The clarity of Scripture and church gatherings 

by

In the wake of the technological developments that churches went through during the COVID lockdowns, I explored different live and recorded videos of gatherings that occurred locally and globally.1 What it provided me was an insight into the flavour of church services across denominations and regions. Something I was struck by was the disproportionate number of Protestant gatherings that would say, or have on their church website, something to the effect of how much they valued God’s word, yet would then have no more than one section of Scripture read in the service, usually a Bible reading preceding the sermon. And for some services, the Bible would not be read before the sermon, but the passage preached on would be projected on sermon slides based on whichever verse was the focus at that point.

Admittedly, there is no quota given in Scripture that mandates how much or how often Scripture should be read. I keenly stress that many of these Protestant services included songs which were rich in Scriptural truths,2 and sermons that were faithful to the biblical texts. That being said, the Apostle Paul did direct Timothy to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture as distinct from preaching and teaching (1 Tim 4:13). The preface to The Book of Common Prayer (1662), titled “Concerning the Service of the Church”, notes the neglected practice of ordering that:

All the whole Bible (or the greatest part thereof) should be read over once every year; intending thereby, that the Clergy, and especially such as were Ministers in the congregation, should (by often reading, and meditation in God’s word) be stirred up to godliness themselves, and be more able to exhort others by wholesome doctrine, and to confute them that were adversaries to the truth; and further, that the people (by daily hearing of holy Scripture read in the Church) might continually profit more and more in the knowledge of God, and be the more inflamed with the love of his true Religion.

Though it has not always been practised, the public reading of Scripture, especially in Christian gatherings, has been recognised and championed as beneficial and edifying. The BCP itself sought to do this by appointing public readings, titled Lessons, as part of the Daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer. In addition, sentences, or other sections of Scripture, would be read or sung throughout. Of note in this Anglican liturgical tradition is that a sermon, or homily, was unnecessary to conduct the service; it could be included or it could be omitted. What was prime was the reading of Scripture and the importance of saturating a service with the reading of God’s word in the tongue that the listeners understand so that the congregation may thereby be edified. As Michael Jensen comments, “[Thomas] Cranmer’s endeavor was to present Scripture to the people entire, with as little selectivity and editing as possible, so that they would be able to hear the Bible as a whole and would be able to see how interconnected the Bible is.”3

Many of our churches sincerely place a high value on the role and authority of Scripture. However, we do not always experience or shape gatherings that position the reading of the Bible front and centre. Note that what I am addressing is not faithfulness to biblical truth, or the centrality of the gospel, but a particular posture or flavour of our services that sees the Bible presented to listeners free from qualification, explanation, or application.

While I do not think that it completely explains why public Bible readings have diminished in church services, I think that a re-examination of the Protestant doctrine of the clarity (or perspicuity) of Scripture can help us. The clarity of Scripture provides rich theological foundations upon which we can examine our posture and practices when it comes to the role of the Bible in our gatherings. More broadly, though we will not be able to examine these dimensions in full, the clarity of Scripture is crucial for connecting other aspects of our doctrine of Scripture, and it provides the basis, means, and limits upon which doctrinal disagreement can occur faithfully between Christians.4

Biblical foundations

The Scriptures testify to God’s purpose to light his creatures with his truth (Deut 6:4–9; 31:9–13; Ps 119:105, 130; Rom 15:4; 2 Tim 3:16–17; 2 Pet 1:19–20). The New Testament writings contain passages that assume the intelligibility of the Old Testament writings, especially for Christians who have embraced the revelation and gift of life in Jesus (Matt 24:15; Acts 17:10–12; Rom 4:22–25; 10:5–8; 1 Cor 10:1–11; 1 Tim 4:13). There is also the recognition that the New Covenant believer has special access to unveiled revelation that has shone through and is apprehensible, particularly regarding the gospel of Jesus (Rom 16:25–26; 1 Cor 2:7; 2 Cor 3:7–18; 4:3–6; Eph 3:4–6). This is true because of the work of the Holy Spirit, as seen in passages like 1 Corinthians 2:6–3:3, where God’s intention to reveal his divine wisdom of the gospel of Jesus “ensures the intelligibility of that revelation” is a reality.5 However, some passages recognise the Scriptures can be distorted or difficult to interpret (Deut 4:2; 2 Cor 4:2; 2 Pet 3:15–16; Rev 22:18–19). Even so, we see in the ministry of Jesus that he regularly referenced Scripture (e.g. Matt 12:1–5; Mark 12:10; Luke 4:4–10; John 10:45), showing that he believed that his listeners could have—in fact, should have—discerned truths from the gift of God’s inscripturated revelation. After all, if “the meaning of Scripture were not clear, how could those who opposed [Jesus] be expected to believe it or obey it?”6

