The Second London Confession On The Doctrine Of Scripture (Part 4): The Sufficiency of the Scriptures (1.6)

By Robert P. Martin

Dr. Robert P. Martin is Pastor of Emmanuel Reformed Baptist Church, Seattle, WA, and Professor of Biblical Theology in Reformed Baptist Seminary, Easley, SC, and editor of Reformed Baptist Theological Review.

Having treated (1) the necessity of Scripture, in order to our having “a sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,” (2) the identity of the Scriptures over against the Apocrypha and all other merely human writings (the distinguishing mark separating them being the fact of divine inspiration), and (3) the basis for the authority of Scripture (both “in itself” and “with us”), our Confession now comes to another vital theme regarding the Bible’s own doctrine of itself and its place in the Christian faith. In paragraph 6, the subject is the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures.

6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men. 

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God, to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

In this section, the Confession addresses the question, Is the revelation inscripturated in the Bible all that we need to know on doctrinal and ethical questions, or must we look elsewhere to supplement what the Scriptures teach? This question was anticipated in the chapter’s opening sentence, where sacred Scripture is styled “the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience” (1.1).[1]

Because of its historical, doctrinal, and practical importance, in spite of the brief allusion to this subject at the beginning of the chapter, our Baptist forefathers retained the Westminster Confession’s statement on the Bible’s sufficiency as the sole rule of religious truth, faith, and duty, albeit with some modification (cf., WC 1.6). Of course, the importance of this paragraph’s teaching cannot be overestimated, especially considering the widespread error on this subject remaining in our day.

This paragraph consists of an unequivocal affirmation of the Scripture’s sufficiency as a rule of faith and life, followed by qualifying statements required first by the fact of man’s native inability (cf., 2nd LCF 6.2, 10.1) and second by the fact of God’s working in general revelation and common grace.

Affirmation: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” 

The first qualification, which is required because of man’s native inability: “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” 

The second qualification, which required because of God’s revelation in the light of nature: “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.”

We begin with the paragraph’s foundational affirmation: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”

The first thing to note about this statement is that it carefully describes the boundaries or scope of the Bible’s sufficiency. Neither the Bible itself nor our Confession supports the idea that the Bible is sufficient to teach us everything that we need to know on every subject of importance to living in God’s world. The Bible is not adequate, for example, as a textbook on mathematics, or world history, or biology. Why is this? The answer is that the Bible was never designed to serve such a purpose.[2] When we take up the subject of the Bible’s sufficiency, therefore, our first question must be, “Sufficient for what purpose?” The Confession rightly limits the scope of the Bible’s sufficiency to the specific purposes for which the Bible exists. Being the inspired record of verbal divine revelation, the Holy Scriptures are sufficient to achieve the purposes for which God gave verbal revelation. Therefore, our Confession does not speak of “the whole counsel of God concerning all truth of every kind and on every subject whatever” but of “the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life.”

Moreover, narrowing the focus further, when the Confession speaks of “the whole counsel of God,” it does not even mean everything that God himself may know relating to the subjects addressed in his verbal revelation to men (for there are “secret things” that “belong to the Lord our God”). Instead, our Confession refers to everything that God has willed to reveal on those subjects that he has chosen to address (cf., Deut. 29:29). The expression “the whole counsel of God” refers to all that God has revealed, and thus denotes all that he wills for us to know and all that we need to know on the subjects that he has addressed. This is how Paul uses the phrase in the only place that it appears in the Bible, in Acts 20:26-27 (cf., 20:20). Paul said to the Ephesian elders, “I shrank not from declaring to you anything that was profitable . . . . I shrank not from declaring to you the whole counsel of God [i.e., all that God revealed and all that you needed to know on the subject of true religion and holy morals].”

On this occasion, Paul revealed his state of mind as a preacher. The word ὑποστέλλω (“to draw back”) was used of soldiers who shrank from duty out of fear. Paul affirmed that from the first day he set foot in Asia, all the time that he went in and out among the Ephesians, at no time had he been a coward in his preaching. At no time had he retreated from his duty to God and his hearers out of fear of what might happen if he preached “the whole counsel of God,” i.e., if he preached everything needed for the profit of their souls. In simple terms, the fear of man did not determine the limits of what Paul said. The content of his preaching was not determined by consulting the faces of his hearers or by consulting his own fears or prejudices. Instead, the only question was, “Is this part of the whole counsel of God, revealed for the profit of men’s souls?” This concern alone determined the scope of Paul’s preaching.

It is important that we correctly understand what Paul meant by “the whole counsel of God.” Some speak of this expression in such a way that the practical effect is to restrict its meaning to the preaching of God’s plan of salvation; but this is not correct. In the immediate context Paul reveals what he means. In verse 20 he says the same thing that he says in verse 27, but chooses a different expression to describe the scope of his preaching.

I shrank not from declaring to you anything that was profitable (20:20). 

I shrank not from declaring to you the whole counsel of God (20:27).

If we interpret these statements in light of one another, we see that the “whole counsel of God” is nothing other than “anything that was profitable” to Paul’s hearers. This includes the full scope of the doctrine of salvation; but it also includes much more.

The word translated “counsel” (βουλή) refers first to a deliberation, i.e., a consideration of the right course in a given matter, then to the result of such a process of deliberation manifested in a decision of the will, a judgment, a pronouncement, a resolution, an edict, or a decree.[3] Understood in this sense, “the whole counsel of God” is God’s reasoned, deliberated, wise, and holy judgment and will on whatever subject he has chosen to reveal his mind. The precise character of the divine revelation, whether doctrinal or moral, is irrelevant; all is traceable to the mind of God, and all is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

In a word, “the whole counsel of God” is all that God has revealed on any subject whatever. And in his infinite wisdom and grace, knowing what is needed to fulfill his purposes and to profit men’s souls, he has given this broad revelation, now inscripturated in the Bible, so that it may be preached, believed, and obeyed. Of course, this understanding of the content of “the whole counsel of God” explains the use that the Confession makes of the phrase in speaking of the sufficiency of Scripture.

According to our Confession, all that God has willed for us to know and all that we need to know (1) “concerning all things necessary for his own glory,” i.e., in order to bring to God the glory that is due to his name (cf., Psa. 96:8), (2) concerning all things necessary for “man’s salvation,” i.e., concerning our deliverance from God’s wrath, the bondage of sin, the fear of death, etc. (cf., 2 Tim. 3:15), and (3) concerning all things necessary for “faith and life,” i.e., concerning what we are to believe and how we are to live (cf., 2 Tim. 3:16-17) “is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture.” Contrary to the spirit of our age, if everything we need to know on these subjects may be known from the Scriptures, then we must use the Scriptures as they are in fact, i.e., a sufficient rule of Christian belief and action, and we need not look beyond them for additional instruction, as though they contained some defect or deficit that must be supplied from some other fount of wisdom and truth.

Not content with a mere blanket statement concerning the Bible’s adequacy as a rule of faith and life, the Confession states that in the Bible, all that we need to know may be found in one of two ways–either by reading what is expressly written, taking the Bible’s statements in the sense in which they were intended by the original authors, or by deducing from the Bible’s statements those truths which must follow logically, i.e., which are “necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture” (2nd LCF), or which “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (WC). For example, the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ apart from the merit of our works is expressed clearly, in words incapable of being misunderstood by any who come to the Bible with an unprejudiced mind (cf., Rom. 3:20,28). The doctrine of the Trinity, however, is not expressly stated in the Bible; nevertheless it is true because it follows unavoidably from clear statements that the Bible makes about God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Many Baptists are skeptical of the Westminster Confession’s method of “good and necessary consequence,” a suspicion that I believe is traceable in large degree to the fact that this is the source of the doctrine of infant baptism. Baptists, of course, do not agree that the doctrine of infant baptism may “by good and necessary consequence be deduced from Scripture.” We need to be careful, however, not to over-react. While our Baptist forefathers disagreed with their Presbyterian brethren on the question of which doctrines were true on the basis of “good and necessary consequence,” they did not deny the validity of the deductive method itself. It remains in our Confession under the words “or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture.” Robert Shaw observed:

In maintaining the perfection of the Scriptures, we do not insist that every article of religion is contained in Scripture in so many words; but we hold that conclusions fairly deduced from the declarations of the Word of God are as truly parts of divine revelation as if they were expressly taught in the Sacred Volume. That good and necessary consequences deduced from Scripture are to be received as part of the rule of our faith and practice, is evident from the example of our Saviour in proving the doctrine of the resurrection against the Sadducees,–Matt. xxii. 31, 32; and from the example of Paul, who proved that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, by reasoning with the Jews out of the Old Testament Scriptures,–Acts xvii. 2, 3. “All Scripture” is declared to be “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;” but all these ends cannot be obtained, unless by the deduction of consequences. Legitimate consequences, indeed, only bring out the full meaning of the words of Scripture; and as we are endued with the faculty of reason, and commanded to search the Scriptures, it was manifestly intended that we should draw conclusions from what is therein set down in express words.[4]

Having stated the doctrine of the Scriptures’ sufficiency positively, the Confession concludes the first part of para. 6 with a negative statement on the subject: “unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” This addendum exists because of claims being made at the time that the Westminster Confession was written (claims which in one form or another, in one place or another, have continued to our day). On the one hand, some Anabaptists claimed that the gift of prophecy was yet being given, while the Quakers claimed an inner light from the Spirit that they elevated to the same level as Scripture. On the other hand, for centuries Rome had claimed that her traditions supplemented the Scriptures.[5] The authors of our Confession rightly denied all such claims and, if they were writing today, would continue to oppose Rome as well as vigorously deny current claims to a revival of prophecy, tongues, and words of knowledge. Not only does the Scripture’s sufficiency now make such modes of revelation unnecessary, but principles set out in the Bible itself lead us to reject all claims to new revelations and all traditions not established by the Word of God itself. Further, and this certainly is the case, wherever new revelation has been claimed and new traditions promulgated, invariably they have been contrary to the system of doctrine and ethics already established by the Word of God. Shaw observed:

No new revelations are to be added to the oracles of God, for Christ and his apostles have foretold the rise of false prophets, and warned us not to give heed to their pretended revelations.–Matt. xxiv. 11, 24. The Apostle Paul denounces a curse upon all who preach any other gospel than that which is contained in the Scriptures.–Gal. i. 8, 9. The uncertainty of private revelations furnishes another argument against them. Such is the deceitfulness of the heart, that men are apt to mistake their own fancies and imaginations for revelations of the Spirit, and such is the subtlety of Satan, that he sometimes transforms himself into an angel of light. Private revelations, therefore, must be very uncertain to ourselves, and much more so to others. And it may be observed, that none plead for the authority of private revelations but such as, by the contrariety of their opinions and practices to the Scriptures, manifest themselves to be led by a spirit of delusion. 

Neither are the traditions of men to be added to the Word of God. Traditions have been a fertile source of corruption in religion, both among Jews and Christians. The Jews pretended that besides what Moses committed to writing, he received from God a variety of revelations, which he communicated verbally to Aaron, and which were orally transmitted from generation to generation. These traditions multiplied exceedingly, especially after the Spirit of prophecy was withdrawn from the Church; and when Christ appeared on earth, he found the Jews so far degenerated, that their religion consisted almost entirely in the observation of such traditions. Hence we find him declaring, “Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” “In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”–Matt. xv. 6, 9. In the same way have a multitude of the corruptions in the doctrine and worship of the Romish Church sprung up. They, after the example of the Jews, pretend that Christ and his apostles delivered many things which are not found in the Scriptures, and which have come down to us by tradition. But how can it be shown that those articles of religion, or institutions of worship, which they say have come down by tradition, were really received from the mouth of Christ, or from the teaching of his apostles? Or, supposing that they were derived from this source, how can it be ascertained that they have been conveyed down to us without alteration or corruption? The fact is, many of these traditions, which are called apostolical, can be traced to their commencement, at a period much later than that of the apostles. To admit unwritten traditions would open a door for all the innovations and corruptions which the fancies of men may devise, and would make void the law of God.[6]

The primary text cited in favor of the Confession’s teaching on the sufficiency of the Scriptures is 2 Tim. 3:15-17. We considered this text at length in a preceding study; therefore, here we simply take note of the fact that its language is unequivocal on this point. Commenting on this text, Turretin says,

What is useful not to some things only, but universally to all (by a complete and adequate, not a partial and incomplete utility) must necessarily be sufficient. Now Scripture is here pronounced such when it is said to be able to make a man wise (sophisai) unto salvation, and to be useful for the indoctrination (didaskalian) of the true and refutation (elenchon) of the false, for the correction (epanorthosin) of evil and the instruction (paideian) of good, since nothing more is required for perfection.[7]

