A. The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.

This answer is divided between the general and the specific, lest we be tempted to divide the Scriptures so that either the Old or the New are not equally God’s word. But it also roots itself in Question 1. If God’s design of man was our joy in his glory, he has another design to achieve that design. Something must point us back from the distortion to the design. Enter Scripture. The word of God shows us the worth of God. Without the word, we are left without direction to that chief end. What we will cover are three things about the word of God: 1. It is contained in the Scriptures. 2. It covers the Old and New Testaments. 3. It is the only rule to direct us to this chief end.

The Word of God is “contained” in the Scriptures. 

Not all people who claim to be “Reformed” believe that about the Bible. There is what is called the Neo-Orthodox view, held most famously by the twentieth century Swiss theologian Karl Barth. In this view, the Bible does not contain the word of God, but bears witness to the Word. The “inspiration” of Scripture, for Barth, refers not to the revelation of God’s words through the words of the human authors, but rather it covers the whole set of actions from God revealing to those biblical authors, those authors “recollecting,” and then it encompasses the encounter of the Holy Spirit with the reader of Scripture in his own day. This is part of the idea of “truth as encounter.” 

The classical Reformed doctrine of inspiration implies that God communicated divine truth in the form of human words: “All Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Tim. 3:16). The word used by Paul here is theopneustos, literally “God-breathed,” so some have even suggested that “ex-piration” may capture the idea better than inspiration. The latter can carry the more subjective connotation of the human being off on his own having only been “stirred” in some way. Peter says it in this way,

knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

This is another verse where the Greek is instructive, as the word for “carried away” (φέρω) is used as a participle form here φερόμενοι, or “being carried along.” The imagery that is often suggested by commentators is that of wind in the sails of a ship. And wouldn’t that be appropriate in going together with that breath of the Spirit (πνεῦμα), which word is used interchangeably with wind in both Hebrew and Greek. 

Leaving aside the whole question of the mode of this inspiration, what the answer to Question 2 is focusing on is that we have in the Bible the inscripturated word. There is the “all” that Paul mentions. And the first thing we want to mean by “All Scripture” is a matter of kind. Jesus said, 

“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Mat. 5:18).

So every aspect of these sacred writings is God’s word. Proposition and poetry and punctuation. This will naturally bring up the question of what all counts as an error. I deal with what inerrancy is and is not in a separate writing. Since that gets into complex matters and exceeds the scope of this study, I commend the reader to that writing. Our only point here is that Jesus is giving us a view of Scripture where God’s word is not at all embarrassed to be clothed in all of the elements of human language.

The Word of God covers the Old and New Testaments. 

Paul speaks of “the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:19-20). Now there is debate about how Paul uses this expression. Is he speaking of the two New Testament offices (apostles and prophets), or is he speaking euphemistically about Scripture, since its two Testaments had these two as their authors: the Prophets of the Old and the Apostles of the New?

“Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled’” (Lk. 24:44).

Now the Tanak is so named after the first letter to the three parts of the Hebrew canon: T for torah (law), N for nevi’im (prophets), K for ketuvim (writings). True, Jesus says “Psalms” third. However, there is good reason to believe that this was a standard first century Jewish way of heading the “writings,” as the Psalms were the first book of this section. 

Why the Old? Is that not done away with? No. Mastricht speaks of “The Old Testament, which, has the covenant of grace under a testator who was yet to die, we, together with the ancient church of the Jews, to whom the ‘oracles of God’ during this period are said to have been entrusted (Rom. 3:2), receive only thirty nine books.”1 It was to a Gentile audience in Corinth that Paul referred to the Israelites in the wilderness as “our fathers” (1 Cor. 10:1), and—lest anyone think he was only referring to himself as a Jew—goes on to drive home the point that they,

“all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ” (vv. 3-4).

Now if the same Christ is participated in by both Israel of Old and the church of the New, and if all of the Scriptures are about Christ (Jn. 5:39), then it follows that all of faith, whether Jew or Gentile, whether in the Old looking forward or in the New looking back, share the same whole Word of God. The whole Bible is Christian Scripture. The whole is our rule.

The Word of God is the “only rule” for this direction. 

