← Back to sermon library

Next time, Chapter 2, Cam is 
going to take up some of those particular issues in Chapter 
2 of God and the Holy Trinity. So this morning, I wanted to 
focus primarily on Chapters 5 to 10. We looked last time at Chapter 
1. We didn't get to 2 and 3. I've got material on 2 and 3. 
If anybody's interested, just email me and I can provide those 
notes for you. But as I said, I wanted to make 
sure we give time for Cam to do Chapter 2. You'll notice a 
pattern in the newsletter. I wrote an article on this month 
or this past month on Chapter 1. Cam is doing an article on 
Chapter 2, so he'll be teaching on Chapter 2 next month. So we're 
trying to get smart about the way that we do things, trying 
to anyway, but so I wanted to just sort of summarize Specifically, 
some principles of hermeneutics. I did deal with that in brief 
in that article in the newsletter. But there are principles of biblical 
interpretation sort of in chapters 5 to 10 that I want to pull out 
this morning. So I'll just read beginning in 
paragraph 5 to the end of the chapter of the Holy Scripture. So beginning in paragraph 5. 
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 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. Well, the particular 
paragraph that deals specifically with interpretation is paragraph 
9. But as I said, there are principles 
laced throughout the entirety of the chapter, but specifically 
here in paragraphs 5 to 10. And so I want to look at what 
is called in interpretation the doctrine of hermeneutics. Now, 
hermeneutics is not simply confined to the Bible. There's a hermeneutic 
that is applied when you study Shakespeare. There's a hermeneutic 
that's applied when you study all manner of literature. So 
typically we refer to sacred hermeneutics or special hermeneutics 
with reference to the Bible. And it's simply defined by Birkhoff 
this way, the science that teaches us the principles, laws, and 
methods of interpretation. So it is something, again, that 
everybody has. It is best to sort of recognize 
and identify and then to operate in one or in a way that is consistent. And so when it comes to hermeneutics, 
people aren't supposed to say, well, you know, that's for theologians 
and pastors. Everybody has a method of interpretation. Everybody has some sort of assumption 
they bring to the text of Scripture. So again, it's best to identify 
that. It's best to glean from the history 
of the Church and cull together those interpretative methods 
that have held that have stood the test of time and that are 
faithful. As I've often said, what you put into the Bible is 
what you're going to get out of the Bible. If you bring bad 
presuppositions or bad hermeneutics, you're going to get bad exegesis, 
you're going to get bad interpretation. So it's best to have a good hermeneutic 
to apply to the study of Scripture. Now, in terms of the relationship 
between hermeneutics and exegesis, it is simply the relationship 
of theory to practice. The relationship of theory to 
practice. I typically acknowledge Doug as an architect. He draws 
up the plans in his shop there, and then he sends them out, and 
then the contractor puts it into practice. So hermeneutics provides 
the theory, and exegesis is the application of that theory to 
the actual task of exegesis. And then the importance of hermeneutics, 
the fact that it is foundational to all of theology. If we were 
to look at the study of theology, it's typically broken down into 
four sections. You have first, exegetical or 
biblical theology. In other words, what does the 
Bible say in terms of what is revealed? Then you have historical 
theology. That's when we look at the history 
of the church and see how they have treated the Bible in terms 
of what it says in terms of revelation. And then you have systematic 
theology. And what the systematic theologian 
does is take the exegetical or biblical theology, compares it 
to the history of the church and see what the best divines 
in the history of the church have yielded in terms of study. 
And then the systematic theologian takes all of that and systematizes 
it in a logical fashion. And then following on the heels 
of that is practical theology, taking the fruit of your labor 
in terms of the Bible, in terms of a historical survey, and in 
terms of systematic. And then practical theology follows 
on the heels of that. So those are the four sorts of 
disciplines involved in the theological enterprise. And of course, hermeneutics 
is foundational. As I said, you put bad things 
in, you're going to get bad things out. If you get bad things out, 
then everything that you do in terms of systematics or practical 
theology is going to be bad. So, all that to say there are 
principles, or hermeneutical principles, that we can find 
here in paragraphs 5 to 10. And the first is, in paragraph 
5, the scope of scripture. Now, this paragraph properly 
treats the authority of scripture. In other words, how do we know 
that the Bible is, in fact, the Word of God? and you'll see the 
various things that the Confession says there about the way that 
we know it's the Word of God. It's all ultimately summarized 
at the end. 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 heart. So all of these things compel 
us to recognize, and then the Spirit seals the deal by causing 
us to see that in fact the Bible is the Word of God. But there 
is that hermeneutical principle here on the scope of the whole. 
If you look about the middle of the paragraph, so beginning 
in paragraph 5, 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 whole, the consent of 
all the parts, and then the scope of the whole." And then notice 
parenthetically, which is to give all glory to God. So I think 
the principle here is that we need to get the big picture. 
We don't come to the Bible first and foremost to ask, how do I 
live a better life now? How do I be a better businessman? Or how do I be a better husband? 
