Article 2: The Necessity of Scripture: Why God Spoke in Writing (WCF 1.1)
The second article in this series focuses on the opening paragraph of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 1.1), which unequivocally affirms the necessity of Holy Scripture. By “necessity,” the Westminster divines meant that God deliberately chose to commit His saving revelation “wholly unto writing” (WCF 1.1) for humankind’s instruction, preservation, and comfort. This conviction stands as a direct challenge both to medieval assertions that tradition and church pronouncements can suffice and to modern claims that personal spiritual experiences or unwritten “prophecies” might replace Scripture’s authority. In this article, we examine (1) why special revelation became necessary given the limitations of natural knowledge and human fallenness, (2) how Scripture alone supplies the stable and authoritative basis for salvific truth, and (3) the particular role of confessional bibliology, as explained by William Whitaker and Garnet Howard Milne, in understanding the finality and purity of the written Word.
1. God’s Self-Revelation and the Limitations of Natural Theology
1.1. Progressive Revelation vs. Innate Knowledge
To assert Scripture’s necessity, the WCF 1.1 first acknowledges that human beings, by nature, possess a certain awareness of God’s existence. Echoing Romans 1:20, the Confession recognizes that God has made aspects of His eternal power and divine nature “clearly perceived” through the things He has made. This “natural revelation”—the cosmos testifying to God’s glory—renders humans “inexcusable” (Rom. 1:20). Yet, as the Confession proceeds to explain, natural revelation is inadequate to procure a saving knowledge of God. It may inform us of a Creator but cannot reveal God’s redemptive plan in Christ or the path of reconciliation. The result is that, without special revelation, we remain mired in uncertainty about how sinners might be saved and how the Triune God is to be rightly known and worshipped.
1.2. The Fall and Human Corruption
WCF 1.1 does not treat human corruption as a minor intellectual defect, but as a radical distortion of man’s entire faculty—mind, will, affections—brought on by the Fall (Genesis 3; Romans 3:10–18). The Confession underscores that, because of sin, humans suppress and distort the truths they might glean from nature. This spiritual blindness accentuates the necessity for clear, objective, and authoritative revelation. By “It pleased the Lord … to commit the same wholly unto writing,” the Confession highlights God’s gracious accommodation. He condescends to speak to those who, left to themselves, would not only be ignorant of salvific truth but actively rebellious against it. No reliance on unwritten traditions or ephemeral personal experiences can remedy that innate depravity. Instead, God must fix the knowledge of redemption in a stable, accessible medium: the written Word.
2. Scripture as the Exclusive Repository of Salvific Truth
2.1. Christocentric Fulfillment and Apostolic Authority
Throughout biblical history, God’s verbal instructions, typological ceremonies, and prophetic oracles culminate in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1–2). The ultimate expression of God’s plan of redemption, manifested supremely in Christ’s incarnation, atoning death, and resurrection, is conveyed authoritatively through the apostolic writings of the New Testament. Hence, WCF 1.1 teaches that this complete, final revelation “is now contained in the Scriptures.” The canonical texts—66 in total, as the Confession lists in 1.2—represent the sole deposit of redeeming truth that the church must proclaim and defend.
This principle did not arise out of abstract theology but from the Reformation impetus of Sola Scriptura. In the face of medieval reliance on unwritten tradition, whether carried forward by magisterial decrees or local custom, the Reformers insisted that the church’s teachings must derive their legitimacy solely from the apostolic and prophetic foundation (Eph. 2:20). Once the apostles laid that foundation, no subsequent additions—be they councils, papal pronouncements, or unrecorded “spiritual revelations”—could modify, enhance, or replace what was already committed to Scripture.
2.2. Preservation and Clarity
A key corollary to the necessity of Scripture is God’s faithful preservation of His Word. If Scripture alone is the fountainhead from which we learn the plan of salvation, it stands to reason that God would not allow that source to be hopelessly corrupted. Indeed, WCF 1.8 maintains that the Old and New Testaments “have been kept pure in all ages,” so that His people never lack an authentic testimony of Christ. In the early church, heretical sects sometimes mutilated Scripture (e.g., Marcion removing large portions of Luke and all of the Old Testament), but orthodoxy persisted by virtue of God’s providential superintendence of the textual transmission.