Or consider Psa. 19:7. “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.” William Bridge adds:

and it [the law of the Lord] makes perfect, else it were no rule of life: for as Austin [Augustine] says, the regula [rule] must be regulato suo adequata [a rule in itself sufficient]. Surely therefore it is sufficient to administer help unto all conditions. It is a lanthorn [lantern] to our feet; whatever ground our feet are on, or in what dark place soever, this light can find them out. What state can you be in, but the Scripture will find a commandment for your rule, and a promise for your assistance and reward. It is able to reach unto all conditions, for it is a full and sufficient light.[8]

Before moving to the rest of paragraph 6, something should be said about distinctions that Roman Catholic theologians make regarding differing species of sufficiency. The terminology differs from writer to writer (e.g., mediate vs. immediate, material vs. formal), but the argument essentially is the same. Roman Catholics commonly affirm the Scripture’s mediate or material sufficiency but not its immediate or formal efficiency. The distinction between these kinds of sufficiency may be illustrated as the difference between a blueprint and a stack of bricks. A “materially” sufficient Bible is like a stack of bricks that can be used to build anything from a cathedral to a cabin; however, the stack itself contains no information that points the builder in one direction or another. Guidance as to how to assemble the raw materials must be found from a source other than the bricks. This information comes instead from a blueprint, which is “formally” sufficient to create a specific building, whether cathedral or cabin. Romanists argue that the Bible is materially sufficient, in that all the raw material for building a doctrinal edifice is present, but that it is not formally sufficient, since the systematic blueprint of the edifice is not present. To supply this need for a blueprint, Roman appeals to the church’s tradition and magisterium. And thus, e.g., Vincent of Lerins (c. A.D. 434), asserted,

I have often inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. 

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason,–because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.[9]

Vincent’s object was to elucidate the rule by which truth might be distinguished from heresy. He recognizes the authority of Scripture, but this is insufficient, he believed, since men had differed so markedly in their interpretation of Scripture. He argued therefore that a sufficient rule must include an appeal to the interpretation of Holy Scripture held by the Catholic Church. Vincent’s famous dictum was, “Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est,” i.e., doctrine must be grounded in the interpretation of Scripture that is supported by universality (what is the faith of the whole church?), by antiquity (what has been held from the earliest times?), and by consent (what has been the belief of all, or almost all, whose office and character gave authority to their opinions?).

Given the age in which Vincent lived, in which new heresies of every sort had appeared in rapid succession since the days of the apostles, we certainly can appreciate his desire to appeal to universality, antiquity, and consent. As new heresies appeared, the early fathers and councils chiefly had appealed to the Scriptures; but it is wishful thinking to assume that an appeal could be made in every case to anything approaching universality, for on some issues, large segments of the professing church stood with the “heterodox” against the “orthodox.” And this is but to say that the resolution of the controversies that Vincent describes was not as simple as he makes it seem. What is clear, however, is that what perhaps was a generally workable formula in the Fifth Century no longer may be applied in the Twenty-first Century.

Rome’s current appeal to the universal church as having formal sufficiency is not an appeal to true universality, nor can it be since the eleventh-century division with the Eastern Church, and especially since the sixteenth-century Reformation in Europe. And Rome now limits its appeal to antiquity and consent to those Fathers who have lived and died in the communion of the Roman Catholic Church. The opinions of the Reformers and other dissenters are rejected out of hand. Further, the councils whose decrees are most offensive to Protestants (e.g., Trent, Vatican I) were not universal in any meaningful sense. And Rome’s historic anathematizing of all who differed from her decisions, especially respecting the authority of the Roman magisterium, has shut down every effort to bring others to the table. Even now, when Rome supposedly is open to dialogue with “separated brethren,” such dialogue must be pursued on Rome’s terms or no reconciliation is possible. As long as it stands, Rome’s insistence that she has exclusive possession of the blueprint of sound doctrine blocks all hope of true reformation in the Roman Communion or real fellowship with Protestants.

Rome’s insistence on distinguishing material versus formal sufficiency fails, of course, at the tribunal of Scripture itself. As we have seen from our consideration of 2 Tim. 3:15-17, the Bible has a very high view of its usefulness in settling the faith and practice of God’s people. This text does not describe a disorganized stack of bricks. Indeed the analogy of bricks and blueprint fails when applied to Scripture because the Scripture is not itself devoid of information regarding the proper organization of its discrete parts. Bricks in a stack lack any information indicating even the rudimentary assembly of a structure. We know that we must place brick beside brick in regular rows, but that is all. The Bible is not like this. Many of the pieces come to us already connected, i.e., in texts where doctrines are linked together in their proper proportion and sequence (cf., e.g., the linkage between Christ’s sanctification and the sanctification of his people, John 17:17-19, or the connection between the death and resurrection of Christ and the mortification of sin in the believer, Romans 6-8). Granted, the Bible does not come to us in the form of a systematic theology, but this does not mean that it is devoid of information sufficient to construct such a system. The differing systems that have been derived in the history of Christianity are not the fault of the Bible but reflect the defects of their interpreters, including those of the Roman Church. Rome’s claim to the exclusive right to systematize the faith of God’s people is nothing other than hubris. There are no biblical or historical reasons to assume that Rome’s claim is valid and much on both counts to prove that it is not.

As an interesting sidelight to our study at this point, we should note that Romanism and Reformed Protestantism are diametrically opposed on the question of the source of doctrinal and moral error. Writing as an Anglo-catholic, but expressing the view espoused by the Roman Church that eventually he would embrace, John Henry Newman said, “from the first, it has been the error of heretics to neglect the information thus provided for them [by the Church], and to attempt of themselves a work to which they are unequal, the eliciting a systematic doctrine from the scattered notices of the truth which Scripture contains. Such men act, in the solemn concerns of religion, the part of the self-sufficient natural philosopher.”[10] Elsewhere Newman says that “all those who try to form their Creed by Scripture only, fall away from the Church and her doctrines, and join one or other sect or party.”[11] Reformed Protestants counter this by arguing the reverse. As Thomas Manton urged his hearers, “Papists cry up unwritten traditions, to be received with equal respect and reverence as we receive the holy scriptures. But you, brethren, stand fast, holding the apostolic tradition: you cannot have it by word of mouth from them [the apostles] now, therefore you must stick to what is written, or else you cannot preserve yourselves from the frauds and impostures of antichrist.”[12] It is true that many errors have arisen from the private opinions of men who have claimed independence from any ecclesiastical tradition or any theological creed and who have asserted that their views were based on Scripture alone. The error of the Campbellites on the subject of the efficacy of baptism derives from just such a source. But Rome’s view of Scripture has given birth to more errors than may be counted, including those that leave sinners utterly without the gospel. In a word, to accept Rome’s construct regarding the sufficiency of Scripture is to set the stage for a magisterium, whether Romish or otherwise, to relegate the Scriptures to a secondary status where it is convenient to do so, and to remove every restraint to the corruption of the truth as it is in Jesus.