Or how do I be a better father? None of which are bad questions, 
but you need to ask the question concerning Scripture. What is 
your purpose? What is the reason for which 
we have the Bible? Well, the scope of the whole 
is to give all glory to God. And I think this is very helpful 
in terms of our study of scripture. You've probably heard sermons 
on 1 Samuel chapter 17 when David is in the valley of Elah and 
he's facing Goliath. And you've heard sermons to the 
effect that this teaches us how to deal with the giants in our 
lives, whether it's a lack of courage or a difficult situation 
at work. Look there at David as he's battling 
Goliath and see how your supposed to address the particular psychological 
needs that you have. That's absolutely positively 
not what 1st Samuel 17 is about. So, to have that idea as you 
work in the text of Scripture is going to skew the results 
in terms of interpretation. If you see yourself in Gethsemane, 
you have misread John 18. If you see any struggles that 
you're having in the Christian life in Gethsemane, you're not 
reading it properly. What Jesus is going through in 
Gethsemane is not what you and I go through in a difficult marriage 
or in a difficult work situation. And so this scope of the whole 
ought to be sort of an overarching concern when we come to individual 
texts. How does this text speak to the 
scope of the whole? In other words, how does it yield 
glory to God Most High? Now, in terms of this phrase, 
scope of the whole, you'll see it in the Reformed tradition. 
Maybe outside the Reformed tradition, I would think, too, but you certainly 
see it in the Reformed tradition. And in the narrow sense, the 
scope of a given text or passage is the basic thrust. So when 
we come to Titus chapter 1, for instance, and we look in verses 
5 to 9, what's the scope of the whole? Well, it's the qualifications 
for elders. That's the primary emphasis in 
that subsection of Holy Scripture. But when we step away in the 
wider sense, we ought to see it as the target or bullseye 
to which all Scripture tends. And that's from Pastor Richard 
Barcelos. So the scope of the whole is 
the target or the bullseye to which all Scripture tends. Again, 
what's the big picture? What's the primary emphasis? 
Is it me battling my spiritual giants, or is it that all the 
earth may know that there is a God in Israel. That all the 
earth may know, or that Israel and the earth may know that there's 
a God in Israel. That's the emphasis in 1 Samuel 
chapter 17. So Barcello says, 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. So again, the question is, is 
the Bible man-centered or is it God-centered? If you answered 
man-centered, then there's probably a lot of churches out there you'll 
be happier in. But in our church, we believe 
it's God-centered, and therefore, we emphasize that particular 
focus. The scope of the whole is Christ 
bringing glory to God Most High. William Ames said the Old and 
New Testaments are reducible to these two primary heads. Now, 
just consider what he's about to say here, and ask the question, 
would Joel Osteen agree? Would Benny Hinn agree? Would, 
you know, any church outside of the Reformed tradition agree? 
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. That's a great summary 
statement in terms of scripture. Consider this quote from John 
Gill. This is in his commentary on the book of Ruth. Typically, 
Ruth is preached as a wonderful love story, and doesn't it melt 
our emotional hearts? And don't we just stand in awe 
at how wonderful Ruth and Boaz is, and the kindness and the 
concern that Boaz shares, and that he covers her with the shadow 
of his wing? You know, that's kind of nice, 
but that's not the point of the book of Ruth. The book of Ruth 
ends with a genealogy. That's the point in the book 
of Ruth. And Gil says, the principal design of it is to give the genealogy 
of David, whom Samuel had anointed to be king of Israel, and from 
whom the Messiah was to come, and who therefore may be said 
to be the aim and scope of it, as he is of all scripture, and 
whereby it appears that he sprung both from Jews and Gentiles, 
and is the savior of both. and there is a good foundation 
for both to hope in him, and the call and conversion of Ruth 
the Moabitess may be considered as a shadow, emblem, and pledge 
of the conversion of the Gentiles." It's a better way to read the 
book of Ruth than simply as a love story that speaks to us at some 
romantic level. And then in terms of the biblical 
testimony, you need to only read the letters, or rather the gospel 
narrative, and the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. You search 
the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, 
but these are they which testify of me. He speaks of this in Luke 
24. We see this in Luke 24, beginning 
from Moses and the prophets. He tells them all things written 
concerning himself, with reference to the Old Testament. So the 
Old Testament is about Christ. The New Testament is about Christ. 
Acts 10.43, Peter preaching to the household of Cornelius. He 
says, to him, all the prophets witness that whoever believes 
in his name will have remission of sin. So keep in mind when 
you come to the Bible that you're not the first and the foremost 
with reference to the revelation of God. He is. Now, when we understand 
that properly, then we actually do benefit. Then we can glean 
great things and helps when we see that life isn't ultimately 
about us, but it's ultimately about God and His glory. And 
I think this is really practical and relevant in a day and age 
in which we live. There's a lot to be discouraged 
about in terms of civil government. I mean, I think I could be a 
poster child for that reality. All of us could be on that same 
poster. But you know what, the final analysis, Psalm 46.10, 
be still, and know that I am God, I will be exalted among 
the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth." So whatever may 
happen, whatever these morons throw at us, God is over all. God has absolute authority, sovereignty, 
and control. Christ is at the right hand of 
the Father where He must reign until He makes all of His enemies 
His footstool. So in the final analysis, the 
scope of the whole hopefully brings great encouragement to 
us. Now notice, secondly, the sufficiency 
of Scripture in paragraph 6. the sufficiency of Scripture 
in paragraph 6. Notice the extent of Scripture's 
sufficiency, the whole counsel of God concerning all things 
necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life. Now notice, it doesn't talk about 
how to build refrigerators, It doesn't talk about quantum mechanics 
or physics. It doesn't talk about how to 
develop businesses or how to engage in architecture. I mean, 
there's principles, obviously. There's things that we glean 
from Holy Scripture. But we need to make sure that 
when we understand this idea of the sufficiency of Scripture, 
that we understand the extent to which it applies. This causes some people to struggle 
in Genesis chapters 1 to 3. It's not written like a science 
book. It's not, you know, showing us the chemistry and the compounds 
and how God does what He does. We take it as it's written. He 
created all things out of nothing by the word of His power in the 
space of six days and all very good. But there's things that 
Genesis 1-3 doesn't teach us or answer for us. The speed of 
light. I don't know. I have no clue. 
