The Westminster Confession of Faith contains a majestic statement on the authority of the scriptures:
The authority of Sacred Scripture, therefore it must be believed and obeyed, does not depend on the testimony of any man or church, but depends solely on God (which is the truth itself), its author; and so it must be received, because it is the Word of God. We can be moved and bound, by the witness of the Church, to a high and respectful appreciation of Sacred Scripture; and the sublimity of the subject, the effectiveness of his doctrine, the majesty of style, the agreement of all parties, the scope of his whole (which is to give all the glory to God), the full revelation that makes man’s only way. of salvation, its many other incomparable excellences and its complete perfection, are arguments by which the Word of God is abundantly manifested; however, our full persuasion and certainty of his infallible truth and divine authority comes from the inner works of the Holy Ghost, testifying through the Word and with the Word in our hearts (CFW 1. 4-5).
- These words reflect the consensus of thought of the Reformed Churches on how we should understand the authority of the scriptures.
- In short.
- The authority of the scriptures does not depend on the decision or decree of a church or a man.
- On the contrary.
- Scripture.
- Has authority because it is the Word of the living God.
The same teaching is found in the writings of the first reformed theologians and in the first reformed denominations. John Calvin (1509–64), for example, explains: “A very pernicious error largely prevails that Scripture has only the weight that gives it the consent of the Church?(Institutes 1. 7. 1). Here he speaks of the predominant Roman Catholic opinion of the sixteenth century. Calvin argues that the scriptures have authority because “Does God speak to you personally?(1. 7. 4). William Whitaker (1548–1595), in his excellent Disputes on Sacred Scripture (1588), concisely describes the views of reformed churches on this subject:
The summary of our view is that Scripture is self-psytic, that is, it has all its authority and all its credit for itself; it must be recognized, received, not only because the Church has determined and ordained it, but because it comes from God; and we certainly know that it comes from God, not through the church, but from the Holy Spirit.
The first reformed denominations come together to teach the same point of view. Article 5 of the French Confession (1559) says of Scripture: “We believe that the Word contained in these books comes from God, and receives its authority only from him, not from men. “Article 19 of the Scottish Confession (1560) provides:
Just as we believe and confess that God’s scriptures are sufficient to instruct and perfect God’s man, we affirm and confess that the authority of the scriptures comes from God and does not depend on men or angels. that the scriptures have no other authority than the one they received from the church, are blasphemous against God and harmful to the true church.
Article 5 of the Belgian Confession (1561) explains the authority of Scripture in the same way:
All these books have received, and only these, as saints and canons, for the settlement, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing, no doubt, in all that they contain, not so much because the Church receives and approves them as such, but more particularly because the Holy Ghost testifies in our hearts that they come from God, that they bear the evidence in themselves. Because even the blind are able to perceive that the things that are planned for him are being fulfilled.
The Second Swiss Confession (1566) explains that the Holy Scriptures – have sufficient authority of themselves and not of men. Why did God Himself speak to parents, prophets, apostles, and speak to us again through the Holy Scriptures?
We see in all this the close connection between the inspiration of Scripture and the authority of Scripture. Each of these theologians and denominations correctly observes that Scripture is the Word of God. Is it precisely because the scriptures are inspired by God? (2 Timothy 3. 16). ) that has authority. There is and cannot be any authority superior to God. The scriptures carry the authority of God, the supreme authority, because the scriptures are the same Word of God.
Why did the theologians and reformed denominations of the 16th century have to work at this stage?Doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church believe that the scriptures are the Word of God?Yes, Rome believed and taught that the scriptures were the Word of God, but in the face of the challenges posed by the reformers, Rome accused the reformers of inconsistency. “Do you Protestants appeal to the scriptures?” they said, “But do you have no right to do so, because you do not even know what is outside the church statement?”
Some of the Catholic apologists of the sixteenth century were more moderate in the way they explained their opinions; others, as Whitaker pointed out, were worryingly rude. The Roman theologian Johann Eck, for example, stated that “the Church is older than the scriptures and that the scriptures are not authentic, but by the authority of the Church. “Albert Pighius states in the same way: “All the authority that Scripture now has for us necessarily depends on the authority of the Church. “Cardinal Stanislas Hosius went so far as to say, “The scriptures are as strong as the fables of Aesop, if they are devoid of the authority of the Church. “Reformers have understood that these are words of combat.
The 16th-century debate on the relationship between the authority of the scriptures and the authority of the Church focused primarily on the question of the biblical canon. The scriptures are necessary for Christians to know God’s will about what we should believe and what we should do. Rome argued, however, that without the prior authority of an infallible church, we would not know which books belong to the canon of scripture and which do not. We don’t have inspired indexes, Roman apologists said. In other words, Rome said: You Protestants cannot turn to the scriptures if they do not know what they are, and only the Roman Catholic Church has the power to say what the scriptures are. Only Rome can provide a foolproof content index. Therefore, the authority of the scriptures is based on the authority of the church.
That’s a tough review. This is a particularly provocative critique for Protestants who rejected the reformed doctrine of the scriptures and opted for a vision of biblical authority that denies the subordinate but real authority of the church and beliefs. although it differs in several details, he insisted that Scripture is not only the only infallible authority, but the only total authority. Not only were non-biblical medieval traditions ignored, but also the tradition of common sense of regula fidei, testimony of parents, traditional interpretation of also neglected the scriptures and corporate judgment of the church.