After the general statement of the Bible’s sufficiency, a two-part qualifying statement follows. The first qualification, required because of man’s native inability, reads: “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.”

What the Confession says about the sufficiency of the Scriptures does not negate the necessity of the illuminating work of the Spirit. Though the Bible is sufficient to teach us all that we need to know in the sphere of religion, nevertheless, we are unable by our own abilities to understand the Word savingly. We do not deny that a certain knowledge of facts and principles may be attained by diligent study of the Bible even by the natural man; but we do deny that men can become “wise unto salvation” by such means alone. We believe “the inward illumination of the Spirit to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word.” As William Bridge says,

But have not even wicked men this light also of Scripture, to walk by in their darkness? I answer, They have it as a blind man hath the sun: the sun is in the firmament over the head of a blind man, yet it is no light to him. So here. 

And though a wicked man doth hear and may read the Scripture, and know many truths which are therein contained, yet he doth not know the greatness of them. A man may know and say, This is the sun, and this is the light thereof; yet not know the greatness of the sun, and that it is abundantly bigger than the earth. So a wicked man may and doth know many truths, hut he doth not see and know the greatness of truths, for he prizeth other things of the world above them. A good man knows the truths of the gospel, and he sees the greatness of them, for he leaves all to follow them. 

And though a wicked man may have his eyes open to see many truths of the Scripture, yet in seeing, he doth not see the same; for as a good man may know natural things in a spiritual way, so he doth know spiritual things in a natural way. A good man seeth the things themselves that are contained in the Scripture; and therefore it is that the knowledge of Christ, is called Christ: “Till Christ be formed in you,” saith the apostle; that is, till the knowledge of Christ be formed. The thing is put for the knowledge of it. Why? Because in knowing, the saints know the things themselves. Wicked men know and have the notion of them; for there is a knowledge of things in the notion of them, which wicked men may have: and there is a knowledge of the things themselves, which the saints and people of God have. 

But may not a good man’s eyes be held from this Scripture light? Yes, in some things; but though his eyes be held, it is on1y quo ad hoc, as to this or that truth in particular. When he is converted and brought home to God, then are his eyes said to be opened, then is he anointed with the unction of the Holy One, and doth know all things necessary unto his salvation. . . . 

A knowing, learned man, it may be, can utter more of Scripture than he feels; but a good man feels more than he can utter.[13]

The doctrine of our Confession (here over against Pelagianism and Arminianism, which ascribe to man some natural ability for understanding spiritual things and exercising spiritual duties) is that without illumination, inscripturated revelation would remain ineffectual to darkened minds. Illumination therefore is as necessary to the communication of divine truth as is revelation and inspiration.

The need for illumination is rooted in man’s fallen condition (as it is described in the Holy Scriptures and as it is manifested in the lives of the unconverted). The unregenerate man cannot understand spiritual things. He is spiritually dead and blind to both the obligations of the law and the blessings of the gospel. He requires the illuminating work of the Spirit of God to see either. Illumination refers to spiritual insight granted by the Spirit of God, enabling the darkened mind of fallen man to grasp the truths of the law and the gospel already revealed and inscripturated.

The necessity of illumination may be deduced from several plain texts.[14] For example, at 1 Cor. 2:11-14, Paul contrasts the abilities of the natural man and the believer who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

For what man knows (οἶδα, knows fully) the things of a man except the spirit of the man that is in him? Even so no one knows (γινώσκω, begins to know) the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know (οἶδα, know fully) the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, explaining spiritual things with spiritual words. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know (γινώσκω, begin to know) them, because they are spiritually discerned (πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται, evaluated in a manner caused by the Spirit).

Paul argues from lesser to greater. If a man’s innermost thoughts are accessible only to his spirit, how much more are the “depths” of God accessible only to his Spirit. Paul’s use of both γινώσκω and οἶδα is significant.[15] In certain contexts, γινώσκω suggests inception or progress in knowledge, while οἶδα suggests fulness of knowledge.[16] If Paul intends such a contrast here, then his argument would be that no man fully knows (οἶδα) the innermost thoughts of another, though, being himself human, he has some understanding of man’s heart. In contrast to this, no man begins to understand (γινώσκω) the thoughts of God, for man has no comparable point of reference within himself.[17] What man knows of God comes only through the revealing work of the Spirit.

And why did the Spirit reveal the deep things of God? Why did he give apostles and prophets “spiritual” words to speak and write? Why has the believer received the Spirit in his indwelling presence and especially in his illuminating ministry? These things are all to the end that we might know the truth. Indeed, the Lord purposes by this means that we “fully know”[18] what the natural man cannot even “begin to know.” Apart from the presence and working of the Spirit, the natural man cannot begin to know (in any saving way) the things of the Spirit of God but instead regards God’s word as foolishness, i.e., μωρία, nonsense devoid of wisdom and value.

The problem for the natural, or unregenerate, man is that he cannot begin to discern (οὐ δύναται γνῶναι) the truth of divine things. It is not simply that he does not do it, or even that he will not do it. He cannot. The difficulty is not merely in his will. It is in his nature. Spiritual truth is discerned through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Those who do not have the Spirit simply cannot discern spiritual truth. If one goes to a cemetery and displays Charles Cromwell Ingham’s “The Flower Girl” or plays J. S. Bach’s “Passion According to St. Matthew” and the dead do not express their appreciation, the issue is not that they will not discern the beauty of these works, but that they cannot do so. Dead men simply cannot see and hear. What is missing is life, and with it the ability to appreciate art. Likewise, it is not simply that the natural man will not hear the truth of God with spiritual discernment. He is spiritually dead and thus unable to do so. What is required is the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

The key to understanding Paul here is the verb ἀνακρίνω. The word ἀνάκρισις was a legal term denoting a preliminary investigation corresponding to that conducted by a grand jury today. As Paul uses this idea here, he is saying that in the case of natural men, inquiry into spiritual matters is frustrated by the incompetence of the jury. As G. G. Findlay has said, “The unspiritual are out of court as religious critics; they are deaf men judging music.”[19] The man who has received the Spirit and who is the object of his illuminating work, however, is qualified by the Spirit to judge spiritual matters.