That's not what the scripture says it's teaching me about. 
It's telling me how God does or that God does, but it doesn't 
get into all the unique details except for by the word of His 
power. That's sufficient for the people 
of God who have the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. 
We receive it by faith. But you can't fault Moses because 
he didn't deal with all of the particulars involved there in 
Genesis 1 to 3 about the questions that modern science poses. That's 
simply not a righteous tactic to employ in terms of coming 
to the text of Scripture. So notice, and for faith and life the scripture 
is sufficient for those things but again the scripture is not 
sufficient and I say this knowing that this is probably a volatile 
statement but it again it's not sufficient for auto mechanics 
again the general principles the law of contradiction the 
law of identity those things are all there and true in scripture 
uh... mathematics all that but to actually 
get in and fix an engine You don't have a Roman 17 on that. 
So the Bible does what God specified and purposed for it to do. And 
then notice the statement here. It's either expressly set down 
or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture. So explicitly sufficient. So, you shall not murder. That's 
an explicit statement that there's no wiggle room about. The bottom 
line is, you don't have to be a Christian, you don't have to 
be, you know, a rocket scientist, you don't have to be bright in 
any degree whatsoever to understand that proposition. You shall not 
murder. Pretty simple, right? You shall 
not commit adultery. You shall not steal. It's expressly 
set down or necessarily contained. Notice the language. It's either 
expressly set down or necessarily contained. Westminster and Savoy 
here have or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced. So 
what Westminster and Savoy and Second London are doing is authorizing 
the use of implicit, So, in other words, the fact that it says, 
you shall not murder, well, when we imply from that that abortion 
is murder, that's legit. That is the Word of God. That 
is as strong as the explicit statement. If we can infer from 
the goring ox that it's wrong to exercise irresponsibility 
in society to the point where you kill somebody and therefore 
you're subject to the death penalty, drunk driving, we can conclude, 
is just as bad. because you have the capability, 
through negligence or irresponsibility, to actually kill somebody. You 
should be criminally liable for that. So implication is on par 
with the Scripture, with the explicit, rather, statements. 
And that's what the Confession says. It's either expressly set 
down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture. Now, people 
ask, well, why did the Baptist change by good and necessary 
consequence may be deduced? Does that mean they did not affirm 
that? No, I think that the language of necessarily contained was 
most likely a paedo-baptist sort of a thing. It was to serve later 
as they deal with paedo-baptism. But when you look at chapter 
2 and you compare it with Westminster, for instance, the Second London 
Confession does the exact same thing. And it shows that they're 
perfectly okay with, by good and necessary consequence, being 
deduced. So this is a red herring trying 
to show that the Baptists departed and they don't believe in logical 
implication. No, that's not true. Chapter 
2 is built largely on implication. I mean, it's explicit to be sure. There's a lot of implication 
going on. And that implication is as strong 
as explicit text and testimony. As Dixon says, he asks the question, 
is not that which necessarily follows from scripture contained 
in it implicitly and implicitly revealed by God infallibly true? Sure it is, absolutely. David 
Dixon's commentary on the Westminster Confession is very helpful. He 
was either a divine at the assembly, or he wrote right after. And 
basically, what he takes up in his truth, victory over error, 
are all the disputable places in the Westminster Confession. 
So it's not that great big of a book. I mean, lots of people 
agreed on lots of things back then. But he deals with those 
things that are called into question. And so this is one of those questions. 
Is not that which necessarily follows from Scripture, contained 
in it implicitly, and implicitly revealed by God, infallibly true? It has the same characteristic 
as the explicit statement of Holy Scripture does. So in terms 
of some implications here, we have the finality of Scripture's 
sufficiency. Notice what it says at the end 
of the section I just read, unto which nothing at any time is 
to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit or traditions of 
men. Remember, this is in the same 
chapter that we saw last time in paragraph 1. It says, those 
former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being 
now seized. Now brethren, I don't think in 
the 17th century they were prophesying the charismatic and Pentecostal 
movement that would face us in the 20th and 21st century. They 
had the same sort of things going on. Oh, I got a word from the 
Lord. I got a private revelation. So they're putting the kibosh 
on that. They are saying that Scripture is sufficient. You 
don't need new revelation of the Spirit, and you certainly 
don't need the traditions of men added to the Holy Scripture. 
So again, 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 
man. I think John Owen has a very 
helpful statement. If private revelations agree 
with Scripture, then they're useless. If private revelations 
disagree with Scripture, then they're heretical. So, pretty 
easy grid there. And, you know, just doing a brief 
Google search, you'll find people that take him to task, and that's 
a logical, you know, it's a logical fallacy and all that. The general 
overarching principle of what he says is right. If somebody 
comes to you and says, I got a word from the Lord, and they 
basically rehearse to you Titus 1.5, why would the Lord give 
you that? And it's been my observation, 
at least in the brief contact I've had with the Charismatics 
and the Pentecostals, these people that get new revelations from 
the Lord haven't read the prophet Obadiah. They haven't read the 
prophet Nahum. They couldn't tell you the city 
that Jonah was supposed to go to. Why would God give you more 
when you haven't read the 66 books that there are? It makes 
no sense. It just seems arrogant and brazen. Oh yeah, the Lord gave me a word. Well, if it agrees with Scripture, 
we don't need what the Lord supposedly gave you. But if it disagrees 
with Scripture, you need to repent, because it's the Scripture that's 
infallible. It's the Scripture that's inerrant. 