Accounts of Scripture’s clarity

What was meant by the Protestant doctrine of the clarity of Scripture? On one level, it is somewhat misleading to call it the Protestant doctrine. While the term itself acquired its historical-theological use and significance in the Reformation, the way pre-Reformation authors refer to Scripture shows a conception of Scriptural clarity. For example, John Chrysostom (347–407) rebukes his congregation for their inattentiveness to God’s word in his Homily XIX on the book of Acts, calling on them to realise that “the more one dwells on [the Scriptures], the more insight does he get, the more does he behold the pure light.”7 Chrysostom points to how the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 “did not see Christ, he saw no miracle,” yet came to accept mercy in Christ because he, “riding in his chariot, applied himself to the reading of the Scriptures.”8 Chrysostom does not say that a preacher has no part to play, but, as Cranmer indicates while referencing this sermon of Chrysostom’s in the English Reformation’s Book of Homilies, “God sent his Apostle Philip to declare unto [the Eunuch] the true sense of the Scriptre that he read, or else, if we lack a learned man to instruct and teach us, yet God himself from above, will give light unto our minds and teach us those things which are necessary for us, and wherein we be ignorant.”9

Martin Luther’s (1483–1546) seminal explication of the clarity of Scripture in The Bondage of the Will distinguishes between the “passages in the Scriptures [that] are obscure and hard to elucidate,” and the “contents of Scripture” that we may know all of.10 For Luther, the entire content of Scripture is found in the truths that “Christ, God’s Son, became man, that is God is Three in One, that Christ suffered for us, and will reign for ever.”11 These truths make up what is abundantly clear, what Luther refers to as external clarity, that “nothing whatsoever is left obscure or ambiguous, but all that is in the Scripture is through the Word brought forth into the clearest light and proclaimed to the whole world.”12

The sixteenth-century English theologian William Whitaker offered what Carl Trueman calls “one of the most thorough defenses of a Protestant approach to scripture ever penned.”13 First published in 1588, Whitaker’s work A Disputation on Holy Scripture represents a second-generation Protestant response to the “superlative apologist for Roman Catholicism in the sixteenth century,” Roberto Bellarmine, as well as other Roman Catholic objections to Reformation theology, in a post-Tridentine landscape. Bellarmine himself reckoned that Whitaker’s response to him was “the most significant answer” he encountered.14 In fact, Bellarmine “so much admired [Whitaker’s] genius and attainments that he had his portrait suspended in his study.”15 Whitaker’s work is an appropriate place to examine in more depth how the clarity of Scripture was conceived as Protestantism became more established. As I will argue, Whitaker’s account of Scriptural clarity also gives us fruitful theological depth to the doctrine in ways that build on those who came before him, notably Luther, and which add dimensions to it that are not always noticed.

Whitaker’s doctrine of scriptural clarity

Whitaker summarises a central objection to a Protestant approach to Scripture by his Roman Catholic opponents: “Scripture is not the voice of God, but the Word of God.”16 Whitaker’s opponents claim that since God has not spoken by himself as a record to us, but through the inspiration of mediators who wrote the Scriptures, why should we doubt Scripture requires the mediation of the Church to be accurately heard as the voice of God? Whitaker cites several arguments from Bellarmine to this effect, arguing for the necessity of ecclesiastical mediation in handling Scripture. For example, Bellarmine observes how David in Psalm 119 asks God to grant understanding in reading his Law, and how the disciples in Luke 24 required Jesus to interpret the Scriptures for them.17 Whitaker reports Bellarmine’s further objections that the church fathers and Protestants themselves admit to obscurities in Scripture passages, and aspects that are not explicitly clear, or that attract dispute.18 Bellarmine argues that Scripture alone cannot be said to be clear in any meaningful sense.

