We prove this, first, from its clear appellation in Psalm 19:7.
We prove this, first, from its clear appellation in Psalm 19:7.
§ 368. We demonstrate this perfection of Scripture: (I) From its clear appellation and nomenclature. Ps. 19:[7]: “The Law of the Lord is 
, perfect, converting souls; the testimony of the Lord is faithful, giving wisdom to the little ones.” The word “Law,” taken generally, means all of heavenly instruction. Thus Paul applies this psalm to the preaching of the apostles (Rom. 10:18). Therefore, since the Law of the Lord or the Word of God, put into writing, is said to be perfect for converting the souls of men and for giving them wisdom (“wise unto salvation,” 2 Tim. 3:15), it certainly will be able to lack nothing necessary. Furthermore, the books of the Bible throughout the Church are called “the books of the Old and New Testaments” (
, 2 Cor. 3:14). From this we draw the following conclusion: Every testament legally made and witnessed contains the full will of the testator, so that no one may make an addition to it (Gal. 3:15), especially if it was the wisdom of the testator to be able to include all things in the testament and if it was this intent of his to wish to do that. But the books of the Bible contain the sort of testament that has come from a wise Testator, who is most desirous of human salvation. Therefore they explain the will of the Testator fully and perfectly.
Finally, Holy Scripture is called “canonical,” from Ps. 19:[4] and Gal. 6:16, and not even the Papists themselves can deny this, for Bellarmine writes: “The prophetic and apostolic books are the true Word of God and the sure and unwavering rule of faith. A rule of faith, however, has to be perfect; otherwise it is not even a rule” (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 1). Basil, Contra Eunom., bk. 1: “So long as a canon and rule lacks nothing that makes it a canon and rule, it accepts no addition by which it would be made more accurate, for an addition occurs because of a defect.”
They make the exception that: (1) “A distinction must be made between apostolic teaching and apostolic Scripture, between the Word of God in general and the written Word. Apostolic teaching is perfect, the Word of God is perfect; from this, however, one cannot infer directly that apostolic Scripture and the written Word of God are perfect.” We respond. This is begging the question, in that the claim is made that after the New Testament canon was published one must look for some apostolic instruction outside of apostolic Scripture and for the Word of God outside of Scripture. Just as after the publishing of the Old Testament canon one could not and should not look for prophetic instruction outside of the prophetic Scriptures—as is apparent from a comparison of Luke 24:25 and 27 and Rom. 1:2 with 2 Pet. 1:19—so also, after the publishing of the New Testament canon, one cannot and should not look for apostolic instruction outside of the apostolic Scriptures. Thus in Eph. 2:20 we are said to have been “built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles,” that is, on the teaching set forth by the prophets and apostles. Also, the brothers of the rich man are commanded “to hear Moses and the prophets” (Luke 16:29), whom they could not “hear” except in the writings of Moses and the prophets. As the Church relies solely on the written doctrine of the prophets (which the Papists must admit unless they wish to accept the Jewish traditions that they keep trying to peddle instead of Mosaic and prophetic doctrine), so also the Church relies solely on the written instruction of the apostles and is built upon it.
(2) “One must distinguish between due and undue perfection. The former is not denied to Scripture, but the latter. It takes nothing away from man’s perfection (so they say) that he lacks horns, for this is an undue perfection; so also it takes nothing away from the perfection of Scripture even if it does not contain everything that has to do with faith and behavior, because this is undue perfection.” We respond. We deny that this is an undue perfection of Scripture, because God Himself had this intent for Himself in giving the Scriptures: that He might present perfectly in them the things one must know for salvation; also because He bears witness in the Scriptures about such a perfection of them; and because we can show in particular that all things that pertain to both faith and behavior are presented in the Scriptures.
(3) “One must distinguish between general and specific instruction. Scripture is perfect not because it teaches all the articles of faith specifically but because it teaches them in general, and from these one must look for the rest.” We respond. It would have been sufficient if only these words were written: “Tell the Church” [Matt. 18:17]. From these words they are busy proving that one must listen to the Roman Church in and about all matters, whether they were written or not. But if this had been the end [finis] of published Scripture, why are the articles of faith and commandments of behavior specifically explained in it, since we could have been sent back to the Church with one brief line?
(4) “One must distinguish between a total and partial rule. Holy Scripture is indeed the rule of faith; it is not a total rule, however, but partial.” We respond. A partial rule cannot bear the praise of even being a rule, as is evident from what has been said, as we shall show in greater detail in its own place. Therefore one must either fully deny that Scripture is the rule of faith or else admit that it is a total, full, and complete rule.