Thread: Help me flesh out an idea, please

"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."

Would you agree with the above statement? What further evidence would you give in support of it? Or, if you disagree, why do you disagree?

Thanks!

Scripture is not and cannot be false in any aspect, because it internally claims to be the very Word of God, and God by definition, is true in all that He does, including His self-revelation (the Scriptures). For the Scriptures to be false at some point or points, infers that God has there failed in His self-revelation.

Originally Posted by sastark

"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."

Would you agree with the above statement? What further evidence would you give in support of it? Or, if you disagree, why do you disagree?

Thanks!

I would ask what do you mean by "to be false" because it's not clear to me at all.

I would not go beyond what the WCF says:

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

Wonderful stuff.

Originally Posted by Wayne

Scripture is not and cannot be false in any aspect, because it internally claims to be the very Word of God, and God by definition, is true in all that He does, including His self-revelation (the Scriptures). For the Scriptures to be false at some point or points, infers that God has there failed in His self-revelation.

It disturbs me that you capitalise "Word of God" when referring to scripture. What do you mean to imply by this?

"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."

I don't think it's a true statement. There is much less evidence required for something to be possible than for something to be actual.

The statement, "It's possible that my son will grow up to be president" is true...but, "My son will grow up to be president" is quite a different statement.

We could say, "It's possible for the Bible to be false contingent on the body of Christ being found" - I believe that would be a truthful statement.

Originally Posted by larryjf

"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."

I don't think it's a true statement. There is much less evidence required for something to be possible than for something to be actual.

The statement, "It's possible that my son will grow up to be president" is true...but, "My son will grow up to be president" is quite a different statement.

We could say, "It's possible for the Bible to be false contingent on the body of Christ being found" - I believe that would be a truthful statement.

But, if the body of Christ were found God would be a liar. We know that God is not a liar, and therefore the body of Christ cannot be found (as He sits at the right hand of God the Father).

(and thank you for helping me think this through)

Thoughts?

The initial statement itself (the possibility of falsehood) seems to be built upon a faulty Cartesian-esque presupposition. It seems to have a post-Enlightenment/modernistic foundation, and may rejected on those grounds alone.

I think it can be said that it is implied that the Bible says it is not possible for it to be false because the Bible asserts that it is true. Accordingly, claiming that the Bible is possibly false, claims that the Bible is wrong about it being not possibly false, and therefore false.

Originally Posted by sastark

Originally Posted by larryjf

"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."

I don't think it's a true statement. There is much less evidence required for something to be possible than for something to be actual.

The statement, "It's possible that my son will grow up to be president" is true...but, "My son will grow up to be president" is quite a different statement.

We could say, "It's possible for the Bible to be false contingent on the body of Christ being found" - I believe that would be a truthful statement.

But, if the body of Christ were found God would be a liar. We know that God is not a liar, and therefore the body of Christ cannot be found (as He sits at the right hand of God the Father).

(and thank you for helping me think this through)

Thoughts?

I would suggest that the conclusion "God would be a liar" is more restrictive than the context allows for. The conclusion could just as easily be "God didn't inspire the Bible"

-----Added 9/10/2009 at 02:32:59 EST-----

I think there is a much better use of discussing "possibilities." If you can say to an atheist, "If thus and so proved the Bible to be wrong then i would admit my error"...then they would be more likely to answer, "What would prove to you that the Bible is the truth?"

If we are not willing to even admit a possibility in the midst of hypothetically overwhelming evidence, why should they admit a possibility in the other direction?

Originally Posted by dr_parsley

It disturbs me that you capitalise "Word of God" when referring to scripture. What do you mean to imply by this?

The Scriptures being God's self-revelation, we refer to them as what He has 'spoken' to us, i.e., as His 'word(s)'. As a gathered collection, it is thus appropriate to refer to the Scriptures as the Word of God.

Now, to turn the question peaceably and amiably, why would you be disturbed?

Originally Posted by sastark

"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."

Would you agree with the above statement? What further evidence would you give in support of it? Or, if you disagree, why do you disagree?

Thanks!

In and of itself the proposition is false. To be possible is not the same as to be actual. Any normal document may possibly be false with out in fact being false. Any newspaper may possibly report false information, but that possibility does not confirm that it has indeed reported something false. And so on.