The work of illumination is the fruit of the Spirit’s presence and activity in the life of the believer. John Owen calls this “the principal efficient cause of the due knowledge and understanding of the will of God in the Scripture,” affirming that,

There is an especial work of the Spirit of God on the minds of men, communicating spiritual wisdom, light, and understanding unto them, necessary unto their discerning and apprehending aright the mind of God in his word, and the understanding of the mysteries of heavenly truth contained therein. And I shall add hereunto, that among all the false and foolish imaginations that ever Christian religion was attacked or disturbed withal, there never was any, there is none more pernicious than this, that the mysteries of the gospel are so exposed unto the common reason and understanding of men as that they may know them and comprehend them in a useful manner, and according to their duty, without the effectual aid and assistance of the Spirit of God.[20]

Seeing now that the necessity of such “an especial work of the Spirit of God” is proved from the inability of the natural man to understand spiritual things, what proof is there that God engages in such a work in converting sinners and in sanctifying his people? Here the Scripture has much to say.

John Owen was willing to rest the whole case on the prayer of the psalmist at Psa. 119:18.[21] “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” Arguing from these words, Owen said, “What we pray for from God, that we have not in and of ourselves, as the ancient church constantly pleaded against the Pelagians; and what we pray for according to the mind of God, that we do receive. Wherefore, our discerning, our understanding, of the wonderful things of the law, is not of ourselves; it is that which is given us, that which we receive from God.”[22] In the context of Psalm 119, to “uncover” (גָּלָה) the eyes is to remove the veil that rests on man’s understanding of God’s law. And as this is in the ability of God alone, so it is the proper object of prayer, as the psalmist shows us repeatedly. This prayer, however, was not uttered in ignorance of God’s ways, but, as with other like expressions in this psalm,[23] with the understanding that God can and does answer such prayers and do such an illuminating work in those who seek him.

In further proof of our Confession’s assertion, consider Col. 1:13. Paul here says that our part in Christ’s kingdom was secured by the Father’s delivering us from the power (or authority) of darkness (ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους), which is to say that a large part of his saving work is to deliver us from ignorance of spiritual truths. Taking Paul’s expression in the sense of “from the kingdom of darkness,” John Eadie observed,

This principality is named “darkness” on account of its prevailing ethical element. Above it the heaven is shrouded in dismal eclipse, around it lies dense and impervious gloom, and before it stretches out the shadow of death. What men should believe and what they should do, what they should rest on and what they should hope for, what the mind should fasten on as truth and what the heart should gather in upon itself as a portion, what the spirit should present as acceptable worship and what the conscience should venerate as a rule of duty–all had been matter of deep perplexity or hopeless uncertainty to the Colossians prior to their spiritual translation. . . . Ignorance, vice, and misery, the triple shades of this darkness, held possession of them.[24]

What Paul attributes to the work of the Father at Col. 1:13, he elsewhere attributes to the Spirit. At Eph. 1:17-19, he prays for the Ephesians “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of his calling, what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his mighty power.” The term πνεῦμα, as Paul uses it here,[25] does not refer to a mental disposition[26] “of wisdom and revelation” but to the Holy Spirit who is the agent who confers these things to God’s people. Having been sealed by the Spirit, the Christian also is given the Spirit in his vital work of “enlightening the eyes of the understanding,” an illumination that rises at length to “all the riches of the full assurance of understanding” (Col. 2:2).

The illuminating work of the Spirit also is central to Paul’s argument at 2 Cor. 3:12-4:6. Here we read,

Having therefore such a hope, we use great boldness of speech, and are not as Moses, who put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel should not look stedfastly on the end of that which was passing away: but their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains, it not being revealed to them that it is done away in Christ. But unto this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies upon their heart. But whenever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit. Therefore seeing we have this ministry, even as we obtained mercy, we faint not: but we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

The heart of Paul’s assertion is a comparison of the experiences of Jews and Christians in their reading of the sacred Scriptures. The Jews read the Scriptures without understanding. Paul portrays their condition in graphic terms: “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, in order that[27] the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.” The result of this satanic blinding is that “their minds were hardened” and “a veil lies upon their heart.” This veil “remains” in their reading of God’s word. Now, since this hardness of mind and veiled heart is the portion not just of the Jews but also of all men by nature, how is it that Christians, reading the same Scriptures, “with unveiled face behold as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, and are transformed into the same image from glory to glory”? Paul’s answer is that this is the work of Christ through the Spirit. “In Christ” the veil is “taken away.” This is one of the great blessings of union with Christ in his saving work. And, Paul says, this is “from the Lord the Spirit.” In conversion, therefore, “the veil is taken away.”[28]

The heart of Paul’s argument is found in the words, “Now the Lord is the Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” The liberty in view is the freedom to understand the Scriptures, which liberty the unconverted Jews did not possess because of their hardened minds and veiled hearts. By his use of creation imagery, Paul clinches the point that this work of spiritual illumination is a sovereign work of God wrought by his infinite power. He takes us to the first day of creation, and invokes the example of God’s sovereignly exercised power in the creation of light:

“Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness.” This same God, he says, “shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” In a word, Paul is saying that the understanding of the Scriptures that Christians enjoy is the fruit of the creative work of God, who by his Spirit declares, “Let there be light.”

Later on the Confession asserts that in its initial experience by the Christian, illumination is part of effectual calling: “Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God” (10.1). Illumination, however, does not pertain only to our initial reception of grace and light. The Holy Spirit continues to work in us through the illumination of the written Word, so that the light that he conveys to us by this means becomes a lamp that shines forth in a myriad of ways in our experience of walking according to the Spirit. As Joseph Bellamy (2:439) observed,

Divine truths spiritually known, that is, seen in their divine glory, beget and excite all those holy affections which constitute the Christian character, so that the whole system of divine truths held forth to view, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, making up one harmonious, consistent, beautiful whole, hath influence, in this affair, to beget and excite all those holy affections which form the character of a new man in Christ Jesus; and which lay a sure foundation for that holy and divine life which agrees with the whole tenor of the Bible, and is peculiar to the true followers of the Lamb.[29]

A second qualification, required because of God’s revelation in the light of nature, reads: “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.”

