"Only"

The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.

Today our study shall continue in this succinct and remarkable thesis of the first chapter of the confession.  Yesterday, I briefly looked at Scripture being the "rule".  By no means did I exhaust what could be said, and may, as the Lord permits, go back and add to it.  But today I want to move on to the first of the adjectives, "only."

If there exists one word that ruffles the feathers of our culture today, it would be the word "only."  By definition, it means single, solitary, and one of a kind.  Another definition could be "alone deserving consideration."  The writers could not possibly mean that the Bible alone deserves our consideration, could they?  YES!  Their use of the word "only" has the specific purpose of ruling out all other means, as the rest of the chapter elaborates.  It should also be noted that by grammar used, "only" modifies each of the following adjectives, meaning it is the "only sufficient," "only certain," and "only infallible" rule.

In the first paragraph, they do express that general revelation can and does provide a knowledge of God, but the knowledge it gives is weak and insufficient as a means to truly know God intimately and the salvation He provides. "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 His will which is necessary unto salvation."  General revelation only goes so far as to leave men without excuse before God, no matter what Bertrand Russell proclaimed.  I would posit that general revelation, and the evidences it provides, is rarely a means of "convincing" someone of God the Creator, but instead such "evidential apologetics" is actually for the purpose of condemnation in those who don't believe (correlating evidence with law, in the law/gospel divide).  Moses called for the heavens and earth to be witnesses against the Israelites (Deut. 30:19), because "the heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands" (Ps 19:1 NASB).  And just like a witness in a courtroom setting, all of creation will stand in testify against the non-believer.

With general revelation as insufficient, special revelation becomes necessary.  This is where the heat picks up.  There are three primary things which the Baptists go on to deny in this chapter as viable means of special revelation. Paragraph one ends, "those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased."  Historically, this is largely aimed at a few groups: Catholics, Anabaptists, and Quakers.  But a statement like that is rather transcendent, permitting us to use it and call into question more modern movements like the New Apostolic Reformation and Holiness-Pentecostal.  A good future study could perhaps be done in comparing/contrasting some of these modern movements with historical Anabaptists and Quakers.  In any case, the Baptists distanced themselves from these historical, heretical groups by claiming that there are no new revelations (cf 1:6 2LBCF).

The second thing they sought to dismantle from its authoritative role is the Apocrypha.  In paragraph 2, they specifically list the only books that were "given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life."  Then in paragraph 3, they specifically identify the Apocrypha as not being a part of the canon.  The purpose of this was to positively and negatively determine those written works which God has "breathed" for our benefit, and which works are simply words of men.

The third thing is tradition (f 1:6 2LBCF).  If there is one thing that people love, it is tradition.  No matter how "anti-traditional" a person claims to be, they will set up their own traditions by which the worship and live.  A brief survey of the modern worship movement will prove that truth.  Men will remove traditions to set up new ones in their stead.  I want to state though, it's not that traditions are bad per se, some are quite good!  It's when tradition takes the role of authoritative that it becomes problematic.  No tradition is to take authority over Scripture.  Nor should Scripture be misused to justify a tradition.  Growing up Baptist, I know the schisms tradition creates.  The running joke is that more Baptist church plants are started because of carpet color than missional calling.  But also, being Baptist, I would argue that the greatest divisions that have taken place throughout church history wasn't over "dividing doctrine," but pitting doctrine against tradition.  That was the cry of the Reformation, and ultimately the resolve of the Puritan movement. (Note: I am not suggesting that all schisms were tradition vs doctrine, but I do believe that many "doctrines" which cause schism are merely long held traditions that once pressed sought Scriptural justification, instead of truly applying the regulative principle.)

The confession does not directly deal with issues like the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or other "holy" writings.  Some atheist philosophers could also fall into this camp of "holy" writ, with their arguments being quoted as gospel truth today.  But where the confession provides no direct statement to these, it does provide the overarching principle by which we can judge such things.  It has specifically limited the source of special revelation to ONLY the Bible.  Further, it classifies all other writings as being merely words written by men.  Perhaps there can be found in such writings great beneficial things, like even the words of this confession itself, but all such writings and words must come under the sole authority of Scripture.

Sola Scriptura needs to be our cry today.