“The Clarity and Certainty of Scripture among the Swiss Reformers"

Part One

We introduce today a four-part series by Jim West that highlights the lofty view of the Bible
taken by four Swiss reformers.

Two strands of the Swiss Reformation are represented by the four figures. The first is the
Zwinglian and includes Zwingli, Bullinger, and Oecolampadius. The second is the Calvinist,
represented by Calvin himself. Bullinger and Calvin worked out differences between the two
Helvetic tracks of the Reformation, bringing about a more unified Swiss front.

We begin today with the first of the Swiss reformers, Ulrich Zwingli, who brought about
reformation in Zurich by concentrating on the text of Scripture.

Heinrich Heppe, in his ‘Reformed Dogmatics’, writes

If then H. Scripture is necessary for obtaining life eternal and for preserving the

Church upon earth, its essential content must also be of such clarity, that it may be

understood even of the unlearned, who reads H. Scripture with a believing heart

or one desirous of salvation. Therefore H. Scripture has the attribute of

perspicuity—[attributing to the book what is the gift of God?]—“by which the

things necessary to be known for salvation are so plainly and clearly unfolded in

Scripture, that they may be understood even by unlearned believers who read with

devotion and attention” (Wendelin, Proleg., c. 3). This does not imply that every

separate word and sentence should be unambiguously clear. Rather the

perspicuity of Scripture is to be connected only with the basic doctrines of

revelation, which condition blessedness.

1
Such a view of Scripture becomes important in the early Reformation because the authority of

the Church of Rome and the Magisterium, as well as the traditions of the Roman Catholic

Church are being replaced by the authority of Scripture. Scripture must itself be clear enough

and simple enough to interpret that average Christians are capable of doing it. Put more plainly,

the Roman Pope must be replaced by the Paper Pope, the Bible. Huldrych Zwingli was early on

to realize this and in 1522 wrote his ‘On the Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God’.

Huldrych Zwingli

‘Zwingli availed himself of the permission to preach in the nunneries, and

afterwards issued two sermons thus originally delivered. The first, dated

September 6, 1522, is upon the Bible, and has for its thesis that only the Holy

Spirit is requisite to make the Word intelligible; no Church, no Council, much

more no Pope is needed’. To which the author adds that the sermon was titled

‘“On the Perspicuity and Certainty, or Infallibility, of the Word of God”. Stapfer

praises it. The original hearers were Augustinian nuns of the Oetenbach convent

in Zurich. A second edition of the sermon appeared in 1524, but judging from the

preface to it Zwingli made small impression on the nuns.’

Here the central themes are indicated: the Word of God is comprehensible in and of itself with

the aid of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures and the Spirit thereby replacing the Pope and the

Tradition of the Roman Church. Further on

‘The Roman Church errs because it rests upon its own word: the true spouse of

Christ “cannot err” because it “relies upon the word of God alone.” The source of

this infallibility is the fact that the Church does not propose to set up anything of

2
 its own accord, but simply listens to the word of God and accepts what it finds

there. Its infallibility is, therefore, the infallibility of the word of God, and

Zwingli’s doctrine of the infallibility of the local Church is like that of the other

Protestant leaders as to the “perspicuity of the Scriptures.” The Scriptures are

plain in the great outlines of the way of salvation, so that no one who trusts

himself to them will fail of eternal life; and the infallibility of the Church is such

that when, in the exercise of her God-given authority, she tries to find out God’s

will in the great matters of salvation, she will be infallibly led into the knowledge

of it.’

Turning to the tractate itself, it begins with a lengthy treatment of the human as creature created

in the image of God, with the intellect necessary to understand the will of God. Next Zwingli

considers the power of the Word of God (both spoken and written) and its sufficiency for the

impartation of divine knowledge, particularly regarding salvation. He festoons his tractate with

many Scriptural proofs from both the Old Testament and the new. Then he turns to a description

of the clarity of Scripture. It is here that he focuses the bulk of his attention.

Zwingli here observes ‘When the Word of God shines on the human understanding, it enlightens

it in such a way that it understands and confesses the Word and knows the certainty of it.’ Here

Zwingli makes his central point: God’s self disclosure (verbally or in written form) is the source

of a person’s ability to apprehend the truth of revelation. Zwingli follows this assertion with a

plethora of Scriptural proofs.

To those who would oppose his approach, Zwingli remarks (at some length)

3
 Oh you rascals—you are not instructed or versed in the Gospel, and you pick out

verses from it without regard to their context, and wrest them according to your

own desire. It is like breaking off a flower from its roots and trying to plant it in a

garden. But that is not the way: you must plant it with the roots and the soil in

which it is embedded. And similarly we must leave the Word of God its own

proper nature if its sense is to be the same to all of us. And those who err in this

way we can easily vanquish by leading them back to the source, though they

never come willingly. But some of them are such confirmed dunces that even

when the natural case is expounded in such a way that they cannot deny it, they

still allege that they cannot presume to understand it thus unless the Fathers allow

that it may so be understood: on the ground that many expositors will always have

a better understanding than one or two.

