The Second London Confession on the Doctrine of Scripture (Part 3): The Authority of the Scriptures (1.4-5)

By Robert P. Martin

Dr. Robert P. Martin is Pastor of Emmanuel Reformed Baptist Church, Seattle, Washington, and Editor of Reformed Baptist Theological Review.

4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God. 

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.

In the logical unfolding of the doctrine of Scripture, the next subject addressed by our Confession is the authority of the Bible. Having established the Scriptures’ necessity, in order to our having “a sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,” having established their identity over against the Apocrypha and other merely human writings—the distinguishing mark separating them being the fact of divine inspiration, our Confession now expresses the classic Reformed doctrine of the authority of the Holy Scriptures. The Confession treats this subject in two paragraphs. This, of course, is not accidental. As Sam Waldron says,

The development of thought in paragraphs 4 and 5 makes use of the classic theological distinction between the authority of the Word in itself (quoad se) and its authority with us (quoad nos). This theological distinction is based on the difference between two questions which may be asked about the authority of the Bible: ‘Why is the Bible authoritative?’ and ‘How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God and, thus, authoritative?’ While . . . these two questions and their answers are intimately related, they are logically distinct. While paragraph 4 says nothing about our confidence in the Bible, but only speaks impersonally of the authority of the Bible in itself,[1] paragraph 5 has for its repeated emphasis our personal recognition of the authority of the Bible: ‘We may be moved and induced . . . to a high and reverent esteem . . . our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth . . . is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.’ Paragraph 4 is objective in emphasis, while paragraph 5 is subjective.[2]

Paragraph 4 addresses the subject of the objective authority of the Scriptures, i.e., the authority that the Bible has regardless of whether men are persuaded of it’s authority or receive it as God’s inerrant and infallible Word. In particular, this paragraph is concerned to express the belief that the basis of the Bible’s objective authority is derived from God alone.

As we have seen in earlier studies,[3] to a large degree the teachings of Roman Catholicism are the background against which our Confession’s chapter on Scripture was written. This certainly is true of this paragraph. According to Roman doctrine, the Church of Rome is “the ultimate source of all divine knowledge . . . They [Romanists] thus make the Scriptures a product of the Spirit through the Church; while, in fact, the Church is a product of the Spirit through the instrumentality of the Word.”[4] We see Rome’s doctrine expressed, e.g., in the words of John Cardinal O’Connor, the late Archbishop of New York, who once was the face of American Roman Catholicism.

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church that we are examining makes very clear that the Church is not the light. . . . the light of truth doesn’t come from the Church, it comes through the Church. It is Christ who enlightens the Church with the Holy Spirit. It is Christ who speaks to us through Church teaching.[5]

But what is the “the light of truth” that Cardinal O’Connor (and Rome) has in mind? These remarks are made in a homily entitled “Handing on the Deposit of Faith,” in which O’Connor defines the “deposit of faith” in terms of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, saying,

This [the Catechism] is the summary of the teaching of the Church. This is what we call the “deposit of faith”. This includes the Vatican Council and all its documents, and all of the other councils that have gone before, and everything back to John the Baptist, and all of the books of the Old Testament, as well as the books of the New Testament. I must warn you that the section we will be citing from today will be difficult for some people. It’s very straightforward. It tells us what the Church thinks about itself. It tells us what the Church believes to be its own authority—authority given by our Divine Lord.[6]

“The light of truth,” therefore, the “deposit of faith” to be received and believed by Christians, is contained not just in the Holy Scriptures[7] but also in the ecclesiastical traditions of the Roman Church, i.e., in the dogmas and practices promulgated by the councils of the church and by the bishops of Rome and her Magisterium.[8] In Romanism, in fact, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are simply one part of “the light of truth” that God mediates through the church. The Scriptures indeed may be a formative part of the “deposit of faith,” but they are in no way absolutely normative in and of themselves. Rome’s doctrine of authority thus claims to give the Scriptures an important place, but not as authoritas sola Scriptura.

Before going further, perhaps it will be helpful to try to understand Rome’s teaching concerning the “transmission of divine revelation.”[9] Foundational to Rome’s teaching on this point is the idea that the Gospel (the “deposit of faith”)[10] has been handed on in two ways from the apostles, i.e., orally and in writing. The written record (the apostolic tradition), however, apparently was not sufficient, for, “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.”[11] In other words, the Holy Scriptures were insufficient to provide a “full and living Gospel” (or “deposit of faith”), therefore, a situation existed (after the writing of the Scriptures and after the death of the original apostles) in which apostolic authority still was needed in the church in order to have a Gospel that was “full and living” and thus adequate for the needs of each present and succeeding generation. Ecclesiastical tradition, says Rome, fills this need. As the Catechism says,

• This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.[12]
• The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son, and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church–and through her in the world–leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.[13]
• Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own ‘always, to the close of the age.’[14]
• Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.
• Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.[15]
• As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.’[16]

The implications of this language, of course, are far-reaching. First, ecclesiastical tradition (it seems) ultimately surpasses Scripture in its value to the church, for it is the means by which “the entirety of the Word of God . . . entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit” has been transmitted. Again, standing behind this language is the belief (contra our Confession’s 1.1) that “the Holy Scripture” is not a “sufficient . . . rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” Second, if the apostles have authoritative successors “enlightened by the Spirit of truth,” then our Confession is simply wrong when it speaks of the cessation of divine revelation (1.1). And third, if the Roman Church continues to have living, Spirit-enlightened (shall we say inspired?), apostolic authority invested in her bishops, then she justly claims the prerogative of being the sole authoritative interpreter of the Scriptures, and all Christians (including ourselves) are obliged to submit to that authority.

