I. What is being confessed in this article?

This article is like a hymn in praise of the perfection of God’s Word as we have received it in writing. This is evident from the words we encounter: sufficient, comprehensive (“fully contains”), most perfect, complete in all respects, infallible.

1. The Scriptures contain everything we need to know about God’s will. It sufficiently teaches us what to believe in order to be saved. And it describes to us in detail how God wants to be served.
2. This is so absolute that it is said by an appeal to Scripture that not even apostles or angels from heaven can add or subtract from it.
   Neither can Scripture be matched or superseded by the writings of the most holy people or by all sorts of “powers,” such as custom (tradition), historical developments, or the decisions of councils.
3. The argument for rejecting all these human words and weighty matters is: “For all men are of themselves liars, and are lighter than a breath” (Psalm 62:9).
4. Therefore we reject wholeheartedly anything that does not agree with this infallible rule of Scripture. We have learned this from the apostles.

II. Scripture is entirely sufficient and effective

1. For many people it goes too far to regard the Bible as perfect. That is because they expect something from the Bible that it will not and cannot give them. That is why they stumble over what they regard as the flawed way in which history is described. In their opinion, facts worth mentioning are sometimes ignored. They also note that inspired books and letters (for example, from Paul) have been lost. And has not much more happened than what has been communicated to us in writing (John 21:25)? In the light of such questions, how can the Bible be perfect.
2. However, these people make a serious mistake: They do not want to understand the meaning of the Bible. John mentions as the purpose of the Gospel he wrote: “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). And Paul says that the Word serves “to equip us for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17).
3. Everything in the Bible is subservient to this end – also the historiography. In describing history, the Bible follows its own method, according to its particular purpose. We do not get answers to many curious questions. It begins with the story of Creation and the Fall. But it would be sinful pride to judge biblical historiography by our own standards.     
   Of the number of Bible books that have survived, we also confess: This is the perfect number that God wanted in the Bible. The others were not simply lost accidentally. And furthermore, while it is true that Jesus did much more than we now know, at least we know enough.
   That is why we believe that the Scriptures are wholly effective and “complete in all respects.”

III. Scripture is complete

1. a. According to the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy Scriptures contain the Word of God only incompletely. In addition, this incomplete Word has come into use through incidental circumstances. Their reasoning is as follows: everything that Jesus and the apostles did and spoke was by no means recorded in Scripture. Canonical books and letters have been lost. The apostles wrote letters when the situation required it, so more or less incidentally. They dealt with the problems of that moment and in doing so they left many things unspoken. The doctrine is never presented in its entirety. Even the Gospel books could be considered as incomplete because people already knew so much from oral tradition. For all these reasons, Scripture would be both incomplete and incidental in its content.
   b. On this point, of course, the Bible needs additions. Tradition takes care of that. For much that was not recorded in Scripture has entered this tradition. That is to say, it has been passed down from one generation to the next after Christ’s sojourn on earth. In this article it is called “the succession of times and persons.”
   The most amazing stories belong to this tradition. That is why we ask Rome: How do you know what is and what is not part of the reliable tradition? Its answer is that the church is the body of Christ; he lives in her midst and speaks through her and therefore she cannot err at this point. The Vatican Council of 1870 decreed that the church, through the mouth of the pope speaking infallibly, decided what belonged to tradition. The pope can even add a new teaching — for example, about Mary.
2. However, this Roman Catholic position is untenable:
   a. The claim that the Bible has only an incomplete and incidental content (see 1a) clearly contradicts what is communicated in Luke 1:1-4 and in John 20:31.
   And already the book of Deuteronomy binds everyone to the written revelation. This was to be kept in the tabernacle (Deuteronomy 31:24-28). From it the priests were to read (Deuteronomy 31:9-13). Even the king had to produce and carry a copy of the law (Deuteronomy 17:18-20).
   In short, already then it was not the oral tradition, but the Holy Scriptures that served as binding norms for everyone.
   When the Roman Catholics point to human and seemingly incidental factors, they are right in themselves. Paul wrote a letter because he could not come himself or because he was concerned, or partly because he had left his coat somewhere (2 Timothy 4:13). But it is their cardinal fault in insisting on these apparently incidental factors and explaining everything from them.
   Our fathers spoke of a predestined Bible. By this they meant that God himself made a choice from the very abundant materials. He — not chance — determined what the church needs.
   b. The Roman Catholics dare to claim that Scripture needs to be supplemented by tradition (see 1b). But in one of the last verses of the Bible,, we hear the warning against adding to or subtracting from the prophecy (Revelation 22:18-19). Strictly speaking, this is said of the book of Revelation itself. However, because this book is connected with all its roots to all of Scripture, this warning also applies inextricably to the entire Bible. In addition, this warning is a recurring refrain (see Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:32; 1 Corinthians 4:6, Galatians 1: 8-9).
   This could never be said of an incomplete and incidental Bible.

