← Back to sermon library

Well you can turn in your confession 
to chapter one as we begin again the study of the Second London 
Confession. If you don't have one just raise 
your hand and hopefully one will come your way. So chapter one of the Holy Scriptures, 
we're gonna just read paragraphs one to three. I won't read all 
of the books of the Old Testament and the New Testament, and then 
we'll look at paragraph one, the necessity of Holy Scripture, 
and then paragraphs two and three, the identity of Holy Scripture. 
So, beginning in chapter 1, paragraph 1, the Holy Scripture is the 
only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving 
knowledge, faith, and obedience. Although the light of nature 
and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest 
the goodness, wisdom, and power of God as to leave men inexcusable, 
yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and 
His will which is necessary unto salvation. therefore it pleased 
the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself 
and to declare that his will unto his church and Afterward 
for the better preserving and propagating of the truth and 
for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church Against 
the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and of the 
world to commit the same holy underwriting Which maketh the 
holy scriptures to be most necessary those former ways of God's revealing 
his will unto his people being now ceased Under the name of 
Holy Scripture or the Word of God written are now contained 
all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these." 
And then the Old Testament and New Testament books are listed, 
and then the summary statement in paragraph two, all of which 
are given by the inspiration of God to be the rule of faith 
and life. The books commonly called Apocrypha, 
not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule 
of the Scripture. and therefore are of no authority 
to the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or 
made use of than other human writings." Well, as I said, this 
is the foundational doctrine with reference to the system 
that follows. We need to know how we know, 
and that's how chapter 1 begins with God, or rather with the 
Holy Scriptures. So as I said, the necessity of 
Holy Scripture is given in paragraph 1, the identity of Holy Scripture 
in paragraphs 2 and 3. And for the rest of the chapter, 
you've got the authority of the Holy Scriptures in paragraphs 
4 and 5, the sufficiency of Scripture in paragraph 6. Paragraph 7 deals 
with the perspicuity or clarity of Scripture. Paragraph 8, the 
authenticity and availability of Scripture. Paragraph 9, the 
interpretation of Scripture. And then paragraph 10, the finality 
of Scripture. So we're going to just take up 
that first section on the necessity and the identity. Now notice 
with reference to the general statement beginning in paragraph 
1, the Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and 
infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. So it's the only sufficient rule 
of all those things, saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. The Holy 
Scripture is the only certain rule of all saving knowledge, 
faith, and obedience. So all other things are uncertain. And now, when we get to that 
section on the Apocrypha, as we get to that section on the 
finality of Scripture, the divines are not declaiming against or 
denouncing the writings of other men, They're not saying that 
every one that's written theology is bad, but it's certainly stressing 
the certainty of Holy Scripture as the final judge and arbiter 
of all other writings. And that's why the Apocrypha 
falls outside the canon of Holy Scripture. And then notice the 
Holy Scripture is the only infallible rule of all saving knowledge, 
faith, and obedience. We typically don't discuss the 
infallibility of Scripture, as once was discussed, because in 
the last couple of generations, inerrancy has taken its place, 
which is unfortunate, because if the Bible is infallible, then 
it certainly is inerrant. In other words, to say, well, 
the divines didn't put inerrant in. Yes, they did. They put infallible. Infallible means incapable of 
erring. So therefore, inerrancy is obviously 
subsumed under that, which means containing no errors. So, to 
say that it's infallible includes that it is inerrant. So, the 
general statement opening the particular chapter of the Confession, 
the Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible 
rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. As Dr. 
Renahan says, we need to read the Confession sideways. We need 
to understand how it connects together, that it's a systemic 
document, that it stands or falls together. And that's the overarching 
concern for everything else that follows in the Confession. From 
chapters 2 on to chapter 32, this is ultimately the primary 
principle. So anything discussed beyond 
this must fall under this overarching concern. that it's the Scripture, 
the finality of Scripture, the authority of Scripture, that 
we ultimately must submit to, so that anything that is outside 
of that, anything that is contrary to that, everything that is not 
necessarily contained in that, is therefore suspicious, and 
it is to be rejected, because it's not consistent with Holy 
Scripture. Now note, the confession goes on to describe what we call 
general revelation and special revelation. This is basically 
the two ways that God makes himself known. In Belgic Confession, 
Article 2, it says that we know God by two means. First, by the 
creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe 
is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, 
great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible 
things of God, His eternal power and His divinity, as the Apostle 
says in Romans chapter 1 and verse 20." So the book of nature 
or general revelation and then special revelation wherein God 
gives us redemptive truth. So note what the confession says, 
it calls it the light of nature, a phrase that's used throughout 
the confession. Although the light of nature 
and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest 
the goodness, wisdom, and power of God as to leave men inexcusable, 
yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and 
his will which is necessary unto salvation. Now the two specific 
texts that we ought to consider here are Psalm 19 and Romans 
chapter one. In Psalm 19 we see this celebration 
of general and special revelation. And realize that the scripture 
never denounces or mistreats general revelation. It functions 
the way God had intended for it to do. It is not deficient, 
it is not bad, it is what God has revealed in terms of the 
created order to those bearing His image. So it's not a bad 
thing, it's just not complete with reference to all saving 
knowledge, faith, and obedience. We need special revelation for 
that. So notice in Psalm 19, the heavens 
declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork. 