This last idea, of course, is the most insidious, i.e., as far as Protestant and Reformed believers are concerned. The Profession of Faith of the Roman Catholic Church, written in 1564 and still the most concise expression of Roman Catholic doctrine, after affirming, “I believe that there is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,” says,

I resolutely accept and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other practices and regulations of that same Church. In like manner I accept Sacred Scripture according to the meaning which has been held by the Holy Mother Church and which she now holds. It is her prerogative to pass judgment on the true meaning and interpretation of Sacred Scripture. And I will never accept or interpret it in a manner different from the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.[17]

In a similar way, the CCC says,

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.[18] 

The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.[19]

This, of course, turns the relationship between the church and the Scriptures up side down. Instead of the Holy Scriptures sitting in judgment over the church, regulating the church’s doctrine and life, the church sits in judgment over the Scriptures, regulating its meaning for the people of God, making its statements authoritative or of none effect, all according to the fallible judgments of men. Though the letter of Solomon’s words addresses another subject, surely the spirit of his words may find legitimate expression in this case: “Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich set in a low place. I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking like servants upon the earth” (Eccl. 10:6-7).

Rome sums up the relation of the various parts of her doctrine concerning “the transmission of revelation” in these words, also taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.[20]

Sadly, a more deluded and mischievous idea of wholesome doctrine cannot be imagined. The practical effect of Rome’s “triad” (Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium) is the supremacy of the Magisterium, for both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are and mean what the bishops of Rome say they are and mean. And with the promulgation at Vatican I of the dogma of papal infallibility, there is now no recourse from the decisions of the popes, i.e., unless, of course, one infallible pope declares against what a previous infallible pope said was true. In that case, what does the word “infallible” mean? Certainly not what we learned that it meant in our study of 2nd LCF 1.1.

Rome’s doctrine of “the transmission of revelation” is palpably unsupportable on its surface. Why then does Rome insist on it? Francis Turretin, speaking for a great many Reformed believers before and since, rightly answered that question over three centuries ago: “The object of the papists in this and other controversies set forth by them concerning the Scriptures, is obvious, viz., to avoid the tribunal of Scripture (in which they do not find sufficient help for the defense of their errors) and to appeal to the church (i.e., to the pope himself) and thus become judges in their own cause.”[21]

Returning now to our Confession’s doctrine of authority, having already stated the proper role of the Scriptures as “the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience” (1.1), here again speaking over against the teaching of Rome, our Reformed forefathers once more point us exclusively to “the authority of the Holy Scriptures” as alone possessing divine sanction. The authors of the Confession here make no attempt to expose the fallacies of Rome’s “triad.” In their preaching and published works, however, the Reformers and their successors (including the Westminster divines and the authors of our Confession) thoroughly explored this ground. Here the Confession merely speaks of “the authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be received” as the ground of “all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.”

Consider first what the Confession means by the authority of the Holy Scriptures “for which it ought to be believed” (the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration add “and obeyed”). This phrase, specifically the word “ought,” underscores the point that the authority in view is that which places men under solemn obligation or duty. Again, the issue is not the right of private or even corporate opinion, but the right to bind the consciences of men concerning what they must know, believe, and do. The issue of such authority is assumed from the beginning of our Confession, where we read that “The Holy Scripture is the only . . . rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience” (1.1).

The Confession says that this authority (exclusive to Scripture and binding on all) “dependeth not upon the testimony of any man (i.e., whether church fathers, or councils, or popes) or church (i.e., especially the self-elevated Roman Church), but wholly (i.e., completely) upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.” As Warfield says, “Just because the book is God’s Book, revealing to us His will, it is authoritative in and of itself; and it ought to be believed and obeyed, not on the ground of any borrowed authority, lent it from any human source, but on the single and sufficient ground of its own divine origin and character, ‘because it is the Word of God,’ and ‘God (who is truth itself)’ is ‘the author thereof.’”[22]

Opening these points a bit further, we see that the authority of the Scriptures ultimately is rooted in the authority of God himself. If we acknowledge that God (as Creator, Law-giver, Judge, and only Savior) has the right to rule over us–a point that every Christian must acknowledge or forfeit the right to be regarded as a Christian–then it follows that wherever his royal will is revealed, there we discover the authoritative rule by which our consciences are to be bound. In preceding paragraphs, the Confession has directed us to the Holy Scriptures as “the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience” and has rooted this conclusion in the divine inspiration of the Bible. As Warfield says, “Because inspired, Scripture is the Word of God; and because the Word of God, it exercises lawful authority over the thought and acts of men.”[23] Or, as John White (one of two assessors appointed by the Westminster Assembly) says, “The former Position being once granted, that the Scriptures are God’s Word, no man can question their Authority.”[24] If, however, the authority of the Scriptures is derived from any lesser authority than God himself, then it follows that their ultimate jurisdiction over our consciences is in no way firmly and immovably established.

If the church fathers, who did not themselves claim inspiration for their views of truth, are the source of the Bible’s authority, then we forever must doubt the authority of certain doctrines. Cunningham observes,

The obligation which all Roman Catholic priests have undertaken,–viz., that they will never interpret Scripture except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers,–is one which cannot be discharged, except by abstaining wholly from interpreting Scripture; for the unanimous consent of the fathers about the interpretation of scriptural statements, except those in the explanation of which all sane men are agreed, has no existence; and every Papist of any learning must be fully aware of this.[25]

The question naturally must be posed, which fathers are the ultimate authority upon which the Bible’s authority rests?[26] Rome does not limit her appeals to the succession of bishops of the Roman Church itself but wishes to cite many other fathers, who, like Augustine or Origen, were not bishops of Rome.[27] It is basically unfair to cite such men as though they were papists and in full accord with Rome’s dogmas.

Further, if the church, represented by its councils and popes (or, in the case of we who are Protestants, by our general assemblies or elders) is the source of the Bible’s authority, may not the church (by the acting of these agencies and men) choose at any time to evacuate the Scriptures’ authority or interpret them in such a way that human tradition makes void the Word of God? Especially interesting is CCC 113:

Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”).