What is said about the sufficiency of the Scriptures does not mean that absolutely every question raised in the church can be resolved by recourse to the express statements of Scripture or even to good and necessary consequence. Some “circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church” are “common to human actions and societies,” so that the Bible does not give direct revelation in such matters but leaves us to make decisions according to the same principles that govern such things in the culture or society in which we live. Here we are dependant on God’s general revelation and common grace. In such matters, we must order our worship and church government “by the light of nature, i.e., according to the canons of common grace and general revelation, and by “Christian prudence,” i.e., according to the dictates of sanctified (not worldly) wisdom, “according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

Cited first at this point is 1 Cor. 11:13-14. “Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?” This text presents us with numerous interpretive challenges.

The first issue is the meaning of the verb translated “is it proper” (πρέπω). This word refers to what is “fitting” or “right” in view of the circumstances described in the context in which it is used. In the way that Paul uses the verb elsewhere, we can even say that it carries the idea of what is “required,” as if by law. For example, Paul appeals to the impropriety of “saints” being guilty of “fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness” (Eph. 5:3). In a similar way, he speaks of the propriety of “women professing godliness” adorning themselves with good works instead of with pretentious and immodest attire (1 Tim. 2:9-10). In these cases, the practices in view are not just “fitting” in view of societal consensus or custom but required by a rule having the force of law. In both cases the behaviors in question are not just matters of cultural mores but of absolute moral right and wrong. Taking our lead from Paul’s usage in these texts, should we then conclude that in 1 Corinthians 11 he is not just speaking of something that is a matter of good decorum according to first-century mores but also of what is required by an authoritative divine rule in every age and culture? And if this is the case (which is what Paul’s use of πρέπω implies), in what way does the rule apply in our age and culture? Before we can address this question, however, we must look further into the text.

The next issue is the source of the authoritative rule in view. Paul says “does not nature itself teach you.” The source of the rule therefore is “nature.” Eadie remarks that φύσις “signifies what is essential as opposed to what is accidental, what is innate in contrast with what is acquired.” And thus, as Paul uses this word elsewhere,

If the term characterize the branches of a tree, those which it produces are contrasted with such as are engrafted (Rom. xi. 21-24); if it describe action or character, it marks its harmony with or its opposition to instinctive feeling or sense of obligation (Rom. i. 26, ii. 14; 1 Cor. xi. 14); if it point out nationality, it is that of descent or blood (Rom. ii. 27; Gal. ii. 15).[30]

According to this analysis, the texts that are most helpful in the present connection are Rom. 1:26 and 2:14.

Consider first Rom. 1:26-27. “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful.” The expression “the natural use” (τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν) is set over against “what is against nature” (τὴν παρὰ φύσιν). Here the term φυσικός denotes that which accords with the use that God intended when he created females and males with gender differences. In our text at 1 Cor. 11:14, the expression ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ (“nature itself”) also denotes God’s purpose and will as revealed in his differing designs of males and females. As Cranfield says, “ἡ φύσις αὐτη might almost be translated ‘the very way God has made us.’”[31]

In the moral sphere, proper behavior (that which is lawful and without shame) is φυσικός, “natural,” i.e., κατὰ φύσιν, “according to nature” (cf., 4 Macc. 5:25, LXX). The phrase παρὰ φύσιν, “against nature,” however, denotes behavior that is “monstrous, abnormal, perverse”[32] because it is in rebellion against God’s sovereignly executed creative purpose and design. Again, Cranfield astutely observes that φύσις “denotes that order which is manifest in God’s creation and which men have no excuse for failing to recognize and respect.”[33] As Paul says here, when people behave in unnatural ways, without embarrassment, they are showing that God has given them over to the dominion of “burning” (ἐκκαίω), “disgraceful passions” (πάθη ἀτιμίας) for “shameless” (ἀσχημοσύνη) things that have no natural or lawful course.

Consider also Rom. 2:14. “When Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves.” Here the expression “by nature” (φύσει) also points to God’s sovereign design of our humanity; however, in this place the result of God’s creative intent and acting is not gender distinctions, but a moral faculty that God gave to man when he made him in his image. God created man in such a way that “by nature” he would be his imagebearer. The image of God includes many things (e.g., consciousness of personhood, mind or intellect, aesthetic sensitivity), but the pinnacle of privilege is that like God, those things that make up the divine image exist in a framework of morality. God is a moral being “by nature” and man is made in his image to be a moral being “by nature.” Man therefore was created with a moral faculty or consciousness (i.e., conscience) that relates all of life to a rule of right and wrong (of righteousness, justice, holiness, goodness, and truth). Man was created as an accurate, visible representation of his Creator. When sin entered at the fall, man did not cease to be God’s imagebearer, but our representation of God is now marred by sin and its effects. In a word, the image of God remains in all men, though inaccurately expressed because of our depravity. Every man, however, has a conscience that excuses or accuses his actions. And though the standard by which the conscience does this may be very far from the accurate law written on Adam and Eve’s hearts at creation, nevertheless that law remains with sufficient clarity that universally some acts are regarded as evil (e.g., lying, stealing, murder). C. J. Vaughan has observed, as proof of this, that there is an “instinctive reverence felt in all ages and countries for good and right, however little adhered to in personal conduct; and, springing out of this, just laws and institutions of all kinds, testifying for good.”[34]

These texts point us to the correct understanding of φύσις at 1 Cor. 11:13-14. Paul speaks of a rule of conduct that distinguishes what is proper from what is shameful (ἀτιμία). The source of this rule is the image of God, so that when Paul says, “does not nature teach us?” he means “does not God in conscience, in accord with the gender differences that he has created, teach us?” Other questions may be addressed in conjunction with this text, but the basic meaning is clear. Here we learn that we have no liberty to ignore or defy the canons of decency dictated by God’s common grace. “The light of nature,” as this species of divine revelation has come to be known, is available to all men, and certainly to every congregation of saints. From it certain things may be known that are relevant to the ordering of the “circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church” that are “common to human actions and societies.” It is not a sufficient rule, nor is it infallible, because of the remaining depravity, nonetheless it is a helpful guide in many things. Like all divine revelation, the “light of nature” may be suppressed in unrighteousness; however, where its instruction is not resisted, it marks out some things as proper and others as improper.

Also cited is 1 Cor.14:26, 40. Here we read: “Let all things be done for edification. . . . Let all things be done decently and in order.” In the context in which Paul makes these statements, we learn that even elements of worship of divine institution may not be used in an unedifying way. In an age when the cry abroad is for more spontaneity in worship and less structure, we are obligated by the general principles of the Word to order our worship so as to maximize edification and eliminate confusion. We are not free to be disorderly or to introduce confusion into our worship or church government.

