My topic is the sufficiency of scripture, the doctrine of this sufficiency, and let me just, I will work through, read as much as I can of this material because I have gathered, I think, a good bit of useful material for us. One of the slogans of the Protestant Reformation was sola scriptura. The Reformers maintained that only the Scripture is an authoritative source of the truth for us in matters of faith and practice. The Scripture was the regulative principle of both what was to be believed and also how we are to live. This was said in opposition to Rome, which asserted that the rule of faith and practice is found not only in the Bible, but also in the tradition of the Church. The reformers thus called for a radical reformation from the gospel as taught by Rome. This is the heritage which is ours and of which we are heirs. And we should, it's sad to say that it's coming to a point where we're beginning to abandon it. And it's one of the things that I think the significance of this conference can be to call us back to it. We see the evidence of this abandonment in the many ways in the contemporary church. First, it's obvious in the so-called charismatic movement, where there's an openness to the idea of a continued special revelation. To allow this is to abandon the sola scriptura principle of the Reformation. It's to look for another word from God than that which he has already given in the Bible. Second, it is seen in the abandonment of the regulative principle regarding worship, which is so common across the church today, even in churches like the PCA. We find all too common that abandonment. Modern church has the idea that in order to be able to attract contemporary generation of young adults, we're going to have to move out of the traditional approaches to worship. We see then the call for the use of drama and dance, et cetera, to attract people to the church. Thus, we find the church abandoning this principle of sola scriptura. Third, it may also be seen even in churches that are professed to be reformed, churches, in the kind of preaching that is done. As I listen to preachers of my own denomination, some with widespread television or radio ministries. One of the things that strikes me is the shallowness of much of that preaching. All too often the content is made up of interesting stories with little or no reference to the Bible. Recently I heard a Baptist minister on the radio speaking about the family. He gave a number of good points about family life, all of which would be useful, but he utterly failed to back any of his points with the Bible. Too much of what passes as good preaching today is not biblical preaching. I believe if we want to reach the modern generation, we need to do what Charles Haddon Spurgeon did. He established a pulpit known for its solid biblical exposition and straightforward preaching of the word. Same was true of Martin Lloyd-Jones in the 20th century. Brethren, if there is one point that I would like to leave with those of you who are preachers, It is that you return to the Reformation principle of sola scriptura in your preaching. Preach the word in such a way as to cause your people to know that they have heard a word from the Lord. Preach that and preach nothing else. Fourth, there is abroad among many who may otherwise appear to be sound in the faith a sense that the Bible is not detailed enough. It's often said that the Bible is not a textbook of science or of some other particular area of knowledge. The logical extension of this line of thought is to exclude the Bible from any role in areas in which there are textbooks. If there are more accurate, more detailed, more precise textbooks, why consult the Bible on these subjects? If this argument that the Bible is not detailed enough to serve as a history or science textbook, then the same line of argument will exclude it from serving as an authority in religion or ethics, for it does not treat every possible case. Noel Weeks puts it this way in his book entitled The Sufficiency of Scripture. Arguments of this sort really are built on the incompleteness of the Bible. They imply that exhaustive detail is needed before the Bible can speak authoritatively on any subject. This is not a new argument. It goes back to biblical days, the development of the Jewish tradition of the elders. grew out of a sense that the law, the Bible, had not given sufficient detail. Same line of reason developed in the Middle Ages in the Roman Catholic Church, which remains as a major point of difference between true Protestantism and Rome. There have been those in recent years who have once embraced the Reformed faith, serving in such denominations as the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, have for one reason or another abandoned the Presbyterian and Reformed churches and apostatized by going into Roman Catholic Church or the Greek Orthodox Church. They challenge us with the assertion that the doctrine of sola scriptura is not a biblical doctrine. Thus the whole Reformation was wrong. It is this challenge that I shall seek to answer by examining whether the Scriptures teach the sufficiency of Scripture, and then to examine something of the Reformation doctrine and the resultant theology based upon Sola Scriptura. So we deal first of all with the meaning of the term itself. Luther, on April the 18th, 1521, in response to the demand of Johann von Eck, to renounce his alleged errors, spoke these tremendous words. Unless I am convinced by testimonies of Scripture or evident reason, that is, derivations from Scripture by reason, For I believe neither the Pope nor counsel alone, since it is established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves. I am the prisoner of the scriptures cited by me, and my conscience has been taken captive of the word of God. I neither can nor will recant anything, since it's neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen. Packer comments on Luther's declaration with these words. What Luther was thus voiced at Worms shows the essential motivation and concern, theological and religious, of the entire Reformation movement, namely that the word of God alone must rule, and no Christian man dare do any other than allow it to enthrone itself in his conscience and heart. Packer argues that the reference to evident reason is not a reference to fallen men's unaided reason. Luther rejected this sort of religious thought. What Luther is referring to is logical inferences from