If this idea (“Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records”) is embraced in any communion, Catholic or Protestant, in the end of the day the Holy Scriptures have no authority at all. The only authority in such a system is the mood of “the Church’s heart” as expressed in the whims of its leaders. That this historically has been the case with Rome is simply beyond dispute.

As in preceding chapters, of course, our Confession’s doctrine here must stand on a solid exegetical foundation or we dare not receive it. Our approach is to examine the biblical basis both negatively and positively, i.e., negatively in terms of the primary passage that Rome cites as grounding her idea that the church is the source of the Bible’s authority, and positively in terms of texts that really do establish our doctrine beyond question.

Rome cites 1 Tim. 3:15 as scriptural warrant for her idea that the church is the source of the Bible’s authority. There Paul says that the church is “the pillar and ground of the truth.” But what does the Apostle mean? The Catholic Encyclopedia, certainly representative of Rome’s understanding of this text, cites this text to support the following definition of infallibility: “In general, [infallibility is] exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, [it is] the supernatural prerogative by which the [Roman] Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.” Continuing in this vein, The Catholic Encyclopedia says,

In I Timothy 3:15, St. Paul speaks of “the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth”; and this description would be something worse than mere exaggeration if it had been intended to apply to a fallible Church; it would be a false and misleading description. That St. Paul, however, meant it to be taken for sober and literal truth is abundantly proved by what he insists upon so strongly elsewhere, namely, the strictly Divine authority of the Gospel which he and the other Apostles preached, and which it was the mission of their successors to go on preaching without change or corruption to the end of time.[28]

The Catholic Encyclopedia also cites this text in its article “Tradition and Living Magisterium.”

It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth. And the inference of texts and facts is only what is exacted by the nature of things. A book although Divine and inspired is not intended to support itself. If it is obscure (and what unprejudiced person will deny that there are obscurities in the Bible?) it must be interpreted. And even if it is clear it does not carry with it the guarantee of its Divinity, its authenticity, or its value. Someone must bring it within reach and no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Now, authority for authority, is it not better to have recourse to that of the Church than to that of the first comer? Liberal Protestants, such as M. Auguste Sabatier, have been the first to recognize that, if there must be a religion of authority, the Catholic system with the splendid organization of its living magisterium is far superior to the Protestant system, which rests everything on the authority of a book. 

The prerogatives of this teaching authority are made sufficiently clear by the texts and they are to a certain extent implied in the very institution. The Church, according to St. Paul’s Epistle to Timothy, is the pillar and ground of truth; the Apostles and consequently their successors have the right to impose their doctrine; whosoever refuses to believe them shall be condemned, whosoever rejects anything is shipwrecked in the Faith. This authority is therefore infallible. And this infallibility is guaranteed implicitly but directly by the promise of the Saviour: “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.”[29]

Rome makes exaggerated (even outlandish) claims from 1 Tim. 3:15. First, while Protestants agree that the universal or “catholic” church (in its role as “pillar and ground of the truth”) will continue in the world to the end, we find no biblical warrant for the idea that this universal church will be visible in the way that Rome insists, i.e., that there will be and must be in every age, in continuous succession from the apostles, an organization visible to the eyes of men as the one church of Jesus Christ.[30] Second, even if such an idea were biblically warranted, there is no good reason to believe that it is found in the presence throughout much (but not all) of Christian history of the Roman Catholic Church. As Calvin says, in applying Paul’s language to themselves, “they deck themselves with borrowed feathers. . . . I maintain that it has nothing to do with them in any manner. Nay, I even turn the whole passage against them; for, if the Church ‘is the pillar of the truth,’ it follows that the Church is not with them, when the truth not only lies buried, but is shockingly torn, and thrown down, and trampled under foot.”[31] Third, Paul says nothing in this text about the church as infallible interpreter of Scripture. That idea is imported into the text, not derived from it by exegesis.

What then does Paul mean? In order to answer this question, we must begin by observing that the imagery that Paul uses is simple. The term “pillar” (στῦλος) refers to a column that supports a building. The “ground” (ἑδραίωμα) is the base or foundation of a structure. The “truth” in view is that special revelation that God has given to men, that began in the Garden of Eden and ended with the New Covenant spoken through God’s Son. The “truth” is that divine revelation that has as its central focus the glorious person and saving gospel of Jesus Christ.

By calling the church “the pillar and foundation of the truth,” Paul does not mean that the church is the author of the truth or the authority by which it is established. God (who is truth itself) alone is “the pillar and ground of the truth” in this sense. Neither here nor elsewhere in Scripture has God given to the church or its officers the power to rule the consciences of his people. He himself alone is the author of truth and the sole authority by which it is established. And he speaks now only through the Bible (his inerrant, infallible inscripturated Word). The Bible, therefore, is the sole authority from which we derive our doctrine and practice. In this way only can we say that “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it” (2nd LCF 21.2).

What then does Paul mean when he calls the church “the pillar and foundation of the truth”? He is saying that the revelation of the truth that God has made (the true “deposit of faith”) has been entrusted to the church. The church is not the author of that “deposit of faith” but an institution designed and purposed by God to preserve the truth pure, to defend it against error, to preach it in the world, and to commit it unaltered and undiluted to future generations. As was true of Israel under the Old Covenant, so also of the church under the New Covenant, God has created a divinely ordered and regulated human society for the propagation and maintenance in the world of revealed truth. This, of course, makes the church indispensable—as indispensable as the pillar or the foundation of a house. God never designed his truth to stand in the world without the church as its supporting pillar and foundation. This is one of the reasons why we cannot simply dispense with the Church, as so many in our day seem disposed to do. In a word, 1 Tim. 3:15 does not teach what Rome says it does.

Turning to positive evidences, let’s consider now the texts cited by our Confession in support of its doctrine that “the authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.”