This viewpoint is exemplified by confessional bibliology, a term capturing the Reformed conviction that the ecclesiastical manuscripts and faithfully rendered translations reflect the underlying, preserved text. Garnet Howard Milne’s studies—particularly in Has the Bible Been Kept Pure?—demonstrate that the Westminster Assembly, following older Reformed theologians like Whitaker, embraced a robust faith that God did not merely inspire the original autographs but also watched over the copying process so that Christians in every age might rely on the essential integrity of Scripture. This confidence undergirds WCF 1.1: if the only sure source of salvific knowledge were left in an uncertain or lost form, the gracious “necessity” ascribed to Scripture’s written form would collapse. But the Confession insists God has not abandoned His people to textual confusion.
3. Inadequacy of Tradition and New Revelations
3.1. Trent and Counter-Reformation Contentions
A direct impetus behind the Confession’s language was the Council of Trent (1545–63), which asserted that unwritten traditions deserved the same reverence as Holy Scripture. In the eyes of the Westminster divines, that position effectively annulled the sufficiency and necessity of Scripture. If the latter requires supplementation from oral traditions or “the living voice of the Church” to supply missing truths, the biblical text by itself cannot be adequate for salvific knowledge. WCF 1.1 denies that possibility: “It pleased the Lord … for the better preserving and propagating of the truth … to commit [His revelation] wholly unto writing.” Such strong language was a confessional protest, a direct contradiction of Rome’s premise that tradition stands as a parallel or coequal stream of revelation.
3.2. Radical Enthusiasts and Subjective Claims
Likewise, the Confession repudiates radical or sectarian groups that claimed to receive ongoing revelations independent of Scripture. William Whitaker’s A Disputation on Holy Scripture catalogs historical examples (e.g., Montanists, certain Anabaptists, Schwenkfeldians) who subordinated or bypassed the biblical text, relying on alleged private prophecies or inner words. The Reformed tradition’s verdict is that such subjective claims undermine Scripture’s sufficiency and therefore conflict with its necessity. If God continuously speaks new binding truths outside the biblical canon, then the Confession’s statement that God has “committed the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory … unto writing” (1.6) becomes moot. WCF 1.1 sets the stage for that explicit statement, showing how the church’s bedrock confessional stance precludes new or extrabiblical revelations.
3.3. The Danger of Fragmentation
From a pastoral perspective, if Scripture alone is not the final authority, then countless interpretive vantage points—traditional, private, or mystical—proliferate, resulting in ecclesial fragmentation. WCF 1.10 will later conclude that the ultimate judge in religious controversies is “the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture,” not an external tradition nor a subjective impulse. WCF 1.1 thus secures the Confession’s entire method: it is Scripture, or more specifically God speaking through Scripture, that forms the common ground for every essential doctrine.
4. William Whitaker’s Defense of Written Scripture
4.1. Polemical Context
In his A Disputation on Holy Scripture, Whitaker amasses testimonies from the early church fathers (e.g., Augustine, Chrysostom) to demonstrate that Scripture was universally treated as the supreme authority in matters of faith. He systematically counters Roman Catholic apologists who argued that certain doctrines and practices lack explicit biblical warrant and thus prove the necessity of tradition. By analyzing patristic sources, Whitaker shows that while the fathers occasionally spoke of “tradition,” their usage typically meant interpretive summaries of apostolic teaching already found in Scripture, not unwritten, binding revelations with independent authority.
4.2. Scriptures, Not the Church, as the Source of Authority
In opposition to the claim that the Church creates or authenticates Scripture, Whitaker emphasizes that the Church is rather the receiver and recognizer of canonical texts. Similarly, WCF 1.4 states that Scripture’s authority “dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church,” but wholly upon God its author. WCF 1.1’s statement that God has “wholly committed [revelation] unto writing” underscores that Scripture belongs to the Church as a divinely bequeathed treasure, not something the Church has authority to define or supplement at will.
4.3. Aligning with Confessional Bibliology
Whitaker’s stance on the necessity of Scripture is inseparable from his conviction that the biblical text was preserved from undue corruption. If Scripture, in the final analysis, is riddled with errors or incomplete, the principle that Scripture alone provides necessary salvific truth collapses. Confessional bibliology, as later summarized by Milne, remains consistent with Whitaker’s argument that the substantial purity of the scriptural text is guaranteed by God’s providence, ensuring that the “Word of the Lord endureth for ever” (1 Peter 1:25). This underlines the practical importance of textual preservation to WCF 1.1.