However, if we define "the Bible" as the word of God, then the proposition would be false according to what the Bible says about God, which leads to contradiction.

Those denying a complete view of inspiration would deny the proposition as well, as they would not define "the Bible" as equal to the word of God, but somehow equivalent to it.

So, it depends upon how the person stating the proposition is defining the terms included within.

Originally Posted by sastark

"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."

I'm not going to argue about this at all but I will go against the grain and say that I totally agree with this. Though I think the question itself has serious issues, if someone asked me this I would say "Absolutely!" There is no possibility that the Word of God false. To say that it is "possible" that it's not true is to say that there is a possibility that God is a liar, that He didn't create the universe for His glory, etc. However, reality is reality and God DID create the universe, God IS NOT a liar, etc. - these are solid facts and there is no possibility that they are false. Thus, if the Bible contains divine truth, and I say there is the possibility that it is not the truth, I am claiming that it is not the Word of God and that it is falsely called perfect revelation without error.

Anyway, I don't think I'm able to articulate what I mean on this topic very well, but yes, I agree with the (poorly worded) quote.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

The initial statement itself (the possibility of falsehood) seems to be built upon a faulty Cartesian-esque presupposition. It seems to have a post-Enlightenment/modernistic foundation, and may rejected on those grounds alone.

Could you expand on that a little, Pastor Phillips? Specifically, how the "possibility of falsehood" is built upon faulty presuppositions?

-----Added 9/10/2009 at 04:31:59 EST-----

Originally Posted by Zenas

I think it can be said that it is implied that the Bible says it is not possible for it to be false because the Bible asserts that it is true. Accordingly, claiming that the Bible is possibly false, claims that the Bible is wrong about it being not possibly false, and therefore false.

Andrew, what specific passages of Scripture would you use to support your statement?

The only reason(s) that Scripture would be doubted or declared false is in the sinful heart of the reader of Scripture.

Hypothetically, if they did not have sin, or if the Holy Spirit took away the impediment of sin in every case, when presented with Scripture, they would immediately fall down in worship and praise and declare that this is the very Word of God.

To claim that the bible may possibly be false is to deny its inerrancy and infallibility. So if the bible claims those two characteristics and may be false then it is false at least in its view of itself regarding inerrancy and infalliblilty. And, that, of course, makes everything else suspect. So, to reject those two doctrines is to reject the bible as Truth.

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by sastark

Originally Posted by larryjf

"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."

I don't think it's a true statement. There is much less evidence required for something to be possible than for something to be actual.

The statement, "It's possible that my son will grow up to be president" is true...but, "My son will grow up to be president" is quite a different statement.

We could say, "It's possible for the Bible to be false contingent on the body of Christ being found" - I believe that would be a truthful statement.

But, if the body of Christ were found God would be a liar. We know that God is not a liar, and therefore the body of Christ cannot be found (as He sits at the right hand of God the Father).

(and thank you for helping me think this through)

Thoughts?

I would suggest that the conclusion "God would be a liar" is more restrictive than the context allows for. The conclusion could just as easily be "God didn't inspire the Bible"

-----Added 9/10/2009 at 02:32:59 EST-----

I think there is a much better use of discussing "possibilities." If you can say to an atheist, "If thus and so proved the Bible to be wrong then i would admit my error"...then they would be more likely to answer, "What would prove to you that the Bible is the truth?"

If we are not willing to even admit a possibility in the midst of hypothetically overwhelming evidence, why should they admit a possibility in the other direction?

Larry, I see your point on the conclusion "God didn't inspire the Bible," but isn't that another way of saying (especially in the example you gave of finding Jesus' body) "Jesus was not God" and therefore, "Christianity is false". If Christianity is false, on what basis do we claim a transcendent God who created all things and upholds all things? If we do not have that sort of God, how can we know anything is true? In other words, if the Bible is not true, then there is no truth, at least not any that we can know, since God has not revealed himself to us.

At least, those are my initial thoughts.

Thanks!

This is all very much Van Tilllian thinking. Scripture is ultimately self-attesting, and whatever place evidences have in apologetics, we must ultimately defend it presuppositionally.