The first two texts cited (2 Pet. 1:19-21 and 2 Tim. 3:16) were considered at length in previous articles in this series. They are cited here again apparently because they so plainly affirm the divine inspiration and authority, and thus the infallibility, of Scripture. In these texts, the apostles say absolutely nothing about the church having these attributes apart from the Scriptures.

The third text cited is 1 Thess. 2:13,[32] where Paul says: “For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus” (2:13-14). The example of the churches in Judea, imitated by the Thessalonians, was in receiving the Word of God as having an authority superior to the mere words of men. Any subordination of the Word of God, therefore, to the authority of an uninspired church, or any idea that the Word of God derives its authority from the words of men, is unthinkable.

The final text cited, “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater” (1 John 5:9), again sets the Word of God over the word (or, witness) of men. We evidently are meant to conclude from this hierarchy of authority that the witness of God, infallibly expressed in the Word of God but in no other source, trumps in every case a contrary witness of man.

One final text may be cited.[33] Ephesians 2:19-20 speaks of the church (“the household of God”) as being “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And this is but to say that the church is built upon the testimony of the Scriptures. It is ludicrous then to say that the Scriptures derive their authority from the church. If the Roman doctrine is true, then we would find ourselves reasoning in a circle—with the authority of the Scripture deriving from the church and the authority of the church deriving from the Scripture.

In sum, the Scriptures derive their authority from their supreme Author alone. No lesser authority, no subordinate or servant, not even apostles or prophets, much less church fathers or councils or popes, can give to the Holy Scriptures what they do not already possess by virtue of their being the verbally-plenarily inspired Word of the Living God. As Charles Hodge puts it, “The infallibility and divine authority of the Scriptures are due to the fact that they are the word of God; and they are the word of God because they were given by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.”[34] No other supposed source of authority can substantiate such a claim.

We have now considered paragraph 4, and the testimony that it bears to the authority of the Word “in itself” (i.e., its objective authority, which exists whether men receive it as God’s Word or not); but what of its authority “with us” (i.e., its subjective authority)? How do we know that it is the Word of God and, therefore, that it is authoritative? In one sense, setting the objective authority of the Scriptures over against their subjective authority is a false dichotomy, for, as Turretin cautions, “Scripture cannot be authentic in itself without being so as to us. For the same arguments which prove it authoritative in itself ought to induce us to assent to its authenticity as to us.”[35] Turretin's caution, of course, is correct; and yet, we do not exist in a moral vacuum, in a state in which the effects of the fall, even in the regenerate, are insignificant. Warfield well states the place that paragraph 5 has in the development of the doctrine of the Bible’s authority:

But men are not so constituted as readily to yield faith and obedience even to lawful authority. Their minds are blinded, and their consciences dulled, and their wills enslaved to evil. The Confession accordingly devotes a paragraph of unsurpassed nobility of both thought and phrase to indicating how sinful men may be brought to full conviction of and practical obedience to the infallible truth and divine authority of the Scriptures.[36]

In paragraph 5 the Confession takes up the question of the subjective authority of the Word (i.e., “with us”), so as to point us to the means by which we “may be brought to full conviction of and practical obedience to the infallible truth and divine authority of the Scriptures”; nevertheless, it does so in a way that ultimately grounds our persuasion of the Bible’s authority in God himself. Here we read:

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.

This paragraph is divided into three sections (as indicated by semicolons).

The first section states that “the testimony of the church of God” is valuable in establishing the Scriptures’ authority with us, albeit in a way that is subordinate to the fact of the Bible’s divine authorship. It is important, of course, to recognize (especially in light of our study of paragraph 4) that here the church in view is not the Roman Catholic Church, but the church as defined in 26.1.

The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

The church in view, therefore, is the true church universal, not the self-proclaimed “Catholic Church” that acknowledges the pope of Rome. It is comprised of “visible saints” (26.2) and its distinguishing mark is internal in its members (i.e., “the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace”) and not external (i.e., in the supposed apostolic succession and outward visible structure of the institution itself). The true catholic church is the people of God in every place and in every age, who have received the Holy Scriptures as the only divinely inspired and authoritative Word of God and who have received Christ alone as the Savior of sinners. If the testimony of the universal church (as so comprised, i.e., “with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace)” were otherwise (i.e., if there was not general agreement among God’s true people concerning the central doctrines of the faith, including the doctrine of Scripture) it would be a matter of grave concern, for then on what ground could we possibly hope to distinguish the church from the world?

The value of the universal church’s testimony (to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, or to any other central doctrine of the faith), as this paragraph ultimately says, is based on the fact that the church’s testimony is the fruit of the Holy Spirit’s universal testimony in the hearts of its members. From where does the universal church derive its testimony? The answer is not that each member has undertaken a scientific investigation of the question of the Bible’s authority and each come to the same conclusion, for multitudes who have been unable to read a single word in the Scriptures have received the Bible as infallibly authoritative. But regardless of the varying capacities of men to search out such questions in a way that would satisfy a historian or scientist or philosopher, all true Christians (i.e., born again and indwelt by the Spirit of God who inspired the Scriptures) and all true churches (i.e., local in their visible manifestation) are persuaded of the Bible’s infallible authority by virtue of “the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”[37]

There is biblical precedent, of course, for according great value to the testimony of the universal church, whether the church is viewed in terms of its local expressions (i.e., “the churches”) or in terms of its constituent members (i.e., “the saints”). Consider the implication of two texts in 1 Corinthians.