A day like today highlights that even better than a day that's 
all cloudy and rainy. Not that all cloudy and rainy 
does not manifest the glory of God, but sunshine and blue skies 
and mountains surrounding us and green grass screams out to 
us the glory of God. As Spurgeon says with reference 
to this verse, he who looks up to the firmament and then writes 
himself down an atheist, brands himself at the same moment as 
an idiot or a liar. And then we go on in Psalm 19, 
day unto day utter speech, night unto night reveals knowledge. 
There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. 
Their line has gone out through all the earth and their words 
to the end of the world. In them he has set a tabernacle 
for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and 
rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from 
one end of heaven, and its circuit to the other end, and there is 
nothing hidden from its heat." So again, no denouncement of 
God's revelation of himself through the created order, but rather 
celebration and praise and glory given to God as a result of that. 
Now, verse 7, there's a hinge. We see the law of the Lord is 
perfect, converting the soul. The testimony of the Lord is 
sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are 
right, rejoicing the heart. The commandment of the Lord is 
pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, 
enduring forever. The judgments of the Lord are 
true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than 
gold, yea, than much fine gold. Sweeter also than honey in the 
honeycomb. Moreover, by them your servant 
is warned, and in keeping them there is great reward. As Manton 
says, there is more of God to be seen in His word than in all 
the creatures of the world, and in all His other works besides. 
So it's not a denouncement of general revelation, but showing 
the relationship between general and special revelation. Turn 
to the book of Romans, in Romans chapter 1. There's certainly 
other passages that could be appealed to, but specifically 
these two are usually employed to show this distinction and 
relationship between general and special revelation. Notice 
in Romans 1, verse 18, for the wrath of God is revealed from 
heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who 
suppress the truth in unrighteousness. And now he goes on to tell us 
what the light of nature reveals concerning God. And we need to 
understand the specific limitation here of general revelation. It's 
enough to manifest the goodness, the glory, the power and the 
wisdom of God, but in general revelation it doesn't communicate 
redemptive truth. You can't look at Mount Shem 
and learn of blood atonement through Jesus Christ. You can't 
look at the ocean and learn of God's redemptive grace in the 
Gospel. So again, the relationship is 
there, the distinctions are there, the two work hand-in-hand, but 
general comes up short, not because it's designed in a bad way, but 
because it wasn't designed to provide that redemptive information. 
Notice what Paul says in verse 19, "...because what may be known 
of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For 
since the creation of the world..." And notice the specifics that 
man learns about God through the natural order. "...for since 
the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly 
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His 
eternal power and Godhead." So through the effects, we can reason 
back to the cause, and we can learn specific truths about God 
Himself. And that's exactly what He says 
here, even His eternal power and Godhead. So the confession 
is not out of line when it says, although the light of nature 
and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest 
the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable, 
Yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and 
His will which is necessary unto salvation? Paul says that in 
verse 21. Notice at the end of verse 20, 
so that they are without excuse. So man as creature under God 
interpreting the created order, the general revelation available 
to him can conclude that there is eternal power and Godhead. 
And I would argue as well, verse 32, that God is righteous and 
it's just with God to punish rebels against him. Notice in 
verse 21. because although they knew God, 
they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became 
futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory 
of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible 
man and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 
As a result, God gave them up. Three times the apostle emphasizes 
this. So general revelation renders 
a man inexcusable, but it doesn't provide the content necessary 
for redemption through Jesus Christ. Thus, the essential nature 
of Holy Scripture. So back to the confession. after 
as to leave men inexcusable, yet are they not sufficient to 
give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto 
salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord." 
Notice, the gift of God is seen in special revelation. We've 
got the Old and the New Testaments because God is gracious and according 
to His sovereign pleasure, He has ordained it thus. So it says, 
therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in diverse 
manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto 
his church. And afterward, for the better 
preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure 
establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption 
of the flesh, the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the 
same holy underwriting, 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 the scriptures are most necessary 
so that men can hear of the truth of Jesus Christ and by God's 
grace be saved. Paul makes that very clear. We're 
going to consider this in the morning sermon as well. Faith 
comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. If sinners 
don't hear the truth of the gospel, they're going to perish because 
they're inexcusable before that holy God. So there's a necessity 
on the part of the church to take seriously the Great Commission, 
to go therefore to make disciples of all the nations, to baptize 
them, and then to teach them to observe all things that the 
Lord has commanded. The law of the Lord converts 
the soul, and we need to understand that. So scripture is necessary 
due to the limitations of general revelation. And again, when I 
say limitations, it's a God-imposed limit. It's not that it's deficient. It's not that it's insufficient. 
It does what God purposed for it to do. Notice as well, the 
scripture is necessary for the preservation and propagation 
of the truth. When you look at the Holy Scriptures, 
and you look at God's purpose and plan to save His people from 
their sins, it makes perfect sense. Not that God needs me 
to commend Him on it making perfect sense, but it makes perfect sense. 
Take a book, record the thought of God, the will of God, the 
purpose of God, the redemptive truth of God, and secure that, 
and protect it, and provide it for the church through its ages, 
and send it forth to the uttermost parts of the world. So for the 
better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more 
sure establishment and comfort of the church. In other words, 
the church is to be word-focused, word-centered, not entertainment, 
not manipulation, not sensitivity, not therapy, none of that stuff. 