There are numerous passages that Whitaker points to and builds on, such as Deuteronomy 30:11, Psalm 19, 119, Proverbs 6:22, Matthew 5:14, and 2 Corinthians 4:3. Two particular passages he points to, 2 Peter 1:19 and Psalm 119:105, call the word of God reliable, a lamp to our feet, and a light to our paths.19 Moreover, in Whitaker’s account, we can discern major dimensions of the doctrine of Scriptural clarity which intersect with other doctrines and practices. Though he does not order or name his points in this manner, I discern that, for Whitaker, the affirmation that Scripture is clear has four meaningful and interrelated dimensions that build on one another:

  1. Searching the Scriptures is valuable
  2. Christ is clearly known through the Scriptures
  3. God purposes for us to know him through the Scriptures 
  4. The Scriptures are the fitting instrument for the Holy Spirit’s illumination.

Searching the Scriptures is valuable

Taking Jesus’ words in John 5:39a as an imperative (ἐραυνᾶτε),20 Whitaker sees a foundational command to search the Scriptures. Even if one disagrees with Whitaker’s rendering of John 5:39a as a command, the broader point to immerse oneself and study the Scriptures is one that can biblically be drawn elsewhere (e.g. Ps 1:1–2; Neh 8:1–3; Acts 17:11; Rom 12:1–2; Col 3:16; 1 Tim 4:12–16). Consequently, Whitaker conceives of the clarity of Scripture as the claim that “it is no useless task for the people to be engaged and occupied in their perusal” of the Scriptures.21 Put another way, “the Scriptures are not so difficult but … may be read with advantage, and ought to be read, by the people.”22 Searching the Scriptures is what should be valued and what the normative practice of God’s people should be.

Whitaker retorts against the objections to Scripture’s clarity that point out obscurities in Scripture, observing that Protestants and the church fathers have never denied this. For Whitaker, affirming the clarity of Scripture does not deny the need for faithful interpretation or that every passage’s meaning is obviously apparent.23 The command to searchimplies that effort and a correct posture are required because Scripture’s true meaning will not be available for those who do not come as God would intend. For example, Whitaker reasons that “God would have us to be constant in prayer, and has scattered many obscurities up and down through the Scriptures, in order that we should seek his help in interpreting them and discovering their true meaning.”24 This may seem counterintuitive to the claim that Scripture is clear. However, it is emblematic of how Whitaker does not see Scripture’s clarity as a claim that every verse is equally intelligible and with an obvious meaning apparent to all, but a claim about how God is communicating with his people through these writings. God wills that his people would search the Scriptures and hear his voice, whereas Whitaker’s opponents “do not permit the people to read the Scriptures” because they require an authoritative human mediator.25 This point can be found throughout the 16th century Protestant accounts of Scriptural clarity, such as in Cranmer’s Homily I (‘A Fruitful Exhortation to the Reading and Knowledge of Holy Scripture’).

Christ is clearly known through the Scriptures

The chief message that God would have us hear is the knowledge of Christ, so Whitaker has gospel concerns in affirming the clarity of Scripture. The clarity of Scripture declares that “we openly and easily know Christ from the Scriptures, [thus we may] certainly understand from the Scriptures all things necessary to salvation.”26 He remarks that this is how the church fathers interpreted the place of this doctrine, and that passages like 2 Corinthians 4:3 locate the apprehension of Scripture’s clarity for those who are not perishing due to unbelief.27 The Scriptures “are necessary to us for the obtaining of faith and eternal life, since it was for that purpose they were written.”28

This dimension of Scriptural clarity affirms that the gospel, the knowledge of Christ, is the scope of Scripture. There are questions we may have, and realities set forth, which are knowable in the Scriptures inasmuch as they uphold and lead us to know, embrace, and obey Christ. This is what the Scriptures were written for, and so this is abundantly clear when it comes to passages and their testimony to Christ. Whitaker does not deny that we will still need to search and study the Scriptures to discern truths, nor that it is worth investigating questions and realities whose incomprehensibility does not impede our embrace of Christ. Nevertheless, since the scope of Scripture is the gospel, even though not every aspect of Scripture pertaining to what we may wish to investigate will be readily apparent or obvious, Scripture itself is clearbecause Christ is manifestly knowable. If this is what the Scriptures were written for, then the voice of God regarding the gospel must be audible, lest God fail to achieve that which he sought to purpose through this gift of his word.