the Bible. What was new with the Reformers was not that the Bible is the word of God, but that the scripture can and does interpret itself. Scripture is its own interpreter. Thus, the Reformers insisted that the teaching of the Fathers and of the Church needed to be tested by the Scripture to see if they were in accord with it. The Reformers not only affirmed the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but they also recognized the fact that without the work of the Holy Spirit, the sinner will not be able to recognize the truth of this doctrine. They themselves experienced the work of the Spirit in their own lives, and Packer describes the Reformation as a spiritual revival. He says, in truth, the root and matrix of the Reformation experience of God was the conviction that what the Scripture declares is God's authentic message to us who hear and read it. The whole understanding of Christianity by the reformers depended on the principle of sola scriptura. The scripture is viewed as the only guide for the conscience of the individual and for the church to the true knowledge of God and to his plan of salvation for sinners. It is the only proper judge of the church's teachings, past, present, and future. Packer concludes his treatment of this subject by pointing out that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura can only be maintained if the sovereignty of God as the source of biblical authority is maintained. In other words, it is only those of the Reformed faith who will ultimately maintain the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. We must never lose sight of the fact that our doctrine of God is decisive for our concept of Scripture. and that in our controversy with a great deal of modern theology, it is here, rather than in the relation of the phenomena of scripture, that the decisive battle must be joined. John Murray, in a popular article entitled The Finality and the Sufficiency of Scripture, in his first volume of the Collected Writings, says, when we speak of the sufficiency and finality of scripture, we may first of all assess what scripture is. It is here that we must appreciate the significance of inscripturation. For when we speak of scripture, we refer to what is written, and therefore to inscripturated word as distinguished from the word communicated by other means. The finality of scripture has for us a distinctive import because of the place we occupy in the history of God's redemptive will. There were periods in the history of God's redemptive revelation when the finality of Scripture had no meaning. There was no inscripturated, revelatory word. Even when revelation began to be committed to writing and was therefore to some extent inscripturated, there were centuries of redemptive history in which the finality of Scripture did not have for the church the precise import it has for us today. It is apparent that revelation was not complete even with the advent of our Lord, the Lord of glory himself. So when he ascended on high there was not an extant scripture, the finality of which we speak now. The reason being that the revelatory process was still in operation. Since we no longer have prophets, since we do not have our Lord with us as he was with the disciples, since we do not have new organs of revelation as in apostolic times, Scripture in its total extent, according to the conception entertained by our Lord and his apostles, is the only revelation of the mind and will of God available to us. This is what the finality of Scripture means for us. It is the only extant revelatory word of God. That's the end of the Murray quote. Now, to take up the biblical basis of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In a sense, the challenge of those who have left the Reformed faith saying back to us, and I had it actually when I wrote a piece early in the life of Greenville Seminary talking about the Sola Scriptura, and had one of these men abandon the Reformed faith, writing back and saying, that's not a biblical doctrine, you can't prove that. He'd gone back to the Roman church. And so I think it's important for us to look at the Bible in particular. the Old Testament. Though it is true that during the Old Testament era there was not a completed scripture, and therefore not a fully developed idea of the finality and sufficiency of scripture, the idea of sola scriptura with regard to what had already been revealed and inscripturated is to be found in the writings of Moses, a passage that was read for your hearing, beginning today in Deuteronomy 4 speaks of not adding to or taking anything from the Word of God. In Deuteronomy 13, a test for false prophecy is given. If a prophet even performs signs and wonders to imply that he comes from God and then calls for his people to go after other gods than Jehovah, men are not to follow him. Why? Because he's calling upon men to go against what has already been revealed concerning the one and only true God. That God is none other than Jehovah God who had brought them out of Egypt. Those then living had experienced that redemption from bondage and thus knew Jehovah to be God. The record of the exodus and the announcement of the law from Sinai had been written down by Moses. We are told in Numbers 33, 2, and Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of Jehovah. The first record of Moses writing scripture appears in Exodus 17, 4. Jehovah said unto Moses, write in the book and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. In the end of Deuteronomy, we find these words describing what Moses had written. It came to pass when Moses had made an end of the writing of the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites that bear the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, saying, take this book of the law and put it beside the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. When Joshua comes to replace Moses as the leader of the people, God admonished him thus. only be strong and very courageous to observe to do all the law which Moses, my servant, commanded thee. Turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest have good success whithersoever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate thereon day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein. For then thou shalt be prosperous, then thou shalt have good success." As we consider this early period in the history of God's people, we find the fact that the only rule of faith and practice is the Word of God, which from the time of Moses onward has been written in the Scriptures. Much more could be cited from the Old Testament to this effect, but suffice it to say that the Old Testament ends with a statement that confirms this same view of the sufficiency of Scripture. It's found in Malachi 4.4. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel and even statutes and ordinances. This is a remarkable testimony to the unity of the Old Testament. Here's the last Old Testament prophet reminding his readers of the law of God which was part of the earliest written scriptures. It was a call to continue to obey the God who had spoken to Moses and had given him the law at Mount Sinai. This brings us to the obvious point that scriptures are not authoritative because of any inherent value in them alone. The authority of scripture rested upon the authority of the living God who had revealed himself to the writers of the scriptures. The scripture is the inspired record of that revelation and thus is recognized as the inspired word of God. This God reveals himself in several modes. He is a God who acts. These acts are revelatory in character, even the creation in the creation. We find God speaking in connection with his acts that are taking place. With the creation of man in the image of God and thus the rational creature, the words of creation mandate were addressed to man. Man is to be fruitful and to multiply and to fill the earth. He is to subdue the earth and to use it to the glory of God. Not only did God speak and act, The account of the Garden of Eden indicates that he came and conversed with man. Thus God appeared to man. The history of the revelation of the Old Testament discloses the fact that God continued to reveal himself and his plan in these same modes. He appeared to Abraham, spoke to him, acted on his behalf in the birth of Isaac, and later in providing the ram in the thicket to be offered in the place of Isaac. During the Mosaic period, God appeared to Moses in the burning bush and later on the mount. He appeared to all of Israel in the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night. He acted in behalf of Moses in the various plagues and then in the great Exodus event itself by opening the Red Sea and then causing it to close over Pharaoh and his armies. He acted in behalf of Israel in the wilderness, supplying water and manna. He was a God who spoke directly to Moses and to all of Israel from Mount Sinai. This was the richest period of the revelation of God to the people that was established beyond doubt the absolute authority of the Jehovah God. It was from that period that we find written scriptures that are accepted as authoritative because they came from God. The remainder of the Old Testament is marked by periods of belief and unbelief. Happily, God did not leave himself without witness, but raised prophets who called the people to renew the faith. When they persist in their rebellion, and bring to him the destruction of the nation of Israel, God remains faithful, giving prophets who continue to call the people to repentance and who wrote the messianic hope for the future. Thus, as Malachi ends his prophecy, there is one, not only the call to remember the law of God given through Moses, but also the forward look to the coming of the Messiah and of his forerunner, John the Baptist. The Old Testament recognized that it was not the final or complete revelation of God. There is to be more to come, beginning with the coming of the spirit of Elijah, who shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. Now we come to the New Testament testimony of this subject. New Testament opens with the announcement of the birth of Jesus Christ from the opening chapter of Matthew. He is presented as the Son of God, Matthew 1.23. Quotes from the Old Testament say that he is called Immanuel, which is to be interpreted God with us. The announcement to Mary. said, He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end. The angels after his birth announced to the shepherds, There is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. Norval Galdenheiss concludes from these angelic announcements, in no more explicit way could the supreme authority of the Bethlehem child have been announced than in these angelic annunciations. He will be the Son of the Most High, the appointed King who will reign forever and ever, and the Lord. The language of God the Father at the baptism of Jesus, this is my beloved son, carries with it the connotation of office and authority. At the transfiguration, the same language is used to which is added the command, hear ye him. This speaks explicitly of his authority as the spokesman for God. Jesus asserted that only he had authority to teach. and to reveal God. All things have been delivered unto me of my Father, and no one knoweth the Son save the Father, and neither doth any know the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him." From Matthew 11, 27. This is a claim of absolute authority, particularly regarding the revealing of the Father to men. He made the same assumption or same assertion to his disciples. I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me. Again, this is a claim of his being the only way to the Father. It is a claim of absolute authority in the realm of salvation. The opening verse of his high priestly prayer again asserts his authority over all flesh in the area of salvation. Father, the hours come, and that thy son may glorify thee, even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that whatsoever thou hast given him to them he should give eternal life. Jesus saw himself as having authority in his kingdom. He presented himself as the judge in the consummation. So he places himself in the very center of everything as the one possessing supreme authority, even over the eternal destinies of men, only because he's the son of God. one with the Father and the Spirit, could he, as the gospel shows, did he claim all this in such a natural but uncompromising way. Jesus claimed his place of authority in the trial before the Sanhedrin. Henceforth, ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven. The resurrection was the final proof of the authority of our Lord. Matthew 28, 17 records the fact that when they saw him, they worshiped him. Even the doubter Thomas, in absolute surrender, uttered those wonderful words before Jesus, my Lord and my God. Following the resurrection, Jesus clearly asserted