IS.Chapter6.docx

CHAPTER SIX THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE 1. DEFINITION OF AUTHORITY THE authority of Scripture is that property by which it demands faith and obedience to all its declarations. This authority, or divinity, of Scripture, which is the same as the excellence and loftiness of Scripture, may be viewed in t...

CHAPTER SIX THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE 1. DEFINITION OF AUTHORITY THE authority of Scripture is that property by which it demands faith and obedience to all its declarations. This authority, or divinity, of Scripture, which is the same as the excellence and loftiness of Scripture, may be viewed in two ways, absolutely and relatively. Considered absolutely, it possesses the independent majesty which is natural and essential to the Word of God in view of its supernatural origin, or, as Gerhard puts it,1 it has in and of itself divine authenticity, stability and inspiration (), from which its so-called criteria result. Viewed relatively (ratione nostri), its authority consists in this, that it is regarded by men as the true Word of God and as the canon of faith and life. By virtue of the fact that Scripture is the Word of God and derives its authority from Him alone, its authority cannot be augmented or disparaged by Christians or the Church. A Christian, because he is a Christian, cannot doubt Scripture or its authority. All Christians must agree on the principium of theology, and must accept the authority of Scripture, if they are to merit the name of Christian.2 Gerhard writes: 3 Tf the believer in times of temptation begins to doubt the authority of Scripture, we must deal with him as we would with those who deny such authority, since doubt is the next thing to denial.’ The authority of Scripture is intrinsic. It possesses majesty in se, apart from men, apart from the Church and apart from anything in the amanuenses.4 Just as the sun is in itself light and the measure of light, even though a blind man or one who hides himself from it may not see it, Scripture is absolutely divine, even if there is no one to hear it, read it or meditate upon it. Scripture is the same and its authority is the same no matter what men may think about it. For Scripture derives its authority from God alone.1 Its authority is therefore based upon its divine origin, upon its inspiration; auctoritatem habet a .2, And the authority of Scripture does not differ essentially from the authority of God Himself. Quenstedt says: 3 ‘The authority of the holy Scriptures and the authority of God are one and the same thing although the one pertains to God and the other to Scripture. The authority of God is by Him and of Him. The authority of Scripture is due to the unique ordination of God and to the fact that it was written by divine inspiration.’ Since Scripture is infallible and authoritative, it goes without saying that its testimony must be accepted a priori. In other words, Scripture is . Its authority is absolute. This view was in direct contrast to the Socinian doctrine that Scripture was to be accepted as reliable and authoritative only a posteriori. Socinians believed that investigation was necessary before one could put one’s faith in what Scripture said. The Lutherans, on the other hand, held that scientific, historical, archaeological or rational inquiry could never disprove the truthfulness or delimit the authority of Scripture, but that such investigation was interesting and beneficial as an external criterion by which heathens might be convinced, although only intellectually, of the reliability of Scripture. But Scripture which derives its authority from God alone needs no other source to strengthen its authority.4 In the very nature of the case Scripture which is God’s Word is immutably true and can depend upon nothing apart from itself except God.5 Scripture is, to quote Dannhauer,6 ‘ a light in itself, a principium which requires no proof and a revelation in which the highest knowledge of all divine truth finds its attainment’ (tanquam , principium indemonstrabile et revelatio ipsa, in quam ultima omnis veritatis divinae terminatur). When the Lutherans say that Scripture is they are emphasizing that its authority is absolute and independent. In fact, Scripture must be , if it is authoritative. This unconditioned authority, this , is a necessary consequence of the inspiration of Scripture.1 Calov in his Socinismus Profligatus attempts to show the impossible consequences of the Socinian position, but first he offers a statement of the Lutheran position which is worth quoting at this point. Calov was never one to equivocate. He says: 2 ‘Every Word of God is and and must be believed per se simply because it is the Word of God, because God has declared it and said it, even though our reason may not understand or grasp it. This is demanded by the divine authority and unfailing truth of the divine Word. Because it is the Word of very God it has a divine authority which is under no obligation to give an account of itself and it is above every limitation and worthy of faith per se. It must be accepted by faith per se, not on account of something else, because God cannot receive authority from another. Because it is the infallible truth of God our faith must be grounded in it unquestionably. Everything which is recorded in Scripture is the Word of God. If it says in Scripture that God became man, that Christ made atonement for us, that the Son of God made reconciliation, we must by all means accept that as the Word of God and put our faith in it because it is contained in Scripture.’ Calov then proceeds to show the absurdity of denying this position. The denial or slightest limitation of this basic principle reduces Scripture to a norma normata. If the authority of Scripture or our acceptance of Scripture depends on any opinion of human judgment, even to the slightest degree, then human judgment ultimately becomes the norm of articles of faith in place of the divine Word, and that Word is received only on account of human opinion. Propter quod enim unumquodque tale est, illud magis tale est.1 Of course, Calov says, if man will not accept the clear testimony of Scripture, but prefers his own perverted and corrupt reason, he will not hesitate to accuse God’s infallible Word of containing lies. But reason cannot comprehend the mysteries of our faith (1 Cor. 2. 14). Revelation is above reason. Therefore reason cannot sit in judgment over Scripture. If Scripture had to conform to the dictates of reason, not one article of our faith would remain. How, for instance, could we demonstrate per causas vel effecta the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection or creatio ex nihilo? Reason must be taken captive in accordance with Paul’s admonition (2 Cor. 10. 