It's the Scripture that is the authoritative word for the living 
and true God. And then notice as well, we have 
the necessity of the Holy Spirit. That's something that's assumed. 
I'm not going to bring it out at every step of the way, but 
all these principles of hermeneutics, when we come to interpret the 
Bible, it must be done in concert with the Spirit of God who gave 
us the Bible. We must be born again, we must have the Holy 
Spirit, in order to properly interpret the word. Now again, 
I mentioned earlier that you don't need to be saved, you don't 
need to have the Holy Spirit to know you shall not murder. 
But you need to be saved, you need to have the Holy Spirit 
to see why that is in the context of God's revelation, in context 
of God's moral universe. So the Holy Spirit and our emphasis 
upon Him is most crucial. And then notice as well the necessity 
of sanctified common sense. in paragraph 6, after that section. 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." Again, this 
idea that when we come to the sufficiency of scripture, it's 
not going to speak to mathematics per se, but there are general 
things concerning mathematics that we do find in the Bible. 
So some sanctified common sense in terms of light and nature, 
general revelation, will go a long way as well in the interpretative 
task. Now, notice the third principle 
in paragraph 7. This is the perspicuity of Scripture, 
or the clarity of Scripture. Notice, all things in Scripture 
are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. For 
a proof text, look at 2 Peter. It's right there in the Confession, 
and it's one that has lasting and abiding validity for the 
Church of Jesus Christ. Not everything in the scripture 
is a like plane in itself. We need, obviously, that discernment. I think there's a sort of, what's 
the word I'm looking for, a hierarchical structure in terms of scripture. You know, when Jesus says, if 
you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins, John 
8. I don't think you find a passage like that about, you know, the 
particular cubits involved in in the length of a measurement 
that was implemented in the tabernacle or the temple. Unless you know 
how many cubits this was, you will die in your sins. There 
is a triage in terms of scripture. You know, there's a level of 
importance. I've mentioned eschatology as 
sort of the relevant example. We're all going to disagree on 
eschatology. There's not just three positions. There's probably 
you know, three billion positions, because we all have our own twist, 
we have our own thing, we have our own band. Well, those three 
billion people with odd views on eschatology, by grace alone, 
through faith alone and Christ alone, can be saved. But when 
it comes to Christ, you can't be wrong. When it comes to our 
triune God, you can't be wrong. So there's a hierarchical structure 
in terms of Scripture wherein those things that we most certainly 
need to believe are sufficiently clear. There's perspicuity, there's 
clarity in those things. But other things, they're not 
as easy. So look at 2 Peter 3.16, as also 
in all his epistles, talking about Paul, speaking in them 
of these things in which are some things hard to understand. 
When an apostle of Jesus Christ, under the inspiration of the 
Holy Spirit, admits that there are some things hard to understand, 
that should discipline us and humble us from some bold arrogancy 
that we're always right. Everything we say is right. Everything 
we know is right. Again, we can do that with the 
triune God. We can do that with justification 
by faith alone. But when we start to apply that 
to every single thing in theology, We come across as arrogant, proud 
people. So when an apostle, under the 
inspiration of the Spirit, admits that some things Paul wrote are 
hard to understand, then we need to amen that and agree with that 
and say, yeah, I may not have my eschatology perfectly figured 
out. There's some loopholes, there's 
some issues, there's some problems that I have. I need to be disciplined 
and humble in the way that I present these things. And then notice 
what he says, "...which untaught and unstable people twist to 
their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." 
He equates Paul's writings with Scripture. He tells us that Paul's 
writings are the Word of God, and that Paul's writings, at 
least some of them, are a bit hard to get one's mind wrapped 
around. So back to paragraph 7, all things in scripture are 
not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. And 
you'll hear this as an argument against reading the Bible. Well 
it's so confusing, it's so hard, it's so difficult. Show them 
the Ten Commandments. What's hard about you shall not 
murder? What's hard about you shall not commit adultery? Well, 
because maybe they want to do those particular things. That 
might be the challenge. But to understand that simple 
proposition is not hard. So for a person to say, well, 
the Bible is so confusing. It's so difficult. You could 
say, yes, some of it's hard. Some of it is a difficulty. But 
not all of it. And the things that you most 
certainly need to believe are very clear. God has taken pains 
to make it clear. So notice, 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. Beautiful! The learned and the unlearned. 
You don't need to be a rocket scientist, or a PhD, or even 
having gone to Bible school in order to understand, believe 
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved. See, this 
is a red herring. Oh, the Bible is so confusing, 
it's so hard. Again, it's hard for those who 
don't want to abide by its teaching. It's hard for those who reject 
Jesus Christ. It's hard for those who don't want to invest the 
time and effort there is to be invested to learn what God has 
for His people. So they're so clearly propounded 
and opened in some place of scripture or other that not only the learned 
but the unlearned. Now, I love this next clause, 
in a due use of ordinary means. You don't need to shimmy up to 
Mount Cham, you know, take an energy bar and, you know, sit 
in the lotus position and chant in order to get wisdom into Acts 
16.31. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. 
Just read it. That's all you need to do. Do 
use of the ordinary means. Well, I need to fast and pray. 
