The Sole Authority of the Scriptures
By
Thomas F. Heringer
Master of Arts Thesis
Preface
“It is perhaps not too much to say that, for many professing Christian theologians, the idea of a final and finished revelation from God to man about himself and his place in the universe has no serious significance today.”[1] Modern man is asking how that knowledge is even possible, but historically man has always asked this question. Historically many of the first theological questions really had their basis in “how do we know?” Man has always sought an explanation for existence and knowledge that ignores God. Man inside of the Christian church today is asking the same questions, but is getting a different answer from theologians today then they received in the past.
The main arguments of church history have always pivoted around the theme of the sole authority of the scriptures. A good example of how the sole authority of scripture played a part is found in the rising of the Arian controversy in the late third and early fourth century which resulted in the counsel of Nicaea. The pastor’s that gathered together sought the scriptures as their sole authority in this major controversy. They not only refuted this error, but took time to place there conclusions in writing and they drew those conclusions from the scriptures. They took those conclusions and formulated them into a propositional statement. We still have that statement today and it is a profound statement of theological beliefs. It was never intended as a replacement for the scriptures, but a help in the form of propositions that embody what Christians believe. There is a copy of the Nicene Creed attached to this paper.
Thus the only real valid method of Biblical studies is one that assumes that the Bible is the only authority of our faith contains all the facts or truths necessary to the faith. The very center of Biblical Theological studies must be the Word of God and must follow the inductive method. All Biblical studies are also in conjunction with the scriptures the presence of the Holy Spirit’s leading in what the scriptures are saying. Our solace must be to the One spoken of in Scripture and the Scriptures must be our only final and sole authority in all maters of faith and practice. [2]
Theology is something more than just vain and empty philosophy. It draws its method from the parts found in scripture and draws conclusions based on those premises. Theologians start with the inductive method, by examining scripture looking for statements to compare with each other. Having uncovered premises a conclusion is then drawn based on the premises. Remembering always to compare scripture with scripture and studying under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
The word theology comes from two Greek words, the first word Theo or theos is translated as God and the second word logy or logos is translated word. Together they mean a word, discourse or study about God, in this case specifically ‘the only and true God”. [3] Theology derives its content from the Scriptures and hence Theology in its proper perspective refers to the only true, living God. Theology is properly the study of God. It is not the study of the god of this world, but the study of the only living and true God. Hence any Christian who chooses to study the scripture is in a lower sense a theologian.
It is necessary in these days to well define what we mean by the word Theology. There is much confusion in the world today as to who is the best representative of God. There is as much need to limit and set the boundaries as to limit the scope as to what we mean. “The bible is to the theologian what nature is to the man of science. It is his store-house of facts; and his method of ascertaining what the Bible teaches, is the same as that which the natural philosopher adopts to ascertain what nature teaches.”[4] There are rules for the study of scripture and they are used by the theologians to determine what God is actually saying through His word. The validity of these rules must be accepted by the theologian. Among these are a belief in a difference between right and wrong. God never does anything against His own nature. For instance sin deserves punishment; God would be outside of His own nature to permit sin in his presence.[5]
The Christian theologian first must collect facts and he does this by going to the bible as the source of facts. The Bible contains all of the necessary information. The Bible contains authenticated information concerning God. “’the Bible, and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.”[6] The Christian “theologian is guided by the same rules in the collection of facts, as govern the man of science.”[7] (1) Collect facts with great care. Errors occur because a great deal of care was not taken in the collection of facts. (2) A comprehensive and as complete as possible list of facts. An incomplete one may leave out important information. No statement should be made about a truth based on little evidence. For instance all facts that are attributed to God are also attributed to Christ. He did not have a finite intelligence, He had a sinless life. There were not two Christ’s, but one Christ the God man.[8]
The Bible is the final or sole authority in all maters of faith and practice. Faith should be defined by what scripture says and practice should be defined by what scripture says. Once we step outside of the realm of sole authority into a man made realm we loose all sense of what direction we are going. If we start redefining our faith to suit this world then we step outside the scriptures. B. B. Warfield said, “The religion of the Bible is a frankly supernatural religion. By this is not meant merely that, according to it, all men, as creatures, live, move and have their being in God. It is meant that according to it, God has intervened extraordinarily, in the course of the sinful world’s development, for the salvation of men otherwise lost. In Eden the Lord God had been present with sinless man in such a sense as to form a distinct element in his social environment (Gen3:8).”[9]
Admittedly Sole Authority is not just a belief of Baptists, but has been held to by most of the protestant church. Baptists however, have held to this position longer then the protestants.
The scriptures demand our utmost, careful, attention and consideration. Those who we know as Baptist have tenaciously held to the position that the scriptures are the only final, inerrant and authoritative rule for all maters of faith and practice. This paper shall seek to narrowly define this doctrine and then show that it is the historical position of Baptists this includes an examination of various theories and philosophies...
Chapter 1
“The Author of Scripture”
The Scriptures assumes the very existence of God from Genesis 1 to the book of Revelation. No argument is made whatsoever to prove that He exists only that He is absolutely sovereign and Holy. He is assumed to be an extra mundane personal God. This can easily be seen from the encounter between God, Adam, Eve and Satan in the Garden of Eden. It is seen that God is personal and does talk to mankind. It is also seen that He holds the only authority and His decisions are final. Hence, the very simple statement, “In the beginning God…”[10]
Theology divides the study of God into two distinct and separate sections or areas. They are natural revelation and special revelation. Each of these has its own distinct set of arguments, which are set forth to prove a specific point. Both seek to prove that God exists, but only one is authoritative. While natural revelation certainly proves the possibility of the existence of God it has no authority. Special revelation seeks to prove certain things about God’s attributes and character based on the scriptures as the only authority.
Part I “Philosophical Arguments”
Natural revelation seeks to prove that God exists based on certain philosophical arguments. These arguments are in most cases purely speculative, but this is not to say there is no gain in understanding God from nature. However, when the subject is further studied, it becomes those there two areas under the general subject of natural revelation. The two classes of arguments that should be considered are those that are external and those that are internal. An external argument for example would be the starry heavens. An external argument would be the religious nature of man. [11]“Those who deny that natural theology teaches anything reliable concerning God commonly understand by nature the external material universe.”[12]
Philosophical arguments are subject to being very vague and no exception to this can be found in these two sets of arguments. There exists no infallible authority among these arguments that will judge as to the validity of the arguments. When the premise of the argument has been stated there is no conclusive answer from the premise that proves the existence of God. The arguments based on natural revelation “…Its arguments are inconclusive. This is a point which no man can decide for other men.”[13]
Finally arguments for the existence of God based on natural revelation are of such a subjective nature, that they really prove nothing. Instead of coming from an external revelation, it comes from an internal man made understanding. This is why we need a final and sole authority, because that nature shows nothing of a conclusive decision. Those maters that are rooted in subjective truth are changeable and thusly are of no real value. Those beliefs and practices that are based on a supernatural and special revelation are not subject to change. Objective special revelation and the propositional truths that the scriptures set forth are not subject to change for “the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” I Peter 1:23
To have a trustworthy set of beliefs and practices it is necessary to have a verbalized, propositional revelation.[14] Being of a subjective nature these philosophical arguments for the existence of God lead men away from the objective revelation and place it in a humanistic rationalistic philosophy. It is obvious; therefore, that what will convince one man will not convince the next man.[15]
So then we must turn and look not at all of these arguments, but at the chief ones. It is necessary to carefully define what they are and then make our conclusions. From the very start it is important to note that these arguments are insufficient to bring man to the knowledge of the truth, but as far as showing that such a being as God exists and of His power they do have merit.[16]
There are four primary arguments all others are either insignificant or derive themselves from one or more aspects of these four. Then these four are divided into distinct sets of arguments. Those that we term a priori, that is an argument which is based on a pre-conceived assumption.[17] The second set of arguments conforms to being a posteriori, that is it “proceeds from effect to cause.”[18] The four arguments to be considered are ontological, cosmological, teleological and anthropological.
Ontological—this argument is inherent in the word itself, which has the notion of reality. If God exists in the mind then he must exist in reality. It is based on the words of Saint Augustine, “God is more truly thought than he is described and exists more truly than he is thought.”[19]
J.P, Boyce argues that this argument goes from the idea we have of Him in the mind and proceeds to reality, thus confusing “ideal existence with real existence.”[20] Some may argue that just because a person has an idea of such a being does not mean that he exists outside of the mind of man, no mater how lofty the idea may be.
The main problem with this argument is that it is a priori and proceeds from a pre-conceived notion and reasons that since such a notion exists in the mind of man there must there fore be a first cause. God’s existence then is “certified by the fact that the human mind believes that he exists.”[21] It is further stated that since none greater can be conceived of then “he must necessarily have real existence”.[22]
Adam Clark argued that “as every man has the idea of God, he must admit his actual existence; for what is necessary is of course actual.”[23] Another argues that since man is finite then there must be an infinite. “you can not have the one without the other”.[24] It should be concluded that theism gains very little from these meta physical arguments (if any at all).[25] They might have some authority, but not to all men and certainly not of a final authority. We can go no higher then God’s word for authority.
