passage alongside 
of every other passage, and we interpret using this principle 
of the analogy of Scripture. 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, 
it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly. It's a fundamental elementary 
principle that we shouldn't sacrifice at the altar of our theological 
shibboleths. I've often said from the pulpit 
that if the Bible demands and commands infant baptism, great! I'm not against sprinkling children 
if there's law and commandment and warrant for it. That's not 
a hobby horse. It's not, oh, I just don't want 
my kids to get wet. No, and I like to think that 
the Paedo-Baptist has the same conviction. It's not that he 
demands that children get wet. It's that he understands scripture 
in a particular way. So with reference to these things, 
we ought not to be afraid to be chastened, or not chastened, 
but disciplined by scripture. If we are wrong in an interpretation, 
we should be happy and willing to give it up. We shouldn't be 
like the federal government, who will never announce that 
they've been wrong. They will never concede for a moment. They 
will never ever stoop down to say, you know, perhaps, even 
a perhaps would be a blessed encouragement. That's just doubling 
down on their part. Well, theology does that, theologians 
do that, dogmaticians do that, Christians do that, pastors do 
that, and what I'm suggesting is, if we do that, we better 
have warrant to do that, right? So we take the not as clear to 
help us with the clear. That is a foundational emphasis. And then it says, one of the 
other things we ought not to neglect, it must be searched 
by other places that speak more clearly. Nehemiah Cox, who is 
most likely the architect behind our confession, says, so in all 
our search after the mind of God in the Holy Scriptures, we 
are to manage our inquiries with reference to Christ. Therefore, 
the best interpreter of the Old Testament is the Holy Spirit 
speaking to us in the New. So the analogy of Scripture is 
most absolutely positively helpful in terms of interpreting scripture. 
But then there is what's called the analogy of faith. And Muller 
goes on to define that this way, the use of a general sense of 
the meaning of scripture, constructed from the clear or unambiguous 
doctrines as the basis for interpreting unclear or unambiguous texts. as distinct from the more basic 
analogy of scripture, the analogy of faith presupposes a sense 
of the theological meaning of scripture. So in other words, 
it's not just texts that help us, it's the overarching theology 
of the Bible. This is why the church in its 
best ages has confessed things like the Apostles' Creed, has 
confessed things like the Nicene Creed, has confessed things like 
the Chalcedonian Creed, because what that does is gives us a 
theological reading or understanding or interpretation of Scripture. 
So in other words, if we come across a doctrine, or we come 
across a practice, or we come across some sort of application 
that is contrary to the analogy of Scripture as a whole, or the 
comprehensive teaching of Scripture, then I'm not suggesting we're 
always wrong, but we are most likely wrong. In other words, 
if we're going to disagree with the entirety of the church for 
21 centuries, then we want to tread softly and be very careful. Because what we have in terms 
of the theological understanding of scripture over the past 20 
centuries, by and large, has been a great contribution to 
the church and to individual interpreters. And that brings 
us to consider, I think organically, the finality of scripture in 
paragraph 10. Notice that it says, the supreme 
judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, 
and all decrees of counsels, 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. Notice, first of all, that the 
confession doesn't condemn. The confession doesn't condemn 
the use of decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, 
doctrines of men. Why do you think the confession 
doesn't condemn that? Because that's precisely what 
the divines are doing. That's precisely what the divines 
are incorporating as they move through the various disciplines 
in terms of the presentation of the Christian faith. I've 
often said when you get to chapter 8 of Christ the Mediator, paragraph 
2 owes itself to the creed at Chalcedon. When you get to paragraph 
7 in chapter 8, Cyril of Alexandria is the theological hero you never 
knew you should have. And it's because of those men 
and their contributions in terms of scriptural understanding that 
we have benefited greatly. So the confession doesn't condemn 
the use of decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, 
doctrines of men. But it does demand, and it does 
highlight, and it does necessitate that we understand the supremacy 
of Scripture as the judge in all controversies of religion. 
So notice again, the supreme judge by which all these things 
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. 
We don't affirm the Nicene Creed because it's the Nicene Creed. 
We affirm the Nicene Creed because it accurately explains what the 
Bible teaches. So this is not a paragraph telling 
us to disregard anybody in the church ever. There is that common 
misunderstanding today concerning sola scriptura. And people take 
sola scriptura to mean the Bible alone. Well, the Bible alone 
to be sure in terms of the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of 
God. The Bible alone to be sure in 
terms of authority. The Bible alone in terms of our 
subjugation to it. But the Bible alone does not 
necessitate the Bible only. And many people operate with 
that particular assumption. In fact, it's typical today for 
Christians outside of a confessional environment to accuse those inside 
of a confessional environment of being proud. You're arrogant. You hold to that ancient document 
and you judge everybody else in light of that ancient document. You're proud and you're arrogant. 