Okay, you can fast and pray, but you could also just take 
the, what, five seconds to read Acts 16.31? Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. Right? So again, this 
pious, well, I need to spend some time inquiring of the Lord. 
Why? The Lord's already revealed it. Now, pray about it, receive 
it in the manner in which you're supposed to, but it's a due use 
of the ordinary means. Again, red herring. I'm just 
not as bright as other people. The law of the Lord makes wise 
the simple. It's one of the benefits of the 
Bible. It makes wise the simple. David said, I have more understanding 
than all my teachers, all my counselors, all my leaders, all 
those... I have more understanding. Why? Because I'm taught by God. 
I've often thought that our children reciting the simple catechism 
question, what is God? God is spirit, infinite, eternal, 
and unchangeable, and is being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, 
goodness, and truth. If our children can recite that, 
they're probably about, you know, better off than 80% of men preaching 
in pulpits today. It's not requisite that you have 
to have the best mental faculties. So what are those due use of 
the ordinary means? Turn to chapter 14. Gives us 
a bit of an indication what the ordinary means are. Are there seasons for extraordinary 
things? Sure! If you want to go fast 
for 40 days and nights, go! More power to you. But it's not 
going to help you anymore to understand Acts 16.31. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. 
What happens, you know, the first day you go up on that mountain 
to pray and fast, and then on the 40th day? Guess what it still 
says? It still says, believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ. Again, I'm not denigrating the 
use of those means, but I am suggesting that it's a sort of 
weaselly way to make it almost produce a Roman-Catholic dichotomy. We gotta go to the priests for 
answers. We gotta go to this guy for answers. We gotta go 
to the... Or you could just go to Paul, You could just go to 
Isaiah, you could just read it for yourself, and Moses, that's 
always a helpful thing. So notice in 14.1, "...the grace 
of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving 
of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their 
hearts." Faith is a saving gift, it's a grace given by God. And 
now notice, "...and is ordinarily wrought." Are there extraordinary 
things in Scripture? Yeah, there's a road to Damascus 
conversion of the Apostle Paul. That doesn't happen suspended 
from what he knew of biblical revelation. It's not, you know, 
Jesus was the hermeneutical key for his understanding of the 
Old Testament, but he had that understanding of the Old Testament. 
So notice, that is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the 
Word. by which also and by the administration 
of baptism in the Lord's Supper, prayer and other means appointed 
of God, it is increased and strengthened." So that's what the confession 
there means when it talks about the due use of ordinary means. You don't have to go live out 
in a hut in, you know, the wilderness for a period of five years to 
figure out, you know, what Moses meant when he said, don't murder 
people. Again, go live in the HUD if you want for five years, 
but it's still going to mean what it says. Don't murder people. 
So this emphasis is on a due use of ordinary means. And as well, the learned and 
the unlearned. We've painted ourselves into 
a corner in the modern evangelical and reformed world. I'm not saying 
this because I want to teach in a seminary, but a guy can't 
teach in a seminary anymore unless he has a PhD. Oh, brethren, a 
PhD does not ensure theological orthodoxy. A PhD does not typically 
even ensure the ability to chew gum and walk at the same time. 
So we've really done a disservice. The days of a John Gill and a 
John Calvin are gone. The days when men wrote systematic 
theology and biblical commentaries. We're so super specialized now. I mean, look at dissertations 
that are written on tiny, little, obscure facets of minutia. Not that there isn't a place 
for that, perhaps. But those guys, I remember hearing 
a podcast or a radio interview, not radio, maybe it was when 
they used to tape them and then they'd reveal them it wasn't 
a podcast. This guy had done his PhD on Deuteronomy and he 
said, I hope to teach through Deuteronomy someday. And I thought, 
shouldn't it be the other way around? You teach through Deuteronomy 
and then you write your dissertation on it? We've super, super specialized, 
as I said, our way into a corner. You know, modern commentaries, 
excellent New Testament interpreters that are deficient theologically. 
They're horrible on the Trinity. They're horrible on the... Well, 
not horrible. If they were horrible, I should burn the books, but 
they're not good. They've got this, you know, ability 
to exegete New Testament texts, but they don't do it in the context 
of the scope of the whole. They don't do it in the context 
of the rest of the Bible. So I think we're in some, you 
know, difficult places when, or a difficult place when you've 
got very skilled and very educated and very, very wise men that 
could never ever preach, or rather teach in a seminary, or even 
at a Bible college. We're getting to that point. 
Got to be a PhD to teach in a Bible college? I'm sorry, my own little 
axe to grind. That wasn't in the notes, forgive 
me here. So the perspicuity or clarity of scripture. Notice 
the next one in paragraph 8 is the availability of scripture. 
And this deals with translation. This deals with translation, 
which is a huge subject, which is a massive subject, not least 
of which because translation comes as a result of the underlying 
Greek manuscripts. And if you know anything about 
the underlying Greek manuscripts, there's a lot of them. OK, I 
think Plato, the writings of Plato, there's like one manuscript 
from not at the time of Plato. We've got over 5,000 extant manuscripts 
on the New Testament. That doesn't mean full. That 
doesn't mean every one of those 5,000 plus manuscripts is Matthew 
to Revelation. That's not what it means. But 
there are a whole host of manuscripts in terms of evidence to substantiate 
or corroborate what's called the autograph. or the autographa, 
the initial writing of the apostles and the prophets. So when the 
apostles and the prophets wrote, then copies were made. And copies 
obviously reflect some transmission. And at times in the copy transmission 
tradition, errors were introduced or variant readings came as a 
result of that. Now, in the New Testament, you 
have, as I said, over 5,000 extant manuscripts, such that the scholars 
that are in charge of this, or that work in this field, it's 
called textual criticism. Textual criticism does not mean 
I'm criticizing the Bible because it's false and wrong. No, it 
means looking at the copies of the text that we have in a critical 
manner, making comparisons, and then collating them together. 
