← Back to sermon library

I want to read 5 to 10, and then 
our focus is primarily going to be on hermeneutics or the 
interpretation of Holy Scripture. Paragraph 9 speaks specifically 
to that, but I think the other paragraphs as well offer some 
practical assistance to us as we go about the hermeneutical 
task or the task of interpreting Holy Scripture. So I'll begin 
chapter 1 at 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, under 
which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation 
of the Spirit or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge 
the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary 
for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed 
in the Word, and that there are some circumstances according 
to the worship of God and government of the Church common to human 
actions in societies, which are to be ordered by the light of 
nature and Christian prudence according to the general rules 
of the Word, which are always to be observed. All things in 
Scripture are not alike, plain in themselves, nor alike, clear 
unto all. Yet those things which are necessary 
to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly 
propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, 
that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of 
the 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. Well, this is certainly a robust 
confession of the church concerning the authority and the profitability 
of Holy Scripture. As I said last time, we looked 
at the identification of Scripture, specifically in paragraphs 2 
and 3. The reality is, is that God has 
given His Word to the church. The church did not determine 
that Word, but rather the church recognized those books which 
are indeed canonical. So in the latter section, in 
paragraphs 5 to 10, essentially what we have, I'll give you an 
overview of what each paragraph does assert or teach, but as 
I said, our focus is going to be on the hermeneutics involved 
in this particular section. But paragraph 5 deals with the 
testimony concerning Scripture's authority. The testimony concerning 
Scripture's authority. It gives several lines of evidence 
concerning the authority of Holy Scripture and then concludes 
with the reality that it's ultimately the inward work of the Holy Spirit 
that bears witness by and with the Word in our hearts. Paragraph 
6 deals with the sufficiency of Scripture. Paragraph 7 is 
what's called the perpiscuity or the clarity of Scripture. Paragraph 8 deals with the availability 
of Scripture. Paragraph 9, strictly speaking, 
is the interpretation of Scripture. And then paragraph 10 deals with 
the finality of Scripture. But as I said, hermeneutics, 
we've all heard that particular word before, and it's defined 
as the science that teaches us the principles, laws, and methods 
of interpretation. And that's from Louis Burkhoff. 
A very helpful book by Burkhoff is his Principles of Biblical 
Interpretation. It's a small book. It's not too 
extensive, but it is pretty well done and a good introduction 
to biblical hermeneutics. The reality is that hermeneutics 
doesn't just apply to Scripture. General hermeneutics applies 
to all kinds of writing. In fact, the word was first used 
by Plato as a technical term. Special hermeneutics applies 
to certain definite kinds of writing. So there would be a 
hermeneutic that's applied to the interpretation of Shakespeare. 
a hermeneutic that's applied to certain philosophical writers. 
When we speak of sacred hermeneutics, or biblical hermeneutics, this 
applies to the Bible as the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word 
of God. Now, certainly there is a connection 
between hermeneutics and exegesis. Hermeneutics is the principles, 
or the theory, or the abstract doctrine, and exegesis is the 
practical execution of those principles. We need to understand 
as well that hermeneutics is foundational to all of theology. If you have a faulty hermeneutic, 
you're going to exegete passages in an incorrect manner. If you 
exegete passages in an incorrect manner, then your systematic 
theology is going to be on a foundation that is shaky and untrue. As 
well, we need to understand that this is not something that is 
out of the reach of everybody, but rather it is something everybody 
ought to be able to engage in and to do. So I wanted to focus 
on this particular section just to show you or try and demonstrate 
that within each of the paragraphs There is a hermeneutical principle 
involved in this section of the Confession. The first we ought 
to consider is in paragraph 5, the scope of Scripture. The scope 
of Scripture. It's very important that when 
we come to the Bible, we understand what the scope of Scripture is. 
And the scope of Scripture is simply the primary emphasis, 
or the focus, or the things that are most necessary for us to 
understand. In other words, persons come 
to the Bible oftentimes looking for practical helps on how to 
live a happy life, or they come to the Bible to try and mine 
out, you know, principles so that they can be a successful 
student or a successful entrepreneur. Now, the Bible does speak to 
all those areas, but when we ask, what is the scope of Scripture, 
We notice in paragraph 5, it says, ìWe 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, notice, 
which is to give all glory to God. Again, we give glory to 
God in being good students. We give glory to God in being 
good parents. We give glory to God in being 
faithful churchmen. All those things are true, and 
those things are found in the Scripture. But when we ask the 
Bible, what's your primary emphasis? The primary emphasis is not man's 
happiness or man's usefulness, it's God's glory. And Pastor 
Barcelos, in a helpful article on this subject, The Scope of 
Scripture, says that for the 17th century Orthodox and their 
Reformed predecessors, Christ was the scope of Scripture, being 
the primary means through which God gets glory for Himself. That's 
what it says specifically, the scope of the whole, which is 
to give all glory to God. They saw that the primary means 
whereby God gets glory is through the mission, the work of the 
person of the Lord Jesus Christ. William Ames in his Marrow of 
Theology says the Old and New Testaments are reducible to these 
two primary heads. I think this is a great statement. 