IV. Scripture is entirely clear

1. Apart from its incompleteness, Rome also complains about the lack of clarity of the Scriptures. It may be rich in content, but it is in itself open to many interpretations—as many heads, as many minds. Everyone is equally strong in his appeal to Scripture. So Scripture itself cannot decide on all matters. That is where tradition would come in. In addition to supplementing God’s Word, it also ensures the correct explanation of the (unclear) Bible. Only in this way can heretics be exposed and rejected.
2. This article is in fact a sincere confirmation of the clarity of Scripture. It professes that it “fully contains the will of God, and sufficiently teaches all that man must believe in order to be saved,” and that in it “the whole manner of worship which God requires of is written at length.” However, the Bible is not an easy book. Peter also admits that some things are difficult to understand in this (2 Peter 3:16). But that is quite different from matters being obscure or vague. God’s Word is even a lamp to our feet (Psalm 119:105).
   Calvin points out that even the students of Pythagoras and of other philosophers understood their teachers very well from their written records. They love to refer to the authority of “He said it.” Would Christians then be the only ones who could not understand their God from his holy Scriptures?
3. Meanwhile, understanding the Scriptures is subject to one condition: we must read God’s Word in faith. For only the sheep hear and recognize the voice of their Shepherd (John 10:3-5).
4. But do not Reformed people also have their ministers who are to explain the Scriptures? And did the Ethiopian not say that he could not understand what he was reading when no one gave him guidance (Acts 8:31)? The fundamental difference is that in no way is the obscurity of Scripture assumed here. On the contrary, Reformed preaching does not make Scripture clear, but instead it shows how clear it is! It accomplishes this mainly by comparing Scripture with Scripture – just as Philip beautifully illuminated the text of the Old Testament with the events of the New (Acts 8:35).

V. Scripture is authoritative

1. Anyone who reads Article 7 carefully will again experience the relief of a church that has been freed from the rigmarole of an often completely implausible tradition. A yoke is discarded when it is confessed, “We therefore reject with all our heart whatever does not agree with this infallible rule.”
   The Word of God is the only foundation of the church. Not even an angel or an apostle, neither Gabriel nor Paul, can dissuade her from that faith (Galatians 1:8).
2. Some powers that repeatedly appear to threaten the supremacy of Scripture are mentioned:

• any writings of men, however holy these men may have been
• custom (“that is just how we are”);
• a large number (“everyone believes it”);
• old rules (“it has always been like that”);
• the uninterrupted succession in time or the succession of persons (see III, lb);
• councils, decrees or statutes (“the synod or the theologians will know.”).

The church may no longer be impressed by all these powerful arguments. Why not? Because “all mankind are liars” (Psalm 116:11), and “lighter than a breath” (Psalm 62:9).  

Points to discuss

1. Discuss the following reasoning:
   Christ promised, “I am with you always, to the end of the age.” He promises this to the church, and so the church can provide certainty about things that are not clearly stated in the Bible—for instance, about Mary and her ascension into heaven.
2. Suppose a Roman Catholic says to you: “The Bible you are reading also came to you in the way of it having been passed on, so you can never be against tradition.”
   Then what is your answer? (See also Article 5, second paragraph.)
3. Jeremiah 31:33 proclaims that God will write the law on our hearts, so no longer on stone or paper. According to some Roman Catholic interpreters, this would prove that the church is no longer bound by the written Bible. God gives his revelation directly to the heart.
   What are your thoughts about this?
4. What do you think of this statement: “the preaching removes the imperfection of the time-bound Word by making it relevant and timely.”