We have to understand what the doctrine of sola Scriptura means and does not mean. The “sola” in this idea refers to 1. source and 2. norm. Contrary to Rome’s argument, sola Scriptura has never meant “nuda (or solo) Scriptura.” In other words, the doctrine does not reject other authorities and aids in interpretation. It is not “Just me (solo) and my Bible!” This sufficiency does not minimize tradition, or reason, or experience, or the leading of the Spirit, or present church community, etc. It does not pit general revelation against special revelation. Rather, it insists that Scripture is the only infallible authority and therefore the only final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

We are often challenged in this way: Where in Scripture does it say “Scripture alone” is sufficient? We can make a cumulative case. For example, in both the Old and New Testament, appeal is made to the Scriptures to settle disputes over and above the contemporary religious authorities—cf. Isa. 8:20; Lk. 16:29. Of course, this is a greater to lesser argument from Scripture. It is an example of what the Westminster Confession calls “good and necessary consequence.” We understand that the words “sola Scriptura” are not in the ink of the biblical text. Just as the word “Trinity” is not. Neither is “monotheism” or “Incarnation.” God communicates to his church, through his word, as to rational creatures, whom he calls on to make proper inferences. For example, in his letter John says, “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater” (1 Jn. 5:9). 

Now all Roman Catholics would assent to the proposition that the Bible is God’s Word. But God’s Word says that God’s testimony is higher than that of men. On what grounds should we make an exception for the Pope or a council of men? Rome will sometimes cite 1 Timothy 3:15, “the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.” The reply of Thomas Watson is worth repeating,

“It is true, the church is the pillar of truth; but it does not therefore follow that the Scripture has its authority from the church. The king’s proclamation is fixed on the pillar, the pillar holds it out, that all may read, but the proclamation does not receive its authority from the pillar, but from the king; so the church holds forth the Scriptures, but they do not receive their authority from the church, but from God.”2

Jesus Christ, who all Roman Catholics would surely agree possessed the most supreme authority, nevertheless makes his appeal to Scripture rather than simply his own (Mat. 4:4-7, 22:29). While he speaks of the Pharisees as sitting in the chair of Moses, he measures them up to Scripture and finds them wanting (Mat. 15:3, 22:29). Jesus even teaches the principle that his own testimony would be insufficient if it stood on its own. What source does Jesus cite to bind himself to a testimony of two or three witnesses (Jn. 8:13-18; Deut. 17:6)? Scripture again. Now if Jesus himself held to this standard, what makes the Church think that it can function as a higher authority than Jesus allowed himself to be? 

Objection 1. But is it the only rule? Is not the Reformed Classicalist position that general revelation is as authoritative as special revelation, or that natural theology is as valid as supernatural theology? Therefore it seems that either the Reformed Classicalist position is false, or that such a person who holds to it cannot also hold to the Westminster Standards at this point?

Reply Obj. 1. The idea of a rule may be used in different ways, or on different levels. Just as there can be chief ends and subordinate ends without what is subordinate being any less of an end, so may there be a general rule and special rule without that which is general being less of a rule.

Objection 2. But then you admit that general revelation is subordinated to special revelation, and natural theology to supernatural theology, just as a subordinate end is a means to the chief, or ultimate end? So then it seems that there can be no valid natural theology which does not answer to Scripture. Indeed, apart from the correction of supernatural theology, natural theology is no rule at all, however much general (or natural) revelation may be a rule in itself. At any rate, the answer to Question 2 flatly speaks of Scripture as the “only rule.”

Reply Obj. 2. On the contrary, the truths about God taught in nature and known by reason would have been true whether God ordained Scripture or not. Nor does the unbeliever’s abuse of such truths make them untrue as far as it goes: “Let God be true though everyone were a liar'“ (Rom. 3:4). As it is, those Scriptures tell us that,

“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:19-20).

If this were no rule, then abuse of it would incur no guilt. But Paul plainly says that all are guilty precisely by their sinful reaction to it. Therefore, it is a divine rule. Moreover, by neglecting to read the rest of the words in the answer to Question 2, the objection distorts its meaning. It actually says that Scripture is “the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.” The Reformed Classicalist position is not that general revelation is a rule to direct us to this blessed end, but only that it furnishes us with rules of reason and nature. By this rule it is known to all that God exists and that we owe ourselves to him. That man violates this rule every day is no proof against the rule; nor does the reality of it compete with the rule of Scripture, which is for a different end.

In closing, the Westminster divines included 1 John 1:3-4 here. The reason is that the question and answer followed from that chief end. This “rule” is not only something to defend, but is something to direct. So John in his letter says,

“that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete” (1 Jn. 1:3-4).

Note the words “we proclaim,” so that there is more than John in this “we” who do this form of proclaiming. And then further down, “we are writing these things.” So John is making a statement which ought to be taken as speaking for the Apostles very specifically in their authoring of Scripture. So, in this sense, Scripture is fulfilling that part of the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus, that God would show us Christ’s glory (Jn. 17:24). Two chapters earlier Jesus had taught that it takes his word to bring this joy,

“These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full” (Jn. 15:11).

____________________

1. Mastricht, TPT, I:120.

2. Watson, A Body of Divinity, 30.