The Old and New Testaments are reducible to these two primary 
heads. The Old promises Christ to come 
and the New testifies that He has come. And I think that's 
a helpful grid or a tool or a principle to keep in mind as we come to 
the Scripture. As we interpret Scripture, the 
primary emphasis is, how does this bring glory to God? In fact, 
as I was thinking about this, I was struck by a quote by John 
Gill with reference to the book of Ruth. I liked it so much I 
wrote it in my notoriously large margin in my wide margin reference 
Bible. But Gill says the book of Ruth, 
he 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 all of Scripture, and 
whereby it appears that He sprung from both Jews and Gentiles, 
and is the Savior of both And there is a good foundation for 
both to hope in him. The call and conversion of Ruth 
the Moabitess may be considered as a shadow emblem and pledge 
of the conversion of the Gentiles." In fact, Muller has a discussion 
on this whole idea of scope. There was a narrow sense applied 
by our Reformed predecessors. It is the scope of a given text 
or passage, its basic thrust. But there was a wider sense where 
the scope referred to the target or the bullseye to which all 
Scripture tends. And whether you see this in all 
of its ramifications at this particular point, you have to 
make the observation, with much of professing Christianity today, 
it doesn't seem like the glory of God is the scope of the whole. It doesn't seem like the glory 
of Christ is the focus with reference to the study of Scripture. It's 
our sufficiency, it's our happiness, it's our completeness, it's our 
this, it's our that. And again, I think if we rightly 
understand the scope of the whole, then we benefit greatly. The 
corollary is that God's people are strengthened, they are encouraged, 
they are stabilized, but when we come to the Scripture, it 
certainly cannot be in the first place to mine out principles 
for a happy life. It is to see how it all tends 
to the glory of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Now, the testimony 
of Christ is obvious with reference to the scope of the whole. Just 
a couple of passages that I know you're familiar with. Luke chapter 
24. Luke chapter 24. Christ saw Himself as the scope 
of the whole. Luke 24, 25, Then he said to 
them, O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that 
the prophets have spoken. Ought not the Christ to have 
suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning 
at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the 
Scriptures the things concerning himself. He expounded to them 
in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. What does 
that mean? It means that all of the Scriptures 
expounded properly will reveal to us things concerning Christ. 
Notice in the next paragraph, or the next section there in 
verses 44 and following. These are the words which I spoke 
to you while I was still with you, that all things must be 
fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses and the prophets 
and the Psalms concerning me. That, of course, is the threefold 
division in the Old Testament. The Hebrew canon is structured 
differently than the Protestant canon. They're the same books, 
but in terms of structure. The Jews saw the Law, the Prophets, 
and the Writings. The Psalms were a part of the 
Writings, so this reflects that three-fold division. Verse 45, 
"...and He opened their understanding that they might comprehend the 
Scriptures." So you see that what we find in the Law, the 
Prophets, and the Psalms concerning Christ. And He opens their mind 
so that they would understand or comprehend the Scriptures. 
That famous declaration in John 5 at verse 39, when Jesus upbraids 
the religious leaders of His day, you search the scriptures, 
for in them you think you have eternal life, and these are they 
which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come 
to Me that you may have life. Note specifically as well, verses 
45 to 47. Do not think that I shall accuse 
you to the Father. There is one who accuses you, 
Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you 
would believe me, for he wrote about me." What are the books 
of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy about? 
They're about Christ. This is why you ought not to 
neglect your Old Testaments either, because it's all about Christ. 
It's all about the Lord Jesus. He says, if you do not believe 
his writings, how will you believe my words? The apostles testify 
that Christ is scope of the whole. In Acts 10, 43, Peter preaching 
in the household of Cornelius, he says to him, Christ, all the 
prophets witness that through his name, whoever believes in 
him will receive remission of sins. The Apostle Paul's doxology 
in the book of Romans, in Romans 16, 25. Now to him who is able 
to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of 
Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept 
secret since the world began, but now made manifest and by 
the prophetic scriptures made known to all nations, according 
to the commandment of the everlasting God, For obedience to the faith, 
to God alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen. That's 
just a sample text. If you're familiar with the writings 
of the Apostle Paul, they are conspicuous about the fact that 
the Scriptures as a whole focus upon the Lord Jesus Christ as 
the primary vehicle or means by which God Most High is glorified. So I think that is a foundational 
or fundamental hermeneutical principle that we keep in our 
minds. The Bible in the first place is theocentric. The Bible 
in the first place is about God. The Bible in the first place 
is the written record of God's redemptive plan to save His people 
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Now, in that sense, we ought 
to realize that Scripture does speak to everything, does have 
principles for us in all things, but the primary emphasis is to 
give glory to God. Notice, secondly, by way of a 
broad hermeneutical principle, the sufficiency of Scripture. 
In paragraph 6, this is something we need to consider as well. 
When we come to interpret Scripture, we need to understand its sufficiency, 
but in particular, what the first section of paragraph 6 indicates. Notice. The whole counsel of 
God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, 
faith, and life is either expressly set down or necessarily contained 
in the Holy Scripture, under which nothing at any time is 
to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit or traditions of 
men. So the sufficiency of Scripture 
tends to the glory of God and man's salvation, faith, and life. 
But note specifically the emphasis on explicit teaching and what's 
called implicit teaching. Explicit texts and implicit doctrine. Notice, it's either expressly 
set down, that means explicitly. It is expressly set down. You shall not murder. That is 
an explicit text. You cannot avoid that. It is obvious. It is clear. It 
is not open to interpretation. That's what always amazes me. 
People say, I can't understand the Bible. It's so hard. What's 
so hard to understand about you shall not murder? What's so hard 
to understand about you shall not commit adultery? Those are 
explicit texts. But notice the authority and 
the sufficiency of implicit doctrine. It's either expressly set down 
or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture. Now, I tend to 
prefer the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration at 
this juncture. Dr. Renahan shows that the Baptists 
did not abandon what the Westminster and Savoy says, but what they 
did here in changing the language to necessarily contain did serve 
the larger polemic concerning the polemic they would have against 
infant baptism. But that they meant the same 
thing is obvious when we compare Chapter 2. But note, the Westminster 
Confession says it's expressly set down or by good and necessary 
consequence may be deduced. By good and necessary consequence 
may be deduced. Now that means it's implicit. 
That means we apply logic to the text of Scripture, and if 
it is necessarily contained, or it is a necessary consequence 
that is deduced, then it too is authoritative. It, too, is 
the Word of God, and we see this practiced by our Lord and by 
the apostles. And one very simple illustration 
of this principle, we could give a whole host of them. In Exodus 
chapter 21, you remember where God, through Moses, calls for 
the death penalty of men who are fighting, and in the midst 
of their fight, a woman who is pregnant gets struck so that 
either she dies or her baby or babies die. If that happens, 
then you are to punish with execution the man who caused the injury 
or the man who caused the death. Well, certainly implicit in that 
is a condemnation of state-licensed abortionists, men who who would 
enter into the wombs of women with surgical instruments and 
murder the babies in the wombs. You see, that's implicit. That 
is implied. We can certainly glean and gather 
that from the broader explanation of these two men who are fighting 
and accidentally strike a woman. if they accidentally strike the 
woman and harm comes to her baby or babies, the language is plural 
there, her children come out, if they are harmed in that exchange 
and the death penalty is to be applied to that man in accidental 
abortion, then a good and necessary consequence deduced from that 
is that state-licensed abortionists ought to be executed for having 
committed the crime of murder. You see, explicit and implicit, 
and implicit. if it is a good and necessary 
consequence. That means it must be sound, 
it must be true, it must be good reasoning applied to the Scripture. Everybody with me? Explicit and 
implicit, good and necessary consequence. Now, some have said 
that the Baptists here softened this particular section, expressly 
set down or necessarily contained. They suggest that the Baptist 
divines rejected this good and necessary consequence, and therefore 
do not believe this. But again, I said, Jim Renahan 
has argued that necessarily contained was language of the day. It reflects 
the same meaning that the Presbyterians and the Savoy Declaration contains. 
And as I said, Chapter 2 evidences that. I mean, you don't end up 
with chapter 2 without good and necessary consequence, right? 
Chapter 2 of God and the Holy Trinity, can you go to any particular 
passage anywhere in Scripture and get chapter 2, specifically 
paragraph 3? In this divine and infinite being, 
there are three subsistences. the Father, the Word, or Son, 
and the Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having 
the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided. The Father 
is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding. The Son is eternally 
begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit, proceeding from 
the Father and the Son, all-infinite, without beginning, therefore 
but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, 
but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties 
and personal relations, Which doctrine of the Trinity is the 
foundation of all our communion with God and comfortable dependence 
on Him? There is not an explicit text 
that says that. But it's implied. That is fantastic 
theology that is working off the good and necessary consequences 
deduced from Scripture concerning who God is and His triunity. That is most blessed, it is most 
accurate, it is most theologically sound, and it is the result of 
good and necessary consequence being deduced from the Scripture. 
We need to understand that, that if something is goodly and necessarily 
deduced from Scripture, it has binding authority, it is on par 
with those explicit statements of Holy Scripture. Okay? That's 
another principle that we need to understand. But look at just 
some implications here before we move out of this paragraph. 
It speaks of, actually let me read this quote by Dixon, David 
Dixon in his Truth's Victory Over Error, which is essentially 
an exposition of the Westminster Confession. He says, Is not that 
which necessarily follows from Scripture, contained in it implicitly, 
and implicitly revealed by God, infallibly true? Listen to that 
again. "...is not that which necessarily 
follows from Scripture." You've got to understand, in logic, 
you have to have necessity. It must necessarily follow for 
it to be a sound conclusion. And if it does, he says, "...contained 
in it implicitly, and implicitly revealed by God, infallibly true." 
Just so that you're not confused about this, look at Matthew 22 
for just a moment. Jesus uses this to confound the 
Sadducees who question Him concerning the resurrection from the dead. a particular text to teach a 
specific conclusion. They ask him, remember they pose 
to him that whole story, that riddle about the woman whose 
husband died and she has seven brothers, or the six others marry 
her, and whose will she be in the resurrection to come? They 
don't believe in the resurrection to come. They're just trying 
to point out that Jesus is a heretic, or a false teacher, or something 
like that. And then Jesus says in verse 
29, You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power 
of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given 
in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. But concerning 
the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken 
to you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, 
and the God of Jacob? That text wasn't given there 
specifically to teach about the resurrection. It was Yahweh's 
declaration concerning his identity as revealed to Moses. But note 
Jesus' conclusion. God is not the God of the dead, 
but of the living. That is a good and necessary 
consequence deduced from that statement. When Yahweh says, 
I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he speaks in the present 
tense. That indicates that Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob have gone on to the resurrection of the dead. 
So he takes that implicit teaching and puts it before the Sadducees 
to shut their mouths concerning this particular riddle that they 
pose to him to try to catch him and show him out to be a fraud. 
So, notice in the following part of the paragraph. It says, after 
this statement concerning explicit and implicit, it says, unto which 
nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation 
of the spirit or traditions of men. The canon is closed. We're 
not to add to it. Somebody comes and says, I got 
a word from the Lord. I'm always curious about that 
sort of language. I got a word from the Lord. If I say, what 
does that mean? They say, well, I was reading Romans today. And 
it really understood chapter 3, verse 20. Okay, you got a 
word from the Lord. But if they say something like, 
well, you know, he told me to sell my house because the market's 
so good right now and to purchase another house, you know, in hope 
because the market's not as high. That's not the word of the Lord, 
okay? You've got to understand what you're claiming when you 
say you have a word from the Lord. This is one of the problems 
with the Charismatic and Pentecostal phenomena. They don't understand 
the purpose of tongues and prophesying. Tongues and prophesying in its 
first century context was revelatory. They weren't just tonguing and 
prophesying just to make people impressed. It was the means by 
which God was giving revelation to the church. And so for tongue 
speakers and prophesiers today to say they've got a word from 
the Lord or it's not quite the same as what, that's just not 
a good argument. Tongues and prophesying have 
ceased because the canon is closed. We don't need new words from 
the Lord. We need to better understand 
the word that we have from the Lord. You know, somebody says, 
you know, the Lord said to me, I often want to say too, have 
you ever read the book of Amos? Well, no. Well, why? How would 
the Lord give you new words if you haven't read Amos? Or if 
you haven't read Joel? Or if you haven't read Leviticus? 
I mean, why would God give you more when you haven't read the 
66 books that He's given? That just utterly baffles and 
amazes and perplexes me. They don't read what they have, 
but claim to get more from God. I just don't get it. Anyways, 
we're not supposed to add. Nevertheless, and here's another. 
a principle with reference to hermeneutics that is theoretical, 
that we need to recognize. It's not so much a principle 
that we apply to the text, but it's a principle that we apply 
to us as interpreters of the text. 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. We can't go about this task of 
interpreting Scripture apart from the author of Scripture. 