Listen to Matthew Barrett. I think he nails it. A book that 
is most excellent, highly commended. It's called Simply Trinity. It's 
a modern, just came out recently. He says this in terms of this 
whole idea of sola scriptura and this use of the confessions 
and creeds in the context of the church. He says, interpreting 
the Bible with humility, as God intended, means interpreting 
the Bible with the church. Who's really proud? Is it the 
guy who says, hey, the divines at Nicaea did great work? At 
Chalcedon, they did great work. The Second London Confession, 
they did great work. Those men have invented or shaped 
the wheel. It's a wonderful thing. I want 
to take my part alongside of those brethren. Or is it the 
guy who says, that's all chump change. Those guys don't know 
what they're talking about. Thanks be to God that I've arrived 
on scene and I can set everything in order. So he goes on to say, 
many today will respond with a shout of protest. No creed 
but the Bible. That shout, however, is a selfish 
individualism or what I call a crude, narrow biblicism. Now don't make the mistake of 
thinking Biblicism is good. On the one hand, it sounds good. We're Biblicists. That means 
we're committed to Scripture. But in terms of the definition 
and use in the church, Biblicism means that the Bible only to 
the neglect of every other thing. Biblicists typically deny the 
Trinity. Biblicists typically deny justification 
by faith alone. Biblicists typically have great 
big problems with the doctrine of Jesus Christ in terms of his 
person. Biblicism is more identified with what's called Sassanianism 
in the history of the church. Jehovah's Witnesses would be 
a great expression of Biblicism today. The person that swings 
their Bible and says, all I need is the Spirit in my Bible, is 
more often than not the man that is the furthest from the truth 
of the Bible that he's swinging. So back to Barrett. He says, 
that shout, however, is a selfish individualism or what I call 
a crude, narrow biblicism that masks itself in the name of biblical 
authority. Sola Scriptura has been misunderstood, 
even radicalized to mean me and my Bible alone. But that is a 
mindset captive to our culture's God, autonomous individualism. I think Barrett is spot on. And 
I think that this criticism about confessions, this criticism about 
creeds, I think Samuel Miller was right. Men typically don't 
have a problem with creeds and confessions until the creeds 
and confessions have a problem with them. They only want to 
rewrite them. They want to get rid of them 
when they can no longer confess the truth that is contained in 
them. That, brethren, is symptomatic of our creedless, confessionless 
age. Now, I want to justify this use, 
not I want to make sure we understand what the divines are saying in 
paragraph 10 is not neglect decrees of councils, opinions of ancient 
writers, doctrines of men, I don't want to get into the private 
spirits thing here, but are to be examined in whose sentence 
we are to rest, but the supreme authority is no other than the 
Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit. So in other words, how 
do or can we account for God's use of faithful men in the context 
of the church to help later generations? I would suggest there are two 
passages that unequivocally affirm that yes, that is the case. Now 
that doesn't mean God uses perfect men. What I said about Cyril 
of Alexandria, I'm gonna repeat in the morning sermon. There 
is a whole host of controversy surrounding Cyril that I have 
no understanding of. If you get the modern day reprinting 
of the church fathers, you've got the church fathers before 
Nicaea, the Nicaean fathers, and then the after Nicaea fathers. 
They don't include Cyril of Alexandria. Apparently there was a lot of 
issues concerning his private, I don't know. But in terms of 
his understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ, the 
person specifically, and his combating that man Nestorius, 
and his understanding of what's called the communication of idioms, 
things that we prosper from and benefit from greatly in our interpretation 
of scripture. In so far as that goes, he was 
a gift and a blessing given to the church for later generations. When you look at the fathers, 
they had a lot of weird things. When you look at the medieval 
theologians, there were a lot of weird things. Some of our 
own dear Reformed brethren had a lot of weird things. But that 
does not negate the genuine contributions that they made. So go back to 
Matthew chapter 28. Matthew chapter 28 underscores 
the reality that we can use faithful men whom Jesus gave to the church. 