At 1 Cor. 11:16, speaking of proper decorum for men and women in public worship, Paul says, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” The larger context of this verse is incredibly complex and vigorously debated;[38] however, for our purpose its meaning is clear. Paul expects his instruction on this subject (instruction that is apostolic and thus rooted in divine inspiration, instruction that also is supported by the witness of natural revelation and universal societal custom)[39] to be received, if on no other ground, because of the uniform tradition of the universal church. Paul envisions a contentious or argumentative person resisting his teaching. And while he has given arguments sufficient to carry the judgment of any who desire to know God’s will on the point in question, with some persons all sound arguments are useless. Charles Hodge ably describes how Paul deals with such people:

Authority is the only end of controversy with such disturbers of the peace. The authority here adduced is that of the apostles and of the churches. The former was decisive, because the apostles were invested with authority not only to teach the gospel, but also to organize the church, and to decide every thing relating to Christian ordinances and worship. The authority of the churches, although not coercive, was yet great. No man is justified, except on clearly scriptural grounds, and from the necessity of obeying God rather than man, to depart from the established usages of the church in matters of public concern.[40]

At 1 Cor. 14:33-38, Paul again appeals to the uniform custom of the universal church in the matter of proper order in public worship.

As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

While Paul here appeals to the supreme authority of “the word of God,” i.e., to “the law” and to “the commandments of the Lord,” he also appeals to the uniform tradition of the universal church (“as in all the churches of the saints”), expecting that the church’s witness to proper order in worship will be received as of great value and authority by the Corinthians. By speaking of an opponent of the church’s (and the Bible’s) doctrine as thinking himself “to be a prophet or spiritual,” Paul is addressing the idea that this person’s opinion and practice is the fruit of the working of the Holy Spirit in him. But over against the idea of the authority of the individual (or of the few) because of the Spirit’s presence in him (or in them), Paul places the authority of the churches (of the saints as a collective body, of the universal church), in which the Holy Spirit works in such a way that his testimony is confirmed by the multitude of witnesses. In a word, the authority of the one (or the few) in isolation is trumped by the authority of the many in the communion of the whole church.

Now, in its application to the present subject, which is the authority of the Scriptures “with us,” the principle is that the testimony of the universal church to the Bible’s authority should be received as convincing, especially in the absence of good reasons to reject that testimony. While there have been many individuals in the history of the church who were argumentative on this point, their arguments have never seriously undermined the full authority of the Scriptures with genuine believers. And, in fact, as Warfield has rightly observed, “At no age has it been possible for men to express without rebuke the faintest doubt as to the absolute trustworthiness of their [the Scriptures’] least declaration… The church has always believed her Scriptures to be the book of God, of which God was in such a sense the author that every one of its affirmations of whatever kind is to be esteemed as the utterance of God, of infallible truth and authority.”[41]

The witness of the universal church is external to the Scriptures. This witness is powerful, but (and this is the point of what follows in paragraph 5) it is not alone. Within the Scriptures themselves there are “internal” evidences that also have great value in assuring us of the divine origin and authority of the Bible. These evidences also ought to strengthen our confidence in the Bible’s authority. Were the facts otherwise than what our Confession now says, it would be a matter of grave concern.

The language used to express the idea of the Bible’s “internal” proofs of its divine authority is such as to warrant Warfield’s description of the passage as of “unsurpassed nobility of both thought and phrase.”[42] Its discrete elements are remarkably terse expressions of vital points, each of which could be expanded on at great length. At best here we may only survey them quickly.

First, the Scriptures are evidenced to be God’s word by “the heavenliness of the(ir) matter.” By this expression apparently is meant that the Bible is distinguished as God’s word by the fact that it contains divine revelation concerning things which may not be known in any other way. Francis Turretin, a contemporary of the Westminster divines, and reflecting the views of Reformed Christians generally in the Seventeenth Century, says,

The internal and most powerful marks are also numerous. (1) With regard to the matter: the wonderful sublimity of the mysteries (which could have been discovered by no sharp-sightedness of reason) such as the Trinity, incarnation, the satisfaction of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and the like; the holiness and purity of the precepts regulating even the thoughts and the internal affections of the heart and adapted to render man perfect in every kind of virtue and worthy of his maker; the certainty of the prophecies concerning things even the most remote and hidden. For the foreseeing and foretelling of future things (dependent on the will of God alone) is a prerogative of deity alone (Is. 41:23).[43]

In this way, i.e., “by the heavenliness of the matter,” the Scriptures evidence themselves to be the Word of God. Well does every Christian understand Paul’s sentiment expressed at 1 Cor. 2:9. “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for those who love him.” That such things are revealed in the Scriptures is evidence of their divine inspiration and authority. For this cause, the Scriptures should be received “by us” for what God has made them to be—“the word of God, the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to his saints” (Col. 1:25-26).

Second, the Scriptures are evidenced to be the Word of God by “the efficacy of the(ir) doctrine.” Shaw expresses this quality of the Scriptures as “the exact adaptation of the revelation they contain to the state and wants of man.”[44] And this is but to say that the Scriptures actually do what they claim they can do, which is to make men wise unto salvation and thoroughly equip God’s people for every good work (2 Tim. 3:15-17). God’s people have used the Scriptures for these purposes and have found them to be exactly as advertised. Turretin also adds a helpful note at this point, speaking of “the light and efficacy of the divine doctrine which is so great that, sharper than any two-edged sword, it pierces to the soul itself, generates faith and piety in the minds of its hearers, as well as invincible firmness in its professors, and always victoriously triumphs over the kingdom of Satan and false religion.”[45] In view is the power of God’s Word in the lives of his people—a powerful persuasive indeed of the Scriptures’ divine authority.

Third, the Scriptures are evidenced to be God’s Word by “the majesty of the(ir) style.” Again, we lean on the contemporary testimony of Turretin: “With regard to the style: the divine majesty, shining forth no less from the simplicity than the weight of expression and that consummate boldness in commanding all without distinction . . . , both the highest and the lowest.”[46] In a word, the style of Scripture is adapted to the instruction of all—which fact, on the one hand, is to be seen by the combination of simplicity and weightiness in its expression of its doctrines and instructions, while on the other hand, it is to be seen in its addressing high and low, king and peasant alike, with the same duties and promises.