We need the illumination of the Holy Spirit. We need Him to guide 
us. We need Him to lead us. We need Him to direct us. We 
need Him to help us understand. And then if you're curious about 
what the end of paragraph 6 speaks to, 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. This is 
a statement concerning what one has called sanctified common 
sense. The Bible is a comprehensive book, but it doesn't tell us 
what time we meet on Sunday. The Bible is a comprehensive 
book, but it doesn't tell us what we're supposed to do in 
a situation where there's electricity. Do we have lights or don't we 
have lights? It doesn't tell us what we do in a situation 
where you can get, you know, hardwood pews so everybody can 
sit in pain, or by cushy chairs so everybody can sit in comfort. 
The Bible doesn't speak to that, and that's what the confession 
is saying. in the middle of that portion of the paragraph, and 
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. In other words, if it's convenient for everybody 
to meet 11, that's not authoritative, that's not dogmatic, that's not 
given by inspiration of God. It's a circumstance, it's not 
an element, it's a circumstance, and we can use our prudence, 
we can use our light of nature, according to the general rules 
of the Word, and we make that decision. And this is the distinction 
that's applied, I don't want to get too far afield here, but 
the distinction that's applied to what's called the regulative 
principle of worship. There's a distinction to be made 
with reference to the regulative principle of worship, because 
we'll be charged with, as those who hold to it, but you use lights, 
and there's pews, and there's a wooden pulpit, and you use 
hymn books. Those are circumstances of worship, 
and this is where the light of nature and where Christian prudence 
dictates that we employ those particular things. There are 
circumstances attached to the worship of God that are heretofore 
spoken to by the confession. The elements has to do with what 
we're commanded. We're supposed to preach the 
Word, we're supposed to read the Word, we're supposed to pray 
the Word, we're supposed to see the Word, and we're supposed 
to sing the Word. Those are the elements of worship 
that are not to be compromised, they're not to be taken from, 
they're not to be added to. Some persons try to put musical 
instruments into the category of circumstances. Well, drums 
are just a circumstance. That's where a lot of the debate 
concerning the regulative principle of worship comes to fall. It's with reference to this distinction 
between elements and circumstances. Many have heard of John Frame. 
John Frame is a Presbyterian theologian that argues for a 
whole host of musical instruments in the church based on this idea 
of circumstances. But I think there's a good case 
to be made that not only the singing, but the how to singing 
is an element, and I think it's spoken to very clearly in the 
scripture. But as I said, that takes us 
far afield. But that's what that's dealing 
with. The Bible, imagine if it addressed everything. We couldn't 
carry it. you know, bigger than our generous 
margin, wide margin Cambridge by, we couldn't carry it around. 
Okay, today have the Wheaties, tomorrow eat the Froot Loops, 
and Thursday, you know, you're free to choose whatever. We just 
don't have that comprehensive word, and we need to understand 
that. I mean, we don't... search the 
Bible to figure out, you know, what's the best diet plan. I remember a few years ago, didn't 
Rick Warren do that, the Daniel diet? He made how, you know, 
piles of money selling books on the Daniel diet. Just eat 
your vegetables or, you know, just do what Daniel did when 
he was in Babylon. All the rest of us wretches that 
eat meat aren't like godly Daniel. Daniel's not in the Bible so 
you can, you know, slim up. That's just not why it's in the 
Bible. And this is, you know, an abuse 
of scripture. It's heartbreaking, actually, 
when we see not only that fools like him are teaching, but massive 
amounts of fools are listening to him and buying his books. One of the things that's driving 
my exposition of Matthew 24, I don't want you to buy Hal Lindsey 
books. I don't want you to waste your 
money on a whole host of things that take you far afield of what 
Jesus is actually speaking to in Matthew 24. There's a whole 
host of bad stuff out there. And it's just not the case that 
we ought to come to Matthew 24 and see helicopters, and see 
Russians, and see Syrians, and see ISIS. That's not what Matthew 
24 is about. It's not what 2 Thessalonians 
2 is about, and it's certainly not what the book of Revelation 
is about. Revelation has been called, or the Matthew, Olivet 
discourse has been called the little apocalypse. You know what 
the big apocalypse is? It's the book of Revelation. 