God purposes for us to know him through the Scriptures

What undergirds this is Whitaker’s theological concern about the clarity of Scripture, namely, that God did not publish his Scriptures for no one to understand.29 The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture affirms that “God willed that the sacred mysteries of his word should be opened freely to pure and holy minds.”30 If God had not spoken clearly, what hope would there be for anyone to discern anything from these texts? However, God’s word always accomplishes his purpose (cf. Isa 55:10–11): blessing or cursing. That being said, the God who has revealed himself in the gift of his Son and in the power of his Spirit shines light and beckons readers and interpreters to be blessed by his word (cf. Isa 55:6–7).

The Scriptures are the fitting instrument for the Holy Spirit’s illumination

How this light shines depends entirely on the illumination of the Holy Spirit working in a person. Whitaker consistently points to the Holy Spirit’s work in believers, citing passages like 1 Corinthians 2:15  as crucial for the efficacy of the Scriptures’ reception. The Holy Spirit works by “speaking inwardly in our hearts,”31 “exciting our whole mind to yield to assent,”32 persuading “us internally that these are the words of God,”33 and “illustrates and explains himself” through the Scriptures which he speaks.34 The illumination of the Spirit to communicate the voice of God is intrinsically linked with the word of God. Thus, the clarity of Scripture points to Scripture’s fittingness for the Holy Spirit to illuminate anyone to hear the voice of God through the word of God.35 This fittingness is tied to the previous dimension, which identifies God’s desire to communicate through the gift of his word, for “God is alone a fit witness of himself.”36 The clarity of Scripture works hand-in-hand with the doctrine of the illumination of the Spirit.

This dimension is the foundation upon which the rule of Scripture (or analogy of Scripture, the analogia scriptura) is devised, whereby one “squares and conforms his interpretations to [Scripture … and] does not judge of the sense of Scripture with an absolute authority, but submits his judgment to the Scriptures.”37 From this flows the practice of letting plainer passages help interpret more obscure passages.38 The rule of Scripture presumes the clarity of Scripture, for if the Scriptures were not searchable and if we did not have the Spirit’s help, then this sort of judgement could not be meaningfully made.

Directly related is the rule of faith (or analogy of faith, the analogia fidei), which is how fundamental articles of the Christian faith form a hermeneutical grid upon which our reading of Scripture can be compared and guarded. The rule of faith is an extension of the rule of Scripture, which is that Scripture can interpret Scripture because God alone is the fit witness of himself, as Whitaker explains when he says that the former is “nothing else but the constant sense of the general tenor of Scripture in those clear passages of Scripture where the meaning labors under no obscurity.”39

What stands over it all: Authority

Whitaker’s conception of the clarity of Scripture stands in direct contrast to the Roman Catholic understanding of the church’s mediatorial authority. His doctrine of clarity is polemical, developed as many doctrines have been in the face of competing issues. Whitaker construes that Rome’s denial of the clarity of Scripture is linked with their positions on the Spirit’s illumination, namely, that ecclesiastical authorities are crucial for the Spirit to do his work reliably. The critique does not devastate the possibility of the church authoritatively communicating the truth. After all, “the public judgment of the church may agree with the secret testimony of the Holy Spirit; but we say that then it is received for the sake of the testimony of the Spirit, not for the sake of the church … [which] merely serves as a ministering agent.”40

In the face of debate over the realm of authority, with the discussion in the post-Tridentine Roman Catholic Church locating the authority of God in the Roman Church’s interpretation, the clarity of Scripture played an integral role in affirming the authority of God in the Scriptures as central. For “the authority of the Scripture depends upon, and is made clear by, the internal witness of the Holy Spirit,” and if the Scripture really is “the Word of God which we hear, it must needs have a divine authority of itself, and should be believed by itself and for itself.”41 In other words, “the authority of Scripture, in respect of us, does not depend upon the judgment and authority of the church.”42 Instead, it is realised by God’s activity through the instrument of his clear word. God has revealed himself through this word. Thus, it has “such an impression of his authority upon it, as undeniable to evince that it is from him.”43 As Article XX sets forward, the Church has power to decree rites and authority in controversies, but it is “not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” This is another way of articulating the rule of faith. More than some additional logical property of Scripture, what is recognised is the very nature of Scripture itself: God’s word, possessing God’s authority.

