IS.Chapter7.docx

CHAPTER SEVEN THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE SINCE it is the purpose of God, who is the author of Scripture, to inform men of His nature and will and instruct them regarding faith and life, it is His will also that Scripture be sufficient and clear. An ambiguous and imperfect Scripture would frustrate...

CHAPTER SEVEN THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE SINCE it is the purpose of God, who is the author of Scripture, to inform men of His nature and will and instruct them regarding faith and life, it is His will also that Scripture be sufficient and clear. An ambiguous and imperfect Scripture would frustrate the very end to which Scripture was written.1 The very purpose of inspiration is the perfection of Scripture.2 What does it mean that Scripture is sufficient? It means that everything a believer must know to be saved and everything he must do to live a life pleasing to God is contained in Scripture.3 The Lutheran position is explicitly stated by Calov.4 Scripture sufficiently and adequately contains everything necessary for faith and life, and that either expressly (), with words conveying the intended meaning (quoad verba ), or by implication, with clear consequences drawn from what is expressly written. Dorsch 5 points out that the sufficiency of Scripture is not absolute: that is to say, Scripture does not contain all theological truth. There exists a theologia which is in God and has never been revealed. The sufficiency of Scripture is restricted; Scripture is sufficient only in reference to its end, namely faith in Christ and eternal salvation.6 Nor is Scripture perfect in such a way that it presents a theological system which is perfectly logical and of equal validity for all ages. There are doctrinal and historical gaps (lacunae) in Scripture. Nor does the perfection of Scripture imply that everything Christ and His apostles spoke and did is recorded in Scripture. The careful and thorough discussion of this whole question by the dogmaticians was provoked by the Roman Catholic dogma that unwritten tradition enjoyed equal authority in doctrinal matters with Scripture. It is for this reason that the Lutheran teachers speak of a sufficientia exclusiva. Nothing except Scripture can teach or prove what is necessary for salvation. Therefore it is not enough simply to say that the Word of God is sufficient for faith and life, for the papists do not identify Scripture with the Word of God but teach that unwritten tradition and decrees of councils are also God’s Word. It is to be expected that, in view of this fact, both Dorsch and Meisner note the closeness between the perfection of Scripture and the sola scriptura principle and argue that anything which is added to Scripture as a source of theology, even though it may not contradict Scripture, will not only compromise the perfection of Scripture but also vitiate the principle of sola scriptura.1 Quenstedt2 further explains the Lutheran position. The sufficiency of Scripture resides in Scripture as a whole. All the articles of our faith are not necessarily set forth in any one given book of the Scriptures. Furthermore, it is not the Lutheran position that all important articles of faith are set forth in Scriptire in concrete, in so many words. Many fundamental doctrines of faith are taught in Scripture in abstracto, in words which convey an indisputable meaning but do not do so expressly, that is to say, quoad phrases aequipollentes, e.g. the Trinity and the Incarnation. In their dispute with the Catholics concerning the sufficiency of Scripture the Catholics confuse the whole issue, so the Lutheran theologians charged, by misrepresenting the Lutheran position. When Bellarmine says 3 that everything necessary for faith and life is not expressly taught in Scripture, he is playing with words and avoiding the issue, according to Gerhard,1 since no Lutheran ever taught that everything necessary for faith and life was taught in Scripture in so many words ( sive ). The Lutheran position is this: of those things necessary for doctrine and Christian life certain things are taught in Scripture explicitly (secundum literam) and other things are taught only implicitly (secundum rem) and must be drawn from Scripture through legitimate deduction. Quenstedt 2 too thinks that Bellarmine is fighting windmills. He writes: ‘Bellarmine says, “We affirm that all necessary teaching concerning faith and life is not contained expressly in Scripture. But the Evangelicals teach that all things necessary for faith and life are contained in Scripture.” Now if by “expressly” he means that all things necessary are present in Scripture in so many words [] he has not correctly presented the point of controversy, since none of us teaches this. He says that the adverb “expressly” refers only to the mode of presentation, to the presentment of the things to be believed as expressed in so many clear syllables and words, not to the sufficiency of these things to be believed, around which the controversy centres. Whatever articles of faith have not been expressly recorded in holy Writ in so many letters and syllables can nevetheless be educed through right and lawful consequences in such a way that unwritten tradition is not added to Scripture. This is our position: all things necessary to a saving knowledge and worship of God and to an attainment of everlasting blessedness are sufficiently contained in the written Word of God, either expressly and in so many words or , in words with the same meaning and taken from that same fountain of holy Scripture through good, legitimate, necessary and certain consequences. ‘3 The papists confuse the issue still more, says Quenstedt,4 by teaching that Scripture is sufficient