5). It was Calov’s opinion that if the statements of Scripture were to be judged by a posteriori evidence, Scripture could no longer be considered the Word of God. If rational or empirical investigation contributes anything towards strengthening the truthfulness or authority of Scripture, then Scripture is no longer ; in fact, it is no longer authoritative, and, what is of infinitely greater concern, our Christian faith is undone.2 This attribute of as it attaches itself to Scripture is of far-reaching significance. According to the dogmaticians, the fact that Scripture is and means that a posteriori evidence on behalf of Scripture is simply not valid in a discussion of its authority and reliability. Otherwise sola fide and the very nature of faith are denied. This explains the fact that the dogmaticians pay so little heed to external considerations in their discussion of the authority of Scripture. It is needless to say that sola scriptura and the doctrine of verbal inspiration lose their force if the of Scripture is not upheld. There is good reason why, immediately following his treatment of the of Scripture, Calov 1 entertains the question whether there are historical or mathematical or scientific errors in Scripture due to the limitations of the time in which it was written. The Socinians were of the opinion that Christ and His apostles were limited to that which was known in their day, and that they necessarily accommodated themselves to many commonly held errors of a scientific, chronological and topographical nature. Naturally Calov vehemently denied the possibility of such errors appearing in Scripture, and he offers the same arguments against this opinion as he has tendered against the Arminians. It becomes evident in his discussion of this question that to him the Socinian doctrine springs from a rejection of the of Scripture. According to this Socinian position the authority of Scripture is not infallible but only probable, and hence theological conclusions which are based on Scripture are only probable, for a conclusion cannot be more certain than that on which it is based. Finally Pyrrhonism results, which is always the result when the of Scripture is questioned, when all of Scripture is not accepted a priori. I quote a portion of Calov’s argumentation: ‘If Pyrrhonism be granted in some things which have been revealed, then that also which concerns faith and salvation is subject to Pyrrhonic doubt, and all theology lapses into academic probability, or rather, uncertainty. That is to say, if the source of theology is not at all times infallible, trustworthy and entirely above human criticism [], but in certain matters is only probable and of limited application, then there are no theological conclusions which are infallible and absolute, since it is unthinkable that a conclusion can be more certain than its own one authentic source. If this axiom, “Whatever God has said is irrevocably true and must be accepted with divine trust,” were not true in all cases but only in certain instances, if it were made to be doubtful to the extent that some things have been said and made known by God which are only probable and need not be accepted with a divine trust which must be absolutely certain, then who would be able to determine and decide with certainty in matters of theology that any of those things which are contained in the Word of God are incontrovertibly true and should be received with Christian certainty? Such will be the result as touching the reliability and authority of God’s Word, for when certain things appear which are doubtful and of questionable authority, how shall one be sure of the certainty and infallible authority of what is left?’ This statement of Calov’s is interesting. It reveals to us how he thinks regarding the relation between the reliability and authority, or , of Scripture. The infallible truthfulness of Scripture must be acknowledged a priori, for Scripture’s authority is infallible, Scripture is . The authority of Scripture must be received a priori, for Scripture owes its origin to God alone and was written under His divine inspiration. The divine origin of Scripture is accepted a priori; the witness of the Holy Spirit convinces the believer of this divinity of Scripture. Due to the power of the Spirit and to the inherent power of the Word, acceptance of the infallibility and authority and divinity of this Word is not a mere intellectual assent but a true and real faith (fides divina). This last fact, which is not mentioned by Calov in the statement quoted, will be discussed in the course of this chapter. 2. THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE AND THE CHURCH The importance of the authority of Scripture to the orthodox Lutheran teachers of the seventeenth century cannot be overestimated. Their entire theological position against Rome stood or fell with the doctrine of sola scriptura, and this principle postulated a standard of doctrine and life which was in all respects authoritative. Fundamental in Catholic theology was the proposition that Scripture derived its authority from the Church. The status controversiae between Lutheranism and Romanism lay, as Gerhard points out,1 not so much in the authority of Scripture as in the question of whence Scripture derives its authority. The common Jesuit standpoint expressly stated that the Scriptures had no authority so far as we are concerned (quoad nos) until the testimony of the Church was added.1 One notices in this tenet a close resemblance to the opinion held by the Socinians. For the Socinians the authority of Scripture is conditioned by empirical and rationalistic observation; for the Catholics it depends on the authority of the Church. In either case the authority of Scripture is not absolute and its is denied. Consequently, neither Socinians nor Catholics could accept the principle of sola scriptura. The Lutheran theologians, on the other hand, by insisting that the authority of Scripture was intrinsic and absolute, denied that that authority depended upon the authority of the early Church or of the Church today, or upon the purely human authority of a hierarchy or Pope. The authority and testimony of the Church is a clear and powerful medium through which we may know that Scripture is the Word of God, but this testimony is not absolutely necessary, much less does it establish the authority of Scripture. Experience has abundantly. shown that many have been brought to a faith in Christ without the aid or authority of the Church, simply by reading their Bible. The duty of the Church as against Scripture is to testify concerning it, protect it, preach it, interpret it and study it, but all this the Church performs as the handmaid of Scripture, not as the lord over Scripture. It is to be conceded that the divinity of Scripture may be known a posteriori from the witness and arguments of the Church, but this fact does not imply that the authority of Scripture depends upon the testimony of the Church or upon its authority. As a witness to the authority of Scripture the Church testifies to a fact already in existence; the Church does not give existence to the fact. A goldsmith or jeweller may describe truly and accurately a precious item; he does not thereby make that object valuable. No, the witness of the Church which is only human can produce only a human faith, an intellectual assent (fides humana), a notitia probabilis,1 a fides acquisita,2 in the authority of Scripture. Of what value is such a faith? Real faith, Christian certainty (fides divina), in the authority of Scripture is brought about by Scripture itself, which is and needs no further proof of its authority.3 Putting it in another way, Christian faith, or certainty, in the divinity and authority of Scripture is engendered only by the Holy Spirit who works through Scripture.4 These two thoughts touch upon the very heart of the controversy. Catholic theology did not contest the authority of Scripture. Roman Catholics went so far as to grant that Scripture was divine and owed its authority to God, but only on the condition that this concession was understood quoad rem et secundum se, that is, if Scripture was viewed as against itself and in an absolute sense. So far as man is concerned, Scripture has no authority except by the Church. Hence Bellarmine could say,5 ‘Non aliunde habemus, Scripturam esse divinam, et qui sint libri sacri, quam ex traditione non scripta.’ Here we see that the Lutheran-Catholic controversy which centred around the authority of Scripture was also very much concerned with the efficacy of the Scriptures; to the Lutherans the authority of Scripture consisted in part in its ability to convince men of its own authority. Because it was mainly the polemical situation of the day which necessitated a locus on the authority of Scripture, most of the dogmaticians’ argumentation is in opposition to the doctrine that the authority of Scripture depends upon the Church. In his ‘corroboration’ () of the authority of Scripture in general Quenstedt offers only one Scripture passage, 1 Thess. 2. 13. Commenting on this passage he says: 1 ‘Here the Thessalonians are praised because they did not reject the preaching they heard from the mouth of Paul and his companions—and nothing could be more contemptible than they—but accepted it, not as human preaching or as a new doctrine ingeniously invented by men, but as the Word of everlasting God Himself, even though it was preached by men.’ Quenstedt goes on to say that to regard Paul’s preaching as merely a human message and to accept it as the Word of God which is absolutely certain and infallible and binding are two opposing ideas which cannot be reconciled. Paul describes his preaching in two ways: first in reference to its author, who is God, not by signification or metaphorically but in truth, and secondly in reference to its effect, which is faith in the hearts of many who hear it. Both the author and the effect of Scripture show that it is authoritative. Quenstedt concludes by saying that what can be said of Paul’s preaching can be said of all of Scripture, for he preached the same essential message as Moses and the prophets (Acts 26. 22). To defend his position that the authority of Scripture did not depend on the Church Quenstedt goes into more detail. He appeals to the testimony of Christ himself. He remarks in reference to Jn. 5. 34 that, just as Christ needed the extra witness of no one, the Bible needs no testimony besides its own to prove its authority. Just as John the Baptist spoke of Christ, the Church speaks of Scripture. His argument is weak here. What is true of Christ is not necessarily true of Scripture. Quenstedt seems to be assuming what he is attempting to prove. He is on firmer ground when he appeals to Jn. 4. 42, although he still argues by way of analogy. From the report of the Samaritan woman her countrymen arrived only at an opinion that Jesus was the promised Christ, but after hearing Jesus and being enlightened by the Holy Spirit this human opinion was converted into a Christian certainty that Jesus was truly the Christ and the Saviour of the world. In the story the woman represents the Church which commends and recognizes the authority of Scripture and which invites and leads men to accept the same. After reading or hearing this Word and being enlightened by it they no longer accept Scripture because of the Church, but because of Scripture itself, because it is the Word of God which is and . Quenstedt says in conclusion:1 ‘By the witness of the Church as a guide, one might say, we are led to Christ who speaks in the Scriptures. Afterwards that voice of Christ so touches our hearts that we accept Scripture no more because of the Church’s word, but by the operation of the Holy Spirit we clearly perceive in our hearts the majesty and holiness and truth of the Word.’ The dogmaticians are alert to the fact that any claim which makes the divinity and authority of Scripture dependent upon the Church vitiated not only the authority but also the inspiration of Scripture. Scripture owes its being and its authority to God alone, by whom it was divinely inspired.2 Only by virtue of its inspiration can Scripture be said to be invested with intrinsic authority and majesty.3 Scripture was written by the inspired penmen before and apart from any judgment of the Church.4 Did Paul’s epistles need to wait for the imprimatur of the Church before they were accepted as Christian and authoritative? 5 But what do the papists mean by the Church? Do they mean the Church today? Then the Pope is the judge over Scripture. But thousands have accepted the authority of Scripture who have never heard of a Pope. Do they mean the ancient Church? Then let them go back and find that before all the Church Fathers and councils there were the holy Scriptures.6 Furthermore, the authority of any writing depends on its author, not upon its reviewer or reader, and God, not the Church, is the author of Scripture.7 The fact of the matter is that the authority of Scripture establishes the authority of the Church, and affords us the only way of knowing the true Church.1 In the nature of the case, Scripture is divine. That Scripture is divinely inspired and immediately dependent upon God can only mean that its authority is above and beyond that of the Church and that it is absolutely divine and authoritative, not only in se but also quoad nos.2 The inspired character of Scripture, to be sure, but also the very nature of the Church disproves the contention that the authority of Scripture depends on that of the Church. The Church is the communion of saints, a certain number of believers. Now this fact is known from Scripture, and that the authority of the Church rests on the authority of Scripture is also known from Scripture (Jn. 4. 7 ff; 3. 29; 5. 34). Hollaz describes the relation between the Church and Scripture as follows: 3 ‘The Church is not the lord, but the servant of Scripture; not the mother, but the daughter; not the author, but the guardian, witness and interpreter; not the judge, but the one who testifies of and vindicates Scripture.’ The testimony of the Church cannot prove the authority of Scripture, much less establish this authority, because this testimony is human and is liable to err. Yet the Pope claims that the testimony of the Church is absolutely certain. But, asks Gerhard,4 where does he get this idea? The Pope replies in the Council of Trent that the Holy Spirit will not allow the judgments and decrees of the Church to err. How does he know this? From Matt. 28. 20. But these words are found in Scripture, and they show that the Church derives its authority from Scripture. Here was the real point of controversy between the two parties. The Lutherans believed that the testimony of the Church was human, the Catholics held that it was divinely revealed and inspired.1 It is on this point that Calov in his Criticus Sacer attacks the Roman position. He claims that the Jesuits are arguing in ‘a most vicious circle’; they are attempting to prove two things by each other.2 Moreover, this Jesuit doctrine is utterly un-Scriptural; nowhere does Scripture even hint that unwritten tradition should be accepted as divinely inspired. Calov proceeds shrewdly to argue that if something besides Scripture is needed to convince us of Scripture’s authority and divine origin, then we also need something else to convince us of the authority of that which convinces of the authority of Scripture, and thus we become involved in an impossible processus in infinitum. Or perhaps we should accept unwritten tradition simply on account of itself. If we should do this, why not then accept Scripture in the same manner? The papists reply that the Church distinguishes between true and false tradition. Calov counters that even the Jesuits will not go so far as to claim that the Church establishes Scripture as a ‘new Word of God’; 3 they say only that the Church proves that Scripture is the Word of God. Bellarmine teaches that Scripture is certain and true not because of human authority, but because it contains the oracles of God.4 Calov says he will be content if the cardinal will stop at this point, but he protests against Bellarmine’s going on to say that, though the Scripture is divine, the testimony of the Church is required to convince us of this fact.1 Such an idea completely cancels out the previous thought and renders the whole Bible no more reliable than the story of Mohammed. Calov then makes it clear that he does not wish to do away with the testimony of the Church as something by means of which (per quod) the authority of Scripture may be ascertained, but only as the one and only thing an account of which (propter quod) the divinity of Scripture is established. The Church, then, is a sort of medium through which God can bring about faith in Scripture and its authority. As such the Church enjoys a pedagogical office by which it leads us to the authority of Scripture and is able to work an occasion whereby we accept Scripture in terms of divinity and authority, although only with an intellectual assent, a fides hutnana. There is, however, another medium through which God engenders faith in His Word, a medium which is causative and which itself works faith in the Word. This medium is the Word itself, which is . We believe that the Word of God is the Word of God, not on account of some other word, but on account of itself.2 It is clear from Calov’s whole discussion that he is conscious of defending not simply the authority of Scripture, but also the Lutheran principle of sola scriptura. It is quite clear that he thinks of these two ideas as correlatives. Quenstedt too is careful to avoid any possible misunderstanding on this point, that the authority of Scripture is proved to us (respectu nostri) not propter ecclesiam but per ecclesiam. He freely allows that through the ministry of the Church we are brought to faith in the divinity of Scripture, but this is accomplished in so far as the Church possesses the ministry of the Word. For Scripture is the chief means not only through which but on account of which (medium principale per quod et propter quod) we accept Scripture. Quenstedt reasons as follows: 1 ‘Although Pharaoh once believed through a butler, the Queen of Sheba through a rumour, Naaman the Syrian through a young Israelitish maid, her fellow citizens through a Samaritan woman, these people did not believe because of the butler, the rumour, the young maid or the woman. In like manner we acknowledge Scripture through the Church, not because of the Church.’ The Roman Church, in fact, employs Scripture in her efforts to persuade men of her authority and that of Scripture. By so doing she denies in fact what she maintains in theory. It is true, of course, that Scripture would have no way of touching the hearts of sinners and curing the ills of the present world if the Church were not in the world. In a sense, therefore, the Church resides in the world as a very precious treasure because the oracles of God were delivered to her, and thus she can lead men to a knowledge of the truth. With such a commission the Church does not contribute anything to Scripture; she merely bears witness to Scripture. What do the papists mean by the testimony of the Church? Quenstedt 2 asks this question and insists that his adversaries never give answer, and consequently complete confusion is imposed upon the controversy. If they mean the testimony of the universal Church, no such testimony exists. If they mean the testimony of a peculiar or particular Church, any testimony it might offer would obviously be subject to doubt and be insufficient. If they mean the testimony of the Church in respect to the communion of saints, it is superfluous, for all believers already accept Scripture. If they mean the testimony of the Church in respect to unbelievers, such unbelievers will accept the authority of the Church no more than that of Scripture. The papists confound the issue still more when they refuse to distinguish between a purely intellectual opinion, a fides humana which is based on the opinion of the Church, and a Christian assurance, or certainty, which is brought about by the testimony of the Holy Spirit working in and through Scripture.1 This is the chief argument advanced by Calov against the Roman Catholic position. According to Rom. 10. 17, Christian certainty of the inspiration and the authority of Scripture can be effected only by the Word of God itself and the Holy Spirit working through that Word. Faith is always connected to the Word of God in such a manner that nothing, in fact, is believed with Christian assurance apart from the Word of God.2 It is absurd to assume that we are to believe in the inspiration of Scripture because of human tradition rather than because of that inspired Word itself. The Holy Spirit never works faith in us through men but always through His Word, which is the medium illuminationis & conversionis simply because it is God’s and not man’s Word. Properly speaking, the testimony of the Church is not a means of inciting faith, for this testimony is not immediate and per se fide dignum, but is human. Hence, if the witness of the Church were necessary before we could believe in Scripture, our faith would depend on men and not on God; such faith would be founded on something which is earth-bound, on something which is a ‘veritas creata,’ as Calov puts it.3 This is impossible, unless we wish to deny sola gratia, for Scripture abundantly testifies that faith is a work of God (Jn. 6. 29) and a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5. 22; Col. 2. 12). The Church can only urge us to believe in Scripture, it cannot work such faith.4 Scripture, however, in and of itself has the power (because God has inspired it and speaks through it) to enlighten our intellect and move our will (Ps. 19. 7, 8; Jn. 5. 36; Rom. 1. 16; 1 Cor. 1. 18; 2 Tim. 3. 15). The Church has no such power. Furthermore, Scripture not only works faith; it has the secondary function of working faith in itself.5 Catholic theologians offered, in the main, three arguments in support of their position. First they argued that the Church was older than Scripture. The Lutheran dogmaticians answered that if the Church was older than Scripture, it was not older than God’s Word, of which Scripture is an accidens and on which the Church is built and has its foundation. What is more, the papists err when they fancy that what is more ancient must possess more authority, for, says Quenstedt,1 ‘the law is older than the Gospel, the prophets and John the Baptist than Christ, but they do not have greater authority.’ Quenstedt’s argument is sound, but he could hardly have chosen less applicable examples to prove his point (Gal. 3. 17; Jn. 8. 58). Secondly the Catholics argued that the canon of Scripture was determined by the Church. The dogmaticians vehemently opposed this argument. They maintained that a book of the Bible was canonical only by virtue of its divine origin.2 Roman theology held that the canon was an article of faith. This article of faith was not to be found in Scripture but was established by the Church. Quenstedt 3 states that the canon can be considered in two ways. Viewed as nothing more than the canonical books themselves, the canon is identical with Scripture. Viewed as a number of canonical books (pro numero libris canonicis)—the Catholics regarded the canon in such a way, as a list of canonical books— such a catalogue is not found in Scripture, but is based on tradition and on the writings and witness of the Church, Jewish as well as Christian, which testifies that so many and no more books are canonical. Such a catalogue, however, inasmuch as it has been superimposed upon the remaining contents of Scripture is not an article of belief.4 At this point the whole controversy regarding the bearing of the canonicity of Scripture upon its authority comes to a head. If the Church has established the canon, both the authority and the inspiration of Scripture lose their importance and meaning, and, what is more, the principle of sola scriptura collapses. Recognizing this inescapable fact, Gerhard is very careful but firm in articulating the Lutheran position. He offers a thorough discussion of the entire question in his Loci Theologici.1 The dogma of the canon is not, properly speaking, an article of faith. Moses and the prophets and apostles did not, by their act of writing, construct a new doctrine. The holy writers wrote articles of faith, but the fact that they wrote is no article of faith. It is true that all articles of belief are based on this foundation, that the books in which they are contained are canonical. This means that the dogma of the canon is the source of doctrines of faith; it does not mean that it is an article of faith itself. The Church, therefore, by its testimony concerning the canon, does not construct a new doctrine but only recognizes a principium, The knowledge of Christian doctrines is contingent upon the acceptance of this principtum,2 And so it cannot simply be conceded that the doctrine of the canon is not found in Scripture, for Scripture is the canon. But does not the Church determine what books in the Bible are canonical? No. The Church only witnesses what God has already decided and established. The internal criteria and the witness of the Spirit also testify to this fact. The Church can make a beginning in convincing us of the canonicity of certain books, but ultimately the Scripture must testify of itself and the Holy Spirit must convince us through Scripture.3 What long ago persuaded the hearers of the Word to believe the preaching of the apostles now persuades us to believe their writings. Gerhard summarizes his thoughts as follows: ‘We believe the canonical Scriptures because they are the canonical Scriptures, that is, because they were brought about by God and written by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We do not believe them because the Church testifies concerning them…. The canonical books are the source of our faith from which the Church itself and its authority must be proved. A principium is believed on account of itself, not because of something else. A principium can be demonstrated a posteriori, but it cannot be proved by means of something older. In such a case it would not be a principium. We believe the Church in so far as it adheres to Scripture, that is, the Word of God. We do not believe Scripture because of the Church, that is, the witness of men, but because of itself, because it is the voice of God.’ It might be added at this point that whereas, according to the dogmaticians, the question of the canonicity of the books of Scripture definitely affects saving faith, the question of the authorship of the various books affects only our historical judgment (cognitio historica).1 Our saving faith would not be affected if the Gospel according to Matthew were written by someone else. The primitive Church accurately bears witness to the authorship of certain canonical books because she actually saw the autographed copies of Scripture, but the mere witness of the ancient Church cannot establish the fact that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are canonical or the fact that the Gospels which went under the names of Thomas or Bartholomew are not. Thirdly the Catholics argued that only the Church could testify with certainty to the original idiom of the autographic Scriptures. Quenstedt 2 counters that this contention is contrary to all historical evidence and is also un-Scriptural. He says: ‘The Holy Spirit bears witness to the fact that all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3. 16) and that not only in respect to its formal principle, in respect to its sense and the divine meaning conveyed in the words and sentences, but also in respect to its material principle, in respect to the titles, letters, words, idiom and speech which were set down by God; and the holy Scriptures which Timothy learned from childhood were originally written in no other language than Hebrew. St. Paul also says (Rom. 3. 2) that to the Jews were committed , the oracles of God (which with the Holy Fathers we understand as the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament). Now how could these oracles be delivered except in Hebrew?’ For, says Quenstedt, these oracles of God must have been delivered and entrusted to the Jews in the same language as God originally revealed Himself to the patriarchs and prophets, and in a language that they could understand. Although Paul does not, in so many words, say that these oracles of God were written in Hebrew, it is most reasonable to assume this fact, since this was the language in which the Scriptures were preserved. Still alluding to 2 Tim. 3. 15 ff, Quenstedt concludes his rebuttal of the third Catholic argument by writing: ‘If all the words contained in the Biblical codex in the original language [Quenstedt means here the Hebrew Old Testament to which Paul had access] were dictated and inspired individually by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the idiom itself was immediately set down by God.’ In other words, Paul in 2 Tim. 3. 15 was referring to a contemporary Old Testament text which was written in Hebrew. It is worthy of note that Musaeus followed the line of argumentation of the Catholic theologians on this question. He was severely reprimanded by his more orthodox Lutheran contemporaries. According to Calov,1 the denial that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew or the assertion that only the Church can affirm with certainty the original idiom of Scripture weakens not only the authority of Scripture but also its verbal inspiration and makes the latter doctrine unworkable and meaningless. 3. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CRITERIA OF SCRIPTURE How can we know that Scripture is divine if the authority of the Church cannot make us divinely certain of this fact? The dogmaticians all answer that there are a great number of criteria, both external and internal, which powerfully speak for the authority and heavenly origin of Scripture. Markedly less emphasis is placed on these criteria by the later dogmaticians. These criteria are able to convince the unbeliever who is not incorrigible that Scripture is the inspired Word of God, but, however convincing they may be, they can bring about only a human conviction and opinion. The so-called external criteria are: (1) the antiquity of Scripture, (2) the spiritual insight of the amanuenses and their deep concern for the truth, (3) the miracles performed by Christ and the apostles and prophets, miracles accompanying their preaching and performed to prove the divine authority of their message, (4) the steadfast adherence of the Church to this message for hundreds of years, (5) the constancy of myriad martyrs, (6) the testimonies of many who have not known the Scriptures, (7) the swift propagation of the Christian faith throughout the whole world, (8) the severe punishment which has so often been meted out to those who persecute the Christian faith. These external criteria are able to break down some of the barriers which hinder the unbeliever from accepting the authority of Scripture, but their influence can extend no further. They can only pave the way for Scripture to testify concerning itself. The internal criteria of Scripture which are able to convince us of its divine authority are: (1) the majesty of God who speaks of Himself in Scripture, (2) the truthfulness of Scripture, (3) the sublimity of the mysteries revealed in Scripture, (4) the perfection of the teachings and precepts in Scripture, (5) the manner of speaking in Scripture, so profound, so simple, so clear and so brief, (6) the power of Scripture to move the hearts of sinful men, (7) the capacity of Scripture to maintain its truthfulness in face of time and opposition, (8) the remarkable harmony between the New and Old Testaments and the perfect doctrinal agreement between all the books. The dogmaticians teach that even these internal criteria can beget only a human intellectual conviction regarding the authority of Scripture. They have no power to create a Christian certainty in Scripture’s divine origin and authority.1 Hollaz, however, asserts that the internal criteria of Scripture can make us divinely certain of the authority and inspiration of Scripture.2 He does not hereby wish to reject what all the earlier dogmaticians said before him. To him the internal criteria are identical with Scripture itself. Hence, to say that the internal criteria make us divinely certain of the authority of Scripture is another way of saying that Scripture itself convinces us of its own authority. Hollaz quotes with approval the statement of Adam Osiander,3 Whatever is identical with the divine Word brings forth the same faith as the divine Word. Now the profound doctrinal content, the divine prophecies and the most holy injunctions are identical with the holy Word.’ But he is not unaware of the disagreement on this point. Against this latter position of Hollaz the Catholics argued that it was an attempt to prove something by itself (idem per idem). Hollaz replied that the internal criteria were essentially (realiter) the same as Scripture. Because they were coincident with Scripture they were able to engender a fides divina. However, because they differed from Scripture in form (formaliter) they could prove its divine origin. Hollaz is here indulging in some close scholastic argumentation to prove on rationalistic grounds what, according to his own principle of sola scriptura, needed no a posteriori proof. Inasmuch as it had even in his day become a generally accepted practice to become certain of a thing by examination, he would have done better if he had refuted the objection of his adversaries by simply saying that the divine attributes of Scripture were able to convince us of its divine origin, which he does in the last sentence of his rebuttal. He would have done still better if, according to his own principles, he had remarked that the Catholic objection was invalid, that it constituted a digression into an unrelated subject (), and that, in fact, it was a usurpation of reason over sola scriptura. It does no credit to the dogmaticians nor to the congruity of their theological position that they feel constrained at all times to give answer to all the objections of their adversaries, and especially that they do so with the weapons of their adversaries. 4. THE INNER WITNESS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE But if we cannot become certain of the divinity of Scripture by its criteria (as was taught by all the dogmaticians through Quenstedt), how may we come to such a Christian certainty? The dogmaticians all answer that Scripture itself has the power to make us divinely certain of its authority.1 Moreover, the Spirit testifies through Scripture that Scripture is divine. This internum Spiritus Sancti testimonium is to be regarded as His supernatural work, by which, through our reading and hearing of God’s Word, He moves and enlightens our hearts to faith in His Word and promises. In this action of the Spirit the Word of God participates as an organic cause (causa organica); that is to say, the witness of the Spirit is never immediate but always per verbum.1 This testimonium internum is not something outside and apart from man, as if it were another internal criterion of Scripture and nothing more, but is a living witness in the believer’s heart.2 In support of this doctrine of the inner testimony of the Spirit the dogmaticians appeal to 1 Jn. 5. 6. They understand ‘spirit’ in the second half of the verse to mean the Word of God, or Scripture, in a metonymical sense.3 They point also to other passages in Scripture where this is the case (Jn. 6. 63). “, then, is not causal but determinative, so that the sense would be: the Spirit testifies that the doctrine of the Spirit is true, since He works through this doctrine in the hearts of men, convincing them that what has been set down by God in Scripture is truly divine. Verse 10 adds weight. Here we learn that believers have the testimony of the Spirit in them, because faith which trusts in the Son of God is a work of the Holy Spirit through His witness in the henrt of man. Another proof text is 1 Thess. 1. 5-6. Here it is taught that the Thessalonians received the Gospel of Paul with great joy because his Gospel was not a simple and meaningless message but a message carrying with it the power of the Spirit of God, who enlightened and gave faith to those who heard it. 1 Thess. 2. 13 is also mentioned in support of the Lutheran doctrine. That the Thessalonians received the Word from the mouth of Paul as the very Word of God means that they regarded it as an authoritative Word preached by the suggestion and inspiration of God. Finally, the tremendous effect upon the hearts of those reading and hearing the divine Word of law and Gospel is indicated all through Scripture. One need only think of the effect of Peter’s Pentecost sermon upon the three thousand, the effect of Isa. 53 on the Ethiopian eunuch and the effect of Paul’s message on Lydia. The dogmaticians insist that this inner testimony of the Spirit never operates immediately, for the Holy Spirit does not work apart from the Word of God.1 The emphasis laid by the old Lutheran teachers upon the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum and upon the of Scripture was necessitated by the Roman Catholic doctrine that only the testimony of the Church could convince us of the authority of Scripture. The Jesuits, who discarded the whole idea of an inner witness of the Spirit, attacked the Lutheran position, insisting that they were arguing in a circle; on the one hand they proved the divinity of Scripture by the witness of the Holy Spirit and on the other hand they proved the divinity of the Spirit and His testimony by Scripture. Hollaz 2 replies that he is not operating with a sophistic circle. In a sophistic circle the unknown is proved by that which is equally unknown; the Lutherans, however, are merely employing a perfectly legitimate regressus demonstrativus which argues from effect to cause. The divinity of Scripture is proved by its