his absolute authority. All authority has been given unto me in heaven and in earth. Here was the claim of absolute authority over everything in heaven and in earth. Having thus seen the fact that the sufficiency of Scripture is tied to the authority of the one who has given us the Scripture, namely the Lord Jesus through the Holy Spirit, it's important to examine specifically the teaching of the Bible regarding the sufficiency of Scripture itself. The Lord spoke directly to this question. This is from Mark 7. The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders? They had these additional things to the scripture, and they wanted that to be followed. But eat their bread with defiled hands. And he said unto them, well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites as it is written. This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines, the precepts of men, ye leave the commandment of God and hold fast the tradition of men. And he said unto them, full well do ye reject the commandment of God, yet ye may keep your tradition. The view of the Jews by Jesus' time was that since the Bible did not cover all the details of life, the tradition of the elders was necessary as a proper supplement to the Bible. What Jesus teaches is that the traditions of the elders has all too often has led to a position contrary to the law of God. His exposition of the law in the Sermon on the Mount was a corrective to the Jewish traditional interpretation. which in effect nullified the original intent of the law. In each case, Jesus presses his errors back to the original meaning of the law. Sermon on the Mount was thus a testimony against the traditions of men and for the sufficiency of Scripture. The Apostle Paul states the purpose of all Scripture. Every Scripture inspired of God is also 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. William Cunningham in his theological lecture says, now it may be admitted that we have not such express and direct declarations in Scripture in proof of its own perfection, completeness, or sufficiency as the only rule of faith. as we have of a plenary inspiration, but we have quite enough stated there from which either expressly or by good and necessary consequence the conclusion may be reached that it contained the whole counsel of God. Then in 2 Timothy 3, 15 through 17, where Paul expressly asserts the Old Testament scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation, Paul speaks of all scriptures as being God-breathed. If the scripture was intended by God to affect this object, and consequently fitted by him for its accomplishment, then men need have no doubt or hesitation about adopting the conclusion that in the Bible they have the whole counsel of God revealed for their salvation, and that while it is incumbent upon them to believe and to do all that is there declared and enjoined, God has put them under no obligation to believe or to do anything with view to their salvation which is not found there revealed and imposed. Now, as we talk about the doctrine of the sufficiency, I've dealt with both the Old and New Testaments to this point, let's look at the theology as it's actually been set down, and I'm looking to the Westminster Standards as a good statement of the Protestant doctrine. and following Warfield to a certain extent in that outline of the first chapter that he gives. Having seen the Scriptures teach the concept of the absolute authority of Scripture and the fact that it alone is to be our rule of faith in life, let us look at the doctrine of the sufficiency set forth in the Protestant Church. One of the finest statements is the Westminster Confession of Faith and catechisms. We shall briefly examine the overall teaching of the catechisms regarding Scripture as found in Chapter 1. following Warfield's outline as I have always assigned it to my students as an example of the way to outline the Confession. It's of interest to note that the Westminster Divine saw the necessity of special revelation and of Scripture as lying in the insufficiency of natural or general revelation. The revelation of God found in creation and nature was never intended to be sufficient to man as a guide for his faith and life. Even from the very beginning, God spoke to Adam in special verbal revelation. He gave him the command to be fruitful and multiply and to subdue the earth. He also had given him the special probation by which he could have kept his relation with his maker through perfect obedience. Sad to say, Eve was deceived by the serpent and she enticed Adam to fall with her. As Gerhardus Voss indicates, this was what we call pre-redemptive special revelation, God speaking to man before there was any redemption needed. Once the fall took place and God began to graciously deal with sinful fallen race, the special revelation of necessity took on the added dimension of being redemptive special revelation. General revelation before the fall was the backdrop for the special. So also after the fall, the whole creation, having been affected by the fall of man, continues to be a backdrop for the special. For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption. unto the liberty of the glory of the children of God, Romans 8. Thus the general or natural revelation seen in creation and nature now shows the effect of sin and the need for redemption, but it does not show the way of salvation or how one ought to live. Again, it serves as the backdrop for the special redemptive revelation. So the Westminster Divine spoke of this in the first paragraph. Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God as to leave men inexcusable, yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore, it pleased the Lord who at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself and to declare that his will unto the church. And afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for a more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same holy underwriting, which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. This paragraph of the Confession indicates the necessity of scripture. It indicates that there is sufficient light in the realm of nature to leave men without excuse. The psalmist affirms that heavens declare the glory of God. Paul says that the man is without excuse on the grounds of what he sees in general revelation. All men know God, though as long as they remain in their sins they reject this knowledge or substitute false gods for the true God to satisfy the sense of deity that is in them. The Confession again states the same doctrine in its opening paragraph in the chapter on worship. The light of nature showeth that there is a God who hath lordship. and sovereignty over all is a good and good and doeth good unto all and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart and with all the soul and with all the might. Though there is a sufficient light in scripture for man to know God and to know that he should serve him because of sin, he cannot do what he knows he should do. General Revelation shows the effect of sin in the upset nature, but it does not show the remedy that God has provided. Thus, the Confession speaks of it as not sufficient to give the knowledge of God, of His will, and of necessary unto salvation. Confession indicates man's inability to come to salvation through the light of nature. Men not professing the Christian religion cannot be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess. The larger catechism speaks explicitly to this. They who have never heard the gospel, know not Jesus Christ, and believe not in him cannot be saved. Be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the laws of that religion which they profess, neither is there any salvation in any other, but in Christ alone, who is the Savior only of his body and the Church. It's the insufficiency of natural revelation that shows the man the way of salvation that becomes the reason for the necessity of the special revelation. He did this progressively in stages through various manners of revelation in the past. Once the fall took place, the disruption in nature now points to the need of redemption. General revelation points to this need before and after the fall, or to the need of special revelation before and after the fall. The commitment to Scripture, the Westminster Divine say, has a threefold effect. Better preserving of the truth. The better propagating of the truth, the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against either the corruption of the flesh or the malice of Satan. The second reason for the necessity of Scripture is stated by the Confession when it declares that other methods of special revelation have ceased. The Reformers emphasizing the phrase sola scriptura. This means scripture alone. They maintain that the Bible and the Bible alone is the rule of our faith and practice. God has spoken directly to men in the past. At his return and in the future, he shall again be speaking directly to men, but it is the position of the Westminster standards and of Protestantism in general that this type of special revelation has ceased during this age. The Roman Catholic Church holds a continued special revelation as seen in their accounts of the various visions of Mary, etc. They also set the tradition of the Church on a par with Scripture. Some of the neo-Pentecostalists or the Charismatics of today also believe they're receiving further special revelation from God. Historic Protestant position is stated here in the Confession. This is the view implied in the Bible in a number of places. Hebrews 1, 1 and 2 speaks of the finality of God speaking in His Son. And the way in which John warns against adding anything to or taking anything from the book of Revelation applies to the whole Bible equally well. Now, Warfield going on in analyzing that first chapter says that the divines define Scripture first extensively and then intensively. The standards define just what Scripture is. First it defines it extensively. giving the exact list of the books that are to be recognized as Scripture, in order that there be no confusion regarding what constitutes the Scripture, the Western ministers define just what they understand Scripture includes. Both of the catechisms speak of the Old and New Testament, whereas the Confession spells out the specific list included in each of the Testaments. The language under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, now contain all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these. And then you have the list that they actually give there. Intensively, the Confession gives the reason for the inclusion of books in the Scripture with the following statement, all which are given by inspiration of God. to be the rule of faith and life. The intensive definition of Scripture or the reason why these books are accepted as part of Scripture is because they were given by inspiration. That this is the claim of the Bible for itself is clear from 2 Timothy 3.16 where the apostle says, all Scripture is God-breathed or given by inspiration. In this passage he is addressing Timothy who had been raised on the Old Testament. of which Paul reminded him that they were able to make him, the Old Testament was able to make him wise unto salvation. The reason this is true is that the Old Testament was scripture, which by definition is given by inspiration, or more literally, God breathed. The emphasis is on the fact that they come from the mouth of God, and thus may be called the Word of God. When Paul sees the expression, or uses the expression, all scriptures, including the New Testament as well as the Old, In 1 Timothy 5.18, it cited Luke along with Moses under the title of Scripture. Thus, we may safely infer that he is speaking of both the Old and New Testaments. It's because of this distinguishing characteristic of being God-breathed or inspired by God that the Scriptures stand above all other writings as the only infallible rule of faith and practice. It should be observed that the Confession does not say that only those portions of the Bible that are the rule of faith and life are inspired. It affirms the whole scripture is inspired and therefore is the only rule of faith and life. Liberal Presbyterians have often sought to avoid the implication of this paragraph by claiming that all they need to affirm is to be infallible are those passages that serve as a rule of faith and life. Such an approach fails to do justice to the clear statement of the confession. It was the contention of Charles Augustus Briggs of Union Seminary in New York in the 19th century, and of Jack Rogers, who by the way was at the Free University the same time I was, and who had sat under John Gerstner. and other men of the Pittsburgh Seminary, Jack Rogers, Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, and Donald K. McKim of Westminster College in New Wilmington, Pennsylvania, in the 20th century, that