In like manner, though the text is not cited, we are to do all to God’s glory (1 Cor. 10:31). This means that those things (though common in our society) that tend to exalt man and to make man the center of attention are not permitted (e.g., entertainment in worship; campaigning for church office). So also, we must take thought for things honorable in the sight of all men (2 Cor. 8:21; Rom. 12:17). This means, e.g., that we order the financial affairs of what is in fact a private organization in such a way that they will pass public scrutiny.

The Confession’s appeal to “the light of nature and Christian prudence” then is an appeal to general revelation and to that wisdom which is peculiar to God’s people. The Confession does not here appeal to “common sense,” for that is too nebulous a concept to serve as a guide. The “light of nature” is in fact light from God and “Christian prudence” is not at all that wisdom which is common to men as men. Indeed, the expression “Christian prudence” limits the wisdom in view to that which is common among God’s people, whose thinking has been shaped by the Scriptures.

The Confession’s appeal to “the light of nature and Christian prudence” may seem to overturn the case for the Bible’s sufficiency and open the door to a flood of innovations not warranted by the word of God. But this is to misread the Confession. The closing expression of the paragraph safeguards the sole authority of Scripture: “according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” There is a seeming vagueness in this expression; however, its import is that it directs us in the end to the tribunal of Scripture as the final judge in all such matters (cf., 1.10).

In closing, we must exercise caution that we not use this qualification of the doctrine of the Bible’s sufficiency to negate the regulative principle of worship taught elsewhere in our Confession (22.1).

The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.

Shaw says,

“Let all things be done decently and in order,”–1 Cor. xiv. 40; but this general rule does not authorise the introduction into the Church of rites and ceremonies of human invention, in order to set off the worship of God. This cannot be justified by any plea of expediency, with a view of rendering the services of the Church more attractive, and conciliating those that are without. “And it may be here remarked, that it was one of the first and greatest mistakes into which the Church fell, after inspiration ceased, to make too free a use of this doctrine of expediency. The abuses which have crept in under this specious disguise were not foreseen. The Fathers saw no harm in an indifferent ceremony, to which, perhaps, their new converts were attached from long custom. By adopting things of this kind, the Church, which was at first simple, and unencumbered with rites, became strangely metamorphosed; and in place of her simple robe of white, assumed a gorgeous dress, tricked off with gaudy ornaments and various colours. And this practice of inventing new ceremonies went on increasing, until, in process of time, the burdensome ritual of the Levitical law was not comparable to the liturgy of the Christian Church. Who that now attends a Romish chapel on some ‘high day,’ would suppose that the service performed was connected with the religion of the New Testament?”[35]