Notice in verse 18, all authority has been given to me in heaven 
and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples 
of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father 
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe 
all things that I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you always, 
even to the end of the age. So the idea there is that comprehensively, 
Jesus is with his church. Jesus doesn't abandon her. Jesus 
doesn't leave her. Jesus isn't a deist. He doesn't 
just wind her up and leave her on the shelf and come back after 
he's all done with whatever it is he's doing. He's with his 
church. He's blessing by the presence 
of his spirit. He is blessing the word of God 
by the spirit of God for the upbuilding of the church of God. 
In Revelation chapter two and three, You have the Lord Jesus 
communicating to the messengers of the churches, which are most 
likely the pastors, and then it's underscored at the end of 
each one, listen or hear what the Spirit says to the churches. 
In other words, Christ is not an absentee prophet. He's not 
an absentee king. He's not an absentee priest. 
He is with his church, and that substantiates that reality. Now turn to Ephesians chapter 
four to see one of the things that Jesus does in this interim 
period, in this, dare I say it, millennial kingdom, in this timeframe 
before the first and second advent of our Lord Jesus. What is one 
of the things that Jesus does? He's with his church even to 
the end of the age. What is he doing while he's with 
his church even to the end of the age? Notice in verse seven 
in Ephesians four. But to each one of us, grace 
was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore he 
says, when he ascended on high, he led captivity captive and 
gave gifts to men. Now this he ascended, what does 
it mean but that he also first descended into the lower parts 
of the earth? He who descended is also the 
one who ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill 
all things. And he himself gave some to be... Now notice, there are passages 
in the New Testament that deal with spiritual gifts. 1 Corinthians 
chapter 12, Romans chapter 12, there are those passages where 
oftentimes church members are told, you need to figure out 
your gifts so that you can contribute to the life of the church. In 
other words, we're not going to carry your dead weight. You 
do something. I'm kidding. It doesn't quite come out that 
honestly or candidly. But those are the gifts, the 
various things that are supplied by Jesus for the body and building 
itself up. But notice here, the emphasis 
falls on or the accent is on man, men. The men, or the gifts 
given, are particularly men. We know they're men because in 
1 Timothy chapter 3 and Titus chapter 1 we see that leadership 
in the church is to be man, it's to be male. That's not a dig 
against women, it's not a subjugation against women, it's not a a comment 
on the inferiority of women. It's God's way. In God's world, 
birds fly, fish swim, men lead in the home, and men lead in 
the church. Why that's become revolutionary today, why that 
has become so shocking today, I have no clue. Back to verse 
11. Well, I think I have some clues, 
but let's look at verse 11. And he himself gave some to be 
apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors 
and teachers. Now, the purpose is coordinate. 
There's three coordinate things here. Notice in verse 12, for 
the equipping of the saints, for the work of ministry, for 
the edifying of the body of Christ. Till we all come to the unity 
of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect 
man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, that 
we should no longer be children tossed to and fro and carried 
about with every wind of doctrine by the trickery of men in the 
cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but speaking the truth 
in love may grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ. 
from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every 
joint supplies, according to the effect of working by which 
every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying 
of itself in love." In other words, Christ gives gifts to 
the church, and he gives gifts to the church for this threefold 
purpose, so that they can equip the saints, so that they can 
engage in the work of ministry, so that they can edify the body 
of Christ. If they are contributing valuable 
members of the church that actually have the gift to write, why would 
we think that Jesus doesn't want us to use their writings? Why 
would we think that Jesus wouldn't want us to use the Nicene Creed? 
Why would we think that Jesus wouldn't want us to use the Second 
London Confession of 1677? Why would we think that Jesus 
would want us to say, we don't want the gifts that you have 
given to the church, just me and my Bible, and we're gonna 
be fine. That is to go contrary to the 
design of the Savior in his maintenance of, in his building of, in his 
blessing of the church of Christ, in his providing gifts to the 
body such that they will be able to undertake for the edification 
of the body. Oftentimes they do that, not 
only through preaching, but also through writing. C.H. Spurgeon makes this observation. This is in his A Chat About Commentaries. He had a section in Lectures 
to My Student, or they include it now in the Lectures to My 
Students, Commenting and Commentaries. And he basically goes through 
commentary recommendations that ministers should have. and that 
sort of thing, but he has a chat about commentaries. In other 
words, why should you use commentaries? I've been asked that before. 