all the Westminster divines intended was, this is Briggs and these Rogers and McKims contention, all the Westminster divines intended was to affirm that the Bible is infallible only in the rule of faith and practice and may contain errors in other areas. Warfield produced the articles that now appear in the volume, The Westminster Assembly and its Work, in answer to Briggs. The matter was brought to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, USA, and in that Assembly of 1893, they voted to suspend Briggs from the Presbyterian ministry by a vote of 383 to 116. Rogers and McKim maintain that the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture is a novelty, invented by the old Princeton faculty, and that this was not the position of the Reformers or of the Westminster Confession. In his doctoral dissertation, Rogers asserts that the Westminster divines did not hold to inerrancy, but he gives no proof of his position with citations from any of the divines, just simply asserts it. It's sort of surprising that Brickhour would allow that and accept that, but he did. Warfield, on the other hand, cites a number of the divines in their understandings of the doctrine of Scripture. Let me give one of the citations from a theologian of the period. It's from John Ball, who was an English Puritan held in high esteem by all the members of the assembly. In answer to the question, what is it to be immediately inspired? A phrase used in the Westminster standards. What is it to be immediately inspired? To be immediately inspired is to be, as it were, breathed. and to come from the Father by the Holy Ghost without all means. Again, Ball asked, were the scriptures thus inspired? Answer, thus the holy scriptures and the originals were inspired, both for matters and words. It's interesting to observe that Rogers and McKim maintain that Warfield and A. A. Hodge were the first to retreat to the originals under the pressure of textual critics. The fact is that the Puritans understood and taught this doctrine themselves. Rogers and McKim assumed that the Westminster Divines could not have had the idea of inerrancy because they operated in so-called pre-scientific era. They do not define the limits of this era or really demonstrate why the Westminster Divines could not think this way. John Woodbridge, professor of church history at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, in his excellent little book, Biblical Authority, critiques Rogers and McKim's volume. His analysis is quite devastating as he demonstrates the poor scholarships of Rogers and McKim. They make assertions without backing of good citations. For example, Woodridge says, remarkably enough, in his brief discussion of inerrancy, Rogers does not offer a single illustration of the Westminster divine who indicated the Bible did err in any way. Woodbridge then cites William Ames, who was a Puritan theologian, 1576 through 1633, just prior to the Westminster Assembly. One of the Puritan fellow theologians known and respected by the Westminster divines who held to the inerrancy of the original autographs. In his Mirror of Sacred Divinity, this is William Ames, published two decades before the Assembly, he uses the word infallible. It is of interest to see that he does not limit it just to matters of faith and practice, but virtually identifies it with inerrancy. And so let me read. He has it in statements, propositions one, two, three, and four. And so I'm reading error because of the direct and infallible direction they had from God, free from all error and infallible direction of God. I mean, they were pretty well identifying the two. Proposition four. They also wrote by the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit so that men themselves were at that point, so to speak, instruments of the Spirit. Proposition 5. by divine inspiration was present among these writers, but divine inspiration is present in different ways. In those things which were known, or where knowledge was obtained by ordinary means, there was added the writer's devout zeal, so that God assisting them they might not err in writing. Proposition 6, in all those things made known by the supernatural inspiration, whether matters of right or fact, God inspired not only the subject to be written, but dictated and suggested the very words in which they should be set forth. But this was done with a subtle tempering so that every writer might use the manner of speaking which most suited his person and condition. We see Ames declaring the Bible to be the infallible rule of faith and practice. He also is speaking of the Bible as inerrant, or scripture as inerrant. In Articles 27 through 31, he implies that biblical infallibility is to be associated with the original autographs. You see, that's part of the contention. Princetonians went back to the original autographs, first people ever to resort to that. But listen to Ames, Proposition 27, the scriptures are not tied to these first languages that they cannot and ought not to be translated into other languages for common use in the church. Just what the Westminster divine says, should be translated. 28, but among interpreters, neither the 70 who turned them into Greek, nor Jerome, nor any other such held the office of prophet that they were not free from errors in interpretation. 29, hence no versions are fully authentic except as they express the sources by which they were also to be weighed. Proposition 31, God's providence in preserving the sources is notable and glorious. For neither have they wholly perished nor have they been injured by the loss of any book or blemished by serious defect. Though today not one of the earlier versions remains intact. So he's resorting to the original autographs and saying that translation must be true to that autograph if it is to be counted as true. Woodbridge comments, Rogers, who cites exclusively secondary sources about Ames, evidently did not become acquainted with the actual writings of that theologian. Another Puritan theologian who was influential on the Westminster Divines was William Perkins, who actually was a head of Ames. Among his disciples was William Ames. His doctrine of Scripture was stated in much the same terms as that of Ames. In particular, he spoke to the issue of sufficiency of Scripture in much the same terminology as the Westminster Confession uses. Papists teach that beside the written word there be unwritten traditions which must be believed as profitable