The church is to be about the word. The church is the pillar 
and the ground of the truth. It's not the pillar and the ground 
of the experience. It's not the pillar and the ground of the 
feeling. It is the pillar and the ground of the truth. And 
one of the reasons why I'm emphasizing this is we're going to see more 
of this in the high priestly prayer of our Lord Jesus. I think 
we learn a lot about a man as to how he prays prior to his 
departure and what Jesus has in that high priestly prayer 
is very much in sync with what the apostles report to us and 
relate to us in their own writings. To focus on the word, to be preachers 
of the word, to convince, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering 
and teaching. In other words, it's the word 
that is to hold its sway in the hearts of men in the church. 
So the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against 
the corruption of the flesh. Psalm 119, the psalmist says, 
your word I've hidden in my heart that I might not sin against 
you. Why do we hide God's Word in our hearts? So that we might 
not sin against God. So that we have that resistance 
against our own remaining corruption. The flesh lusts against the Spirit, 
the Spirit against the flesh. These are contrary to one another 
so that you don't do the things that you want. The Spirit restrains 
and the Spirit guides and the Spirit helps and assists us. 
by an intake of Holy Scripture. Sanctify them by thy truth, thy 
word is truth, against the malice of Satan." You see, Jesus exemplified 
that in Matthew chapter 4, where he's bringing to fruition a realization 
what should have been true of Israel in the wilderness. And 
Israel in the wilderness is a rehearsal of that. In Deuteronomy chapter 
8, God takes them out into the wilderness. What do they do? 
They whine, they grumble, and they complain because they want 
food. And God's lesson to them is that 
you need to learn that man shall not live by bread alone, but 
by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. So Jesus, as 
the true Israel of God, is driven out into the wilderness by the 
spirit in Matthew chapter 4, and the tempter comes with reference 
to food. What does Jesus do? He takes 
that sword out of Deuteronomy and he slashes at the devil. 
He says, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word 
that proceeds from the mouth of God. How do we resist the 
devil? It's not by going to a Bob Larson 
conference. It's not by buying the newest 
set of DVDs on how to deal with the devil and his minions. It's 
by resisting him, as the apostles tell us, and by wielding that 
sword of truth. It's not magic. It's not brain 
surgery. It's not hocus pocus. We take 
the Scriptures, we hide it in our hearts so that we might not 
sin against God, and so that we might have a legitimate defense 
against the devil, and then, as well, against the malice of 
the world. The world certainly rises up 
in opposition against Yahweh and His Christ. Again, we're 
going to see that in our morning sermon. But what does the church 
do in response? We resist that with the Word. 
We don't capitulate. We don't modify. We don't tear 
off the rough edges. We don't say, well, you know, 
the world doesn't like this emphasis on the seventh commandment, so 
transgenderism is perfectly acceptable. No, we don't do that. We don't 
acknowledge pronouns. We don't disrupt the created 
order where he made them male and female. We don't capitulate 
to women pastors. We don't capitulate to churches 
that want to degenerate to such a place where they have defected 
wholly from the New Testament scriptures. We don't do that. 
When the world gets into the church, the faithful church resists 
the world instead of capitulating to it. And then notice, the scripture 
is necessary because God no longer reveals his mind as he once did. 
This is contra-Pentecostalism and Charismaticism and their 
emphasis on the continuation of the revelatory gifts. Now, 
the cessationist position or the non-continuationist position 
does not deny that God does not have power. does not suggest 
that there is no supernatural. It does not suggest that God 
doesn't do miracles. Whenever God saves a sinner and 
demonstrates regeneration, that is a miraculous display of supernatural 
power from on high. But the cessationist, or the 
non-continuationist, it's hard to keep up with the labels as 
they change every few years, maintains that the revelatory 
gifts that were operative in the first century church have 
ceased. In other words, tongues and prophesying existed to communicate 
revealed truth from God to the churches who didn't have the 
New Testament canon. So once we have the New Testament 
canon, there's no more need for tongue speaking and prophesying 
as it's defined in Corinthians, not as it may be broader defined 
or generally defined as just simply forth telling the word 
of God, those things have ceased. There's no more revelatory gifts 
because the New Testament canon is complete. We don't have to 
go yearning for some prophet to get a new word from the Lord. 
As Owen Wells says, if private revelations agree with scripture, 
then they're needless. And if they disagree with scripture, 
then they're heretical. So the prophet that tells you 
you're going to go out and make however much money next year 
that is contrary or extraneous to the Word of God is not authorized 
by God to say that. And if you do happen to go out 
and make that kind of money, it doesn't prove that he was 
true. Just proves that in God's providence, he's good and kind 
and righteous, even to wretches like us who shouldn't make any 
money. So notice, the scripture is necessary because God no longer 
reveals his mind as he once did. To commit the same holy underwriting, 
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 that maintains a cessationist 
position. Now, some will say at the Westminster 
Assembly there were non-cessationists present. Yeah, there were. But 
what makes it into the consensus document? What makes it into 
the Church's document, a non-cessationist position? You need to understand 
that as you move through the confession when you get to chapter 
11. And we have in our confession a specific reference to the imputation 
of the active and passive obedience of Christ. Some will say, well, 
at the Westminster Assembly, some of them did not maintain 
the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Yeah. That's 
why they soften the language. The Baptist divines take that 
thoroughly historically approved language or verbiage and put 
it in the confession. But even so, at Westminster, 
chapter 11, you still see the imputation of the righteousness 
of Christ. How do we explain that? A consensus document. They 
were outgunned. There were more people that agreed 
with the imputed righteousness of Jesus received by faith alone. So when we come to this particular 
paragraph, at the end, those former ways of God's revealing 
his will unto his people being now ceased. We are cessationists. We are non-continuationists. Again, with reference to the 
revelatory gifts. There have been fools in the 
church that have said things like, to be a cessationist is 
to be like a deist. That does not follow, brethren. 