Cosmological—“The branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and general structure of the universe, with its parts, elements and laws and especially with such of its characteristics as space, time, causality and freedom.”[26]
This is an a priori argument that proceeds from that idea that since the universe exists then a creator must exist. Since the universe is one of order and rationality it pre-supposes that it can only come from a rational first cause. Emmanuel Kant objects to this argument on the grounds that “...the concept of causality cannot proceed beyond the domain of sensuous existence, and therefore, the first cause given by the cosmological argument would not be intelligent.”[27] To this Hume responds that cause and effect are relative terms one implies the other. However, it is simply stated “The existence of a rational universe implies that of a rational first cause.”[28]
“The universe is a phenomena or an effect which connotes an adequate cause. The cosmological argument adduces evidence that God exists and is the first cause of all things”.[29] This argument as well stated with the assumption that since what we now see has not always existed from all eternity. If the starry heavens are produced ex nilho, by nothing then it is absurd because something produced must have a cause.[30]
This argument is distinguished from the teleological argument and others by the fact that it proceeds from causation. The other arguments are also just as equally cosmological.[31]
Teleological—This argument takes the form of a syllogism and stated in its simplest form is thus :
“A. Whatever gives proof of design must have a designer.
B. The universe gives proof of design.
C. Therefore, it must have had a designer”.[32]
This is an argument a posteriori and proceeds from facts to causes.
There is as a particular aspect of the universe the evidence of design. It shows itself as having been adapted to its own ends as well as having design.[33] This argument proceeds then to establish by reason, evidence that proves an intelligent and purposeful designer (God) was manifested in creation of all things.[34] Stated simply nothing happens by way of chance, but shows purpose and design.
“If a man can believe that a book was written by chance or by blind, unconscious force, then and not otherwise can he rationally deny the validity of the argument from design in proof of the existence of a personal God”.[35]
Anthropological—This argument entails parts of two other arguments. What is known as the moral argument and the ethnic argument. It proceeds from an a posteriori position and is perhaps one of the more valid arguments, but it falls short of the necessary level of authority. Basically it is stated thus: “…The anthropological argument is restricted to the field of evidence as to the existence of God and His qualities which may be drawn from the constitution of man”.[36]
Man is a moral creature, he therefore must have had something in his past to instill this aspect. Man is a religious creature, how did this religious nature occur? Why it is that even fallen man has a conscience all though it has been desensitized. Man is a material as well as an immaterial creature. These two things speak to a cause for their existence.
“…The material part of man is similar to that of higher forms of animals it is so refined as to be superior to all features of material creation. The immaterial part of man, which embodies the elements of life, intellect, sensibility, will, conscience and an inherent belief in God, presents even a more insistent demand for an adequate cause”.[37]
There is the ever present possibility of dependence on highly philosophical and humanistic argument to prove what we believe about God. Hodge best states this when he says: “…respecting natural theology is that it precludes the necessity for a super natural revelation”.[38]
Only God can decide what is necessary to salvation, it is at this point that natural theology falls short. “The question as to the sufficiency of natural theology or the truth of reason is to be answered on the authority of scripture. No man can tell a priori what is necessary to salvation, stated simply salvation is of God.[39]
Even of more significant, historical theology is full of evidence to prove that all branches of the Christian faith have denied that natural theology is sufficient to lead fallen man to salvation, this can be said even more so of the most historical branch of all Baptists. It is at this point that natural theology fails. “How can a man be just with God? Or How can God be just and yet justify the ungodly?”[40]
Part II Special Revelation
The philosophical arguments have shown us no certain and infallible arguments concerning God. They have not shown any evidences concerning His character or attributes. They have only shown that He exists, but have not given in themselves any hint as to who He is. There is no mention of God’s purpose in election seen in nature, neither is there any mention of the atoning work of Christ mentioned in Nature. We must turn our attention elsewhere to find answers to these questions.
Now we turn our attention to arguments concerning the person of God. There are two arguments to the person and existence of God and they are on exactly opposite ends of the scale. Atheism represents that there is no God. Theism represents that there is a God and He can be personally known.
The atheist states that the theist believes in an infinite being, but infinity is impossible since it is only made up of the finite infinitely repeated of contingent parts. However, this is impossible because the parts that make it up are not eternal and are not self existent.[41]
The atheist refuses to accept testimony in preference to hypothesis especially in the light of the following: “…The atheist may object, that men, as creatures themselves have no right of their own knowledge, to utter such traditional testimony; for they could not be present before the organisms existed to witness how they were brought into existence. The only pretext for such a tradition would be that some prior super human being, who did witness man’s production revealed to him How he was produced. Whether any such prior being ever existed is the very thing in debate and so may not be taken for granted. The existence of the testimony must be granted, for it is a fact that it exists and it must be accounted for”.[42]
Since we have the scriptures then argument must be accounted for. The atheist cannot be allowed to glibly dismiss them as not being of any value. Once the scriptures are dismissed then all want of reason is gone. Atheism then is actually the position that excludes God altogether.[43]
The agnostic is of a different sort altogether. There are very few true atheists, but most that call themselves atheists are really agnostics for the following reason: “Agnosticism is a denial that God can be known. Etymologically agnostic and ignoramus mean the same thing. The former is the Greek and the later is from the Latin derivative for the Greek word.”[44]
The agnostic believes that God exists, but cannot be known. This is similar to the Gnostic who says that there is a mystery to the knowledge of God that cannot be known by flesh and blood.