Clarity on clarity

The four senses of Whitaker’s doctrine of the clarity of Scripture crystallise core features of the early Reformational understanding of it, and thus broadly agreed upon by Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Luther, and Calvin.44 Synthesising Whitaker’s dimensions together reveals that:

  • The clarity of Scripture is its fittingness to fulfil God’s promise that by the power of the Holy Spirit we can hear the voice of the one who spoke these words to know his Son and behold his glory, and that
  • Affirming the clarity of Scripture looks like God’s people heeding, and not interfering with, God’s summons for all to search the Scriptures in faith, that they would be enlightened by the Holy Spirit to receive and submit their lives to the Lord Jesus.

This understanding has implications for the way in which we should pay attention to Scripture. Attentiveness to the contours and composition of the text is critical, but the emphasis in our reception of it should be on the grace of God, who has granted these words. As Mark Thompson summarises, “the clarity of Scripture is in essence a divine gift rather than a human achievement … God himself who ensures he will be known by those who are his.”45 Affirming the clarity of Scripture is not a denial that there is an “infinite abyss of divine wisdom in the truths conveyed by [Scripture’s] words,” nor that “there are some mysteries in scripture which will always exceed the capacities of the created mind.”46 There are numerous things that, while true about God, will be unknowable with certainty now as they fall outside the scope of Scripture, which is the knowledge of Christ. Instead, it stems from the majestic assurance that God will not fail to accomplish what he intends: “the transformation of the understanding and praxis of those who read, hear, and [meditate] upon it in accordance with God’s unified overarching redemptive purposes.”47

Scripture’s clarity does not devastate the place and importance of pastors and teachers of God’s word; instead, it honours it. For God gifts his church, a creature of the word, with leaders to guide, shepherd, teach, train, and proclaim the word (Titus 1:5–9; Eph 4:11–16; 1 Tim 4:11–16; 2 Tim 2:2). Inasmuch as leaders direct us back to searching the Scriptures, to know Christ and behold God’s glory, they are instruments of God that build up the body into which they have been united and saved. Scripture’s clarity ensures that this task is no waste of time, for if we were not promised that we could hear God’s voice through his word, then what is the point of searching them out? Concurrently, it ensures that we see leaders as themselves needing to heed, and sit under the authority of, the word, not thinking that they have a greater form of illumination from any other brother or sister in Christ. For if even a child with one verse of Scripture speaks the truth, their authority supersedes any theologian who is in error due to sin, finitude, or mistaken doctrines of Scripture. The clarity of Scripture levels the field, so to speak, while also honouring the place of teachers of God’s word.

Some basic implications

In my second year of theological college, my chaplaincy group went on mission to partner with an Anglican church outside of Sydney. The minister had sought to prioritise spoken liturgical elements in his services, drawn from the BCP, and included the public reading of Scripture. Something he had noticed was that his congregation was steadily growing with more people who read little, and with those who did not have a tertiary education, because they found the familiarity of the elements and the hearing of Scripture to be more accessible than what had been done previously. I personally love reading, and can reflect as I am reading, but I also recognise that not everyone does. And what I found in that college mission was that defaulting to presuming that people prefer reading themselves, or that they are readily literate in the Scriptures through their own study, assumes a particular kind of demographic for our members that can exclude those, especially, who are not as literate.

Amidst discussions about what constitutes true reverence and profundity in our services, the clarity of Scripture reminds us that encountering the Scriptures for ourselves is a profoundly spiritual act if we would approach as God as God would have us do. In humble, faith-filled trust, and with a zeal to search the Scriptures to know our Lord, we can know God has promised that we can behold his glory, for he has communicated it. In our gatherings, we have the opportunity to sit and read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest God’s word in the full confidence that his word is authoritative and will accomplish his good purposes to bless and curse. The Scriptures are a gracious gift from our heavenly Father, and it is his word that offers life, truth, and freedom. Public Bible reading in the common tongues of our people sets forward the Scriptures and invites others to search them out and know Christ.

Service leaders, especially, have a tremendous opportunity to soak our services in Scriptures that teach, rebuke, correct, train, and encourage (2 Tim 3:16–17; Rom 15:4), in the full assurance that the word of God can be heard as the voice of God because of the illumination of the Holy Spirit. And doing so can help educate our members about the whole counsel of God, as we read different genres, across the two testaments, and invite them to prayerfully and faithfully consider for themselves what God has spoken. The word of God is for everyone, young and old, and not just for the literate, learned, scholarly, or those who prefer solitude. The clarity of Scripture stands as a precious gift, and a helpful doctrine, that can fuel our efforts to remember this and lead in light of it.

This article was originally published in the ACR’s Easter 2026 Journal.