In the case of the true Christian the spiritual impediments to him/her receiving the Bible as God's Word have been removed by the Spirit.

In the case of the unbeliever, there is nothing wrong with the Bible or its evidences that it is God's Word, but there is something wrong with the unbeliever who is presented with it and rejects it.

All very true.

Originally Posted by Wayne

Originally Posted by dr_parsley

It disturbs me that you capitalise "Word of God" when referring to scripture. What do you mean to imply by this?

The Scriptures being God's self-revelation, we refer to them as what He has 'spoken' to us, i.e., as His 'word(s)'. As a gathered collection, it is thus appropriate to refer to the Scriptures as the Word of God.

Now, to turn the question peaceably and amiably, why would you be disturbed?

Wayne,

It is not normal practice to capitalise a gathered collection. There are two meanings to "the W/word of God" - one is referring to God as Logos, the other is referring to scripture. The former is capitalised because it is referring to God. If we capitalise the latter we risk getting confused that we are referring to God and we risk falling into idolatry. e.g. If you later ambiguously refer to "the Word" how do I know if you are referring to God or to the bible? c.f. John 1:1 and Hebrews 4:12 - all translations follow this capitalisation scheme. Besides the risk of falling into idolatry, it jars me terribly to read it because it is using one of the referents for God (capitalised Word) to refer to something that is not God.

I've seldom (if ever, as I see above in your post) the word "bible" UN-capitalized. That is consistent, however with your position.

I'm also not sure how we avoid worshiping the Bible as content. Not the thing in our hand, but the content. There is something ineradicably divine about it.

As an analogous situation, we repudiate the papist practice of "adoring the host," because we recognize such devotion as idolatrous. There isn't any "content" to the bread. It's purpose isn't to represent God to us. Such is an abuse of the Supper.

On the other hand, the form of Word-revelation is so closely associated with God himself, that reverence is mandatory. If Moses was to bow before the burning bush, then so must we--even when it is only present to us in the content of the Word.

Further, God's names are meant to put us in mind of him, and his works. We bow at the Name of Jesus. Those names are specially revelatory of his Person. Names are Word-revelation.

Ps.138:2 "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

I think for me, the bottom line is I can have a capital there, or not. I think the primary thoughts would be: does it help my purpose, and does it avoid any dishonor to God?

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

I'm also not sure how we avoid worshiping the Bible as content. Not the thing in our hand, but the content. There is something ineradicably divine about it.

I find this greatly disturbing. I don't want to comment on your position right now - I'll get back to you after a time of prayer. Do others here also worship the content of the bible?

See e.g. Psalm 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

God reveals himself in His written Word, as also in Christ, therefore we should reverence God's Word. We have a peculiar reverence for Christ's created body and soul, because He is God. We also have a peculiar reverence for, at least, the content of God's written Word - created by the Holy Spirit through men using ink and paper - because it is also God's revelation to us. The Word, Christ, embodies the written Word.

We should not reverence (or worship) anyone else's words in the same way as God's Word. To reverence/worship God's Word written is to reverence and worship God, because the Word is God (John 1:1) and the Bible is God's written revelation to us through the Word and by the Spirit.

I don't go around falling down before my Bible, but if I see a Bible on the floor I may pick it up out of respect

How about Ps.119?

You could take out "commandments" "word" "statues", all the dozen or so words for word-revelation that appear in many of the 176vv of the text, and insert "GOD" "LORD" JEHOVAH" etc. And it would make perfect sense.

e.g.
Ps.119:47-48 "And I will delight myself in thy commandments, which I have loved. My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and I will meditate in thy statutes."

"Lift up my hands unto thy commandments." What exactly is that, if not adoration?

Or take the 3rd commandment. What is proper reverence (or the not-profaning, not-subjecting-to-vanity) the name of Jehovah?

WLC 112-114
Question 112: What is required in the third commandment?
Answer: The third commandment requires, That the name of God, his titles, attributes, ordinances, the Word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and: Whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, be holily and reverently used in thought, meditation, word, and writing; by an holy profession, and answerable conversation, to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves, and others.
Question 113: What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning, or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots; violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful; and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarreling at, curious prying into, and misapplying of God’s decrees and providences; misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or anywise opposing of God’s truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding from it.
Question 114: What reasons are annexed to the third commandment?
Answer: The reasons annexed to the third commandment, in these words, “The Lord thy God,” and, “For the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain,” are, because he is the Lord and our God, therefore his name is not to be profaned, or any way abused by us; especially because he will be so far from acquitting and sparing the transgressors of this commandment, as that he will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgment, albeit many such escape the censures and punishments of men

BTW, the capitalization of "Word" in Ans's 112&113 are original.