And there's basically three approaches with reference to the Greek and 
the New Testament. The Hebrew is another area that 
certainly demands study, but it's a bit more stable. Well, 
I would say more stable in terms of the Masoretes who did the 
Old Testament. The Septuagint is a bit of a 
challenge in terms of understanding how it functions relative to 
the Masoretic text. But again, that's not obviously 
my area of expertise. I've got some thoughts on it 
and read a good book on the Septuagint that I would highly recommend. 
It's called When God Spoke Greek. very good and shows how more 
often than not it's the Septuagint that preserves more robust Christological 
readings than the Masoretic text. So take that for what it's worth. 
But in terms of the New Testament, you've got families of manuscripts 
that bear similar characteristics. So there's basically three ways 
to go about it. There's what's called the Textus Receptus. That's 
the traditional text. that the church has used for 
several hundred years. It came as a result of a man 
by the name of Erasmus. And then there's what's called 
the majority text. And the majority text simply 
counts texts. However, you know, let's say 
there's a textual variant on Titus 1.5. The bulk of the manuscript 
evidence tells us that that's correct. And then there's what's 
called the eclectic text theory. And eclectic text theory basically 
says, we're going to look at all of the text. But that's kind 
of weaselly, because they don't. They look at the oldest manuscripts. And they say things like, the 
oldest manuscripts are the best manuscripts. So they've got a 
prejudice about them that I don't find is very appealing. Of those 
three, I would hold to the TR position or traditional text. 
I'm not suggesting that it fell out of heaven into Erasmus' hands, 
but I think it does serve the church well. Now, between the 
TR and the majority text, there's about 1,000 places where there's 
variance. Between those two and the eclectic 
text, there's about 3,000. But of those 3,000 variants, 
about 85% of it agrees. So when you hear that there's 
variant readings, and you'll see it if you're using anything 
other than the New King James Version, when I'm preaching, 
if you have an ESV or an NIV or an NASB, you will see differences. Well, that's reflective of those 
Greek manuscripts. So the Greek manuscripts serve 
as the foundation for the translation of English versions. There's 
going to be one tonight in Ephesians 5. The TR has the fruit of the 
spirit, and the other manuscript evidence has the fruit of the 
light. I actually think in that one the TR's off. I think it 
is fruit of the light. So I'm going to preach it as 
fruit of the light. Actually, no, I'm not going to 
get into textual criticism tonight. But when it comes to this particular 
area of study, it is important, it is very important that we 
have a stable text that we understand is true, that it does reflect 
accurately the autograph and the autographa that the apostles 
and the prophets gave to us. But I'm not here to change your 
view or have you burn your ESV or anything like that. I'm just 
simply saying that this is what's happening in terms of this paragraph. So notice, the Old Testament 
in Hebrew, and it's not just Hebrew. There's a few places 
in the Old Testament that are in Aramaic, but they just summarized 
here. So 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." That's a helpful 
statement. I'm not sure they knew how helpful 
that statement would be. See, the Greek of the New Testament 
differs a bit from classical Greek. And basically, the Greek 
of the New Testament is called koine. And koine simply means 
common. See, at one time, persons thought 
that it was a Holy Spirit Greek. It was a special Greek that the 
New Testament. Nope. It was for everybody. It was the common Greek spoken 
by the common man. And I've always found that very 
encouraging. Why? Because God actually wants people 
to understand His Word. Isn't that amazing? He really 
wants you to get it. He's not obscure or esoteric. He's not trying to hide it from 
you. In fact, what do we refer to 
the Bible as? It's revelation. So why in the 
task of revelation would he want obscurity? So koine Greek, it's 
common Greek. Notice what it goes on to say. 
Being immediately inspired by God. So when Peter writes 2 Peter, 
he's immediately inspired by God. We don't say that the scribes 
and the copyists And everyone since was immediately inspired 
by God. We believe God providentially 
secured the text. We believe that even though there 
were variants that were introduced, we have the Word of God as written. We have what God wants us to 
have. So notice, being immediately 
inspired by God and by His singular care and providence kept pure 
in all ages. Again, to me, this is a compelling 
argument for the traditional text. It's a compelling argument 
that God, in His grace and in His mercy, when He intended to 
reveal Himself to us, revealed Himself to us. And that the Holy 
Spirit, without immediate inspiration of every scribe and every copyist, 
nevertheless was able, competent, and powerful to keep his word 
pure in all ages. I think that's a very legitimate 
position to embrace. So notice, 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, and vulgar simply means 
non-Greek or Hebrew. If you speak English, that's 
your vulgar language. If you speak French, that's your 
vulgar language. If you speak, you know, whatever, 
that's the language. That's what it means there. It 
doesn't mean we need, you know, super paraphrases where we dumb 
down everything. I think that's problematic as 
well. Good translation is a faithful to the Greek text translation. 