supernatural effect.3 No one will dispute that the Spirit who bears witness to Scripture is divine. One need only look at the results of His witness.4 Calov does not take refuge in a regressus demonstrativus in defending the Lutheran position against the Jesuits. We accept the Word of God, he says,1 because of itself, because it is , not on account of something else outside the Word. This Word of God is and is itself the first reason we should accept it (ratio credendi ultima).2 Scripture can convince us of its own authority because of its own inherent power and efficacy, because it is not only a principium cognoscendi but a principium operandi, and because the Holy Spirit works always through Scripture. He says that this is not arguing in a circle and leaves the matter there. Because of Calov’s emphasis upon the of Scripture in authenticating the authority of Scripture quoad nos, K. Heim has remarked that Calov, unlike Gerhard, completely divorced the inner witness of the Spirit from the axiomatic self-authenticating property of Scripture, thereby reducing the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum to the secondary function of validating what is already objectively certain from the fact of inspiration, a fact which is separated from living experience.3 It is true that Calov places less emphasis upon the witness of the Spirit in this matter than Gerhard, but from this fact we have no right to conclude that he has departed from the teaching of Gerhard and his other theological forerunners that the of Scripture and the witness of the Holy Spirit belong together in certifying to us the divine origin and authority of Scripture. Calov gives no indication of wishing to dissever all relation between the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum and the efficacy and of Scripture. Certainly he never would have said that we become convinced of the authority of Scripture without the testimony of the Spirit working in the Word. Calov’s words, however, which Heim himself cites, suggest rather that he consciously wants to unite the action of Scripture and the action of the Spirit in reference to the authority of Scripture into one action. Calov says that the witness of the Holy Spirit comes through the power of Scripture.1 It is true that Calov speaks of an objective authority of Scripture which is apart from our attitude towards it, but he does not differ from Gerhard on this point. Heim says that Gerhard, in defence against Romanism, seized upon the identity of the objective certainty and the subjective certainty of the axiomatic self-evidence of the witness of the Spirit, and that this blurring of the two was no longer possible for Calov, who taught the authority of Scripture as a thing in itself. But is this conjecture correct in view of the fact that Gerhard, too, views Scripture absolute as possessing divine authority in se ac per se and also respectu nostri as being recognized as authoritative by us? 2 Heim bases his surmise that Calov separated the testimony of the Spirit from the of Scripture and reduced the latter to a stiff concept divorced from human experience upon the fact that Calov was the first to bring into view the idea of verbal inspiration as a thing by itself and upon the fact that Calov insisted that all of Scripture, whether pertaining to salvation or not, was the Word of God in the same sense by virtue of its divine inspiration. Whether Heim’s opinion is true that Calov was the first to present verbal inspiration as a thing in itself is questionable, but the conclusion he draws from this opinion is still more open to question. I cannot see that such a conclusion follows from such a premise. Furthermore, Heim’s statement that Calov reduced the witness of the Spirit to the merely secondary function of authenticating subjectively that which was already true objectively, if such a statement means to imply that Calov wished to de-emphasize the importance of the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum, is hardly in keeping with the fact that Calov, in spite of his lack of emphasis upon this doctrine, teaches that only this testimony working through the Word can engender in man a fides divina in the authority and inspiration of the written Word of God. Nor is it in keeping with the teaching, so often reiterated in Calov’s theology, that all spiritual effects in man are results of the Holy Spirit’s activity.1 Finally, when Calov and the other dogmaticians spoke of Scripture as a principium operandi they definitely did not mean every verse of Scripture, nor did they mean the materia of Scripture.2 According to all the dogmaticians, the causative authority of Scripture resides not in the words of Scripture, but in its inspired sense.3 Translations are equally efficacious and authoritative with the original Scriptures. The testimony of the Spirit works through the efficacy and authority of Scripture, properties which inhere in the divine meaning of Scripture. It is therefore difficult to see what specific bearing verbal inspiration has on Calov’s doctrine, in particular, of the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum. It might have been kinder to the old dogmaticians had I omitted such a detailed examination of their scholastic methodology in regard to the authority of Scripture quoad nos, but such an examination, although it necessitates a certain amount of repetition, is of value because it shows their thought process in this matter and indicates how great an influence their methodology exerted upon their dogmatical position in certain instances. There is reason why the dogmaticians’ argument for the authority of Scripture quoad nos should be more involved, more scholastic and perhaps more objectionable than the arguments upon which they based their other propositions concerning Scripture. They were contending against the Jesuits and were using the tools of their adversaries. Although Haffenreffer and Hunnius and the other earlier dogmaticians concede the definite limitations of both internal and external criteria, although they explain that these criteria can actually accomplish no spiritual effects, although they teach theoretically and consistently that all spiritual results in man as against Scripture and in every respect are wrought by the operation of the Spirit through the Word, the fact that they devote such a great amount of space to this matter of criteria suggests that they feel their position to be insecure, as if added rationalistic apologetics were required to support what is simply above all rationalistic considerations, namely, the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum. In view of this doctrine of the inner witness of the Spirit, intensified as it is by the earlier Lutheran teachers, it is hard to see the point of their equally pronounced emphasis on the criteria of Scripture. If it is the Spirit of God alone who through the Word teaches us to believe the Scriptures, why is there so much talk about these criteria, which at best can effect only a fides humana which is really no faith at all? The whole of this emphasis reveals a certain concession to rationalism which is inherent in their theological method unless carefully guarded against, and betrays a certain inconsistency with their rigid adherence to the of Scripture and to their principles of sola scriptura and sola fide. The witness of the Spirit which is sola fides and which is the result of sola gratia simply rules out the necessity and the validity of any observable criteria. This inconsistency between criteria and the action of the Spirit seems to be sensed by the later dogmaticians, beginning with Gerhard, although they do not rid themselves of it. It remained for John Adam Osiander, who, as I have mentioned, was closely followed by Hollaz, to attempt to reconcile this conflict. To the objection that a principium was not demonstrable he agrees, if one tries to prove it ordinarily (demonstratione proprie), but says that it can be proved empirically (sensuali exhibitione).1 To the further objection that this makes faith knowledge, he replies that something can be believed by the power of God (simplici influxu vel operatione) and can also be known by deductive reasoning (ex ratiocinative deductione), for example, the Resurrection (cf. Jn. 5. 