The Second Helvetic Confession Chapter 2
Of Interpreting the Holy Scriptures; and of Fathers,
Councils, and Traditions
The True Interpretation of
Scripture. The apostle Peter has said that the Holy
Scriptures are not of private interpretation (II Peter 1:20), and thus we do not
allow all possible interpretations. Nor consequently do we acknowledge as the
true or genuine interpretation of the Scriptures what is called the conception
of the Roman Church, that is, what the defenders of the Roman Church plainly
maintain should be thrust upon all for acceptance. But we hold that
interpretation of the Scripture to be orthodox and genuine which is gleaned from
the Scriptures themselves (from the nature of the language in which they were
written, likewise according to the circumstances in which they were set down,
and expounded in the light of like and unlike passages and of many and clearer
passages) and which agree with the rule of faith and love, and contributes much
to the glory of God and man's salvation.
<The only context for properly interpreting Scripture is
the whole of the Bible. Perhaps we
see a bit of Luther’s statement that the Aperspicuity
or Scripture is Scripture@
peeking out at us in this paragraph. This
is a concept that the Reformed church has always embraced.
However we have seen the church in different ages give more or less
weight to one method or element of proper interpretation whereas Bullinger quite
correctly here includes first the primacy of the Scriptures alone, but does give
due consideration to the time and culture of the first readers.
Likewise though he uses different words we see the appeal is not to
translations, but the original languages. Bullinger boldly states that the
interpretation of Rome is not acceptable. He
does not go into detail and prove this statement.
He does not have to do so, proper interpretation leads to the same
conclusion.
What do we mean when we say the only proper context is the
whole Bible? First as shown here, Scripture must be used as the first tool to
interpret Scripture. Second, less clear verses are most often explained by
parallel passages elsewhere that are clearer. Third, as we develop a complete
theology constant attention must be paid to the conclusions already reached.
That is, do not poke holes in the opposite side of the balloon as you work on
the side before you. When you shift understanding in one place most often there
is a ripple effect that requires adjustment of the whole structure. An example
of this is provided in the Bible where in Matthew 13:1-9 Christ tells the
parable of the sower. The text then shifts to the explanation of why Christ
taught in parables. Yet if a person
keeps reading they will discover in Matthew 13:18-23 that the whole parable is
presented again and explained. Often the explanation or clearer passage may be
much farther apart as an Old Testament passage being explained in the New
Testament. Nonetheless all essential doctrines and most others can be
sufficiently understood by the light of Scripture alone.>
Interpretations of the Holy
Fathers. Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek
and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred
matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from
them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether
contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in
this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their
writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far
they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to
reject what is in disagreement.
<We discussed this in chapter one concerning the
preached Word and the officers and congregations testing what the preacher has
said against the Bible and accepted creeds of the church. Their proximity to the original manuscripts and apostles did
not insure the church fathers were without error.
Note that constantly the appeal is to the Bible, as the Word of God, and
thus the only authority to handle such disputes. Giving more weight to man, his works, or documents because of
age is a great danger. Not to get
into a debate about translation and Bible versions here, but the statement that
certain versions were translated from the oldest and best manuscripts is a
deliberate use of this false method of insuring the truth concerning all things.
The fact that a document is the oldest does not also mean it is the best,
as the publishers of Bibles would have us believe in using this phraseology.
For this reason the Reformed churches have always demanded their clergy
have some understanding of the original languages.
While modern tools and computers have lessened the need for a Hebrew or
Greek scholar on every corner, the fact is all clergy and for that matter
sincere layman should have some knowledge and be proficient in the use of
original language tools to insure the truth is held closely in the church.
Also notice that this Confession is consistent and only in due
humility calls to question that where the fathers deviated from the Scripture.