Why would you use commentaries? Can't you do your own work? Yeah, 
I'd like to think I can do my own work, but the use of commentaries 
connects us to the church. We're not islands unto ourselves. We're not the first persons to 
do theology. And I would suggest that when 
you look at the early church, you look at the medieval theologians, 
you look at the Reformation and post-Reformation divines, you 
get a good sort of understanding of the understanding of texts 
as the church has seen it. And for the most part, there's 
grand consistency. For the most part, there's great 
consensus. For the most part, you find 17th 
century Baptists taking a 4th century or 5th century document 
and incorporating it into their work. It's a good thing. So Spurgeon 
says, in order to be able to expound the scriptures and as 
an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar 
with the commentators, a glorious army, let me tell you, whose 
acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are 
not such wise acres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture 
without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who 
have labored before you in the field of exposition." That's 
his little dig at his students. You're not such wise acres that 
you'd ever suggest that you don't need the commentaries or of the 
commentators. He says, if you are of that opinion, 
pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion. 
And like a little coterie who think with you would resent the 
attempt as an insult to your infallibility. He says, it seems 
odd that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit 
reveals to themselves should think so little of what he has 
revealed to others. So is it proud and arrogant to 
cite the apostles, the Nicene, the Chalcedonian creeds? Is it 
arrogance and pride to cite the 17th century confessions of faith? 
Or is it pride to wave our Bibles in the sky and say, me and my 
Bible, me and the Spirit, that's all we need. Brethren, I think 
the pride is on the other side. I think it's that mindset and 
that attitude and what Spurgeon says here, men who talk so much 
of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves should think so 
little of what he has revealed to others. May God help us to 
not fall prey to that, to be biblicists, to be rationalists, 
to be Sassanians, to be those who think that, wow, I can do 
this on my own, and understand as well that it's the Jehovah's 
Witnesses. That's their statement, no creed 
but the Bible. Now, if you're familiar even 
a little tiny bit with the Jehovah's Witnesses, you'll know they have 
a lot of creed. They have a lot of books. That 
Watchtower cult in Brooklyn has been busy over the last hundred 
years pumping out creed. Typically the people that say, 
no creed but the Bible, have the loudest and most conspicuous 
creeds. It is absolutely disingenuous. It is an absolute repudiation 
of an Ephesians 4, and all the while setting oneself up as the 
arbiter of the faith, the supreme judge. It is to do exactly what 
is warned against in chapter 1, paragraphs 9 and 10. And the Supreme Judge, again, 
paragraph 10, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, 
can be no other but the Holy Scripture, delivered by the Spirit, 
into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved. 
Amen. Well, I'll close in prayer, and 
then if there are any questions, we can deal with that. Father, 
help us to be responsible when it comes to interpreting the 
scripture. Help us to be responsible with 
reference to a view of the church that it just didn't begin in 
the 21st century, but we have been blessed by the ascended 
Christ at the right hand of the Father who's given gifts to his 
church throughout its age. And God, help us to be faithful. 
Help us to be ultimately subject to the scripture, but not to 
disregard the faithfulness of those gifts that have been given 
by Jesus to the church. Give us grace to be humbled by 
the word of God. Give us grace to see it as that 
most blessed document by which all matters of faith and practice 
are defined, and help us to be earnest students and searchers 
of holy writ. And we ask in Jesus' name, amen. 
Any questions or comments? Yes, sir. I was gonna say, next 
time you refer to it, you might not want to refer to it. Ah, thank you. I saw you smile. I wondered what it was I said, 
but got you now. All right. Thank you. So, I mean, it's very bizarre 
that it becomes commonplace in the theological realm for persons 
to say, I don't have to do the kind of research that you would 
do in any other discipline, in any other assignment, in any 
other project ever. Mm-hmm. Oh, yeah. Yeah, and it's 
just to run counter to what the whole scope of, or the whole 
idea behind Jesus at the right hand supplying gifts to the church. 