Context, in other words, is key. From this point forward Zwingli argues that those led by the

Spirit, who opens the meaning of Scripture to them since they have the Spirit indwelling, are

superior interpreters to those who rely on the Church’s traditions or the Pope’s interpretations.

Along these lines, he makes this autobiographical confession:

When I was younger, I gave myself overmuch to human teaching, like others of

my day, and when about seven or eight years ago I undertook to devote myself

entirely to the Scriptures I was always prevented by philosophy and theology. But

eventually I came to the point where led by the Word and Spirit of God I saw the

need to set aside all these things and to learn the doctrine of God direct from his

own Word.

4
Zwingli finalizes his exposition of the self sufficiency and clarity of Scripture by offering a

series of suggestions concerning interpretation of the sacred text which he prefaces by writing

‘For if we are not versed in Scripture, how are we to tell whether the priest who teaches us is

expounding the pure truth unadulterated by his own sinful desires?’

Zwingli’s understanding of Scripture as clear and comprehensible for those who are led by the

Spirit in their reading of it would profoundly influence his co-Reformers in Basel and Zurich and

Geneva.

Jim West is Lecturer in Biblical and Reformation Studies, Ming Hua Theological College /
Charles Sturt University.

5
 “The Clarity and Certainty of Scripture among the Swiss Reformers"
Part Two
Johannes Oecolampadius

(Part One is available here)

Ernst Staehelin’s Das Theologische Lebenswerk Johannes Oecolampadius remains the most

thorough treatment of Oecolampadius’ theology in spite of the fact that it was published in 1939.

Oecolampadius’ understanding of Scripture was developed as early as 1522. He observes ‘Das

verbum Dei ist identisch mit der evangelica doctrina. Diese, das ewangelium und die ware

haylge geschrift ist die einzige Norm’. This viewpoint lines up perfectly with the views of both

Zwingli and Bullinger. But the viewpoint of Oecolampadius goes a step further than Zwingli

and Bullinger, at least in terms of his explication of that viewpoint, as has been shown by Jeff

Fisher’s particularly helpful study of Oecolampadius’ interpretation of the Letter to the Hebrews.

Fisher observes

As a pastor and professor, Oecolampadius insisted that the Bible be read for the

church to know God with an awareness of multiple senses of Scripture that aimed

at Christ as the goal. He is neither a representative of medieval interpretation that

overemphasized allegory, nor is he a representative of modern interpretation that

so strongly insists on the literal meaning. Instead, he exemplifies a theological,

and specifically Christoscopic, interpretation of Scripture.

Oecolampadius’ viewpoint, then, was more nuanced, and in many ways more Christocentric (or

as Fisher expresses it, Christoscopic, than his co-reformers in Switzerland.

6
Diane Poythress’s overview of Oecolampadius’s life and thought offers Oecolampadius’s

understanding of the clarity of Scripture from an excerpt of his commentary on Isaiah:

The sense of Scripture is opened to none except those who seek Christ, and to

whom Christ reveals himself. For He has the key of David, He closes and no one

opens, He opens and no one closes, Revelation. Indeed also, if you say that the

Holy Spirit is the door-keeper, He opens to no one except the one who enters

through the door which is Christ.

Oecolampadius’s understanding, according to Poythress by means of her selection of a quotation

of Oecolampadius, of the clarity of Scripture is that Scripture is clear only to the follower of

Jesus. Others, lacking access to the inner light of the Spirit, cannot see the Bible illuminated and

truly.

Jim West is Lecturer in Biblical and Reformation Studies, Ming Hua Theological College /
Charles Sturt University.

7
 “The Clarity and Certainty of Scripture among the Swiss Reformers"
Part Three
Heinrich Bullinger

(Parts One and Two are available here)

In the Decades, the ‘Third Sermon of the First Decade,’ Bullinger treats most fully his doctrine

of the clarity and simplicity of Scripture. He writes ‘to the godly the scripture is nothing dark at

all, and that the Lord’s will is altogether to have us understand it: then, that the scriptures ought

always to be expounded.’ Moving beyond Zwingli’s early view that the Scripture was self

authenticating and self clarifying, Bullinger sees the Bible as both clear and simple and as in

need of exposition by authorized Pastors and teachers. This shift was necessitated by the

appearance of persons who were twisting (from the point of view of Bullinger and his party) the

meaning of the Bible in order to justify their behavior. Chief of these were the Anabaptists.

Bullinger notes, further, that since ‘God’s will is to have his word understood of mankind, we

may thereby gather especially, because that in speaking to his servants he used a most common

kind of speech, wherewithal even the very idiots were acquainted.’ Such simplicity and clarity of

language is part of God’s design in that it aims to aid his people in comprehending his will for

their lives and beliefs.