Fourth, the Scriptures are evidenced to be God’s word by “the consent of all the(ir) parts.” Here we come face to face with a remarkable phenomenon, which causes those who study God’s Word carefully and in detail, especially over long periods of time, to marvel. Most authors are found to contradict themselves, if not in the same work, at least over time as their views change. This phenomenon may be illustrated from writers of every sort, i.e., historical, philosophical, religious, even scientific writers cannot claim that their body of work is marked by “the consent of all the parts.” One may prove this point easily by examining almost any great writer’s works. Even as great a religious figure as Augustine, whose writings run to many volumes, near the end of his life produced a critical review of his most important works in a volume entitled Retractations. His purpose was to correct errors in his thinking found in his earlier works.

The Bible is unique in the history of literature. Although its discrete parts were written by different persons (not over a single lifetime but) over approximately 1500 years, in languages as different in their character as night and day, in social and political circumstances as widely varied as may be imagined, nonetheless there is such a consent of all the parts as to cause those who know the volume well to declare that there is no historical or doctrinal contradiction in any of its statements. In Gleason Archer’s words, in the preface of his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, “There is good and sufficient answer in Scripture itself to refute every charge that has ever been leveled against it. But this is only to be expected from the kind of book the Bible asserts itself to be, the inscripturation of the infallible, inerrant Word of the Living God.”[47]

Fifth, the Scriptures are evidenced to be God’s word by “the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God).” On this point, a careful definition of terms is required. We commonly use the term “scope” to refer to the full range of something (e.g., the “scope” of our subject presently is the full range of topics addressed in 2nd LCF 1.5); however, that is not the meaning of the term here. The Greek σκοπός and the Latin scopus originally referred to the center (or “bull’s eye”) of a target. We still use the word “scope” with a meaning directly derived from this sense, i.e., to refer, e.g., to the “scope” of a rifle, a device for helping a shooter to accurately hit the target at which he is aiming. In the way that seventeenth-century theological writers use the term, it refers to the chief purpose, viewed as a focal point or target center, at which the Scriptures aim. James Renihan suggests another image. “To change the figure, scope may be understood as true north to which the needle of the compass always points.”[48] Now, according to the Confession, God’s exclusive right to glory is “the scope of the whole” of Scripture. In Paul’s words, “For of him and through him and unto him are all things, to him be the glory forever” (Rom. 11:36). Understood in this way, the scope or focus or aim of all Scripture is the exhibition of God’s glory in order that he may be glorified in a manner answerable to his right.

It is possible, of course, to speak of the scope of the Scriptures in more expansive terms. For example, John Owen, in a passage in which he plainly is enlarging on the Confession’s language, says, “the end and scope of the whole,—[is] to reform the world, to discountenance and extirpate wickedness, and promote holiness and righteousness, and thereby advance God’s glory, and lead man on to everlasting blessedness, etc.”[49] And yet, regardless of other ways that the scope of Scripture may be described, ultimately we must come back to the Confession’s observation that the scope of the whole is to give all glory to God. We see this also in Benjamin Keach’s remarks on the subject. Keach, one of the signatories of our Confession, defines “the scope of the whole” in terms of a noun (i.e., a person) and not in terms of a verb (i.e., an action, “to give all glory to God”). Keach says, “Christ is the mystery wrapt up in the Gospel, he is the scope of all the Scripture, the pearl hid in the field; every line is drawn to him, as the proper center; all the types and shadows pointed to him, and all the promises run in him.”[50] This way of speaking, of course, is proper; but Keach is not discounting the consensus of his colleagues as expressed in the Confession. In an exposition of Isa. 40:5 (“and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed”), Keach sets out this text’s “doctrine” in these terms: “That the grand design of Christ coming unto this world, and in exalting every valley, and in bringing low every hill and mountain, and making that which was crooked straight, and rough ways smooth, was to discover, reveal, or manifest the glory of the Lord.”[51] In the end, Keach is saying what our Confession says, that “the scope of the whole” is “to give all glory to God.”

With remarkable insight, James Renihan says,

Divine origination and thus divine authority provides Scripture with a reflexive quality. In all of its parts its purpose is this: to glorify God. The divine author has ensured that it always aims at this target; that it always points to this compass position.[52]

What Dr. Renihan is saying is that God has so designed Scripture that it always, in all its parts and as a whole, points back to its divine author and ascribes to him the glory that is due to his name. Now, if it were otherwise, if the Scriptures were not God-centered in this way, it would be a matter of grace concern. Given the reality of who God is, as 2nd LCF 2.1 says, the “one only living and true God” who is “infinite in being and perfection,” God’s book should be expected to glorify him as its chief business. If it did not, we would be right to reject is as divinely inspired and authoritative “with us.”

Sixth, the Bible is evidenced to be the Word of God by “the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation.” This language anticipates the following paragraph, which treats of the Scripture’s sufficiency: “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” (1.6).

The point here is that the Scripture’s sufficiency, as it fully exhibits the only way of man’s salvation, is a reason why we should receive the Scriptures as divinely inspired and authoritative “with us.” The Holy Scriptures, as Paul says, are able to make us wise unto salvation (2 Tim. 3:15). All that we need to know on this vital subject is revealed there. If this were not so, even if we continued to speak of the Scriptures’ divine inspiration, we would have to question the goodness and kindness of the God who reveals himself there. It accords with what we legitimately expect of God’s character that he should fully reveal the way of our salvation. To do less would be for him to act with consummate cruelty–dangling a carrot, so to speak, with no possibility of our actually having it. Given the fallible nature of every other supposed source of divine revelation on the subject of salvation, if “the full discovery . . . of the only way of man’s salvation” is not contained in Scripture, then it is unknowable by us in this world. The Scriptures, however, reveal not only God’s law which condemns us but also God’s gospel which saves us–a gospel which assures us that it has taken God’s law and its demands fully into account. And the Scriptures reveal the means that God has appointed, by the use of which salvation under the terms of this gospel may infallibly be ours. In a word, the Bible is precisely what we should expect from God; and seeing that this is the case, we ought to receive it as God’s word and as supremely authoritative “with us.”