  1. Videos of gatherings will never be a suitable replacement for the primacy of meeting in-person, side-by-side, even though it has been a tremendous help for those who are otherwise unable to meet, for example, due to illness. ↩︎
  2. In another time and place, it would be useful to examine how important it is to see the ministry of music and singing as ministry that should move people deeper into the Word, alongside preaching and teaching (Col 3:16). ↩︎
  3.  Michael P. Jensen, Reformation Anglican Worship: Experiencing Grace, Expressing Gratitude, The Reformation Anglicanism Essential Library 4, ed. Ashley Null and John W. Yates III (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 89. ↩︎
  4. This was the focus of my Moore Theological College 4th Year Project. ↩︎
  5. Gregg R. Allison, The Protestant Doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture: A Reformulation on the Basis of Biblical Teaching (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1995), 345. ↩︎
  6. Mark D. Thompson, The Doctrine of Scripture: An Introduction (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022), 45. ↩︎
  7. John Chrysostom, “Homily XIX. Acts VIII. 26, 27,” in The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom on the Acts of the Apostles, ed. Charles Marriott, trans. J. Walker and J. Sheppard (Oxford: J. Parker, 1851), 281. ↩︎
  8. John Chrysostom, “Homily XIX,” 278–79. ↩︎
  9. Thomas Cranmer, “A Fruitful Exhortation to the Reading and Knowledge of Holy Scripture,” in Certain Sermons or Homilies Appointed to Be Read in Churches, Reprint. (London: Samuel Mearne, 1676), 5. ↩︎
  10. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1957), 71. ↩︎
  11. Luther, The Bondage of the Will, 71. ↩︎
  12. Luther, The Bondage of the Will, 74. ↩︎
  13. Carl R. Trueman, “Foreword,” in A Disputation on Holy Scripture, by William Whitaker, ed. Josiah Leinbach, trans. William Fitzgerald (Sound Bend, IN: Prolego, 2025), viii. ↩︎
  14. Mark D. Thompson, A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: Apollos, 2006), 152. ↩︎
  15. James Bass Mullinger, “Whitaker, William (1548-1595),” in Dictionary of National Biography, ed. Sidney Lee, LXI Whichcord-Williams (London: Elder Smith, 1900), 22. ↩︎
  16. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, ed. Josiah Leinbach, trans. William Fitzgerald (Sound Bend, IN: Prolego, 2025), 354. ↩︎
  17. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 458–59. ↩︎
  18. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 461–73. ↩︎
  19. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 478, 481–82. ↩︎
  20. In the original language, the Greek word ἐραυνᾶτε could be interpreted as an indicative “you study [the Scriptures]” or as an imperative “study [the Scriptures]”. Most modern English translations interpret it as an indicative, but not all have historically e.g. the King James Version translation. ↩︎
  21. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 445. ↩︎
  22. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 446. ↩︎
  23. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 459. ↩︎
  24. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 453. ↩︎
  25. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 499. ↩︎
  26. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 483. ↩︎
  27. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 482–84. ↩︎
  28.  Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 665. ↩︎
  29. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 882. ↩︎
  30. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 454. ↩︎
  31. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 384. ↩︎
  32. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 385. ↩︎
  33. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 392. ↩︎
  34. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 562, 575. ↩︎
  35. Cf. John Webster, “Illumination,” in The Domain of the Word: Scripture and Theological Reason (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 60. ↩︎
  36. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 422. ↩︎
  37. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 559. ↩︎
  38. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 588. ↩︎
  39. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 590. ↩︎
  40. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 424–25. ↩︎
  41. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 347. ↩︎
  42. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 407. ↩︎
  43. John Owen, “Of the Divine Original, Authority, Self-Evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures,” in The Church, the Scriptures, and the Sacraments, ed. Andrew M. Leslie (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024), 102. ↩︎
  44. Richard M. Edwards, Scriptural Perspicuity in the Early English Reformation in Historical Theology (New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2009), 249–50. ↩︎
  45. Thompson, A Clear and Present Word, 165. ↩︎
  46. Andrew M. Leslie, The Light of Grace: John Owen on the Authority of Scripture and Christian Faith (Göttingen: V&R, 2015), 222. ↩︎
  47. Joseph K. Gordon, Divine Scripture in Human Understanding: A Systematic Theology of the Christian Bible (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2019), 265. ↩︎