I worship Jesus Christ. The only way one can worship Him is as He is revealed to us (contained) in the Bible. You cannot avoid worshiping the content of the Bible because the content is the means through which God has revealed to us Who to worship.

I have also come across something like this before on Wastebook. Often and most usually theological liberals levy the charge against the orthodox that they "worship the Bible", are "Biblolaters", or idolaters of the Bible, citing that we regard God's Word so much that we worship it.

Paul:

I suppose I could have answered that it is an American convention to capitalize it as "Word". Like Bruce, I almost never see it not capitalized, at least not in current literature. That said, it seems to be a modern convention, and 19th century evangelical literature (and earlier) generally did not capitalize it.

If we have no problem capitalizing "Bible", and if Word of God is an alternate title, then where would be the problem?

[should we take this particular discussion to a new thread? And is there a way to pull our existing posts on this subtopic over to that new thread? Where's Josh when you need him?]

Originally Posted by Zenas

I worship Jesus Christ. The only way one can worship Him is as He is revealed to us (contained) in the Bible. You cannot avoid worshiping the content of the Bible because the content is the means through which God has revealed to us Who to worship.

I have also come across something like this before on Wastebook. Often and most usually theological liberals levy the charge against the orthodox that they "worship the Bible", are "Biblolaters", or idolaters of the Bible, citing that we regard God's Word so much that we worship it.

And let me clarify, you're saying that the charge is true? I can't see a difference. If not, can you clarify what you mean by 'content'? Is it the ideas expressed, the image of God formed in your mind when you read it, the abstract order of the words themselves? Help me out here.

If Christ were not contained in Scripture (not wholly, but what is revealed of Him is contained there), then I would have no reason that I can surmise to know to worship Him.

As it stands, I know to worship Him according to what is contained in the Bible. As a result, I worship according to the content of the Bible. As a necessary result, one cannot help but worship what is contained in the Bible, as it;s the only source of special revelation we have, regarding God or otherwise. If we're to worship God, then we must worship what's contained in the Bible, because that's the way in which God has chosen to communicate with us.

What sort of fulfillment is Jesus, the Word?

Look how Paul uses Moses:

Rom 10:6-10
But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) or "'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Paul associates directly the "word" spoken of by Moses and the "Word-Christ".

To have the Word in the heart, is to have God in the heart.

Deu 30:14-16
But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it. See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns away, ...

To have God's Word with them was to have God himself with them. The prophets were so prized because they were bringing God's Word freshly to the people. 1Sam.3:1 "And the word of the LORD was rare in those days; there was no frequent vision."

The ultimate expression of this closeness would be having Emmanuel, "God-with-us" immediately, without an intermediary. Jesus is the Prophet.

Originally Posted by sastark

"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."

Would you agree with the above statement? What further evidence would you give in support of it? Or, if you disagree, why do you disagree?

Thanks!

If the Bible claims that it is impossible for itself to be false, then we have the following:

p1. The Bible claims that it is impossible for the Bible to be false.
p2. It is possible for the Bible to be false.
c. The Bible's claim is false.

So on the surface it seems to stand up. Some in-depth exegesis may be needed to provide an unassailable foundation for p1--I don't know that it's immediately obvious to a casual observer.

Originally Posted by sastark

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

The initial statement itself (the possibility of falsehood) seems to be built upon a faulty Cartesian-esque presupposition. It seems to have a post-Enlightenment/modernistic foundation, and may rejected on those grounds alone.

Could you expand on that a little, Pastor Phillips? Specifically, how the "possibility of falsehood" is built upon faulty presuppositions?