The Confession concludes this section by speaking of the “many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof… whereby it [the Bible] doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God.” As no elaboration on this statement is given, none will be attempted in its exposition–except to say that the six evidences specifically touched on do not exhaust the subject of the internal evidences of the Bible to its own divine inspiration and authority. But the case has been made sufficiently to move on. On this basis, it is legitimate to speak with Warfield of the “miracle of Scripture itself,” by which “it abundantly evidences itself to be the Word of God.”[53]

The third section of this paragraph points to the ultimate foundation of our faith that the Bible is God’s authoritative Word. The Spirit’s work in our hearts and minds produces this persuasion; and without this work, no amount of testimony by the church or evidence in the Scriptures could induce us to a “full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority” of the Bible: “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.”

While we recognize the value of the testimony of the church and of the internal evidences of the Scriptures themselves in assuring us of the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible, nevertheless, these things are not the ultimate reason of our belief that the Bible is the Word of God. John Murray, as he brings his treatment of “The Attestation of Scripture” to a close, says,

Faith in Scripture as God’s Word, then, rests upon the perfections inherent in Scripture and is elicited by the perception of these perfections. These perfections constitute its incomparable excellence and such excellence when apprehended constrains the overwhelming conviction that is the only appropriate kind of response. 

If Scripture thus manifests itself to be divine, why is not faith the result in the case of every one confronted with it? The answer is that not all men have the requisite perceptive faculty. Evidence is one thing, the ability to perceive and understand is another. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). It is here that the necessity for the internal testimony of the Spirit enters. The darkness and depravity of man’s mind by reason of sin make man blind to the divine excellence of Scripture. And the effect of sin is not only that it blinds the mind of man and makes it impervious to the evidence but also that it renders the heart of man utterly hostile to the evidence. The carnal mind is enmity against God and therefore resists every claim of the divine perfection. If the appropriate response of faith is to be yielded to the divine excellence inherent in Scripture, nothing less than radical regeneration by the Holy Spirit can produce the requisite susceptibility. “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:14). It is here that the internal testimony of the Spirit enters and it is in the inward work of the Holy Spirit upon the heart and mind of man that the internal testimony consists.[54]

All of the passages that speak of faith as God’s gift likewise confirm the emphasis of our Confession, for the source of our faith in the Bible as the only Word of God is no different from the source of our faith in Christ as the only Savior of sinners. The unregenerate heart and mind have no capacity for the one more than for the other. The Lord must “open the heart” and “open the mind” before we can understand and heed the truth (Luke 24:45; Acts 16:14). If we believe, it is because it has been granted to us on behalf of Christ to believe (Philip. 1:29). At the most basic level, we believe “through grace” (Acts 18:27). We “believe according to that working of the strength of his might which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead” (Eph. 1:19-20). What Paul means in this last text is that nothing less than God’s resurrection power gives us faith to receive the Scriptures as his Word. Jesus is the “author and perfecter of our faith” (Heb. 12:2) just as he is the author and perfecter of Scripture.

All that we have seen demands from us “an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures.” Where this is lacking, something is wrong. Where this is lacking, we have departed from the biblical and the Reformed faith, and are ripe for Rome’s picking. Brethren, never depart from the old path of faith in the uniqueness of the Bible’s divine authority as “the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” Such a departure must lead eventually to the casting away of every distinctive of “the deposit of faith,” i.e., “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Notes