28, with Matt. 22. 32).2 This is true, of course, but it proves nothing and the objection remains unanswered. Osiander had become so occupied with giving reply to every possible objection to his argument from criteria that he forgets in this instance the implications of the Lutheran formula of sola fide and of the nature of faith itself. That he intends to make Scripture as the principium cognoscendi reasonable and knowable through criteria compromises sola scriptura as well as the proposition that Scripture is , and weakens the antithesis between faith and knowledge, in spite of what he says, rather sophistically, to the contrary. The same inconsistency comes out when he and Hollaz resort to a regressus demonstrativus which argues from effect to cause in defence against the Jesuit indictment that they are arguing in a circle in proving the deity of the Spirit from Scripture and the divinity of Scripture by the witness of the Spirit. Even the earlier dogmaticians seem frightened of this idem per idem accusation hurled against them by the Jesuits, but Calov 1 more wisely answers the objection with an appeal to the power of the Word of God and to the witness of the Holy Spirit. The manner in which the old dogmaticians have treated this testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum is perhaps unfortunate. They have taken this doctrine into account almost exclusively in reference to the authority of Scripture,2 and they speak of it far less often in reference to Christ as the object of saving faith or in reference to the believer’s personal assurance of faith. Because of this rather unbalanced consideration of the doctrine, they have, I believe, been misunderstood by more than one of the many theologians who have undertaken a study of their theology. Dorner,3 for instance, says that Calov changed the religious importance of the testimony of the Spirit into a purely intellectual process of accepting the truth of theological propositions. This judgment is over-simplified and over-stated,4 but it is a reproach which is not without some justification since it is based on the dogmaticians’ one-sided emphasis on the witness of the Spirit in respect to Scripture. In all justice to the dogmaticians, however, it must be pointed out that they do not deal with the witness of the Spirit exclusively in relation to the authority of Scripture. A statement of Gerhard’s is typical of all the dogmaticians. He says: 5 ‘God witnesses to believers concerning His promised grace in Christ not only outwardly in His Word, but He also gives His Holy Spirit to them. He gives witness to their spirit that they are the sons of God. And thus He strengthens them inwardly concerning God’s grace, the merits of Christ and their personal application of them.’ 1 A later remark of Dorner’s 2 that the dogmaticians’ concept of faith in its relation to the testimony of the Spirit is a ‘pathology of justifying faith’ is unjustified. In the old Lutheran theology the testimony of the Spirit was always given to believers. An unbeliever cannot have the testimony of the Spirit. This fact is clearly shown by the above statement of Gerhard’s and by the passages which he brings in to support his conviction. Therefore the witness of the Spirit does not bring about in the believer a saving faith, since that already exists, but rather a Christian certainty (fides divina) in the authority of Scripture and in his own personal sonship. Strictly speaking, the testimony of the Holy Spirit as it is put forward in the theology of the dogmaticians has nothing to do with fides justificans. Dorner has apparently missed the point of their teaching regarding this matter.3 More curious is the observation of Heim that the testimonium Spiritus Sancti in Gerhard’s theology represents a departure from Luther, in that Gerhard restricts it to the criteria of Scripture whereas Luther is said to have taught that it was given through the whole of Scripture.4 In other words, Gerhard confined the working of the Spirit in connection with Christian faith to Gospel portions of Scripture or the Word of God. Heim is correct regarding Gerhard. Although Gerhard often says that the witness of the Spirit comes through Scripture, he means to say that the witness of the Spirit works through the inner criteria of Scripture, or, more exactly, through the promises of Scripture.1 He does 2 not differ from Calov on this point. Although Calov says 3 that the testimony of the Spirit comes through the efficacy of Scripture he means the same as Gerhard does, because the efficacy of Scripture resides primarily and properly speaking in the promises of the divine Word.4 Nor is there, I believe, any difference between Gerhard and Luther in this matter. It is true that Luther says that the Spirit works through all of Scripture,5 but he certainly emphasizes that it is properly the Word of promise through which the Spirit of God testifies in our hearts.6 When Gerhard and the other dogmaticians speak of the Spirit witnessing to the believer that Scripture is the Word of God, they say that this witness works through the internal criteria of Scripture. When Gerhard speaks of the Spirit witnessing to the believer that he is a believer, he says that this witness works through the promises of Scripture.7 Certainly Luther would not have questioned this latter teaching; certainly he never could have taught that the precepts contained in Scripture played any part in inciting assurance of faith in the believer.1 Whether Luther ever views the testimony of the Spirit as against the authority and inspiration of Scripture I cannot say, but it is quite clear that the dogmaticians’ emphasis upon the testimony of the Spirit witnessing to the authority of Scripture cannot be found in Luther, as Dorner has pointed out. 5. SCRIPTURE AS THE ONLY NORM OF DOCTRINE The dogmaticians teach that Scripture is the norm of all doctrine and controversy in the Church. It is such a norm because it is clear and perfect and also because it is intrinsically authoritative.2 That it is the norm in matters of controversy is proved by the fact that Scripture in Ps. 19. 4 is called a norm, as well as in Gal. 6. 16, where Paul calls the doctrine he set forth in his epistle a rule, . It is proved by the fact that God obligates His Church to go to Scripture alone to settle all controversial issues. The reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah were both brought about by a return to the Word of God as the only norm of doctrine and life. Both Christ and his disciples appealed to the written Word in times of controversy (Matt. 4. 4; 19. 4; 22. 29; Mk. 9. 12; Lk. 10. 26; 24. 26; Acts 3. 22; 7. 2; 13. 33; 26. 22). Gerhard and Quenstedt go into great detail in their exegesis of these