Yet, as Bullinger goes on to say at some length

In the mean season, all the ministers of the church must beware, that they follow

not herein their own affections any whit at all, or else corrupt the scriptures by

their wrong interpretations; and so by that means set forth to the church their own

inventions, and not the word of God. Some such like offence it seemeth that the

teachers of the ancient people in old time did commit, because the Lord in Ezekiel

8
 accuseth them, saying: “Seemeth it a small thing to you to have eaten up the good

pasture, but that ye must also tread the residue of your pasture under your feet?

and to drink the clearer water, but that ye must trouble the rest with your feet?

Thus my sheep must be fain to eat the thing that is trodden down with your feet,

and to drink that which ye with your feet have defiled.” A sore offence is this,

which the Lord according to his justice punisheth most sharply. We therefore, the

interpreters of God’s holy word, and faithful ministers of the church of Christ,

must have a diligent regard to keep the scriptures sound and perfect, and to teach

the people of Christ the word of God sincerely; made plain, I mean, and not

corrupted or darkened by foolish and wrong expositions of our own invention.

For Bullinger, as for Zwingli and Oecolampadius earlier, Scripture can be understood by those

who believe, and, in addition to the viewpoints of those towering figures, in Bullinger’s mind

Scripture is deserving of Pastoral exposition in order to guard the faithful against the

misdirections and inaccuracies of the Anabaptists and other fraudulent expositors.

Jim West is Lecturer in Biblical and Reformation Studies, Ming Hua Theological College /
Charles Sturt University.

9
 “The Clarity and Certainty of Scripture among the Swiss Reformers"
Part Four
John Calvin

(Parts One, Two and Three are available here)

Of the Swiss Reformers, it is John Calvin who has the most thoroughly developed understanding

of the clarity and certainty of Scripture. Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and Bullinger never set out to

write anything like a ‘Loci’ or an ‘Institutes’ but Calvin did. Naturally, then, his exposition of

the perspicuity of Scripture is the most well thought out and descriptive. Of course, we cannot

know what Zwingli or Oecolampadius would have thought about Calvin’s viewpoint and this is

not the place to discuss the many contacts between Calvin and Bullinger on many theological

topics. But we can be fairly certain that the Reformed tradition on the whole has adopted

Calvin’s perspective.

The space Calvin devotes to the Scriptures in his 1559 Institutes is fairly astonishing. His

treatment is found in Inst. I,6-9. Here he describes the need of Scripture as our guide to God, the

necessity of the Spirit’s aid in interpreting the text, the full credibility of Scripture, and the

problem of the fanatics and their replacement of Scripture with personal revelation.

Calvin pointedly writes

Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy

Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence

along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full

conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.

This means that Scripture is both clear enough to be adhered to and certain enough that it needs

no external proof or arguments in order to justify acceptance of it as true. This viewpoint

10
became the standard understanding of both the clarity of Scripture and its certainty.

Interestingly, though, Calvin then spends the entirety of Inst. I,8 in providing proofs for the

reliability of the Bible; from the Old Testament, the New Testament, and Church history. Given

his ongoing struggles with the Enthusiasts, however, it is not surprising that he felt compelled to

provide these proofs. That he does so nevertheless undermines his premise that such proofs are

not needed. Remarkably, he knows this to be the case and begins Book I, chapter 8 with the

following sentences:

IN vain were the authority of Scripture fortified by argument, or supported by the

consent of the Church, or confirmed by any other helps, if unaccompanied by an

assurance higher and stronger than human judgment can give. Till this better

foundation has been laid, the authority of Scripture remains in suspense. On the

other hand, when recognising its exemption from the common rule, we receive it

reverently, and according to its dignity, those proofs which were not so strong as

to produce and rivet a full conviction in our minds, become most appropriate

helps.

This conundrum is only resolved when believers come to the conclusion that

As they feel that without the Spirit of God they are utterly devoid of the light of

truth, so they are not ignorant that the word is the instrument by which the

illumination of the Spirit is dispensed. They know of no other Spirit than the one

who dwelt and spake in the apostles—the Spirit by whose oracles they are daily

invited to the hearing of the word.

11
Conclusion

The Reformers cited above and the several whose names and ideas we lack space to discuss like

Konrad Pellikan and Peter Martyr Vermigli, were not the last to assert the notion of the clarity

and certainty of Scripture. So influential were their views that even a more recent theologian of

the Reformed tradition also held to the doctrine. ‘The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by

the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that

their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the Church. Such is the

doctrine of Protestants on this subject.’ This idea originated with the Reformers of Switzerland

and survives today among the Reformed, their theological heirs.

Jim West is Lecturer in Biblical and Reformation Studies, Ming Hua Theological College /
Charles Sturt University.

12