1. This perhaps is an overstatement, in that paragraph 4 does speak of an authority of Scripture “for which it ought to be believed” and says “therefore [that] it is to be received because it is the Word of God.” Our confidence in the Bible is very much in view in this paragraph, albeit in a secondary way compared with paragraph 5. Nonetheless, the distinction that Dr. Waldron makes is generally correct and highly important to our understanding the Confession’s treatment of the Scriptures’ authority “in itself” and “with us.”
2. Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press, 1989), 33-34.
3. See Robert P. Martin, “The Second London Confession on the Doctrine of Scripture. Part 1: The Necessity of the Scriptures (1.1)” and “The Second London Confession on the Doctrine of Scripture. Part 2: The Identity of the Scriptures (1.2-3)” in Reformed Baptist Theological Review (Spring and Fall, 2007).
4. A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith (reprint ed. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1964), 35-36.
5. John Cardinal O’Connor, A Moment of Grace: John Cardinal O’Connor on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995), 24. Italics his.
6. Ibid., 25. Italics mine.
7. And even that is to be reckoned according to the canon as defined by Rome. Citing the seventy-three books of Rome’s canon, which includes seven books of the Apocrypha, O’Connor says, “It was the Church who brought the Scriptures together into one meaningful whole, and therefore the Church, in accordance with apostolic tradition, the authority of the apostles, is able to say, ‘This constitutes the true Bible. These books are divinely inspired.’” Ibid., 29.
8. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (hereafter cited as CCC) distinguishes between the so-called apostolic tradition and ecclesiastical traditions, which “can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium” (83). In the end of the day, of course, in practice the apostolic tradition is just as vulnerable to such treatment as the ecclesiastical traditions.
9. This is the title of Article 2 of the CCC.
10. In this section of the CCC, Rome uses the term “Gospel” as synonymous with the expression “the entire Word of God,” i.e., to refer to “the entire Revelation of the most high God . . . summed up” in Christ and “revealed for the salvation of all peoples”). CCC 74, 75, 81, 82. The term “Gospel” (as used by the CCC here) therefore means the “deposit of faith” or the body of doctrine and practice to be received and observed.
11. CCC 77. Italics mine.
12. CCC 78. Italics mine.
13. CCC 79. Italics mine.
14. CCC 80.
15. CCC 81. Italics mine.
16. CCC 82. Italics mine.
17. Italics mine.
18. CCC 85.
19. CCC 100.
20. CCC 95.
21. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992),1:85.
22. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “The Westminster Doctrine of Holy Scripture,” in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003), 6:210. As Heppe says, “The divinity or the inspired character of the Holy Scriptures represents itself to the believer primarily as the property of AUTHORITY.” Emphasis his. Cited by Warfield, 6:165.
23. Ibid.
24. John White, A Way to the Tree of Life (London: 1647), 45. Cited by Warfield, 6:210.
25. William Cunningham, Historical Theology (reprint ed., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1969), 1:172. “Men sometimes talk as if they had a vague notion of the early fathers having had some inferior species of inspiration,–some peculiar divine guidance differing from that of the apostles and evangelists in degree rather than in kind,–and somehow entitling their views and statements to more deference and respect than those of ordinary men. All notions of this sort are utterly baseless, and should be carefully rejected. Authority, properly so called, can be rightly based only upon inspiration; and inspiration is the guidance of the Spirit of God, infallibly securing against all error. When men can be proved to possess this, it is of course our duty to regard all their statements as invested with authority, and to receive them at once with implicit submission, without any further investigation, and without appealing to any other standard. Where there is not inspiration, there is no proper authority,–there should be no implicit submission, and there must be a constant appeal to some higher standard, if such a standard exist. The fathers, individually or collectively, were not inspired; they therefore possess no authority whatever; and their statements must be estimated and treated just as those of any other ordinary men.” Ibid., 174-75. Italics his.
26. Speaking of the Tractarians in the Church of England, Cunningham says, they “talk much of catholic consent, as they call it, as an infallible standard of faith; while they arbitrarily and unwarrantably limit the sources from which this catholic consent is to be ascertained to the writings of the fathers of the fourth and. fifth centuries.” Cunningham, 1:174. McClintock and Strong (Cyclopedia, s.v. “Puseyism”) observe: “‘Consentient patristical tradition,’ says Keble in his Sermons, ‘is the record of that oral teaching of the apostles which the Holy Spirit inspired.’ By this patristic tradition, which these tractarians extolled as an infallible interpretation of Scripture and test of doctrinal truth, they understood the voice of Catholic antiquity, or the voice of the theologians of the Nicene age, of the 4th century; and yet a majority of them were at one time devoted to the Arian heresy.”
27. See the footnotes to the CCC.
28. The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen), s.v., “Infallibility.”
29. Ibid., s.v., “Tradition and Living Magisterium.”
30. While the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration affirm the existence of a “catholic or universal church, which is invisible,” our Confession qualifies their language, restricting the term “invisible,” saying, “which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible” (2ndLCF 26.1). Clearly the framers of our Confession disliked the unqualified use of “invisible,” choosing instead to speak not of the universal church itself as invisible but as characterized by attributes that are invisible. Their use of “invisible” in this restricted sense cautions us to do the same. As Prof. Murray says, “The distinction between the church visible and the church invisible is not well-grounded in terms of Scripture, and the abuses to which the distinction has been subjected require correction.” John Murray, “The Church: Its Definition in Terms of ‘Visible’ and ‘Invisible’ Invalid,” in Collected Writings (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), 1:232. In 26.2, our Confession rejects the Westminster Confession’s definition of the “visible” catholic church altogether. It adopts instead the Savoy Declaration’s language, but changes the expression “visible catholic church of Christ” to “visible saints.”
31. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 91.
32. The citation of 2 Thess. 2:13 is an error and should read, with the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration, 1 Thess. 2:13.
33. Cf., Turretin, 1:88.
34. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1975), 1:158.
35. Turretin, 1:86-87.
36. Warfield, 6:211.
37. Shaw observes, “Though many who believe are not qualified to demonstrate the inspiration of the Scriptures by rational arguments, yet, by the experience they have of their power and efficacy on their own hearts, they are infallibly assured that they are the Word of God; and they can no more be convinced, by the reasonings and objections of infidels, that the Scriptures are the production of men, than they can be persuaded that men created the sun, whose light they behold, and by whose beams they are cheered.” Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (reprint ed., Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 1992), 14.
38. See Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, in The New International Greek Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000), 800-848.
39. In paragraph 6 of this chapter, we read 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” (2nd LCF 1.6). The question in view in 1 Cor. 11:2-11 is one which, even before Paul makes an apostolic pronouncement concerning it, is settled (for every reasonable man or woman) by the light of nature. The light of nature, in turn, manifests itself often in terms of virtually universally adopted societal customs. This certainly is the case with long hair on women and short hair on men. The light of nature can never have the authority of Scripture, because of the fall of man into sin and the remains of indwelling sin even in believers; however, neither should the light of nature, recognized even by fallen men, be set aside in a cavalier fashion.
40. Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1974), 214.
41. Warfield, “The Church Doctrine of Inspiration,” in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Phillipsburg, NJ: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1948), 112.
42. Warfield, 6:211.
43. Turretin, 1:63-64. Shaw likewise suggests that the Westminster divines were speaking of “the incomparable sublimity of the doctrines contained in the Scriptures, and their revealing many truths which could not be discovered by nature or reason–the extent and purity of their precepts–the representation which they give of the character and moral administration of God.” Shaw, 14.
44. Ibid.
45. Turretin, 1:64.
46. Ibid.
47. Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 12.
48. James M. Renihan, “Theology on Target: the Scope of the Whole (which is to give all glory to God)” in Reformed Baptist Theological Review (July 2005), 41.
49. John Owen, “The Testimony of the Church is not the Only nor the Chief Reason of our Believing the Scripture to be the Word of God,” in The Works of John Owen (reprint ed., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1976), 8:542.
50. Benjamin Keach, Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1972), 934.
51. Benjamin Keach, Exposition of the Parables in the Bible (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1974), 30.
52. Renihan, 42.
53. Warfield, 6:211.
54. John Murray, “The Attestation of Scripture,” in The Infallible Word: A Symposium by the Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary (reprint ed., Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1980), 47-48.