The "Cartesian Shift" was a revolution in epistemology where Rene Descartes, in making his Cogito argument, exemplifies the nature of self-doubt and its man-centered solution. The only thing man can be certain of is his own self-existence; all else is left to doubt (the possibility of falsehood) and can only be solved by appealing to the one basis of certainty (man himself). Thus, man becomes the determiner of truth/falsehood; this is the root of modernity/modernistic thinking.

When it comes to "The Message" I would not have a problem with it being false

Originally Posted by dr_parsley

Do others here also worship the content of the bible?

Every time I sing Psalm 119, and consequently wherever and whenever I have true thoughts about the Bible.

Originally Posted by sastark

"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."

I agree with the above statement. If for no other reason, then because the Bible itself claims that it is not possible for the Scriptures to err. John 10:35. Poole (in loc.) comments, "none must contradict what God hath said in his word; there can be no falsehood in the revelation of any part of the Divine will." To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that the Bible is false when it teaches it cannot be false.

Epistemically, by what standard could the Bible be proven false? Whatever that standard might be, it would supplant the authority of the Bible.

I would have to agree with your statement on the mere fact that to give a noun the possibility of being two different things creates doubt in the minds of those who view that noun as to what it really is. Sproul, who I dearly love, states that Christ could have sinned if He had wanted to but didn't bc He never wanted to. I whole hearted and violently disagree with him on this bc it creates doubt in the minds of ppl who view Him as having the possibility of not being perfect even if He were perfect.

The Word of God written and properly illumined and applied to the heart by the Spirit is the Word (i.e. Christ) because it is God speaking to us i.e. the Word (Christ). It is the communication of the whole Christ to our souls.

In fact when we read or hear God's written Word - whether we listen to it or not - God is speaking and it therefore is the voice of the Word (Christ) - which we should reverence, which is only a word for worship.

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63, ESV)

-----Added 9/12/2009 at 09:32:21 EST-----

Quote from Sarah

I would have to agree with your statement on the mere fact that to give a noun the possibility of being two different things creates doubt in the minds of those who view that noun as to what it really is. Sproul, who I dearly love, states that Christ could have sinned if He had wanted to but didn't bc He never wanted to. I whole hearted and violently disagree with him on this bc it creates doubt in the minds of ppl who view Him as having the possibility of not being perfect even if He were perfect.

Inasmuch as Christ was made a perfect human being like Adam, He could have sinned; but He was never just a human being, but also was a Divine Person with a Divine Nature. So he couldn't sin.

Here are a couple quotations from BB Warfield:

As our Lord declared that whatever was written in Scripture must needs be fulfilled (Mt.26:54; Lk.22:37; 24:44), so His followers explained one of the most startling facts which had occurred in their experience by pointing out that “it was needful that the scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David” (Act.1:16). Here the ground of this constant appeal to Scripture, so that it is enough that a thing “is contained in scripture” (1Pet.2:6) for it to be of indefectible authority, is plainly enough declared: Scripture must needs be fulfilled, for what is contained in it is the declaration of the Holy Ghost through the human author. What Scripture says, God says; and accordingly we read such remarkable declarations as these: “For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up” (Rom.9:17); “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham,... In thee shall all the nations be blessed” (Gal.3:8). These are not instances of simple personification of Scripture, which is itself a sufficiently remarkable usage (Mk.15:28; Jn.7:38,42; 19:37; Rom.4:3; 10:11; 11:2; Gal.4:30; 1Tim.5:18; Jas.2:23; 4:5 f), vocal with the conviction expressed by James (Jas.4:5) that Scripture cannot speak in vain. They indicate a certain confusion in current speech between “Scripture” and “God,” the outgrowth of a deep-seated conviction that the word of Scripture is the word of God. It was not “Scripture” that spoke to Pharaoh, or gave his great promise to Abraham, but God. But “Scripture” and “God” lay so close together in the minds of the writers of the New Testament that they could naturally speak of “Scripture” doing what Scripture records God as doing. It was, however, even more natural to them to speak casually of God saying what the Scriptures say; and accordingly we meet with forms of speech such as these: “Wherefore, even as the Holy Spirit saith, Today if ye shall hear His voice,” etc. (Heb.3:7, quoting Ps.95:7); “Thou art God ... who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage,” etc. (Act.4:25 the King James Version, quoting Ps.2:1); “He that raised him from the dead ... hath spoken on this wise, I will give you ... because he saith also in another (place) ....” (Act.13:34, quoting Is.55:3 and Ps.16:10), and the like. The words put into God's mouth in each case are not words of God recorded in the Scriptures, but just Scripture words in themselves. When we take the two classes of passages together, in the one of which the Scriptures are spoken of as God, while in the other God is spoken of as if He were the Scriptures, we may perceive how close the identification of the two was in the minds of the writers of the New Testament.