To say or suggest or maintain that the revelatory gifts have 
ceased says nothing about God's power in regeneration, God's 
power in healing people, God's power in His displays in Providence 
of however He chooses to work. When it comes to those revelatory 
gifts, they have ceased. Why? Because of the sufficiency 
of Scripture. Because of the finality of Scripture. 
Because of the authority of Scripture. And because of the fact that, 
for the most, those who maintain open-ended revelation are oftentimes 
people that can't even tell you what the Book of Amos is about. 
I've long maintained and have probably said here several times, 
it amazes me that people who are open to new revelation or 
get new words from the Lord haven't read the entirety of the Bible. 
Just a simple practical observation, why would God give you an extra 
piece of information if you haven't read Genesis to Revelation? Why 
would God, because of you being a delicate snowflake who doesn't 
know who Obadiah was, give you a word about your future or about 
the future of the church? Practically it makes no sense. 
So the necessity of Holy Scripture is well grounded here in paragraph 
1. That brings us then to the identity 
of Holy Scripture in paragraphs two and three. And this is a 
very important question dealing with what we call canon. And 
that word canon in Greek meant a rod, especially a straight 
rod used as a rule. From this usage comes the other 
meaning, which the word commonly bears in English, rule or standard. So canon, as I use it, does not 
mean that big device on a battlefield that blows people's heads off. 
That's not what I mean. Of course, I guess the Bible 
is referred to itself as God's hammer, so it at least can blow 
intellectual heads off in terms of its ability to refute the 
godlessness of men. In the second century in the 
Christian church, canon came to stand for revealed truth. 
The use of the word in biblical studies usually refers to a final, 
closed list of books. So that's what we're dealing 
with here in paragraphs two and three. What makes up the canon 
of scripture? What makes up the Old Testament? 
What makes up the New Testament? Well, you'll see that our forefathers, 
the divines, following the Protestant tradition and the medievals and 
the Well, not all the medievals are fathers, but notice you've 
got the Old Testament listed, and then you've got the New Testament. 
So I hope that you all learned those in your sword drills when 
you were kids in Sunday school. I've always thought it'd be good 
just to ask somebody, list off the books of the Bible. I'm assuming 
that everybody can list off the books of the Bible. If not, you've 
got a handy guide here and in the contents of your copy of 
the scriptures. But notice, in terms of the characteristics 
of the Holy Scripture, before we get there, in one, let's see, 
I'm sorry, excuse me. In 1-2-B, In other words, after the list 
of the scriptures indicated, it says in paragraph two, all 
of which are given by the inspiration of God to be the rule of faith 
and life. So the Holy Scripture is inspired. 
And that word inspired can mean a lot of different things in 
a lot of different contexts. If you're a songwriter and you 
shimmy up Mount Sham and you look at the sun and you look 
at the mountains around and you're led to write a song, you were 
inspired. That's not what we mean when 
we talk about the prophets and the apostles. Paul didn't look 
down and see this beautiful landscape and say, you know, I just feel 
led to write Romans. That's not what inspired means. Inspired comes from 2 Timothy 
3.16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God. That's 
how the New King James translates it. The ESV has it, and I think 
somewhat better, breathed out by God. NIV is good, God-breathed. NASB inspired by God, which is 
probably the most ambiguous and might lead one to conclude that 
Paul looked out over the landscape and felt led to write Galatians. 
It is God breathed. Through the human instrumentality 
of men, God breathed his words through those particular men. 
So notice, all of which are given by the inspiration of God to 
be the rule of faith and life. Faith, things to be believed, 
specifically the gospel of our salvation. If we don't believe 
on the Lord Jesus Christ, we're not going to be saved. So it 
is to be the rule of faith and life. So things to be done. How 
do we live in light of those things that we've believed? How 
do we live in light of justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ? 
How do we engage the life of sanctification? Sanctify them 
by thy truth. Thy word is truth. How do I live 
as a man? Well, the scripture tells me. 
How do I live as a husband? The scripture tells me. How do 
I live as a father? The scripture tells me. So we 
need to make sure we understand that the Bible is that rule of 
faith and life. Notice, then, there's a particular 
qualification concerning the books commonly called apocrypha. 
Apocrypha, paragraph 3. The books commonly called apocrypha, 
not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule 
of the scripture, and therefore are of no authority to the Church 
of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than 
other human writings. So with reference to the Apocrypha, 
those are some books that the Roman Catholic Church will include 
between the Old Testament and the New Testament. And even our 
confession is not saying, thou must never read the Apocryphal 
books. That's not what's going on here. 