When one called by God speaks in accord with the Bible, those words of
explanation are as if God has spoken. Such words are not new revelation, nor to
be added to the canon (Bible) but take on the authoritative nature of being from
God. Only where the spoken word is in total conformity with the Bible, and from
one called by God just for this purpose, does it have this authority. >
Councils. And in the same order also we
place the decrees and canons of councils. Wherefore
we do not permit ourselves, in controversies about religion or matters of faith,
to urge our case with only the opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils;
much less by received customs, or by the large number who share the same
opinion, or by the prescription of a long time. Who is the judge? Therefore, we
do not admit any other judge than God himself, who proclaims by the Holy
Scriptures what is true, what is false, what is to be followed, or what to be
avoided. So we do assent to the judgments of spiritual men, which are drawn from
the Word of God. Certainly Jeremiah and other prophets vehemently condemned the
assemblies of priests, which were set up against the law of God; and diligently
admonished us that we should not listen to the fathers, or tread in their path
who, walking in their own inventions, swerved from the law of God.
<The Church of Rome has not changed anything, yet today
we find all manner of denominations entering into fellowship with her.
It is difficult in the Western world for most to understand how the Roman
Church is not just another church with some minor beliefs that differ from
others. Bullinger and the first
reformers saw the great whore of Babylon for what she was in their day, and did
not hesitate to call her what she was. Today
we seem to scream unity at all costs, and appeal for union even.
No way should this be even discussed, much less seriously considered.
Either Rome was the whore the reformers called her, or there was no
justification for any reformation. We
all know better than that, even the Roman Church sees some of the validity of
Luther’s thesis. Yet, The Church of Rome has not repented and still teaches
the same gross heresies and practices the same idolatry she did in the day of
Calvin, Luther, and Bullinger. Until
she repents, she should not be accepted at the table of God’s people in
fellowship. The age of the traditions carry no weight whatsoever. The Bible
alone is to be taken with unquestioned obedience. >
Traditions of Men. Likewise we reject human
traditions, even if they be adorned with high‑sounding titles, as though
they were divine and apostolical, delivered to the Church by the living voice of
the apostles, and, as it were, through the hands of apostolical men to
succeeding bishops which, when compared with the Scriptures, disagree with them;
and by their disagreement show that they are not apostolic at all. For as the
apostles did not contradict themselves in doctrine, so the apostolic men did not
set forth things contrary to the apostles. On the contrary, it would be wicked
to assert that the apostles by a living voice delivered anything contrary to
their writings. Paul affirms expressly that he taught the same things in all
churches (I Cor. 4:17). And, again, For we write you nothing but what you can
read and understand. (II Cor. 1:13). Also, in another place, he testifies that
he and his disciples ‑ that is, apostolic men ‑ walked in the same
way, and jointly by the same Spirit did all things (II Cor. 12:18). Moreover,
the Jews in former times had the traditions of their elders; but these
traditions were severely rejected by the Lord, indicating that the keeping of
them hinders God's law, and that God is worshipped in vain by such traditions
(Matt. 15:1ff.; Mark 7:1 ff.).
<This one the whole church pays lip service to and would
most readily agree that tradition will never take precedence over Scripture.
However no one is around any of the older Reformed churches very long
before they hear the answer to their question of Awhy?@
answered, AThat
is the way we have always done it around here.@
Though more properly in the previous paragraph, we find the same thing
with the creeds of the church. The
church resists change to her confessions, even if they can be proven out of step
with the Scriptures or unclear at best. Should
the Amajority@
prevail and the confession be revised, it will cause a division with many who
refuse to embrace this Anew@ confession.
Then we have those who would in effect bind the conscience of men by
holding such a strict view of subscription to the confession it places the
confession on par with the Bible. Turn
and twist as they will, the fact is by an oath that God frowns upon, they bind
their elders, and in some places the congregation to the interpretation of one Acouncil@
and man, not God’s Holy Word. Nothing
outside of Scripture is its equal and there is nothing outside this Revealed
Word that should bind the conscience of God’s people as a whole, much less the
office bearers God has foreordained to serve in the body of Christ on earth. This very specifically applies to councils and traditions,
then finally the private revelation (interpretation) of any one man or group of
men. >