and necessary to salvation. And these, they say, are twofold, apostolical, namely, such as were delivered by the apostles, and now written, and ecclesiastical, which the Church decrees as occasion is offered. We hold that the scriptures are most perfect, containing in them all doctrines needful to salvation, whether they concern faith and manners, and therefore we acknowledge no such traditions beside the written word which shall be necessary to salvation, so as he which believeth them cannot be saved. Perkins held also the reason we cannot trust the writings of the Church Fathers is that they are On the other hand, we can trust the Bible because it does not err. And here you see the infallibility, the inerrancy concept among the Puritans. Here's the quote from Perkins. And we may not believe their sayings as the word of God because they often err, being subject to error. And for this cause, their authority when they speak of traditions may be suspected. And we may not always believe them upon their word. Purity of scripture is whereby it remaineth entire in itself, void of deceit and error." As to the question of what the Bible says regarding areas such as science and art, Rogers and McKim cite John Wilkins, 1614 to 1672. He's in that period of the Westminster Divines, a writer of the 17th century. He was defending the Copernican view of astronomy as not contradicting the Bible. He opposed the literalistic interpretation of the Bible in these areas, claiming the Bible did not give us details about scientific matters. Rogers and McKim cite Wilkins to the effect that since the Bible is not a textbook of science, it may be an error when referring to such matters. Woodbridge points out that the citation made by Rogers and McKim was a secondary source that they fail to be aware of the fact that Wilkins goes on to say, and question all this, is all those things which Scripture does deliver concerning any natural point cannot be but certain, infallible, being understood in the sense wherein they were first intended. In other words, it's true that the Bible is not the textbook of science, but when it speaks about any area of science, it speaks the truth, whatever it says. This sounds very modern. One has only to read Noah Weeks' The Sufficiency of Scripture to see which he defends this position. I would commend that little book to you. I think it's on the book table downstairs. Noah Weeks, I think from Australia or New Zealand, writing on that subject. Now the Westminster Divines go on to talk about the properties of Scripture. The authority of Scripture, the first property of the Bible, dealt with by the Westminster Divines is the authority, very simply stated, the Confession affirms the authority of the Bible to rest upon its author, namely God. John Lightfoot of the Assembly says the reason the Scriptures is credibility is because they are the Word of God. That the Westminster Divines thought that God was the primary author of the Scriptures appears clear in the face of this paragraph, the authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to believe and be obeyed depends not upon the testimony of any man of the church, but wholly upon God, parenthesis, who is truth itself, end parenthesis, the author thereof. And therefore it is to be received because it is the word of God. This is the affirmation of the Reformation principle that the Bible is the word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Despite this clear statement of the confession, George Hendry of Princeton Seminary says, the authority of scripture derives solely from God who is the author thereof, that is, the source of the authority, not the literary author. The confession does not imply that God wrote the Bible. That's George Hendry of Princeton. In other words, God is the author of the authority of the Bible, but he's not the author of the Bible. This is a good example of the dialectical thinking of new modernism. The way in which we come to the conviction that the Bible is the word of God is not dependent upon the fact that the church says it is, or upon the internal evidence of the superior quality of the book. Due to the sinfulness of our hearts, we come to the conviction that the Bible is God's word only if the Holy Spirit brings us to this conviction. Spirit does this by bearing an internal witness by and with the word in our hearts. Here we see the reformed understanding of the nature of fallen man. We are not only sinners, we are unwilling and unable to come to God in any way by any strength of our own. Thus, even to come to faith that the Bible is the word of God is the result of the operation of the Holy Spirit upon our heart. And I have a citation, I won't take the time to read this, the fifth paragraph of that first chapter where the Westminster Divines say that and then the larger catechism says it again as well. Now let me move on to the next major point of the qualities or the properties of Scripture that they deal with, the completeness of Scripture, because here we're getting right to the issue that's before us. The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture as set forth by the Westminster Assembly is particularly found in paragraph 6 of this first chapter of the Confession. Essentially, the divines affirm that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit or traditions of men. William Cunningham says of this paragraph, if the whole Bible be the word of God proceeding from him and written by men as they were moved and directed by the Spirit, then of course it possesses supreme and infallible authority. There can be no legitimate appeal from its statements to the deductions or conclusions of human reason. The reason of man must be exercised only in ascertaining the true meaning in everything which is to be found to declare, in which it is found to declare must be received and submitted as certainly true, because it is the direct declaration of himself who is infallible and who cannot lie. The Socinians deny the inspiration of Scripture, but affirm the supremacy of human reason in determining the truth or falsehood of the teaching of the Bible. The doctrine of inspiration precludes their claim for the supremacy of human reason over the Bible. This is the basic issue that divides Protestantism from Rome. It is also the issue that divides Protestantism from Neo-Protestantism. We are very much under attack from both viewpoints. There's several ministers who have transferred, I've already mentioned that earlier. Trent says, in their official statement, that the truth which Christ is first proclaimed with his own mouth and afterwards ordered to be preached by his apostles to every creature is contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which traditions, being received by the Apostles from Christ's own mouth, or being delivered by the Apostles themselves under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have reached us. And therefore, the books of the Old and New Testament and these traditions, as having proceeded from Christ's mouth or having been dictated by the Holy Spirit, preserved in unbroken succession in the Catholic Church, are to be received and respected with an equal feeling of piety and reverence. Scripture and the traditions to be received is equal feeling of piety and reference. Note that the standards, coming back to Westminster, do not affirm that all truth or even all religious truth are to be found in the scriptures. It has already been affirmed that the light of nature is a true source of the knowledge concerning God. As we've already observed under paragraph one, the confession teaches that we may obtain sufficient knowledge of God from reason and from general revelation to be without excuse and for withholding our worship from him or service due to him. Confession does not deny the fact. that the true knowledge of God may come this way or may be preserved in the traditions of men, but it does deny that such sources of knowledge is needed to supplement what is set down in Scripture in order to instruct us as to what man is to believe concerning God and what God requires of man. The position of the standards is that there is an absolutely objective completeness of Scripture as a guide to the service of God in faith and life. Nothing is to be added to them from any source of revelation as though it were required by God to be believed or to be done in order to have salvation. Warfield says of this, this is to be observed that to make scripture something more than the rule of faith and practice, making more than the rule of faith and practice in the sense of merely the fullest and the best extant rule, something more than the sufficient rule of faith and practice, it is to make it the only rule of faith and practice. to which nothing needs to be added to fit it to serve as our rule, to which nothing is to be added to make it altogether complete or as an authoritative law. It contains not only enough to serve all the purposes of the rule of faith and practice, but all that is to be laid as the authoritative rule of life on the consciences of men. And so we get into that issue of the matter of the freedom of conscience, God alone, Westminster standards say, is Lord of the conscience, hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any way contrary to the word or beside it in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines or to obey such commands out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience and the requiring of an implicit faith and an absolute blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also. It should be observed that the Confessions state that this rule is not just explicit statements of Scripture, also includes that which by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture. Warfield says, men are required to believe and debate not only what is expressly set down, but also what by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture. Notice what he's saying, that we are required to believe and act upon both the explicit teachings and those good and necessary consequences. reference to good and necessary consequences indicate human logic as a proper instrument to handle the Word of God. Even unbelievers may be able to determine accurately the grammatical structure in the historical context so as to be able to state accurately what the Scripture teaches. But the Westminster divines were careful to indicate that the unaided human reason could not come to saving understanding of Scripture. Confession in the same paragraph speaks of the fact that the Bible does not cover every detail in matters of worship and governance, that these matters are to be determined by the light of nature and prudence. This is not a denial of the regulative principle, but it is rather recognizing there's incidental matters that we can simply handle by human logic. Let me conclude with some remarks of John Murray and his article on the sufficiency and the finality of Scripture, he says, our dependence upon Scripture is total. Without it, we are bereft of a revelatory word from God, from the counsel of God, respecting all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life. Thus, when the church or any of its spokesmen fail to accord to Scripture this eminence and fail to make it the only rule of faith and life, then the kind of affront offered to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is that of substituting the wisdom of men for the wisdom of God, and human invention for divine institution. As we read the literature that claims the admiration of so many, we discern the tragedy of the satanic deception that can be indicated as no less than apostasy from the simplicity that is unto Christ. And this is apparent not only in the overt divergences from the denials of the witness of scripture, but also the confused conglomeration of ideas proposed and the self-contradictory to some extent because of the attempt to fuse a modicum of Christian tradition with what is derived from the fountains of unbelief. He's speaking in particular about the neo-orthodoxy, certain elements of Christianity are still there, but bringing in basically human thought. The finality of Scripture, if it has any meaning, demands that those who profess commitment to Christ and the Church in its collective capacity direct all thought, activity, and objectivity by His Word as the revelation to us of God's mind and will. Let us reassess the significance of the Scripture as the Word of God. Let us come to a deeper appreciation of the deposits of the revelation of God in His grace and wisdom as given unto us as the living Word of God, sharper than any two-edged sword. and let us know and experience its power in its sufficiency for every exigency of our individual and collective need until the day dawn and the day star arise in our hearts. All scripture is given by inspiration, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work.