You can read the Apocryphal books. This isn't a forbidden you know, 
book lists that you're to avoid. But notice what it says, and 
therefore are of no authority to the Church of God. They don't 
have authoritative place in the Church of God. Where do we develop 
dogma or doctrine from? Well, from the canonical scriptures. 
We don't draw it from non-canonical scriptures. Notice, nor to be 
any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings. So they're not denouncing other 
human writings, they're simply saying that other human writings 
can't take the place or a side place to canonical scripture. 
In other words, you can read those things, you can read Spurgeon, 
you can read Calvin, you can read the Apocrypha, You can read 
the various men that Christ has given as gifts to his church, 
but with reference to their authority in the church, it is the scripture 
alone, the canonical scripture. Which canonical scriptures? The 
ones just identified in terms of Old Testament and New Testament, 
with the exclusion of the Apocrypha. So though there are those in 
the history of the church that wanted to maintain the use of 
the Apocrypha as canonical scripture with authority in the church, 
the confession is very clear here. That's not supposed to 
happen. You're not supposed to do your 
devotions in the Apocrypha and see that as the authoritative 
word of God. The Apocrypha is not a part of 
the Hebrew canon. The Protestant canon follows 
the Hebrew canon. The order of the books is different. 
The Hebrew canon begins with Genesis, ends with 2 Chronicles. But the fact is that the content 
is the same. Now, there's some question as 
to some of the books in terms of a few additions, verses, or 
chapters, but we'll not get too far astray here. The Apocrypha 
is not quoted by Christ and his apostles, and the Apocrypha contains 
errors. That's probably the simplest 
way to deal with the Apocrypha. Now, when it comes to the criteria 
for canonicity, there's a book that I would recommend by Michael 
Kruger. It's called... There's question 
of canon, and then canon revisited. And the canon revisited, it's 
very good. I mean, of the books available 
on canon stuff, I think it's very good. But basically, the 
criteria for canonicity. Why do we hold that some books 
are in the canon and other books are not? That comes up, brethren, 
and that's why we're going to spend a little bit of time here 
on the identity of Holy Scripture. When it comes to, you know, our 
evangel or our apologetic, you'll oftentimes meet with people, 
how do we know that Romans should be in the Bible? How do we know 
that Ezra belongs in the Bible? How do we know that Exodus belongs 
in the Bible? Those are questions that come 
up sometimes at family devotions. Your kids might raise their hand 
and say, well, I don't know about Ruth, why is Ruth in the Bible? 
So questions of canonicity are very important, and a good view 
of canon is helpful not only to resist the charismatic and 
Pentecostal emphasis on continuing revelation, but simply on questions 
that come to believers when we present the truth. Now, you'll 
see or hear people say, well, you know, every religion claims 
to have the word of God. Not every religion does. The 
Mormons do, the Christian does, and the Muslims do. As far as 
I know, those other documents of other religions, and I'm sure 
I'm wrong, probably, they don't maintain to be the word of God. 
So when you're dealing with Mormonism, for instance, and they have another 
testament of our Lord Jesus Christ, wherein instead of ascending 
on high, he ascends over to America and he deals with Indians for 
a while. You know, you've got to evaluate those claims based 
on the canon, based on the scripture, the finality of scripture. when 
it comes to the Quran and its claim to be the word of God? 
Does it do things contrary to what we have in the canonical 
scriptures? So this becomes the litmus test, 
ultimately. But at a deeper level, how do 
we know what we have is what we're supposed to have? I remember, 
was it a few years ago? probably more than a few years 
ago. What was that Da Vinci code? Isn't that based on some extra 
books in the New Testament period? You get that every few years. 
Oh, the Gospel of Thomas, the gospel. There were other gospels 
available. Yeah, they knew that too in the early centuries of 
the church. They were savvy on those things, 
right? It wasn't some modern challenge 
in the life of the church. But in terms of a criteria for 
canonicity, Kruger mentions three, and I think they're very helpful. 
First, the providential exposure of books. The providential exposure 
of books. If you turn to the book of Colossians, 
Colossians, you see an emphasis in this direction. The providential exposure of 
books. Notice in verse 16 of chapter 
4 in Colossians, now when this epistle is read among you, see 
that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you 
likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. In other words, expose 
these God-sanctioned, God-ordered words to the other churches. Get it out there. We're not going 
to hide it and be esoteric and just claim it, you know, we have 
a special status before God and nobody else is privy to it. It's 
not a mystery religion or sect wherein just a few have exposure 
to the scripture. Kruger says if God intended to 
give a canon to his corporate church, and not just an isolated 
congregation for a limited period of time, then we have every reason 
to believe that He would providentially preserve these books and expose 
them to the Church so that, through the Holy Spirit, it can rightly 
recognize them as canonical. So in other words, when you think 
about the canon of Scripture, and when you think about the 
New Testament, and you think about what happened, I think 
that people really overly complicate the whole process. It was a lot 
more simple. then we think God uses Paul to 
write Romans. Paul sends the letter to the 
Romans, delivers it, and then the letter of the Romans gets 
to others. And same with 1 Corinthians, and 2 Corinthians, and Matthew, 
and Mark, and Luke, and John. And they thought, you know what? 