That's another subject that I think demands some attention in the 
life of the church. We don't want to dumb it down 
so much that it reads like a magazine. We don't want to dumb it down 
so much that it reads like a coloring book. People don't understand 
atonement. Well, then explain it to them. 
right? People don't understand propitiation. Well then explain it to them, 
especially when everybody's got Google and have become epidemiologists 
over the last few years. I'd like to think they can learn 
the word propitiation in the church when we're studying the 
Book of Romans. So again, Oftentimes, these complaints 
are driven by laziness. Pick up a book and read it. Get 
a dictionary out. I mean, I'm at the point now, 
brethren, well, I will take my phone and type it in because 
I don't want to walk all the way to the end of my office. 
You know how big my office is to grab a concordance down. I mean, there's no lack of availability 
in terms of help for our understanding today. Biblical and theological 
illiteracy in the church today is a bane on our existence. It is reflective of a high degree 
of apathy and laziness. Sorry, but if you can't Google 
propitiation and get a satisfactory understanding, you've got bigger 
problems than understanding the word propitiation. But back to 
the study here. Notice. So they are to be translated 
into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come. 
So again, this highlights and underscores for us the various, 
hang on one second, the various organizations that are given 
to that task. Because there's still people 
groups out there that don't have the scriptures in their vulgar 
tongue. Yes, Brennan. repentance. Did the Greek side 
not do that then? Well, that wouldn't be an issue 
concerning the Greek manuals. That's a translation issue. So 
I've got problems with the ESV. I don't know if anybody's gleaned 
that. But I have problems with some of their translation calls, 
even though I disagree with the Greek text foundation they have. My issue isn't even that. It's 
the way they translate the Greek text. So when a Jerome translates 
repentance and lays his theological freight on it and says it's penance, 
that's a translation issue. And I'm sure, I don't know enough 
about the history of the transmission, but The Vulgate was certainly 
not received with open arms by people that understood theology. If you were reading that, and 
there's places in the New King James and other Bible versions, 
they make some judgment calls I wouldn't have made, but it 
is what it is. When you're dealing with translations, 
of Greek and Hebrew texts, you do the best you can. And you 
realize that theological biases do enter in to transmission, 
or to the transmission of scripture. I think there's theological biases 
in the New King James. I think it reflects some dispensationalism 
at certain places. But again, I'm not going to fly 
to Dallas Theological Seminary and shake my finger in their 
face. So when you come across something 
like that, that does have impact or effect upon theology, yeah, 
I would suggest at that point it becomes basically a sectarian 
version of Scripture for a particular group that happens to believe 
that. The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures by the 
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, that's a sectarian translation. In the beginning was the Word, 
the Word was with God, and the Word was a God. That's just not 
the way you're supposed to translate John 1-1. They do it because 
it reflects their theology and their bias, and then the people 
that subscribe, sure, right? They're on board with that. But 
anybody that has a modicum of ability in terms of working with 
Greek and translation and all that stuff, there's never been 
any widespread, wow, the Watchtower Society got John 1-1 right. No, no. And among people that 
know the doctrine of repentance, they don't confess that Jerome 
was right in terms of doing penance. So that would be my response 
there. The point is that we need good 
faithful translations based on good Greek manuscript evidence. And when it comes, just backing 
up a little bit to the manuscript evidence, I mentioned that one 
of the maxims of the eclectic position is the oldest and the 
best. The oldest and the best. But 
you can't discount the church fathers. In Acts chapter, let me just 
give you one illustration. Acts chapter 8, 37. It's a pretty 
strong illustration, too, in terms of variant readings. Acts 
chapter 8 at verse 37. Notice it says, then Philip said, 
if you believe with all your heart, you may. So I can be the 
Ethiopian eunuch. And he answered and said, I believe 
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So if you have a New 
King James, and you look at verse 37, and then you look in the 
margin. Just to kind of explain what's 
going on in your margin there, if you notice the footnote, footnote 
6, I'm sure it's the same. So verse 37 says, NU, that's 
what the eclectic text is known by, and that stands for Nestle. 
and united. So Nestle-Aland has a translation 
of the Greek New Testament, as does the United Bible Societies. 
Those are exactly the same. The only thing that differs is 
what's called the critical apparatus. So the footnotes at the bottom, 
you get more apparatus in the Nestle-Aland versus the United 
Bible Society. But NU there is the position 
that basically says the oldest is the best. And then you've 
got M. Notice that M? That's majority 
text. Okay? So the majority of texts 
do not contain that second part of verse 37. And then it says 
it is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition. 
So that's where the TR is included. And that's how the TR has that 
particular reading. But interestingly, Irenaeus, 
a church father, had that text in his writings, and he lived 
from 130 to 200. That is as old as a manuscript 
we get. And then there's another father. 
I haven't written that in my... Do you happen to know, Kim? There 
was another father. So Irenaeus cites one half, and 
this other father cites the other half, both which are disputed. Who's that? I don't think it 
was Cyprian. But the point is that the fathers 
help us to get at early readings in the manuscript evidence. So 
for the NU guys, the eclectic guys, they maintain that the 
shorter reading is always the best. The shorter reading is 
always the best because a scribe would naturally be inclined to 
add, to round out. That's a very subjective call. That is a very subjective mindset 
when it comes to textual criticism. How do you know what was in the 
mind of a scribe? Maybe he cut it down quick because his burrito 
was getting cold and he needed to get out there so let's just 
cut out some of this superfluous text that's repeated in Luke. 