Any other questions? Wow, great. I thought for sure 
somebody would ask about the King James Bible. Go ahead. Well, I think there were some 
of the divines at the Westminster Assembly that were a bit open 
to private spirits, like dreams, maybe ongoing revelation. You know, when you look at paragraph 
one in chapter one, as I said, it's a consensus document. So 
where it says in the last sentence of paragraph one, or the last 
section of paragraph one, which maketh the Holy Scriptures to 
be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will 
unto his people being now ceased. So as a consensus document, they 
say, we're not looking for additional revelation. But with reference 
to this, it could have been condemnatory as well. You've got somebody 
who comes to you in the name of a private spirit, so it's 
kind of covering all the bases, the decrees, the councils, the 
writings of men, the ancient traditions, whatever. And if 
some guy comes along and say, Hey, the Lord told me, or the 
Lord led me, or the Lord guided me, or the Lord directed me, 
or I've waited on the Lord, and He finally came to me. So whatever 
that is, or whatever that claim is, it is still subject to the 
Word of God. And Owen makes the observation, 
if private revelations agree with Scripture, then they are 
useless. If private revelations disagree with scripture, then 
they're heretical. So I think that was the prevailing 
opinion or tendency of the Reformation. But I think in terms of like 
the dreams and that sort of thing, there may have been some guys 
that still held to some of that. Sure. Oh yeah. Oh, sure. Yeah. Yes, sir. Sure. Hmm. Sure, I would say there's two 
categories there. One is the dream that everybody 
needs to listen, because God spoke to me. And the other dream 
that God moved my heart to search out scripture. When it comes 
to those sorts of claims, my typical response is, I'm glad 
you found the scripture. I'm glad that you've confessed 
faith in Christ. You get these reports from the 
Muslim world. They had dreams, they saw Jesus, 
and they came to Jesus. Again, I'm skeptical. By nature, I typically, and I've 
met a lot of, I don't know if it's just old people, but a lot 
of old people tend to say, Jesus told me. I don't usually capitalize 
at every instance to say, well, what do you mean by that? Are 
you talking about, I just say, well, if they go on to say something 
that the Bible says, I'm happy. If they say something that the 
Bible doesn't say, then I'd say, are you sure Jesus told you that? So for those claims, again, my 
position is, however they found Jesus, praise God. Was it a dream? Was it a vision? I, for the most 
part, as I said, am skeptical of those things, but I know there's 
been such a groundswell, especially in the Muslim world, where there's 
dreams and all that. I won't comment specifically, 
but thankfully they found Jesus. and being revealed something 
that you can't get through the rest of the picture. So that 
is like, that usage, revealing something that the audience didn't 
reveal, whereas if someone, again, I'm not saying longer, I'm just 
asking, I've been in a lot of situations where people are very, 
very much on that end, but then you go too far, like you're saying, 
where that is their authority, that is why it's true, because 
I had the great person. Now I'm far more prone not to 
challenge the old lady that heard Jesus speak to her, far more 
prone not with the Muslim that said he had a dream, but with 
the modern day charismatic or Pentecostal or evangelical who 
has dreams that are revelatory in nature. I will challenge that 
hopefully every time, because I think that is a wrong view 
of scripture. I think it's a wrong view of 
the revelatory gifts, and I'm happy to have that debate. Yes, sir. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Great point. Yes. It's always difficult to go after 
motivation. When I said, you know, it's more 
proud to reject the confessions, I'm not suggesting there's not 
pride in embracing the confessions. I'm proud. I own it. I think 
our confession is fantastic. I think it, you know, we're the 
best on the block theologically. So there's definitely pride there. 
But why people do that? I think, honestly, very honestly, 
I think a lot of Christians in the pew are confused. I don't 
think the Bible is being taught properly. This, again, is my 
pride, maybe. But I don't think the Bible is 
being consistently taught. I don't think theology is being 
taught. So persons, they pick up Christian ease. It's a type 
of language. It's, oh, the Lord spoke to me, 
or the Spirit said, or I spoke in tongues. And whether the deep 
down motivation of their heart is to have that, I'm the best 
of all of them. Maybe that's there. I think a lot of people are just ignorant. 
And maybe sometimes, too, people don't believe that because they want the personal 
relationship with God, Yeah, oh yeah, yeah, I think 
there's this, it's a basic form of Gnosticism. The Gnostics were 
an early Christian cult or heretics, pseudo-Christian. The word Gnosis 
means knowledge. And the Gnostics prided themselves 
on a direct line to God. So when you look at, say, modern 
day charismaticism or the Pentecostal movement or even some in the 
reform community, this direct lying to God motif is always 
dangerous. It's just, you know, if we were 
in the apostolic church and God chose us as vehicles to communicate 
his truth via tongues or prophesying, that'd be a different story. 
But we're on the other side of a closed canon. So these direct 
accesses to God That's always a dangerous sort of an approach 
taken by people. And I don't doubt that some are 
proud. I mean, the guy I know that waved his Bible and said, 
all I need is the Holy Spirit in my Bible. I don't think that 
was coming from the place of humility. That was not what I 
was struck with. So yeah, I think, motivationally, 
there is pride and all that. But I think, again, people just 
haven't been taught. what a closed canon is. They don't have chapter 
one in a confession of faith that sort of grounds them and 
provides some parameters and some edges so that they don't 
get weird and wonky.