If the little apocalypse deals with the fall of Jerusalem in 
A.D. 70, what do you think the big apocalypse deals with? The 
fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The same concepts are employed, 
it's just an extrapolated, longer version. Matthew, Mark, Luke 
all contain the Olivet Discourse. John's gospel is absent of it. John writes the book of Revelation. It's to expound on the theological 
significance of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. If you just pay attention, 
I know it sounds mean and demeaning, but if you just pay attention 
to the text, it should keep you out of Russia and in the first 
century in Jerusalem. So that was further afield. Let's 
go back to our confession. Note thirdly, in terms of a larger 
hermeneutical principle, the perspicuity of Scripture. Again, this simply means clarity. 
And paragraph 7 speaks to that. Scripture is not equally clear 
in all its parts. Arguably, Matthew 24 is not as 
clear as Exodus 20. It's hard to get around, you 
shall not murder, though they get around it by abortion and 
euthanasia and a whole host of other things. It's hard to get 
around, you shall not commit adultery. But again, people do 
because they justify a whole host of evil things. But you 
get my point, those explicit declarations of Scripture are 
a lot clearer to most readers than, say, the finer points of 
what's happening in Matthew 24. And the confession of faith acknowledges 
that. All things in Scripture are not 
alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. Not everybody 
sees the mysteries of God in the same manner. And that's okay. This isn't a diss. It's not a, 
you know, a put-down or anything of the sort. But notice it goes 
on to say that Scripture is sufficiently clear in its main parts. 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 others 
that not only the learned but the unlearned in a due use of 
ordinary means may attain to a sufficient understanding of 
them. So we see that the main things, those things that we 
are to believe for life and salvation are clear. They are clearly propounded 
and opened in some place of scripture or other. In other words, salvation 
by grace through faith in Christ Jesus is not hard to find in 
the scripture. Is it? I mean, read the book 
of Romans, read the book of Galatians, read what Paul writes everywhere 
in his writings, read Peter, read James, read John, read the 
gospel records. That whole concept of salvation 
by grace through faith in Jesus is not lacking, it's not absent, 
it is most prevalent throughout all of Scripture. And then notice 
as well what it says, in a due use of ordinary means. In order 
to understand a text, you don't have to sell everything you own 
and go live in a hut and commune with God. You can, with a due 
use of the ordinary means, arrive at the teaching of Scripture. 
This is why it's always baffled me where persons say, well, you 
know, I'm just not that bright. Well, the psalmist said the law 
of the Lord makes wise the simple. In other words, the law of the 
Lord makes bright the dim. I mean, this is the way it is. If we have God's Spirit and a 
due use of ordinary means. This is what I think people don't 
want, a due use of ordinary means. They want extraordinary gifts 
from God to be able to understand. I want to go to sleep, I want 
to wake up, and I want to have the mind of Paul. You see this 
with new believers. They get very discouraged because 
they don't know that much. Guess what? You have to employ 
a due use of ordinary means. You have to get up every day, 
read your Bible, and pray. And you're going to have to do 
that for 10, 15, 20, 25 years before you start to understand. 
Not the main things, but before you start to piece it all together. 
I have this hunch, or I have this thought, that young dudes 
who read theology ought not to be allowed to post on Facebook 
for about 15 years. It's like you don't have that 
much good things to say, and typically it tends to pride no 
harm or no foul to the young guys, but it's prevalent. There's this internet bravado 
where they read a chapter of Burkoff, and they know the mysteries 
of the kingdom, and they're loaded for bear, and they're going to 
run roughshod over all those poor slobs out there in Internetville 
that don't have a clue. I just think we need to shut 
our mouths more, study more, open our ears, pray, and engage 
in a due use of ordinary means. That's the means by which we're 
going to arrive at theological understanding and knowledge. 
Paragraph 8 deals with the availability of Scripture. I don't want to 
go too far into this particular paragraph, but essentially what 
it tells us is that God inspired and God preserved His Word. Now, 
this idea of preservation is oftentimes applied way far away. In other words, the King James 
Bible is the only one that has been preserved by God. The NIV 
is the only one that has been preserved by God. The New King 
James, I don't think that's what chapter 1, paragraph 8 is speaking 
to. I don't think it is the proof 
text for our particular version. It simply tells us that God did 
inspire and God does preserve. I completely agree that God preserves 
His Word, but in a particular text type or in a particular 
translation, I don't think that this paragraph secures that. 
I don't think it ensures that. But it also highlights the legitimacy 
of translations for men. We don't all know Greek, and 
we don't all know Hebrew, and we certainly don't all know Latin. 