For other people to hear it and for other people to read it, 
we should make copies of it. What do we do with those copies? 
We send them to other churches. That's really how it went, brethren. 
It didn't magically fall out of the sky in 325 or 381 or 1611. It was a natural, organic process 
providentially determined by our God. And the Confession alludes 
to that in paragraph 8, the Old Testament in Hebrew, which was 
the native language of the people of God of old, and the New Testament 
in Greek, which at the time of the writing of it was most generally 
known to the nations. What's the emphasis? God doesn't, 
you know, raise up the old covenant people in a Hebrew tongue and 
then give them revelation in Japanese. He doesn't speak, you 
know, have the apostles learn Chinese to go speak to Greek-speaking 
people in Chinese. He's getting the most bang for 
his buck, right? He's getting the Scriptures exposed. There used to be a time when 
they thought that the Greek of the New Testament was some supernatural 
Holy Spirit Greek, until they started pulling things out of 
the desert, like, you know, receipts, and invoices, and all kinds, 
shopping lists, I don't know if they're shopping lists, but, 
you know, get a loaf of bread or whatever, and it was the same 
Greek. You've probably heard Koine Greek. 
It means common Greek. It wasn't some supernatural Holy 
Spirit Greek that was only given to the apostles. No, it was the 
common language of the day. Why? Because all in all, it was 
a very simple providential experience. God spoke through the apostles. 
They wrote down their documents. The documents were then copied 
and the documents were distributed all throughout the empire. such 
that they made it to us. It's a beautiful thing. Now, 
along the way, there's copyist errors, or there's introduction 
in the transmission of things that it's hard to know for certain. But with the three groups of 
Greek texts, the way they put them in families, you've got 
what's called the textus receptus, and the majority text, and the 
eclectic text, there's 85% agreement. 85% agreement. And of course we fight 
viciously about the 15%. That's just what we do. But 85% agreement, brethren, 
that's amazing. How do we attribute that? divine 
providence. So back to the confession. Being 
immediately inspired by God. So God takes Paul, breathes through 
Paul, Paul writes Romans. And by his singular care and 
providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic. 
So you see, what Paul wrote in Romans, we trust because of God's 
providence, and God's power, and God's glory, and God's majesty, 
and as a result of the divine purpose in scripture, that what 
Paul wrote is what we've got. That's a beautiful thing. And again, a very simple thing. 
It doesn't drop out of heaven in the 300s. It doesn't drop 
out of heaven in the 1600s. It doesn't drop out of heaven 
in the 21st century. Oh, this new Bible version. No, 
the Lord God Most High did it providentially and powerfully 
through His grace. Notice, so as in all controversies 
of religion, the Church is finally to appeal to that. But because 
these original tongues are not known to all the people of God 
who have a right unto an 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 under 
which they come. This is a legitimacy of translation. Of course. You 
don't have to first become a Hebrew scholar and a Greek scholar before 
you can read the Bible so that you can get saved. That's not 
it. Again, simply, providentially, 
we speak, you know, I almost said American. We speak English 
here. We'll then translate from Hebrew 
and Greek into English. We speak Chinese. We'll then 
translate from Greek and Hebrew into Chinese. There's nothing 
wrong with a translation. The translation needs to be appropriate 
with reference to the actual text itself, which is a whole 
other field of debate that we're not going to get into. But the 
legitimacy of translating scripture, translating into that vulgar 
tongue, that known language, the ability with which people 
are able to communicate and receive information and, by God's grace, 
believe that information. Notice the end game in paragraph 
8. So providential exposure of scripture. Did those texts get 
a lot of exposure? Yes, they did. Secondly, the attributes for 
canonicity. The attributes for canonicity. 
In other words, there must be something unique about the canonical 
scriptures that are not unique to the Quran. There must be something 
unique about the canonical scriptures that are not unique to the other 
testament of the Mormons. There must be something unique 
over and against those things that other men subscribe allegiance 
to. Well, the divine qualities. Look at paragraph 5. Paragraph 
5 indicates, 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, 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." Those are divine qualities or attributes 
for canonicity. Does Scripture have that? Yes. 
John Murray said, if Scripture is divine in its origin, character, 
and authority, it must bear the marks or evidences of that divinity. 
If the Bible purports to be the Word of God, it must put up. If the Book of Mormon purports 
to be the Word of God, it must put up. If the Koran purports 
to be the Word of God, it must put up. And when you examine 
the Book of Mormon, when you examine the Koran, it can't put 
up. When you do that with the scriptures, 
it can. Now, I know there's people out 
there, well, the Bible's filled with contradictions. The best 
defense against them is hand them a Bible and say, show me 
one. Show me one. There are people who haven't 
read the Bible. There are people that haven't thought through 
harmony. There are people that don't care. 
There are people that have an ax to grind against God and His 
Christ. Why do we listen to that? Oh 
wow, that person said, that God-hating rebel that's got a needle in 
his arm and five women around him, that guy says there's contradictions 
in the Bible. Brethren, let's not lower ourselves 
to such an unfortunate place. Now, notice that the confession 
says after those attributes or divine qualities, the 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. There's a great illustration 
of this in Paul's letter to the Corinthians. It's like a veil 
is over the eyes of those who had Moses. With us, we have been 
given the mind of Christ. It's impossible for the natural 
man to achieve those things given by the spirit. We need grace. 