5. Pastoral and Theological Implications of Scripture’s Necessity
5.1. Scripture Alone as the Source of Redemptive Knowledge
WCF 1.1 confronts a fundamental human dilemma: if we cannot save ourselves by reason alone or decipher God’s redeeming will from nature, we require an unerring articulation of the gospel. The finality of Christ’s work demanded an equally definitive record of that work for the saints of every generation. In the Confession’s vision, Scripture stands as the abiding deposit of the Holy Spirit’s testimony to Christ (John 5:39), ensuring that believers can find the path of salvation without depending on ephemeral revelations or councils.
5.2. Liturgical and Catechetical Centrality
Given Scripture’s indispensable role, Reformed worship historically placed the reading, preaching, and teaching of Scripture at its center, displacing medieval practices that often relied on rites or traditions with minimal scriptural exposition. Catechisms (such as the Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms) reflect the same logic: they systematically present biblical truths derived from the text, not from tradition or papal authority. For ministers, teachers, or elders, the Confession’s emphasis on Scripture’s necessity requires that every doctrine, moral injunction, and liturgical practice be justified from the canon.
5.3. Exegesis and Interpretation
Though WCF 1.1 does not itself dwell on hermeneutics, it paves the way for subsequent sections (especially 1.9–1.10) which lay out the principle that Scripture is its own best interpreter. However, the impetus for that principle is found here: if God has committed the knowledge essential for salvation to the written Word, then Scripture interprets Scripture as the normative method of uncovering God’s intention. Tradition may serve as a historical witness, and reason as a tool for organization, but neither can rival Scripture’s final say.
6. Broader Reformed Tradition and Comparisons
6.1. Other Reformation Confessions
The Westminster Confession’s articulation of Scripture’s necessity echoes prior Reformed confessions. The Belgic Confession (1561), for instance, states that God’s majesty is evident in nature, but we need the Scriptures for “a clearer and more full knowledge of God.” The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) similarly underscores that Scripture is the complete exposition of God’s will for salvation. Within that confessional family, the WCF 1.1 stands out for its explicitly polemical references to “committing the truth wholly unto writing,” arguably shaped by the extended controversies with Laudianism and Roman Catholic apologetics in Stuart England.
6.2. Contrasts with Lutheran Orthodoxy and Anglicans
Whereas Lutheran documents also affirm Scripture’s authority and sufficiency, the Westminster document—reflecting its decidedly Puritan concerns—places unique emphasis on Scripture’s “pure” transmission and the explicit denial of “new revelations of the Spirit.” In the Anglican tradition, official statements (e.g., the Thirty-Nine Articles, Article VI) similarly proclaim Scripture’s sufficiency, but the Westminster Confession is more forthright in linking that sufficiency to the cessation of special revelation outside the biblical canon.
7. Conclusion
WCF 1.1 is unequivocal: Holy Scripture is necessary because natural revelation, though valid, is insufficient for salvation, and because the fallenness of humanity demands a stable, authoritative, written witness to God’s redemptive work in Christ. By anchoring the entire Confession in this principle, the Westminster Assembly set a benchmark for Reformed theology in the English-speaking world. The impetus is both theoretical and pastoral: knowledge of God’s plan of salvation must come from a source unswayed by human frailty or ecclesiastical power struggles. That source is the Bible—God’s special revelation fixed in writing.
The article’s significance is apparent when seen in light of the controversies the Assembly faced. Roman Catholic appeals to unwritten tradition threatened to dilute Scripture with extraneous teachings, while radical enthusiast movements threatened it with purported new revelations. By asserting that “it pleased the Lord … to commit the same wholly unto writing,” the divines carved out a middle way that places the final, Spirit-inspired deposit of truth between these two extremes. Such a stance aligns historically with William Whitaker’s systematic defense of the written Word and is maintained into the present by confessional bibliologists who find in WCF 1.1 a firm bulwark: the true knowledge of God’s redemptive grace comes solely from that which “is now contained in the Scriptures” (WCF 1.1).
For today’s church, as in the seventeenth century, the practical upshot of this teaching is enormous. Every theological claim, every worship practice, and every moral directive stands or falls on the basis of its fidelity to Scripture. Pastors and theologians are compelled to root their ministries in biblical exegesis, not ephemeral tradition or new prophecy, while believers can confidently rest on the assurance that “the Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” As we move forward in our study of the Confession’s first chapter, the principle of Scripture’s necessity will underpin the subsequent analyses of its authority (1.4), sufficiency (1.6), clarity (1.7), and providential preservation (1.8). Without this necessity, every further statement about biblical interpretation or theological orthodoxy would falter. But with it, the Confession asserts that the church is firmly anchored in a revelation that God Himself deemed indispensable for the salvation of sinners.
