CH 1 Of Holy Scripture
Starting with the Scriptures
1.1 Foundation)
1.2 All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life
19.2 The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall.
19.6 Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them, to walk accordingly.
26.12 As all believers are bound to join themselves to particular churches, when and where they have opportunity so to do, so all that are admitted unto the privileges of a church are also under the censures and government thereof, according to the rule of Christ.
27.2 the rule of the gospel
There is no doubt that when Keach, as a leader among the Particular Baptists, penned his name to the Second London Confession of Faith, he understood it to teach that which he believed. Anything less would have made him a hypocrite. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that any of the other Particular Baptists considered the issue differently from Keach. While he may have been a man of his own age in the adoption of a dictation theory of inspiration as opposed to the better concursive theory, he nevertheless was one with modern evangelicals who hold to an inerrant and infallible Bible in every matter it addresses.
1.2-1.3 Composition of Scripture
Jerome declared emphatically that the Apocrypha was no part of the Old Testament Scriptures. However, against his wishes and his better judgment, he allowed himself to be persuaded by two of his bishop friends who admired the books of Tobit and Judith to make a hurried translation of those. He is said to have translated the former at one sitting, and neither of them received the careful attention that had been given to the books which he considered canonical. But it is unfortunate that he did make the translations, for they were later bound up with his Vulgate, and served to encourage the addition of other Apocryphal books. Augustine alone of the prominent scholars in the early church was willing to give the Apocrypha a place in the Bible, but it is not certain that he considered it authoritative in all cases. Yet in spite of all of these things, the 53 bishops of the Council of Trent, in the year 1546, pronounced the Apocryphal books canonical and deserving “equal veneration” with the books of the Bible.
1.4-1.5 The Authority of Scripture
The reality and value of the external evidence. While acknowledging the vital role played by Christ’s church in testifying to the authority of Scripture, 2LCF, contrary to the Romanist position, which rests authority on the testimony of the church, places that source of authority elsewhere. Does the church have an obligation to testify to the authority of Scripture? Of course, the answer is yes. But do men have an obligation to believe in the authority of Scripture simply on the basis of this testimony? While the church ought to assert that Scripture is the Word of God, it is not on that basis alone that people are asked to rest their faith in it. The whole issue of the basis of authority is in question here.
I deny thee not the testimony of the universal church of Christ in all ages, so far as thou art capable of knowing it, as well as of the present church, or any particular one to which thou art any way related, as a help to thee: make the best thou canst of it, only rest not on it. But especially take notice, if thou see not the stamp of God upon the word, characters of divinity imprinted on it, as well as external notes accompanying it, consider the antiquity of it, the continuance of it, the miracles that confirmed it, the condition of the men that penned it,—their aims, their carriage and conversation,—God’s providence in keeping it and handing it down to thee through so many successive generations, when so many in all ages would have bereaved the world of it. And, farther, consider the majesty and gravity, and yet plainness and simplicity, of its style; the depth of the mysteries it discovers, the truth and divineness of the doctrine it teacheth, the spirituality of the duties its enjoins, the power and force of the arguments with which it persuades, the eternity of the rewards it promises and the punishments it threatens; the end and scope of the whole,—to reform the world, to discountenance and extirpate wickedness, and promote holiness and righteousness, and thereby advance God’s glory, and lead man on to everlasting blessedness, etc.
1.6 Sufficiency of Scripture. Differences to other confessions
Good and Necessary V.S. Containeded Within
Sola Scriptura V.S Solo Scriptura
Tradition 1 may be described as Scripture and the truth found in it. Scripture is the basis, but it cannot be conceived apart from the doctrine it teaches. And the doctrine it teaches cannot be conceived apart from Scripture. Largely, this was the exegetical tradition—the work and labor of theologian-exegetes (remembering that prior to the modern era these were not differentiated) which was public and verifiable. In no way did this undermine sola Scriptura. Rather, it protected it from the unusual interpretations of Scripture proposed by heretics.
Tradition 2, on the other hand, came to prominence in the late Middle Ages. It may be described as Scripture supplemented with the doctrines revealed to the church by any means—historical developments or pronouncements from authority, especially from the pope. According to Oberman, William of Occam believed that in the reception of new doctrines the church was not inventing novel ideas, since truth is eternal, but rather uncovering or recognizing truths that had been heretofore unknown. In this way, they were extra-scriptural. These revelations largely related to canon law and became the coordinate revelation for the church—hence, Scripture plus these extra-scriptural doctrines or practices. Matters such as Marian devotion and transubstantiation were received, identified, and dogmatized in this way.107 This is tradition 2. Oberman argues that in the medieval period, Tradition 1 was largely proposed by theologians and Tradition 2 largely by canon lawyers.
For the Reformers and their successors, Tradition 1 was essential; Tradition 2 was to be rejected. Tradition 1 recognizes that Scripture comes first and is required for its first principles, but it also acknowledges a place for the rational construction of doctrine based on the first principles of Scripture though not necessarily using the explicit language of Scripture, nor a single text of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity is the great exemplar. The term “Trinity” is found nowhere in the Word of God, nor is there an explicit text that says in so many words “God is one and God is three.” But the doctrine is taught throughout Scripture. When heretics postulated that Christ could not be divine because God is one; or when they suggested that God reveals Himself by differing modes in various eras, theologians went back to Scripture to confirm or deny these ideas and drew out of that divine source the doctrines to be believed. The Reformers and their successors understood this point well, and maintained it. They were not biblicists who required an explicit text for every doctrine; they were churchmen who viewed themselves as part of that long line of believers stretching back through the millennia. When they reject the traditions of men, they are rejecting Tradition 2.