But that doesn't militate against the fact that the scriptures 
do bear these divine qualities. Turretin says, thus scripture, 
which is the first principle in the supernatural order, is 
known by itself and has no need of arguments derived from without 
to prove and make itself known to us. That's good. So with reference 
to the attributes for canonicity, you've got the survey of divine 
qualities, but also the recognition by the church. This is kind of 
overlap and connected to that first statement in terms of providential 
exposure, but with reference to the church, there is a predominant 
unity. This is Kruger. Concerning the 
New Testament books in the church, the disagreements that existed 
and exist are to be expected. If you read on issues of canon, 
you'll see there are a couple of books that were disputed. 
There were a couple of books that some said, well, I'm not sure. 
Others said, well, I'm not sure. Listen to what Kruger says. That 
is to be expected. Sin, heresy, the devil, and hypocrisy 
are real enemies the church faces. So the disagreements themselves 
don't indicate the illegitimacy of the divine and canonical scripture. 
It just shows that man's got problems. Look at Matthew 28. 
Matthew chapter 28. Something similar, not the same, 
but similar in terms of emphasis. Matthew 28, 16, then the 11 disciples 
went away into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed 
for them. When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some 
doubted. What do you mean they doubted? How would they doubt? Here's the risen Lord standing 
right before them. And if they did doubt Matthew, 
why would you put that in? That's proof, one, of divine 
inspiration. I might have left that out. I 
wouldn't want any subsequent generations to know there was 
any doubt whatsoever. But Matthew has nothing to fear, 
so he includes that. But what does it indicate? We 
doubt because we got some internal struggle, remaining corruption, 
the world, the flesh, whatever it may be, the devil. And so 
I think that's a unique point that helps us to appreciate that 
when there were some debates concerning certain books in the 
New Testament canon, it doesn't invalidate the entirety of canon, 
and it doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of those books to 
be in the canon. As well, the implication of John 
10, 27, this is not Kruger, this is me kind of summarizing. The 
implication of John 10, 27 should be pondered in this regard. John 
10, 27, the sheep hear my voice. If individual sheep hear the 
voice of Christ, we ought to expect that a collection of individual 
sheep, which would be called churches, would hear that voice. and would consent, and would 
agree, and would see. Now remember, the church doesn't 
determine what is canonical. The church recognized what was, 
in fact, canonical. Bovink says, the testimony of 
the Holy Spirit is not a private opinion, but the witness of the 
church of all ages of Christianity as a whole. So some guy somewhere 
said, I don't like 2 Peter. I don't think it should be in 
there. OK. I mean, I would say you should repent and embrace 
2 Peter, but the one lone voice or a handful or a collection 
of voices doesn't invalidate the testimony of the church who 
has recognized the truth. Kruger responds to the claim 
that the canon wasn't in place until the 4th century. He says, 
contrary to these claims, however, we shall argue that there is 
evidence for the emergence of the canon that precedes the end 
of the 2nd century. which is exactly what you would 
expect based on what we know to be true. God takes Paul, Paul 
writes Romans, Romans gets copied and gets distributed amongst 
the people in the empire. It wasn't magic, it wasn't hocus 
pocus, doesn't fall down out of heaven in the third, in the 
fourth century or in the 17th century. It was a process providentially 
superintended and overseen by God to secure that we get the 
word. Now, in terms of the recognition of the Church, the Apostles knew 
what they were doing. The Apostles knew what they were 
doing. Paul says, note those who don't obey our words in this 
epistle. Wow, Paul, that's some chutzpah. 
1 Timothy 5, verse 18, the Apostle Paul quotes the Old Testament 
and the Gospel of Luke as an argument for the paying of pastors. 