One of the primary polemics involved in paragraph 8 here is against 
Rome, because Rome thought that if you didn't read the Latin 
Vulgate, you weren't really reading the Word of God, similar to a 
Muslim who says that you're really not reading the Koran if you're 
not reading it in Arabic. If you told him, I read the whole 
Koran in English, well, that doesn't count. If you told a 
papist back in the day, I read the whole Bible in English, well, 
that doesn't count because it wasn't the Latin Vulgate. You 
see, it was this idea that preservation only extends to our particular 
translation. Obviously, Jehovah's Witnesses 
go hog wild with this, and their only interpretation available 
or translation is the New World Translation. but it highlights 
the reality that not everybody is going to go to seminary, not 
everybody's going to be a priest or a monk, not everybody's going 
to have the facility and the competency to learn a whole host 
of languages, so God says it's okay to have it in English. So, 
you know, one of the things when I'm told that somehow thee and 
thou is more reverent than a you, if people want to use thee and 
thou, absolutely, perfectly acceptable and fine, but we can't make that 
a standard. We cannot be penalized for using 
the English language that we presently have. I don't believe 
that God is penalizing us. And again, thee and thou is great. 
I sometimes use it in preaching. There's something about the old 
King James that captures cadence and rhythm and beauty in a way 
that many of the modern translations don't. And so it's perfectly 
legitimate. If this is a preference, if this 
is something that you like, if this is something that you want 
to practice, that's fine. But we can't condemn somebody 
for using you when that's the language that we have and we 
speak and God has given to us. That's not a penalty. God's not 
at war with our use of the English singular pronoun or plural pronoun, 
you. Anyways, this chapter or paragraph 
oftentimes gets taken out and used as a club to beat people 
that don't subscribe to a particular Bible translation. I have my 
favorites. I have my least favorites. I 
have my preferences. I have my preferences all the 
way down to a particular Greek text type, but we can't make 
those issues of orthodoxy. We cannot tell somebody that 
they're necessarily in sin or they're going to go to hell because 
they have a translation. They don't say, well, sometimes 
some of these guys get a little bit fanatical about it all. That 
you can't get saved if you don't read this Bible version. You 
can't get saved if you don't read... That's just kind of rhetoric. It does not promote the unity 
and the bond of peace that Paul calls us to with reference to 
the church of Jesus Christ. And then fifth, the specific 
statement concerning the interpretation of Scripture. There are two principles 
we ought to glean from this section. One's called the analogy of Scripture, 
and one is called the analogy of faith. the analogy of Scripture 
and the analogy of faith. Note, 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. Moeller defines the 
analogy of Scripture this way. I typically tell the guys on 
Saturday morning at theology class that it's a good thing 
to get Moeller's Dictionary of Greek and Latin Theological Terms. 
It is a most handy compendium of Reformed theology. The definitions 
range. Some of them are short, like 
these two I'm going to read. Others, you know, will cover 
a page, and you'll basically go through and discuss that particular 
term that was used in the time of the Reformation in what's 
called the post-Reformation age. It is really invaluable if you 
want to study theology. Again, I'm not saying you have 
to have this in order to be saved. That and whatever Bible translation 
you prefer, and you're on your way. But it is a helpful tool 
if theological study is an area of interest. And it's very handy 
in the sense that you don't have to read. Moeller also has a four-volume 
set called Post-Reformation Reform Dogmatics. that probably three 
people in the world are going to read. I mean, it's a reference 
work. The dictionary is a reference 
work, but it's brief. You come to a particular passage 
in Birkhoff, or you come to something that is used in theological discussion, 
and he gives you a nice, succinct definition. It's a paperback 
book. I can't imagine it's more than 
$20 or $30. as books aren't cheap. I mean, it should be like five 
bucks for what it is, but we're in the day and age when they're 
30 or 35. Anyways, the analogy of Scripture, 
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. what basically paragraph 
9 says. Scripture is the best interpreter 
of Scripture. For instance, Revelation 20, 
much of the discussion concerning eschatology focuses on Revelation 
20. Revelation 20 is the only reference 
to this thousand-year reign of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that 
has spawned the particular millennial views. Millennium means thousand 
years. There's amillennial, there's 
premillennial, there's postmillennial. And all of the focus comes from 
Revelation 20. Well, most scholars, most Bible 
readers, anybody really would read Revelation 20 and say, boy, 
there's a lot going on there that I don't know I can get my 
noodle wrapped around. It's imagery, it's symbolism, 
it's a bit difficult. Well, this analogy of Scripture 
tells us we ought to look for clear portions of Scripture that 
aren't ambiguous or aren't full of symbol and aren't full of 
imagery or metaphor, and we ought to let them help us interpret 