We just don't know. And so when we read these early 
fathers, and they're saying, yeah, they're citing Acts 8.37, 
and they live at a time or prior to a time that our oldest and 
best manuscripts go to, we have to conclude there were manuscripts 
available to Irenaeus that had that reading. There was a guy 
who was a big dog in the history of textual criticism named John 
Burden in the 1800s, and he said that if every extant manuscript 
of the New Testament was destroyed, we'd have enough to rewrite the 
entirety of the New Testament just based on the fathers. Just 
based on quotations from the fathers. So we cannot discount 
the early church fathers for their theology. I think their 
Trinitarianism and Christology is, you know, as good as it gets. 
But the light they shed on the textual issues and on the textual 
questions. So there is a wide variety of 
issues to be dealt with in textual criticism and in translation. But suffice it to say that as 
much as it may pain me, if you have the ESV, you can still learn 
about the glory of God and salvation by grace through faith in Jesus 
Christ and go to heaven. So don't be shaken. Don't be 
deterred. But do yourself a favor. No, 
I'm kidding. All that to say that our confession deals with 
that issue of the availability of Scripture, translation of 
Scripture. And then ultimately, as I said, 
paragraph 9 is actually the big, you know, money text when it 
comes to the interpretation of Scripture. It's pretty quick 
and simple. Notice 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. And basically, what you have 
are two principles here, the analogy of scripture and the 
analogy of faith. And by analogy of scripture, 
Moeller defines it this way. 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. Very simple principle, one we should all adopt and imbibe. 
The two examples I typically give are baptism and eschatology. 
In 1 Corinthians 15, 29, Paul makes an obscure reference to 
baptism for the dead. Well, how do we understand that? 
Well, we understand all the clear passages telling us that it's 
persons who are alive, persons who believe, and those are the 
persons who get baptized. Okay? The clear helps us with 
the not-so-clear. We may not know what 1 Corinthians 
15.29 means, but we certainly know what it can't mean. It can't 
undo the Christian doctrine of baptism for living, believing 
people that want to identify with the triune God. And then, 
eschatology. People read all eschatology through 
Revelation 20. Revelation 20 is a charged, symbolic, 
very intense passage. You've got a spirit being, vis-a-vis 
the devil, being bound by a chain and being cast into a bottomless 
pit. There's obviously imagery and 
allusion going on there. So we don't take Revelation 20 
and read 1 Corinthians 15, 20 to 28 through that. We read 1 
Corinthians 15, 20, and 28 to help us with Revelation 20. It's a very simple principle, 
and I think one that, once you hear it, you go, yeah, I should 
use clear parts to help me with the not-so-clear. And then the 
analogy of faith. And basically, Muller defines 
it this way. The use of a general sense of the meaning of scripture 
constructed from the clear or unambiguous locus 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 you might be 
dealing with a particular text, 1 Corinthians 15 29, and you 
go to other texts on how to deal with baptism. But this analogy 
of faith means, how does it fall into the whole system of Christianity? 
The whole doctrine concerning Christ and salvation and redemption 
and all that sort of thing. And then the last paragraph deals 
with the finality of scripture. And know for sure, they're not 
condemning the confession. They're not saying, you know, 
put us away and go read your Bible. In fact, look at what 
it says in paragraph 10. The supreme judge by which all 
controversies of religion are to be determined and all decrees 
of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, 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." 
Saying the Supreme Judge. So again, the confession authors 
aren't saying, put your confession down and go read your Bible, 
plebe. No, they believe in confessions, they believe in councils, they 
believe in the doctrines of men, insofar as they jive with scripture. The final authority, the finality 
involved in matters of Christian faith and practice are the scriptures. So that's the emphasis there 
in paragraph 10. Well, I'll close in prayer, and 
if anybody has a very quick question, we can get to that. Father in 
heaven, we thank you for the Bible, we thank you for what 
you have given to us, and we thank you for the history involved. It wasn't a book falling out 
of heaven, it wasn't Joseph Smith with his plates, it wasn't anything 
esoteric or strange, it was God revealing himself to people that 
spoke specific languages, and we now have it because of the 
Holy Spirit keeping it pure in all ages. We thank you and we 
praise you and we ask that you'd help us to have a a firm commitment 
to that word, and may it be our comfort and encouragement in 
this world. And we pray through Christ the 
Lord. Amen. Were you intending to be humorous 
when proposing we need to have a satisfactory definition of 
propitiation? I was not. No. I'm glad you're 
here to catch the puns, because that would have been good. No, 
I intended that. You did not intend that. No questions? I know there 
was a lot of material. Yes? I read in your comic and 
from Jim McAnab's book, Chris Carter's chapter or paragraph 
six, he says they were responding a little bit to the Quakers, 
apparently just before 1677, the Baptist churches were losing 
significant members to the Quakers. And that's important because 
the Quakers believed in the inward illumination of the spirit, more 
so than the word itself. More mystical. Yeah, yeah. at 
the beginning of the chapter or paragraph eight, I guess the 
Roman Catholics at that time were saying the Latin lobby was 
more pure than the Greek text. So they were specifically hammering 
on that, that no, Rome, you're not right. We can go back to 
the Peloponnesian stuff. Because sometimes they change 
from the Westminster, and there's reasons that we don't really 
know why. OK. Good. Good point. Wasn't 
it Lachlan who said that there If the Greek text disagrees with 
the King James Bible, throw the Greek text into the trash. There's 
been some of that extremism in terms of Greek texts and English 
translations from those Greek texts. So just understand that's 
a realized issue as well. It didn't fall out of habit in 
1611. Well, actually, the title of 
the book levels all ground and it's called God's Word Hasn't 
Changed, The King's English Has.