Owning Scripture was not only pricey but possession could lead to imprisonment or execution. Fourteenth-century forerunners of the Reformation such as John Wycliffe of England and one of his followers in Bohemia, Jan Hus, were persecuted for providing Bibles in the common language of their people. In the case of Hus, translation work contributed to the heresy case against him resulting in his execution at the stake. In the next century, William Tyndale was hunted down wherever he set up his printing press as he moved from place to place to clandestinely provide Scripture in English. He was eventually caught, strangled, and burned at the stake for publishing the Word in the vernacular.

The Latin sola Scriptura means “Scripture alone,” which is the cornerstone sola because understanding the meaning of “Christ alone,” “Grace alone,” “faith alone,” and “to God’s glory alone” requires harvesting information from Scripture alone. Some of the key personalities of church history such as Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox were all influenced first and foremost by Scripture as it revealed justification by faith. For Augustine, it was Romans that confronted him with his promiscuous and sinful life; for Luther, the understanding of the meaning of faith was brought to light using Galatians and Romans; for Calvin, the Psalms were essential because they provide “an anatomy of all the parts of the soul;” and for Knox it is believed his key passage was the Lord’s High Priestly Prayer in John 17. As these reformers read the Word, the Holy Spirit illumined their understanding of its message of grace and justification so they could embrace the gospel and grow in sanctification. Sola Scriptura requires acceptance of the Bible as God’s revealed will through, as the Westminster Confession 1:6 would say in a century, “the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word.”
In the nineteen seventies All in the Family was a popular television situation comedy. Inevitably at some point during each episode politically conservative Archie would become involved in an argument with his politically liberal son-in-law, Michael. In one program the two were wrangling over a theological issue when nebulously Christian Archie looked to the top of the television for the Bible, but it was not there. He asked his infinitely patient but shrill voiced wife Edith where she put the Bible. She informed him that it had been moved to the top of the refrigerator. Location of the Bible on top of these important home devices may have been intended to show that the Word held some relative importance, but it instead shows that even though nearly every household in the United States had at least one Bible at the time, they were items of decoration more than books to be read.
The common availability of Bibles currently would have been appreciated at the time of the Reformation because Bibles and books in general were scarce. The movable type printing press had been available for less than a century, so publishing was expensive and purchasing a New Testament or whole Bible was a pricey undertaking. Some historians estimate that a tradesman in England in the sixteenth century might have to spend a month’s wages for a New Testament.
Owning Scripture was not only pricey but possession could lead to imprisonment or execution. Fourteenth-century forerunners of the Reformation such as John Wycliffe of England and one of his followers in Bohemia, Jan Hus, were persecuted for providing Bibles in the common language of their people. In the case of Hus, translation work contributed to the heresy case against him resulting in his execution at the stake. In the next century, William Tyndale was hunted down wherever he set up his printing press as he moved from place to place to clandestinely provide Scripture in English. He was eventually caught, strangled, and burned at the stake for publishing the Word in the vernacular. Lives were sacrificed for the translation and distribution of Scripture. If Wycliffe, Hus, and Tyndale could return to visit their homelands today they would likely be encouraged by the availability of the Word, especially with digital Bibles accessible on a variety of devices, but they would also be discouraged by the common indifference to and ignorance of Scripture.
This Reformation Day would be a good time to establish a plan for reading Scripture. The Bible can be read in a year and there are reading schedules available for such a method, but maybe it would be better to read it through in two to allow for better understanding. The book of Proverbs lends itself to daily reading with its thirty-one chapters working out to one a day for a thirty-one-day month; some individuals read Proverbs every month in addition to their other daily Bible passages. However, familiarity with Proverbs may lead to friends avoiding you because every time something proverbial happens you say a verse or two of Solomonic wisdom addressing the situation. Generally, it is better to read the books consecutively and many of the books in the Bible are not only consecutive but chronological, however Acts may make more sense when it is preceded by the reading of Luke. Luke and Acts are a set that tell the history of Jesus and the post-ascension Apostolic ministries.
Avoid what R.C. Sproul described in his book, Knowing Scripture, as “lucky dipping,” which involves closing your eyes, flipping the Bible open randomly, planting your finger on a page, and then opening your eyes to read the verse touched. Scripture is not a pious Ouija Board for guidance mysteriously directed by the Holy Spirit. Some would say that lucky dipping provides God’s special message for the day, or a revelation of the Divine will for a particular problem, but most likely many dips would be required to get a message that made any sense and its interpretation would be subjective and forced. Systematic Bible reading provides the opportunity for the Spirit to speak through the passages read daily while prayer for guidance can address the particular concerns you have at the moment.
Commentaries and study guides have their place and can be very helpful for understanding Scripture, after all, the Ethiopian eunuch needed Philip as his commentator-preacher to explain Christ from Isaiah 53:7, but unless you are well disciplined with a good chunk of time for your study, simply read God’s Word. As you become more familiar with the Bible, you can study it better after accumulating data from your reading.
One of the reasons Catholicism has kept the Bible in Latin for centuries is because its leadership believes Scripture is too difficult for the average person to understand and interpretation is required. Reading Scripture can be intimidating especially as one ventures through genealogies, Levitical law, and the challenges of prophetic imagery, but remember the Word is God’s revelation, not his concealment. The vast majority of Scripture is plainly understandable; the theological term is the perspicuity of Scripture—Scripture is clear, lucid.
If you are just beginning your Bible reading program and do not know where to start, then begin with the Gospels. For brevity start with Mark; for beauty and detail read Luke; for the particularly Jewish aspects such as fulfillment of prophecy read Matthew; and for detailed information about the passion of Christ read John. However, any of the gospels is straight forward in its message, after all they are the good news and clear language facilitates conveying the Gospel message.
Read to see the forest, not the trees. Do not get bogged down with, “Why did he say that?” or “How much value in dollars is a drachma?” or “Why are Paul’s sentences so long?” Read the passage through and write your questions in the margins of your Bible—some Bibles have enlarged margins and digital ones have note recording features—when your read the passage months or years down the road your accumulated data from the intervening time of Bible reading could provide the answer to your earlier inquiry. When you can answer your own questions after further reading, it shows that you are learning the Word. Remember too that repetition is the mother of memory, so the continued practice of reading the Bible through contributes to better understanding.
The Bible should not be taken for granted, nor should it be left on the television for the appearance of piety, nor on top of the refrigerator for storage. Over the years many have suffered and died to provide the Scripture to successive generations. The Bible is God’s revealed written will and it is necessary for knowledge of Him and understanding His expectations for His people. The Bible not only teaches all that is needed for knowing, glorifying, and enjoying God, but it also testifies to itself—“Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105); “Sanctify them in the truth; your Word is truth” (John 17:17); “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8); and “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God’” (Matthew 4:4).
Dr. Barry Waugh attends Fellowhip PCA in Greer, SC.
Related Posts:

I’ve learned that one part of true faith-filled “waiting” is quietness. “In quietness and trust shall be your strength” (Isaiah 30:15). Quietness is the opposite of striving and panic. It speaks of peaceful rest, a calm while at the storm’s center. As the psalmist put it, when mountains tremble, waters roar, nations rage and kingdoms totter, the trusting weary remain “still,” knowing that God is God (Psalm 46:1–11). 

Dear Journal,
I’ve mentioned before that life is a waiting room. I’ve lost count how many big needs my wife Gayline and I have been praying for—and waiting for—for years! A headache healing. Cancer healing. Children that need the Lord. Unconverted family and friends that still don’t believe. Racial healing in our church local and the Church. Fruitfulness in certain gospel endeavors. Spiritual revival in the Church. We’re still sitting in the waiting room for these and so many others.
And I’m sure we’re not alone. All God’s children have needs and grieve losses. We all believe. We all pray. We all weep. We all wait.
If I had one more sermon to preach, it’d be on this text: “Even youths shall faint and be weary, and young men shall fall exhausted; but they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint” (Isa. 40:30–31).
I’ve preached the whole chapter of Isaiah 40 many times, and my most frequent sermon summary of it is this: “God over all, because of Christ, gives strength to the trusting weary, in his time, according to their need, to do the remarkable for his glory.” That’s all in the Isaiah 40 text. And as I say—for a lot of reasons—if God ever gives me strength to preach one more time, that would be the text and summary that I herald.
One point in Isaiah 40 that I notice this morning is the word “wait.” It implies a period of delay in the meeting of our needs or wants, which is why I say: “God gives strength . . . in his time.” There is almost always a time-gap between when we become aware of a need and when God meets it. We have to wait because his clock moves slower than ours, and he’s never in our kind of hurry. So we sit in the waiting room of life.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Monday, June 13, 2022
For a flag to be a powerful, sacred symbol of unity and purpose, it has to symbolize a real common sense of unity—a unified moral vision around which individuals can rally as part of a larger imagined community. That the Pride flag already has so many variations reveals the lack of unity that has always marked the LGBTQ+ movement when the cameras were not rolling. This disunity has only become more obvious with the advent of intersectionality and the triumph of queerness and transgenderism.

Flags typically serve as rallying points for unity. They point to something a culture considers sacred. The Stars and Stripes was, for many generations, precisely such a rallying point in America. The fact that flag burning, while protected by the Constitution, was deemed by both its opponents and proponents to be remarkably serious, speaks to this: One cannot desecrate that which is not considered sacred.
This is just one reason why it is interesting that the American Embassy to the Vatican is flying the rainbow flag for Pride month. Commentators have pointed out the obvious intent to cause offense to the Catholic Church. But the embassy’s decision also sends a message to the American people: Another flag has government endorsement. The message of “inclusion” that it represents signals to those Americans who might dissent from the LGBTQ+ movement that in these interesting times their membership in the republic for which the real national flag stands is more a matter of tolerance than full-blooded affirmation.
The problems with LGBTQ+ inclusion are, of course, manifold. First, there is the logical problem that any movement deploying the rhetoric of inclusion has to face: If everyone is included and nobody is excluded, then the movement is meaningless. Thus, the language of “inclusion” here is really a code word for precisely the opposite: It actually means exclusion and the delegitimizing of any person or group that dissents from what the movement’s movers and shakers deem to be acceptable opinion. Acceptable thought will typically tend toward a view of reality that regards such dissenters as mentally deficient, sub-human, or simply evil.
Second, the emphasis on inclusion must inevitably default to queerness. It is interesting how the word “queer” and its cognates is beginning to supplant the old taxonomy of “gay,” “lesbian,” and even “bisexual” in common LGBTQ+ parlance. The reason speaks to the central incoherence of the movement. Gay men and lesbian women have identities predicated upon a sex binary rooted in biology. That is rather “transphobic,” to use the psychologized terminology typically used to discredit any pushback on the transgender movement. Indeed, in the wonderful world of intersectional mythology, white gay men and white lesbian women rank little higher in the political hierarchy than their straight counterparts.
In fact, the LGBTQ+ movement has always been a marriage of political convenience. Prior to the AIDS crisis of the 1980s, lesbian women generally regarded gay men with deep suspicion, as those who enjoyed male privilege and whose sexual desires and experiences differed in fundamental ways from those of females.
Read More
Related Posts: