Are you 100% confessional ?

[Clark-Tillian]

Then we'll simply have to disagree on this one, brother. I think, in essence, they are dealing with the same issue. Obviously, the words of Jezebel et al are not our rule of life. I don't see where anyone in their right mind would make that assertion; I certainly wasn't. However, WCF 2 seems to equate the two phrases 'Holy Scripture" and 'Word of God" as co-referential. Also, WCF 2 gives us the standard Protestant canon and asserts that "All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.", echoing 2 Tim. 3.16. Even the "words of wicked men and devils" be they blasphemous, vile etc. were recorded by men under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And even those horrific--even terrifying words--are profitable for doctrine (eg what not to believe etc.), reproof (eg pointing out to a brother that a particular conversation was eerily similar to the wicked), correction (eg what to avoid in our lives) and instruction in righteousness (eg showing your son how the evil one seeks to twist God's word in an attempt to fool us such as in Matt.4:6).

 

[MW]

Then we'll simply have to disagree on this one, brother. I think, in essence, they are dealing with the same issue. Obviously, the words of Jezebel et al are not our rule of life. I don't see where anyone in their right mind would make that assertion; I certainly wasn't. However, WCF 2 seems to equate the two phrases 'Holy Scripture" and 'Word of God" as co-referential. Also, WCF 2 gives us the standard Protestant canon and asserts that "All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.", echoing 2 Tim. 3.16. Even the "words of wicked men and devils" be they blasphemous, vile etc. were recorded by men under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And even those horrific--even terrifying words--are profitable for doctrine (eg what not to believe etc.), reproof (eg pointing out to a brother that a particular conversation was eerily similar to the wicked), correction (eg what to avoid in our lives) and instruction in righteousness (eg showing your son how the evil one seeks to twist God's word in an attempt to fool us such as in Matt.4:6).

I think you are confusing revelation and inscripturation, a distinction clearly made in WCF 1.1, and one which was essential to the divines' understanding of Scripture. You have to interpret Scripture in order to ascertain in what ways the words are to be taken as a rule. Hence it is not the letter of Scripture itself, but Scripture rightly interpreted, which is the rule of faith and life -- a fact which is to be found in the writings of the divines themselves. E.g., William Gouge (The Whole Armour of God): "This word is properly and truly the right sense and meaning of the Scripture; for except that be found out, in many words there may seem to be matter of falsehood (as that the Son knoweth not the day of judgment), of heresy (as that the Father is greater than the Son), and contradiction, as betwixt that which Christ said (my Father is greater than I), and that which the apostle said (that Christ Jesus thought it no robbery to be equal with God). The letter of Scripture may be alleged, and yet the word of God missed, as by all heretics. And a man may swerve from the letter, and yet allege the true word of God, as the Evangelists and Apostles did many times. Compare Mic. 5:2 with Mat. 2:6, Ps. 40:6 with Heb. 10:5."

But I leave you to dissent from a misunderstanding of the Catechism. Where the misunderstanding swerves left of the meaning, your dissent turns right again. It is just a shame the Catechism has to be exposed to prejudice in the process.