Revelation 20. Not saying Revelation 20 isn't 
important, but it most certainly is, but on its own, it's a bit 
difficult. So we go to, say, 1 Corinthians 
15, and it helps us to shine the light upon it and make heads 
or tails out of it. And then the second principle 
is the analogy of faith. It's similar to the analogy of 
Scripture, but it's broader. Moeller defines it as this, the 
use of a general sense of the meaning of Scripture constructed 
from the clear or unambiguous loci or locus as the basis for 
interpreting unclear or unambiguous texts. He says, as distinct from 
the more basic analogy of Scripture, the analogy of faith presupposes 
a sense of, this is important, the theological meaning of Scripture. The analogy of Scripture deals 
with Scripture interpreting Scripture. The analogy of faith does the 
same, but it acknowledges a theological sense to the Scripture as a whole. In other words, say for instance, 
baptism. We come to 1 Corinthians 15, 
to use it again as an illustration, in verse 29. And it tells us 
there, Paul says something about the baptism for the dead. And that's a very difficult passage 
to try and work through. And I think that the analogy 
of faith helps us, because we may not be able to know exactly 
what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 15-29, but the analogy of faith 
will tell us what he didn't mean. He didn't mean we actually baptize 
for the dead, because every time we study the doctrine of baptism, 
we see that it's based on a particular view of covenant theology, that 
it's the outflow of that theology, and that it results in the baptism 
of believers by immersion. And so whatever Paul's saying 
in 1 Corinthians 15, 29, the analogy of faith tells us that 
he is not teaching us that the Mormons are right. He is not 
teaching us that those who baptize for the dead are somehow correct. So you see, the analogy of faith 
is a theological reading of scripture, and it helps us to interpret 
specific texts. If we come up with an interpretation 
that no one's ever heard of, that completely goes beyond the 
analogy of faith, You're not necessarily wrong, but you need 
to take heed. That analogy of faith serves 
as a helpful perimeter to keep the people of God from going 
nuts, or from going into cults, or from going into all manner 
of ludicrous interpretation. Again, if you're the first person 
to come up with an interpretation, I wouldn't be so bold as to say 
you're absolutely wrong, but I would caution you to proceed 
cautiously. Because if you see something 
in the Bible after 21 centuries that no one with the spirit ever 
saw, I don't know, I would just be very careful and cautious 
not to jump out there and start your own church. or start your 
own cult. So this is most important in 
terms of the interpretation of Scripture, the analogy of Scripture, 
and the analogy of faith. And then finally, the finality 
of Scripture in paragraph 10, the supreme judge in all religious 
controversies is the Word of God. I mean that goes without 
saying, right? But it's a great capstone on 
the argument that they have presented or on the confession that they 
have presented in paragraphs 1 to 9. The supreme judge by 
which all controversies of religion are to be determined And all 
decrees of counsels, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines 
of men, and private spirits are to be examined." You see, they 
had charismatics and Pentecostals then. They just called them enthusiasts, 
those who had these private spirits or that got words from the Lord 
or that claimed to have this extra special revelation. These 
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. So it is the supreme judge in 
all religious controversy and it is the supreme judge concerning 
historic orthodoxy. Now it would be odd for a confession 
of faith to try and take the position that the writings of 
men are somehow useless. That's not what they're saying. 
They're saying that the writings of man, in terms of the historic 
Christian faith, ought to be scrutinized by the Word of God. The Confession is not teaching 
some idea that all we need is our Bible and the Spirit. No, 
a lot of us need more than our Bible and the Spirit. Well, we 
only really need the Bible and the Spirit, but Calvin and Gill 
aren't bad things either. So, it's not a denigration of 
human authors, but it does suggest that human authors are to be 
scrutinized by the Word of God. It's to the law and to the testimony. 
If they do not speak according to this, there is no light in 
them. And this is a great way to end 
this chapter concerning the doctrine of Scripture, the finality of 
it. Well, I'll close in prayer, and 
if there's any questions on these paragraphs, we can bat them around. 
Our Father, we thank You for the Scriptures as we look at 
this confessional statement concerning the Scriptures. Our hearts are 
warmed and encouraged, and our minds are challenged, God. We 
see that even as unlearned people, with the due use of ordinary 
means, we ought to be able to arrive at what the truth of Scripture 
is. And I pray that you would help 
us to be earnest, help us to be faithful, help us to be consistent, 
and help us to hunger and thirst after righteousness. So often, 
God, this is where we falter, so that we just don't even desire 
to know what the Word of God says. Help us in this, Lord, 
and give us grace and the power of your Holy Spirit, so that 
we may rightly interpret your word of truth. And we pray through 
Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.