As well, we've got the reference to a bi-covenantal canon. 2 Peter 
1 puts the apostles on par with the Old Testament prophets. Brethren, 
there's a lot going on in the upper room and in the high priestly 
prayer of our Lord Jesus that I think we miss because we individualize 
it and make it all about us. That's why my constant emphasis 
on the apostles is the immediate context with reference to the 
upper room and high priestly prayer. Not that there's nothing 
for us. But primarily it was for them and for their particular 
ministry relative to the day of Pentecost when they received 
the Spirit and power, they go to preach to the Empire and they 
write the Holy Scriptures. The apostles knew what they were 
doing. The testimony of the Apostolic 
Fathers. Listen to Clement in 80-95. Take 
up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle. What did he 
first write to you in the beginning of the gospel? Truly he wrote 
to you in the spirit about himself in Cephas and Apollos. The Didache 
in AD 100, there's some date stuff there, but probably very 
much in that arena. Nor should you pray like the 
hypocrites. Instead, pray like this, just as the Lord commanded 
in his gospel. And it goes on to quote the Lord's 
prayer from Matthew chapter 6, with a long ending, I may add. For yours is the kingdom, the 
power, and the glory, now and forever. Amen. If in 8100, the 
Didache is using a printed copy of Matthew that has the long 
ending, I'm not sure how we conclude that the oldest and best manuscripts 
don't contain the long ending. That seems absolutely ludicrous 
to me, but again, another sort of a situation. Ignatius, martyred 
around AD 110. You are the highway of those 
who are being killed for God's sake. You are fellow initiates 
of Paul, who was sanctified, who was approved, who was deservedly 
blessed. May I be found in his footsteps when I reach God, who 
in every letter remembers you in Christ Jesus. So these early 
fathers gave place to the apostles. They didn't put themselves on 
the same level as the apostles. There was a distinction to be 
found there. Ignatius, again, be eager therefore to be firmly 
ground in the precepts of the Lord and the apostles. Ignatius, 
again, therefore be on your guard against such people and you will 
be provided that you are not puffed up with pride and that 
you cling inseparably to Jesus Christ and to the bishop and 
to the commandments of the apostles. Polycarp, around AD 110, for 
I am convinced that you are well trained in the sacred scriptures, 
that nothing is hidden from you. He goes on to quote from Ephesians 
chapter 4. They understood there was a distinction 
between the apostles and other men. We need to make that distinction. We need to understand that the 
apostles had a certain place of authority in the life of the 
church. I think that freaks out Protestants 
at times, because it might lead to thinking that Peter was the 
first pope. That is nonsensical. But to denigrate 
the role that the apostles played under the hand of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, specifically seen in John 13 to 16, and then reiterated 
in his high priestly prayer, is to miss it. It's to misunderstand. And it does have some bearing 
on the subject of the transmission of Scripture. And then a third 
thing is the apostolic origin of books. This does not necessarily 
mean that one of the authors of the New Testament had to be 
an apostle. Mark and Luke were not. James was not. Jude was 
not. They were not apostles, but they 
were apostolic men. How does the book of Hebrews 
refer to the Psalms of David? Just David. Did David write every 
one of the 150 Psalms? No, but David made sure every 
one of the 150 Psalms should be there. Did the 12 apostles 
write every document in the New Testament? No. But did they authorize 
the inclusion of those documents? Yes. We see that the apostles 
of Christ were conscious of the fact that they were used by God 
to pen the Holy Scripture. We don't have a lot of time to 
get into all the specific texts, but there are several. In fact, 
in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, when Paul says, the Lord doesn't speak 
to this, but I do. Some say, well, there you have 
it. Paul's at it. He's talking about mixed marriages. It's not 
about a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever. Search Matthew, 
Mark, Luke, and John. Jesus doesn't deal with that. 
There was nobody in Galilee, hey Jesus, my wife's unconverted, 
what do I do? That's what he means. I speak, 
not the Lord, but I. Not extraneous to the Lord's 
teaching, but consistent with the Lord's teaching as an authorized 
apostle, as one given the Holy Spirit to speak authoritatively 
to such issues. He's not making a distinction 
between the words of Paul and the words of Jesus. He's simply 
saying that Jesus in his earthly ministry didn't deal with the 
issue of a mixed marriage, but Paul is going to deal with this 
in his in his letters. Ritterbos on apostolicity says, 
the apostolicity of a book is determined by, quote, whether 
its content embodies the foundational apostolic tradition, not whether 
it was written by the hand of the apostle. Kruger says, thus, 
the New Testament canon is not so much a collection of writings 
by apostles, but a collection of apostolic writings. There's 
a distinction there that is absolutely crucial and necessary. Writings 
that bear the authoritative message of the apostles and derive from 
the foundational apostolic era, even if not directly from their 
hands. So if anybody ever says, well, Jude wasn't an apostle. 
Luke wasn't an apostle. Mark wasn't an apostle. Yeah, 
but do they have apostolicity? That's the question, and that's 
the issue. Listen to Justin, Justin Martyr, 
A.D. 100-165, for the apostles. Now, intriguingly, he knows that 
two were not written by apostles. He knows that Mark and Luke were 
not apostles, but he says that the four gospels are apostolic. They're given to us by God. Irenaeus 
1.30 to 2.02, we have learned from none others the plan of 
our salvation than from those through whom the gospel has come 
down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public and 
at a later period by the will of God handed down to us in the 
scriptures to be the ground and pillar of our faith. So brethren, 
it was a simple process. Now, not simplistic. Lots of 
people died. Lots of people were martyred. 
Lots of people were probably thrown out of church. It was 
probably a sullied history in terms of the actual fruition 
of it. God gives the Spirit to Paul. Paul writes Romans. Romans 
get sent or delivered. The Romans read it. The Romans 
copy it. The Romans send it to the Galatians. 
The Galatians get there. It's just that way. And the transmission 
is superintended and providentially controlled by God, such that 
what Romans says in the first century is what Romans says in 
the 21st century. It is a beautiful and a wonderful 
thing, and the Christian ought not to shrink back from those 
who say, well, you know, the contradictions and the inconsistencies, 
and why is Jude in the New Testament when he wasn't an apostle? Well, 
I will close in prayer, and as Cam might say, we'll have 37 
seconds for any questions or comments. So let's pray. Father 
in heaven, thank you for this time in our study of the Confession. 
We thank you for Holy Scripture and for your mercy and your grace 
and your goodness revealed to us in general revelation and 
in special revelation, and that goodness certainly seen in that 
grace and mercy and the redemptive benefit that we have in Jesus 
Christ. Bless our time as we gather for worship. May you be 
glorified and praised. May your spirit attend. May you 
save sinners. May you sanctify your people. 
And we ask through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen. Any questions 
or comments? No? Good. All right. 32 seconds 
went by.