Of the Holy Scripture, I:4

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

The Scriptures have their origin from God. As Paul declares in 2 Timothy 3:16, they are literally "breathed out" (theopneustos) by God. R. C. Sproul has observed that a more accurate word than "inspiration" to explain the origin of Scripture would be "expiration." The Holy Spirit superintended the writing of these books such that they are, in fact, God speaking to us even though God did not dictate them to the human writers, nor did the Scriptures descend from heaven in finished form.

We do not look to men individually or redeemed men corporately in the church as the basis for the authority of the Scriptures but to God who is their author. God is truth; "thy word is truth." Because they are the Word of God, they have ultimate authority. We submit to them just as we would words spoken directly to us by the Father or the Lord Jesus. It is important to remember that the word of God made the church and not the other way around.

Tomorrow: Proving the character of Scripture.

Of the Holy Scripture, I:3

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.

The term "Apocrypha" means "hidden" and specifically refers to seven writings belonging to the intertestimental period (roughly 4th to 1st century B.C.), specifically Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees, as well as three works inserted into Daniel (History of Susannah, the Song of the Three Children, and the History of Bel and the Dragon). There is scant evidence that they were ever considered authoritative on the level of Scripture by the Jewish people. Although they were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament in common use in Jesus's day) they seem to have been accorded secondary status. None of the books claims for itself inspiration or authority. Neither Jesus nor any of the New Testament writers ever quote from these works. Early church councils rejected them as Scripture. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible, doubted their canonicity but included them in the Vulgate. In fact, they were not officially granted canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church until the Council of Trent in the mid-16th century.

Do these books have any use at all? If read with discernment, they may be of profit--the two Maccabean histories are worthwhile records of the events they describe. Athanasius, the great 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, said of them that they are "not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness." On the other hand, the moral flavor of some of the books is unsavory.

The Confession recommends that we treat these writings just like anything else of exclusively human authorship. "Test everything; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

An excellent resource for those wanting to learn more about the Apocrypha is The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism by Roger Beckwith.

Tomorrow: The authority of Scripture.

Of the Holy Scripture, I:2

Under the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these: [a list of the familiar 66 books is provided]. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.

When discussing the list of authoritative books that comprise the Scriptures, we speak of the "canon." This word means "rule" or "standard." Another term employed is "norm," derived from a Latin phrase that the church has long used to describe Scripture: Norma normans et sine normativa, meaning "the norm of norms and without norm," or the ultimate standard by which all other authorities are judged, itself without peer. This is a very high view of Scripture and provides the basis for another Latin phrase that became one of the slogans of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura, which does not mean that Scripture is the only authority and everything else is disregarded but that Scripture is the sole infallible authority to which all other legitimate secondary authorities must submit. The Scriptures are the Supreme Court of the church, for in them and by them the Holy Spirit instructs and guides the people of God.

Canonicity is that quality of the authoritative books themselves that mandates their inclusion in the list. The church did not create the canon of Scripture--men could not and did not take it upon themselves to decide what books belonged in the Bible and what did not. Instead, Christians in community recognized and acknowledged those qualities (apostolic authorship or endorsement; general reception within the church; a self-authenticating quality and harmony with other books about which there is no question) within the books. This is not to say that there has never been controversy, but that the history of the church demonstrates a remarkable early consensus about the content of the Scriptures. Most of the discussion about canon is concerned with the composition of the New Testament; for the Old Testament we have early historical consensus and, most importantly, the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ himself as to the divine nature of the Law and the Prophets (see Luke 24:25-27, 44-45).

At the very end of this paragraph the Confession briefly refers to the doctrine of inspiration, which will be taken up more completely in our discussion of paragraph 4.

Tomorrow: What about the Apocrypha?

Of the Holy Scripture, I:1

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 unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in diverse 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 the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruptions of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same unto writing: which makes the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people now being ceased.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is an expression, as I have previously stated, of Reformed Protestant Christianity, which above all else strives to be thoroughly and completely biblical, searching out the whole counsel of God and submitting to it as the final authority for matters of faith and practice. Thus the starting--and ending--point for those who wrote the Confession and those who follow in its tradition is: What do the Scriptures say? Therefore, it is exceedingly fitting that the first subject taken up by the Confession is that of revelation.

In the first paragraph, the Confession makes several statements:

1. God has not hidden himself from men, though he surely could have done so had he willed it. God has sufficiently revealed himself through creation and his ongoing work of providence that men may understand not only that there is a God, but that he is a good, wise, and powerful God. This is called general or natural revelation. It is available to all men everywhere. It is a manifestation of God's grace. Men may not claim that God has left them without sufficient evidence of this. That they frequently do so, suppressing the truth, is testimony of their own unrighteousness. By rejecting this grace they heap condemnation upon themselves.