Notes

1. On this statement, see the opening study in this series. Robert P. Martin, “The Second London Confession on the Doctrine of Scripture, Part 1,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review (vol. 4, no. 1, January 2007), 61-63.
2. We must not misunderstand what is meant when we affirm that the Bible is not sufficient to teach us everything that we need to know on every subject of importance to living in God’s world. While it is true that the Bible is not adequate as a textbook on mathematics, world history, biology, etc., the truths and principles contained in Scripture are the starting point and the framework within which we are to study every other subject. Waldron observes: When we remember that the area of religion and ethics is the supreme sphere of human life and knowledge, we become increasingly aware of the magnitude and value of this doctrine of the sufficiency of the Scriptures. Though it is not an assertion of the omni-sufficiency of the Scriptures, it is saying that they are sufficient to be the basis and starting-point for every other scientific endeavour. The Scriptures are not a textbook of biology, but they sufficiently provide those ethical and religious perspectives basic to any proper science of biology. The Bible is not sufficient for all that we do, but it does speak to all we do sufficiently as to the glory of God, the way of salvation, and the path of duty. We may take by way of illustration a typical Tuesday in the life of Chris College, a university student majoring in engineering. His Bible is insufficient as a textbook for his classes in calculus, biology and French; but it does show him the path of duty throughout such a typical Tuesday. It teaches him to pray and read his Bible in the morning, to be diligent and discerning in his studies, and to avert his eyes when the college temptress walks through the library when he is studying. It does provide him with an infallible record of creation and redemptive history. This record does set certain boundaries or limits which guide him in his study of biology and history. Any theory of history or biology which contradicts the historical statements of the Bible he will properly reject. Thus, while the ethico-religious sphere of human knowledge is distinct from other spheres, it is basic to them all. Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press, 1989), 43-44.
3. See The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 3:1015.
4. Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (reprint ed., Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 1992), 16. Turretin makes the point this way: “The question is not whether all those things are taught in Scripture word for word (autolexei), or immediately and expressly. We acknowledge that many things are to be deduced by legitimate inference and to be considered as the word of God. But the question is whether they are so contained in Scripture, be they expressly in it or derivable from it by legitimate inference, that there is no need of another and an unwritten (agrapho) rule of faith from which to derive matters of religion and salvation. . . . The question then amounts to this–whether the Scripture perfectly contains all things (not absolutely), but necessary to salvation; not expressly and in so many words, but equivalently and by legitimate inference, as to leave no place for any unwritten (agraphon) word containing doctrinal or moral traditions. Is the Scripture a complete and adequate rule of faith and practice or only a partial and inadequate rule?” Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1992), 1:135-36.
5. Turretin says, “In order to shun more easily the tribunal of the Scriptures which they know to be opposed to them, the papists endeavor not only to overthrow their authenticity (authentian) and integrity, but also to impeach their perfection and perspicuity.” Ibid., 1:135.
6. Shaw, 16-17. In a similar vein, Turretin says, “No fit reason can be given why God should wish one part of his word to be written and the other to be delivered by spoken voice. And he would have strangely consulted the interests of his church, if he had entrusted a necessary part of doctrine to the uncertain tradition of men, since every tradition must necessarily be corrupted by the lapse of time. Besides there is no rule for the distinguishing of traditions which does not bring us back to the testimony and authority of the church, and this very authority is most strongly controverted. Therefore, since their origin is doubtful, their authority uncertain, the sense often perplexed and ambiguous and the test of them impossible, everyone must see that they are deservedly rejected by us that we may adhere to the Scriptures alone as the most perfect rule of faith and practice.” Turretin, 1:139.
7. Ibid., 1:137.
8. William Bridge, “Scripture Light the Most Sure Light,” in The Works of the Rev. William Bridge (reprint ed., Beaver Falls, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1989), 1:412-13. We may also cite Augustine in On Christian Doctrine 2.9. “In all these books [the canonical books of the Bible] those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. . . . For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,–to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book.”
9. Vincent of Lerins, “A Commonitory: for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies, 2 (4-5). Thomas Aquinas asserted, “The formal object of faith is Primary Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and in the teaching of the Church which proceeds from the Primary Truth. Hence, he who does not embrace the teaching of the Church as a divine and infallible law does not possess the habit of faith.” Summa Theologica, II-II, q.5, a.3.
10. John Henry Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1891), 50-51.
11. Idem., “Holy Scripture in its Relation to the Catholic Creed” (Tract 85), in Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1899), 110.
12. Thomas Manton, “The Scripture Sufficient without Unwritten Traditions,” in The Complete Works of Thomas Manton (reprint ed., Worthington, PA: Maranatha Publications, n.d.), 5:495.
13. Bridge, 1:408-410.
14. In addition to 1 Cor. 2:11-14, cited by the Confession, see also John 3:19; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17-18; 5:8.
15. Cf., 2 Cor. 5:16. Lightfoot says, “The words are carefully chosen. Οἶδεν ‘knoweth’ denotes direct knowledge, while ἔγνωκεν ‘discerneth’ involves more or less the idea of a process of attainment. . . . The ἔγνωκεν seems to place τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ a degree more out of reach than οἶδεν does τὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώποὺ” J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957), 179. This distinction does not hold in every case, but it seems to be in play here.
16. Cf., John 8:55; 13:7.
17. It is possible that Paul was influenced by Judith 8:14. “You cannot find the depth of the heart of man, neither can you perceive the things that he thinks: then how can you search out God, who has made all these things, and know his mind, or comprehend his purpose?” See Rendel Harris, “A Quotation from Judith in the Pauline Epistles,” The Expository Times 27 (October 1915), 13-15. The relevant verbs in Judith, however, are ἐπιγινώσκω and κατανοέω.
18. The knowledge in view is not exhaustive; however, it is sufficient to make a man wise unto salvation and to thoroughly equip him for every good work. Stating the doctrine of the reformed churches on this point, John Owen says that “every believer may, in the due use of the means appointed of God for that end, attain unto such a full assurance of understanding in the truth, or all that knowledge of the mind and will of God revealed in the Scripture, which is sufficient to direct him in the life of God, to deliver him from the dangers of ignorance, darkness, and error, and to conduct him unto blessedness. Wherefore, as unto the belief of the Scripture itself, so as unto the understanding, knowledge, and faith of the things contained therein, we do not depend on the authoritative interpretation of any church [papal or reformed] or person whatever. And although ordinary believers are obliged to make diligent and conscientious use of the ministry of the church, among other things, as a means appointed of God to lead, guide, and instruct them in the knowledge of his mind and will revealed in the Scripture, which is the principal end of that ordinance; yet is not their understanding of the truth, their apprehension of it and faith in it, to rest upon or to be resolved into their authority, who are not appointed of God to be lords of their faith, but helpers of their joy. And thereon depends all our interest in that great promise, that we shall be all taught of God [John 6:45]; for we are not so imless we do learn from him and by him the things which he hath revealed in his word.” John Owen, “PNEUMATOLOGIA, or, A Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit,” in The Works of John Owen (reprint ed., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1967), 4:122-23. Italics his.
19. G. G. Findlay, St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. 2 (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 784.
20. Owen, 4:124-25. Continuing at this place, Owen says, “It is the fondest thing in the world to imagine that the Holy Ghost doth any way teach us but in and by our own reasons and understandings. We renounce all enthusiasms in this matter, and plead not for any immediate prophetical inspirations. Those who would prohibit us the use of our reason in the things of religion would deal with us as the Philistines did with Samson,–first put out our eyes, and then make us grind in their mill. Whatever we know, be it of what sort it will, we know it in and by the use of our reason; and what we conceive, we do it by our own understanding: only the inquiry is, whether there be not an especial work of the Holy Spirit of God, enlightening our minds and enabling our understandings to perceive and apprehend his mind and will as revealed in the Scripture, and without which we cannot so do. . . . [As] there is no safety in depending on enthusiasms, or immediate pretended infallible inspirations, nor on the pretended infallibility of any church, so the Holy Spirit of God, enlightening our minds in the exercise of our own reason or understanding, and in use of the means appointed of God unto that end, is the only safe guide to bring us unto the full assurance of the mind and will of God as revealed in the Scripture.” Ibid., 4:125, 127. Italics his.
21. Ibid., 4:127.
22. Ibid., 4:128.
23. See also Psa. 119:12, 27, 33, 34, 64, 66, 68, 73, 102, 108, 124, 125, 135, 144, 169, 171.
24. John Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1856), 36-37.
25. The absence of the article is no hindrance to this interpretation, cf., Matt. 12:28; Mark. 1:8; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; Rom. 1:4; 1 Pet. 1:2.
26. Westcott says that “the spirit of wisdom and revelation” is “that spirit, that influence and temper, through which ‘wisdom and revelation,’ wisdom and the materials for the growth in wisdom, enter into human life. Such a spirit is a gift of the Paraclete ‘Who takes of that which is Christ’s and declares it’ to believers (John xvi. 12ff.). Through it the Christian is at once able to test and to receive and to communicate Divine truths (1 Cor. ii. 6ff.).” Westcott then proceeds to speak of “the characteristic work of the Spirit.” It appears that one may not speak of “the spirit” without speaking of “the Spirit.” Brooke Foss Westcott, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (London: Macmillan and Company, 1906), 22-23. Ellicott takes σοφία as “the general gift of illumination,” while ἀποκάλυψις is “the more special gift of insight into the divine mysteries.” Charles J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (Boston: Draper and Halliday, 1867), 34. It is better to see this as a hendiadys.
27. Here the articular infinitive with εἰς can introduce either a purpose or a result clause. In this case, one is hard-pressed to separate these ideas.
28. The word καρδίαν (3:15) supplies the nearest subject for the expression ἡνίκα δὲ ἐὰν ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς κύριον, so that we read “now when it (i.e., the heart) turns to the Lord.” This takes place in conversion.
29. Joseph Bellamy, An Essay on the Nature and Glory of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in The Works of Joseph Bellamy (Boston: Doctrinal Tract and Book Depository, 1853), 2:439.
30. John Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1955), 134-35.
31. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, in The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 1:124-25.
32. Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v., φύσις.
33. Cranfield, 1:126.
34. C. J. Vaughan, PROS RWMAIOUS. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (London: Macmillan and co., 1893), 38.
35. Shaw, 15-16, quoting Archibald Alexander, The Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or the Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1851), 331.