In other words, radical reformers defended what can be called nude Scriptura, as opposed to the doctrine of the master reformers of Scriptura alone. Master reformers, such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Martin Bucer, insisted that Scripture was the only source. special revelation, the only infallible authority, but which must be interpreted in and by the Church in accordance with fidei regulation (the?Rule) of faith – found in the beliefs of the Church) Master reformers did not reject the authority of the church and beliefs properly understood as subordinate authorities. What they rejected was any attempt to place church authority or beliefs on the same level as God’s authority.
But how did the Protestant defenders of Scripture alone respond to Rome’s challenge?First, they noted that Rome’s assertion of an infallible authority was invalidated because the Old Testament canon was incorrect. Rome argued that the Canon of the Old Testament should include so-called apocryphals The apocryphal books were included in the Latin translation of the Vulgate of the Bible because they were found in later editions of the Seventy, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Jerome (347-420), who translated much of the Vulgate, translated some of these books, but argued that they were not canonical because they were not included in the Hebrew Old Testament. However, over time, they have been included in most editions of the Vulgate.
We must remember that the Seventy ended in the early 2nd century BC. Protestants noted that the Hebrew Old Testament had never contained the additional apocryphal books found in the Roman Catholic Old Testament. exactly to the books found in the Old Testament used by Protestants. Only the numbering and order of the books are different.
The second observation made by the Protestants against Rome’s assertion that a foolproof church is necessary if we are to have a functionally authoritarian canon is that Israel was not infallible. Why does it matter? For God confided the oracles of the Old Testament to the Jews (Romans 3:1-2). Despite the recognized fact that the Jews were not infallible, they managed, for more than a thousand years, to preserve the canon of the scriptures of the Old Testament. . Jesus and the Apostles used this Old Testament canon without giving any indication that the Jews had not fulfilled the task for which they had been chosen. If a foolproof church was not necessary for the establishment and preservation of the canon before Christ, a foolproof church is not necessary for that now.
The question at the heart of the debate between Rome and the Protestants about the canon and authority of the scriptures can be asked as follows (using Michael Kruger’s terminology): Is the canon of scripture determined by the community or authenticates itself?In Rome, the authority of the scriptures depends on the authority of the Church. The most fundamental problem with this view, although it can be carefully detailed and nuanced, is that it inevitably places God’s authority under the authority of the Church, which completely reverses the real position of things. If we believe in the authority of the scriptures, according to Rome, we must assume the authority of the Church, but why should we accept the authority of the Church?Are you authenticated? No, Rome says, and appeals to the scriptures to establish the authority of the Church, as well as appeals to the Church to establish the authority of the scriptures. The circular nature of this call has been emphasized since the Reformation.
To say that the canon and authority of the scriptures authenticate themselves is to affirm what the reformed denominations claim. In the words of William Whitaker, “Writing is self-pisto. ” He has “all his authority and all his credit. “Because? Because it is the Word of the living God, and God does not need to call the church to establish his own inherent sovereign authority. God is God, the church is not God.
So how did the church come to recognize good books and good books?Jesus Himself gives us the answer when He says, “My sheep hear my voice; Do I know them and they follow me?(John 10:27). As Roger Nicole pointed out The best way to describe how we know the canon is “the testimony of the Holy Ghost given collectively to God’s people. “The recognition of the standard works is due to the action of the Holy Spirit that allows God’s people to hear their voices.
Although Roman Catholics and traditional Protestants questioned the relationship between the authority of Scripture and the authority of the Church, they agreed that Scripture was the inspired and infallible Word of God. Since the Enlightenment, this hypothesis has been under serious threat. In the Church, human reason has become the arbiter of truth. Scholars influenced by the philosophy of the Enlightenment began to attack the veracity of biblical narratives. Miracles have been rejected. The response of some in the church was to reshape Christianity in a way that was thought to be more attractive to post-Enlightenment Europeans. Friedrich Schleiermacher, for example, based theology on human experience and feelings, not on the authority of Scripture. sentiment, he believes, is immune from critics’ arguments.
In the 20th century, liberal attacks on scripture authority continued, led to intense battles in several churches. In the 1920s, J. Grésham Machen summed up the thought of many by stating that liberalism “is not just a different religion from Christianity. “, but it belongs to a totally different kind of religion. “Theological liberalism has been criticized not only by traditional Protestants such as Machen, but also by neo-Orthodox scholars. Karl Barth, for example, said of Schleiermacher’s opinions that “no one can speak of God simply by speaking of man aloud. “And H. Richard Niebuhr is known for his summary of the liberal gospel: “A God without anger brought sinless men into a kingdom without judgment through the ministries of a Christ without a cross. “
Although neo-Orthodox scholars such as Barth and Niebuhr correctly saw the mortal dangers of theological liberalism, they also had a misunderstanding of biblical authority. For Barth, it is wrong to identify the scriptures with the Word of God. On the contrary, the Bible “must continually become the Word of God. “The Bible becomes the Word of God when God freely and sovereignly chooses to use it in this way. By introducing this conceptual distinction between the Word of God and the Bible, Barth (and the neo-Orthodox scholars who followed it) emptied the Bible itself of every inherent divine authority. The influence of liberal theologians such as Schleiermacher and neo-Orthodox theologians like Barth continues today in various forms.
Confronted with Satan and other adversaries, Jesus Christ repeatedly appealed to the scriptures as God’s authoritative Word. There was no doubt in Jesus’ mind that what Moses said, God said; That’s what the prophets said, God said it. For Jesus, are the words written?As disciples of Christ, we must have the same attitude Jesus had toward the scriptures. All Scripture is inspired by Dios. Es theopneustos, “blown by God. “When we listen to the scriptures, we hear the very voice of God the Almighty. There is no greater authority.