This identification is strikingly observable in certain catenae of quotations, in which there are brought together a number of passages of Scripture closely connected with one another. The first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews supplies an example. We may begin with Heb.1:5 :”For unto which of the angels said he” - the subject being necessarily “God” - “at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?” - the citation being from Ps.2:7 and very appropriate in the mouth of God - “and again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” - from 2Sam.7:14, again a declaration of God's own - “And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him” - from Dt.32:43, Septuagint, or Ps.97:7, in neither of which is God the speaker - “And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire” - from Ps.104:4, where again God is not the speaker but is spoken of in the third person - “but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, etc.” - from Ps.45:6,7 where again God is not the speaker, but is addressed - “And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning,” etc. - from Ps.102:25-27, where again God is not the speaker but is addressed - “But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand?” etc. - from Ps.110:1, in which God is the speaker. Here we have passages in which God is the speaker and passages in which God is not the speaker, but is addressed or spoken of, indiscriminately assigned to God, because they all have it in common that they are words of Scripture, and as words of Scripture are words of God. Similarly in Rom.15:9 we have a series of citations the first of which is introduced by “as it is written,” and the next two by “again he saith,” and “again,” and the last by “and again, Isaiah saith,” the first being from Ps.18:49; the second from Dt.32:43; the third from Ps.117:1; and the last from Is.11:10. Only the last (the only one here assigned to the human author) is a word of God in the text of the Old Testament.

from "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," found in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, P&R, 1948, pp145-47; originally from ISBE, 1915.


And a second article:

The whole (of WCF ch1) is closed with the assertion that the Holy Spirit who speaks in every part of Scripture (cf.xiv.2) is the Supreme Judge in all controversies of religion, so that they all are to be determined, not on the ground of decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men or asserted private revelations--under whatever name they may masquerade, whether as traditions, deliverances of reason or of the Christian consciousness, individual or corporate--but on the ground of the unrepealable "thus saith the Lord" of Scripture itself (sct.10). Accordingly, in the Confession's sense, whenever the doctrine of Scripture is ascertained all religious strife is ended, and in its sentence we are to rest. As Rutherford says: "The Scripture makes itself the judge and determiner of all questions in religion."10 Or, as Reynolds puts it: "The Scriptures...are the alone rule of all controversies.... So then the only light by which differences are to be decided is the Word, being a full canon of God's revealed will, for the Lord doth not now as in former times make himslef known by dreams, or visions, or any other immediate way."11 Or, if we may look beyond the immediate circle of Westminster men to a Puritan divine whose praise is in all the churches, as Richard Sibbes says: "What is the supreme Judge? The Word, the Spirit of God in the Scriptures. And who is above God? It is a shameless ridiculous independency of men that will take upon them to be judges of Scripture."12 Shall we not say Amen to this, though it may condemn much modern practice and mayhap entail on us the charge of "bibliolatry"?

Such a reverence for God's Word as God's Word is no doubt an act of worship; but whom shall we worship if not the God of the Bible? At any rate, the Confessions closes the chapter on Scripture which it began by declaring Scripture "most necessary," by declaring it also final and decisive in all questions of religion. We cannot do without the Scriptures; having them we need no other guide. We need this light to light our pathway; having it we may well dispense with any other. Are we making it the light to lighten our feet? Are we following it whithersoever it leads? Are we prepared to test all religious truth by it, while it is tested by none? Are we prepared to stand by it in all things on the principle that it is God's Word and God will be true though every man be a liar?
_______________
10 A Free Disputation, 1649, p361.
11 Works, vol.5, pp152ff.
12 Works, vol.2, p.493.

from "The Westminster Doctrine of Holy Scripture," found in Selected Shorter Writings, P&R, 1970, pp569-71; original article pub. New York Observer, and The Independent, Apr.23, 1891.