Actually belief in God was originally very simple monotheism, but in time this primitive monotheism was corrupted by pantheism. The creature was worshiped more then the creator [45]. Man began to worship nature and forget God; the next step was polytheism, the worship of many gods. “Here, the unity or the one substance of pantheism is subdivided and the subdivisions are personified;”[46]
Paul tells us that pantheism and poly theism are a step down not a step up. [47] In other words they are moving away from primitive mono theism toward rampant unbelief the ultimate end is of course atheism. Each of these theories was developed on a historical model, it bought with it a necessity to define beliefs in more details such as in the following: “…But when poly theism ceased to be the great foe of Christianity and deism took its place it became necessary to lay special stress upon the distinction between the unwritten and the written revelation.”[48]
Another of these theories of god is dualism, stated briefly it is “This theory assumes that there are two distinct and irreducible substances or principles. In epistemology these are idea and object; in meta physics, mind and mater; in ethics, good and evil; in religion, good (God and evil (Satan)”[49] This has its modern manifestation thru the idea that god and evil are just halves of the same thing. There is a symbol that is used in regards to this with a circle and an “S” down the middle. One half is black and one half is white. There is a white dot on the black side and a black dot on the white side. The basic idea is that good and evil is really brothers. It is suggested by dualists that god and Satan are just battling it out, but they are really not opposites. The Bible teaches on the other hand that God is an extra mundane supernatural being and Satan is just a created being. God Himself created Satan and then Satan rebelled. Satan is kept on a long leash by God.
There are many Pantheistic theories as to how to view the world and give it meaning. Many philosophers believe that there is one common beginning. They view this cause as being inside of the world. [50] This is a philosophical by-pass for the scriptures. Monism only use the scriptures as it fits with there view of a basic substance or principle. Under the broad topic of “monistic world views” there are many pantheistic approaches.[51] All of these are rejected are rejected based they all result in a denial of human free agency, they destroy any basis for morality, they make any kind of “rational religion impossible”, denial of any human immortality, deification of man and no real physical “reality”[52]
Monotheism on the other hand “teaches that there is but one God”. Christianity and Judaism both believe that there is but one God that He operates outside of the human world. Monotheism is opposed to these other world views, in that it does hold that God is knowable and that he does indeed exist. Monotheism does not believe that “existence has some common cause” that is outside of our existence.[53]
How to study the Scriptures
Annotated Bibliography
Bancroft, Emery H. Elemental Theology, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1960. This late professor of Bible doctrine has a very easily read approach to Bible doctrines. Very good treatment of Canonicity and trustworthiness.
Boettner, Loraine, Studies in Theology, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947. Some good refutation materials from the reformed position in defense of inerrancy.
Carroll, B.H., An Interpretation of the English Bible, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1978. Original publisher Broadman Press, 1948. These volumns are a combination of insights on scripture from a well known Bible teacher, evangelist and preacher. There are 7 volumns in the set covering most of the bible.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry, Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas 1948. This is a very thorough composition of the dispensational, pre-tribulation and pre-millennial approach to biblical hermeneutics. Outside of those areas this is a very good systematic theology.
Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970. These three volumes cover reformed theology in great detail. Especially helpful in the areas of revelation.
Ironside, H.A., Timothy, Titus and Philemon, Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune, New Jersey, 1964. This is a very practical devotional work and provides insight into the mind of Paul concerning the doctrine of inspiration.
Thayer, Joseph Henry, D.D, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament—being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clovis and Testamenti, translated by Joseph Henry Thayer, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, fifth printing 1966. This helps with some of the more obscure Greek words.
The Analytical Greek Lexicon, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, third printing 1968.
Thiessen, Henry Clarence, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1949. In introductory work on systematic theology, but very through helpful on theories of philosophy.
Warfield, Benjamin Breckenridge, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1970. Warfield's work is a major source for inerrancy and inspiration.
Appendix 1 Nicene Creed (Traditional)
I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried;
and the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge both the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
Introduction
[1] Warfield, 4
[2] Hodge, Vol. 1, pg. 17
[9] Warfield, 71
Chapter 1
[26] Random House Dictionary
[50] Random House Dictionary