2. However, such evidence does not suffice to provide information about God's work of salvation. God has therefore in various and "diverse" ways revealed himself to men in history and especially so to his "called-out ones," which the Confession terms his church, a term applicable to all his people whether of the Old or New Testaments. This is his special revelation; he gave it by speaking directly to his people, through the giving of his law, through interaction with judges and kings, by means of prophets and apostles, and ultimately and most completely by his Son, Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.

3. God caused this special revelation of himself to be written down, that the truth may be preserved and propagated, that in such form it may more surely establish and strengthen his people against the opposing forces of the world, the flesh, and the devil. We do a great disservice to ourselves when we ignore this written revelation or take it for granted.

4. Finally, the Confession states that the former ways by which God has revealed himself have ceased because his revelation is complete in what has been written down. The Scriptures have, so far, proven no need of amendment.

Tomorrow: The canon of Scripture.

Special Edition: Of Kings and Religion

A friend commenting elsewhere on these entries asked me about the relationship between the rulers of European nations and the religion practiced by the people of those nations. After composing an answer, I thought others might like to read it.

I remarked in one of the earlier entries that it was a widely-accepted idea that the people of a country should have the same religion as their ruler. That goes all the way back to the era of the barbarian conversions. However, the concept was starting to break down in the 16th century, running up as it did against the idea of individual conscience in an environment in which there was no longer a single monolithic church in Western Europe.

The monarch tended to surround him/herself with like-minded advisors. Mary was the daughter of Catherine of Aragon, herself devoted to Roman Catholicism as a characteristic of her Spanishness and as a consolation against being put aside by Henry VIII. Mary Tudor was raised rigidily RC. Then she went and married one of the most RC rulers in Europe, Philip of Spain. Elizabeth, on the other hand, was raised Protestant after the preferences of her mother's family. So when she came to power, her allies amongst the noble families were Protestants. It was from that pool that she drew her advisors and councillors.

The link between church and state was very strong in the Middle Ages. Kings often appointed bishops, who had a lot of temporal power and responsibility as well as spiritual duties and oversight. Many clergy were high-ranking secular authorities--Henry VIII employed Cardinal Wolsey as his chancellor for a time.

At the same time, the Roman church was deeply involved in the power politics of Europe. England and France were old enemies; when Spain became the top banana in 16th century Europe (overshadowing the old Holy Roman Empire, which Spain more or less co-opted at that point), England under Elizabeth became her chief rival. Philip II of Spain was vehemently Roman Catholic. He had in mind to serve God and the pope by bringing England back into the Catholic fold. At the same time, the popes did what they could to monkey in England's internal affairs by stirring up opposition to Elizabeth, even encouraging treason to the sovereign by dressing it up as faithfulness to God.

No one, as best I can tell, paid a great deal of attention to what we would call poll results--I doubt if the concept even existed then. Rulers governed based on enlightened self-interest, which normally meant what was best for the country as a whole (not always, as in the case of Charles I). What the rank-and-file populace thought about great matters of state was irrelevant. It was important to have their support, but that could be done by enhancing the economy, winning military victories, and tweaking the noses of old rivals. As time went on and the people received religious training in their churches (and many churches were blessed by excellent preachers and teachers in this era) they became more setted in their Protestantism and less inclined to accept Romanizing tendencies. Witness the reaction of good old Jenny Geddes to Laud's attempt to force the Anglican lectionary on the Scottish churches: She threw a stool at the poor man who tried to "read mass in my lug [ear]."

Before We Get Started...

Some general observations:

1. I wish to reiterate my statement about the Confession's subordination to Scripture. Some who consider themselves non-creedal or even anti-creedal will accuse confessional Christians of putting another authority before the Scriptures. While recognizing the danger I point out that history has shown this rarely happens. Every commentary on the Confession I've examined takes great pains to compare the Confession's statements with Scripture. Denominations that subscribe to the Confession (or like documents) tend to bend over backwards to maintain the unique authority of Scripture.

2. Why even bother with the Confession, then? Aren't the Scriptures sufficient to instruct us in all things necessary for Christian faith and practice? Yes, certainly. But those same Scriptures tell us that God has provided the church with pastors and teachers. Do we believe that we are the first generation of Christians who have read the Bible and have tried to discern its teaching? Have we nothing to learn from the many faithful and wise who have preceded us? In order for me to profit from riding a bicycle it is not necessary for me to reinvent one out of raw materials.

3. Many Christians (and not a few critics) are unhappy with the evident anti-Roman Catholic flavor of the Westminster Confession. The term "Catholic bashing" often comes up in discussions of the Confession's statements. It is very important to recognize the historical context in which this document was produced. Firstly, English Puritanism was very much a product of the Protestant Reformation, particularly the Calvinist/Reformed branch. The Reformers perceived that Roman Catholicism had departed from the biblical gospel in many particulars. Secondly, recall that there had been a movement back toward Rome on the part of the English king and many of his bishops in the first half of the 17th century. The writers of the Confession were at pains to distinguish and defend the doctrines contained therein from those of Rome. I will re-address this issue whenever it becomes pertinent.

4. The Confession is internally self-referential. Its teachings build one upon another. It is therefore important not to take each chapter as a fresh beginning but to remember what the Confession has previously established. For instance, the discussion of God's decrees in chapter III presupposes the definition of God given in chapter II.

5. There exist a number of good resources for independent study of the Confession. Works by A. A. Hodge, G. I. Williamson, John Gerstner, R. C. Sproul, and Joseph Pipa may prove useful to the student wanting to delve deeper than will often be possible in this blog. I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to these authors, many of whose insights will appear in the posts to follow as they provided the source material for much of the content of the Sunday school lessons on which these posts are based. I also here acknowledge the contributions of Doug Thiessen, a fellow ruling elder at Grace EP Church and my co-teacher during the 2006-2007 academic year and this class.

Tomorrow: The Holy Scriptures.

A Brief History of English Puritanism and the Westminster Assembly, Part 4

In 1643 Parliament abolished episcopacy and established a gathering of pastors and theologians to determine appropriate biblical guidelines for the governance of the English church and to define doctrine. There were 151 English Puritans and eight Scottish Presbyterians comprising this group. Initially the intent was to revise the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, but after the acceptance of the Scottish League and Covenant a complete reworking of a doctrinal confession was undertaken. The assembly met in 1163 daily sessions from 1643 to 1649, producing several documents. The Westminster Confession of Faith was completed in 1646 and adopted by the Scots in 1647 and the English in 1648. Two catechisms, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, appeared by 1647. A directory for worship was also produced. Part of the delay in acceptance of the Confession was that when Parliament reviewed the first draft it asked the Assembly to go back and provide citations from Scripture to substantiate the statements made. Hence, most current editions of the Confession come with footnoted "prooftexts" that permit the noble-minded reader to imitate the Bereans (Acts 17).

Following the death of Oliver Cromwell around 1660 the country was briefly governed ineffectually by his son and successor Richard. National sympathies swung back toward monarchy, episcopacy, and a more relaxed form of Christianity. Official Presbyterianism in England did not survive the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II but held sway in Scotland and made its way across the Atlantic to North America, where it has enjoyed great hospitality for most of the past 350 years.

With these four posts as a cursory introduction to historical context we are almost ready to begin our examination of the Confession itself.

Tomorrow: A few "housekeeping" notes and observations.

A Brief History of English Puritanism and the Westminster Assembly, Part 3

At the turn of the 17th century a liberalizing trend began in the Calvinistic Dutch church, more or less instigated by the writings of James Arminius. For about fifteen years a controversy over doctrine brewed in Holland and this spilled over into England; those who wanted to modify Calvinism in the direction of Arminius's teachings were called the Remonstrant party because they issued a series of "remonstrances" or points of difference with Calvinist soteriology. Although the movement was temporarily suppressed in Holland after the Synod of Dort in 1619, Arminianism found some traction in England and tended to encourage those who sought greater rapport with Rome.

Elizabeth I died childless; her heir was James VI of Scotland, the son of her former rival, Mary Queen of Scots, a man raised in Presbyterian Scotland but with very un-Presbyterian scruples. He developed a concept of the divine right of kings. Episcopacy (church government by bishops) was more compatible with his preferred system of secular government, hence he came to favor a more Roman Catholic expression of the church. "No bishop, no king," was his thought. James vigorously opposed the type of thorough reform proposed by the Puritans. He attempted to exercise absolute authority without regard to Parliament (increasingly a center of Puritan thought and activity) and promoted disregard for Sabbath observance and in general encouraged a moral laxity that outraged the Puritans. His son Charles I inherited the father's absolutist views and even more openly favored Romanism. His chief lieutenant was William Laud, whom he appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior prelate of the English church. Laud was an Anglo-Catholic bigot who in very heavy-handed fashion attempted to blot out Calvinistic Presbyterian influences by enforcing religious uniformity and rigidity. Arminian sympathies within Church of England clergy encouraged all this. But when Charles and Laud attempted to force conformity on the Scottish church a rebellion occurred, with resort to arms to defend threatened liberties.

For the first decade of his reign, Charles had ruled without Parliament but had to call it back into session eventually to get money with which to fight the Scots. However, Parliament was sympathetic to the Scottish cause and opposed Charles and his bishops. War soon broke out between king and Parliament, a war eventually won by Parliament's army led by Oliver Cromwell. The king was deposed and beheaded in 1649. England temporarily became a parliamentary republic.

Tomorrow: The Westminster Assembly and aftermath

A Brief History of English Puritanism and the Westminster Assembly, Part 2

The Protestant Reformation in Britain "begins" with Henry VIII of the House of Tudor. Although his motivation was chiefly that of dynastic succession, Henry inaugurated the official Reformation of the English church by establishing the English sovereign as the head of the church in place of the pope. Henry had no interest in doctrinal reform--he was to remain Roman Catholic in belief and practice to the end of his life and fought bitterly against what he considered Martin Luther's innovations. But inevitably his split from Roman headship brought a more reforming spirit into the English church leadership, a trend that accelerated under the short reign of his more Protestant son Edward and Edward's advisors.

But Edward, sickly all his life, died childless, bringing his thoroughly Roman Catholic sister Mary to the throne. Along with her Spanish husband Philip she sought to return England to the Roman fold and used some rather drastic means to accomplish this. Those whom she did not kill were driven out of England, often finding a safe and inviting haven in John Calvin's Geneva, where they were exposed to a higher form of Christian teaching than they had previously known. Many of these refugees, such as John Knox, later returned to England and Scotland after Mary's death. They formed the core of a Calvinistic reforming force that sought to duplicate Geneva on their home soil. As it happened, the Scots took to this more quickly and enthusiastically than did the English.

The last of Henry VIII's three children, Elizabeth, ascended to the throne following the death of Mary. With her came a period of greater political stability but a resistance to thoroughgoing reform of the church. She was content with just a certain amount of Protestantism, enough to suit her own needs yet keep the church tightly bound to the crown. Within the church of England there developed a body of Christians that sought to "purify" the church of all traces of Romanism and bring about a greater sanctity among the people--hence the term "Puritan." Through most of Elizabeth's reign the Puritans grew as an opposition party, particularly in defense of religious and civil liberties upon which the state increasingly encroached. An extra-constitutional system of courts was used by the state to enforce the party line. This heavy-handedness was not tolerated for long.

Tomorrow: Political and theological divergences cost a king his head.

A Brief History of English Puritanism and the Westminster Assembly, Part 1

By the end of the 15th century several forces were at work in Europe. As part of the renewed interest in classical studies that arose out of the early Renaissance, there was a movement among scholars to go back to original sources (what is termed ad fontes). In biblical studies, this movement was aided by improvements in the available Greek New Testament manuscripts and increasing availability of vernacular translations of the Bible. Greater and wider familiarity with the content of Scripture increased recognition of the divergences between what was prescribed therein and the prevailing official church teachings and practices. The invention of moveable type and the printing press brought about a revolution in the dissemination of ideas. And resentment of the worldliness of many clergy members grew. This does not mean, however, that most people were necessarily discontent with the church. Many might have preferred to keep going on as they had, with some cleaning up of corruption and excesses.

Throughout the Middle Ages church and state were tightly bound. When the Reformation came it was still thought natural that all the people in a particular country should have the same religion as the ruler of that country--this was a practice established in the barbarian conversions of the Dark Ages. Religion was often used by the state as a means of exerting control over the population.

Tomorrow: The Tudor "reformation."

What Is the Westminster Confession of Faith?

The Confession is a summary of Christian doctrine in thirty-three chapters, one of several such declarations that came out of the Protestant Reformation in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Written by English Puritans (Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Independents) at the behest of Parliament, it was intended to guide the British nation into the purest possible expression of biblical Christianity.

The purpose of this blog is to examine the Confession chapter by chapter to see what we can learn from it. Why? Simply put, the Westminster Confession of Faith is one of the best doctrinal statements of Christianity written in English; in the succeeding 350 years since its composition few have found any lack or need of improvement, although we will look at some of the changes that were made in later years. It was the product of a body of men who possessed great learning, sagacity, and personal holiness and who should command a respectful hearing. By standing on the shoulders of such giants, as Isaac Newton remarked in another context, we may see farther. As such, it is a valuable part of our Christian heritage, particularly for Christians who belong to the Presbyterian tradition. Furthermore, because the Confession has had great historical influence in American history, citizens of that land can gain insight into their nation's past through an understanding of the principles taught in this document.

The most important point to stress about the Confession is that no matter how useful or valuable it may be it does not have authority on a par with that of Scripture and must always be compared to that standard to which it submits.

May God be glorified in all that is posted here, and may his Spirit remove from our thoughts and memories any error.