implicite, in other words, that Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation and right living in the same way as a seed contains everything necessary for a mature tree. It is the position of Rome that Scripture is perfect because it directs us to the Church, which leads us to salvation.1 But this, Quenstedt argues, actually denies the sufficiency of Scripture. Either Scripture is perfect in itself or it is imperfect.2 Norma remissiva non est norma. The Lutheran theologians also taught that Scripture was sufficient implicite, but they did not mean what the Roman Catholics meant. The Lutherans held that certain legitimate conclusions drawn from Scripture were also necessary for salvation.3 This was affirmed in antithesis to the Socinians. Christ himself appealed to consequences in demonstrating fundamental articles of faith. He proved that He was the promised Messiah by His miracles and urged men to believe in Him on the basis of His works. He proved the resurrection of the dead from a statement of Moses which does not explicitly speak of the Resurrection (Mk. 12. 26). Again, He told His disciples that it was written that Christ must rise from the dead, but this is never stated explicitly in the Old Testament. Peter says (Acts 10. 43) that all the prophets testified that everyone who believed in Christ would receive remission of sins. But all the prophets do not teach this explicitly. Jesus cannot be shown to be the Messiah except through legitimate conclusions drawn from the Old Testament. Nor can we today be certain of Jesus’ messianic office without drawing certain inferences from Scripture. Calov attempts to expose the absurdity of the Socinian position by saying that the opinion that we need accept nothing in Scripture except what is stated explicitly denies the very existence of fides specialis, personal faith. A person cannot, if such an opinion is to stand, be certain of his personal salvation, since Scripture does not say explicitly that God wishes to be gracious to him. A sinner can be sure of his salvation only if he draws conclusions from passages which teach that God wishes to save all men. Finally, the Socinians do not observe their own rule when they teach that Christ was created by the Father and that the Holy Spirit is only the power (virtus) of God.4 Catholic theology distinguished between a complete and a partial norm of faith. Scripture was a norm, but only a partial norm. It must be supplemented by tradition to be complete. The dogmaticians insisted that such an opinion made Scripture depend upon tradition, at least in practice, and shattered the whole concept of the sufficiency of Scripture.1 The locus classicus for the Lutheran doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture is 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16. The which the apostle Paul attributes to Scripture brings forth three fruits according to this passage: (1) true and lasting wisdom, (2) faith, whose object is the one Mediator between God and men, and (3) eternal salvation, which is the end of our faith and to which we are led through the wisdom which Scripture teaches. The inevitable conclusion which follows from these observations is this: that which makes a man wise unto salvation must contain the doctrine necessary for salvation and in that respect be sufficient. In other words, whatever is useful for doctrine and reproof and instruction to the end that we are made wise unto salvation is perfect.2 Whatever furnishes a man perfectly equipped to perform good works is perfect.3 In this passage Paul speaks of the origin of Scripture. He says it is . We must conclude from this simple statement that Scripture is sufficient.4 The result of the divine origin of Scripture, the very purpose of Scripture, is this, that it is ‘profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.’ Doctrine and reproof pertain to faith. Correction and instruction in righteousness pertain to life. That these actions, or influences (actus), of Scripture upon men are spoken of in reference to salvation indicates that these actions are sufficient, or, in other words, that Scripture is sufficient. Bellarmine said 1 that 2 Tim. 3. 15 used as a proof passage of the sufficiency of Scripture was the Achilles’ heel of the Lutheran doctrine. He declared that what could be said of the whole Bible could be said of any part of it. Accordingly, if this passage is to stand as a proof text, every book of the Bible must be perfect by itself. These, he says, are the absurd consequences to which the Lutheran doctrine leads. Adam Tanner also takes issue with the Lutheran exegesis of this passage. He mentions that Paul here did not say ‘the whole Scripture’ but ‘all Scripture.’ The in this verse must be taken distributively. The dogmaticians reply 2 that in this case is to be understood collectively, since is not a genus consisting of species (totum universale) but a perfect whole consisting of parts (totum integrale). , then, is to be taken as signifying the whole of Scripture, as . Calov says 3 that even if needed to be understood distributively in connection with the first predicate , it need not be taken distributively in reference to the second predicate, . often takes on the meaning of tota or universa, like the Hebrew . In his Biblia Illustrata he probes more deeply into the meaning of this passage and offers a thorough exposition of it. As touching the interpretation of he has this to say: 4 inspiration pertains to the whole of Scripture and to all its parts. In like manner the pertains to all the parts of Scripture as well as to Scripture as a whole, for Scripture which is divinely inspired is not able not to be profitable. This can be said because the parts of Scripture cannot be dissociated from the whole. Scripture is a unit. Passages must always be understood in their context and in the context of the general purpose of Scripture.5 Furthermore, the sufficiency and perfection of Scripture in teaching everything necessary for salvation is not inferred merely on the basis of the fact that Scripture is called , certainly not on the basis of the interpretation that signifies Scripture as a whole, but it is established mainly on the basis of the whole context of the passage.1 Calov concludes: 2 ‘Since Scripture is inspired by God to this end [that man might be made wise unto salvation], and since its usefulness is directed to this same end, and since the effect of Scripture is perfect, how can Scripture itself not be perfect and sufficient?’ Another passage which the dogmaticians say supports their position is Deut. 4. 2. This passage argues for the sufficiency of Scripture by forbidding anyone from adding to it or diminishing from it. The prohibition pertains not only to the Word of God which was handed down by word of mouth, but also to the written Word. And it does not pertain only to the Pentateuch, for the same warning is uttered in Prov. 30. 5, 6 and Rev. 22. 18, 19. The prohibition does not apply to God inasmuch as He is not bound by His decrees. Such a law God has established for men. He reserves for Himself the right to add to these books when He pleases. Hence, when certain apostles affirm that certain books are authoritative and inspired, they do not by their own judgment determine what is canonical and inspired—a judgment God has strictly forbidden them—but they are moved by the Holy Spirit to present God’s Word regarding these books. Therefore the prohibition is not directed against adding canonical books to Scripture but against placing foreign doctrines beside Scripture. Strictly speaking, the other canonical books of Scripture are not additions to the Pentateuch, since their dogmatic content is essentially the same as that of the Pentateuch.1 But the papists contend that this divine interdict applies only to private individuals, not to the Church. Quenstedt replies2 (1) that the words of the text do not lend themselves to such a distinction, (2) that the whole Church has been called to account for just such a transgression (1 Ki. 22. 24; Jer. 18. 18), (3) that the Church cannot be permitted to do what is forbidden to individuals because the Church is made up of individuals, (4) that the command was given to all people, leaders and followers, clergy and laity, for the Lord said, ‘Hearken, O Israel.’ Calov points out that apart from Scripture there is today no divine revelation. Therefore nothing can be added to Scripture. The practice of Christ and His apostles of proving all doctrine from Scripture upholds the Lutheran doctrine that Scripture is sufficient. Paul does not hesitate to say, Tor I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God’ (Acts 20. 27, cf. Acts 26. 22). Here Paul has definitely pledged himself to the Scripture principle which postulates the perfection of Scripture.3 This argument of Calov’s is important. In arguing for the sufficiency of Scripture the Lutheran teachers were actually doing little more than upholding the sola scriptura principle, as one can see from their presentation of the teaching. Calov also makes much of the fact, as I have already implied, that the purpose of Scripture, that sinners come to saving faith and eternal life, postulates the sufficiency of Scripture (Rom. 15. 4; Jn. 20. 31).4 It was inevitable that Catholic theology should deny the perfection of Scripture. It was the position of Rome that doctrines based on unwritten tradition must necessarily be accepted for salvation. In the fourth session of the Council of Trent the Roman Church placed Scripture and tradition side by side as a basis of doctrine. Thus Rome not only does away with the Scripture principle, but, according to Quenstedt,5 places tradition above Scripture, inasmuch as tradition interprets Scripture and in many cases has superseded Scripture. As proof of this one need only read a statement of Baronius’ in which he says that traditions are above Scripture, since Scripture cannot exist without traditions, but traditions can remain without Scripture.1 The Lutherans refute their adversaries’ claim with Gal. 1. 8. Here Paul is speaking in a general way about the Word which was preached by him. What he preached he also wrote (2 Cor. 1. 13; 10. 11; 13. 2), and he preached nothing which was not included in the Scriptures of the Old Testament (Acts 26. 22). No Christian will deny that what Paul preached was written in the New Testament. But the papists, led by Bellarmine, maintain that signifies in this passage. They say that only teachings against the Gospel are condemned. This may be true in the case of some passages of the New Testament, says Quenstedt, but it is impossible in this verse because of the context. Nothing can be tolerated even alongside the Gospel of Christ. Actually, to add something to Scripture as necessary for salvation is to teach contrary to Scripture. The curse is directed against doctrines taught in addition to the Gospel as well as those promulgated contrary to the Gospel. To add to the Gospel is to oppose the Gospel. But what if the papists are right about this passage? They have still gained nothing, says Quenstedt. He writes: ‘The traditions of the papists are not only un-Scriptural but anti-Scriptural, diametrically opposed and repugnant to the written Word of God, partly because they oppose the sufficiency of Scripture and its perfection and partly because they contain teachings directly contrary to the infallible Word of God.’ Tradition always usurps the authority of Christ and the apostles, and opposes the very source of revealed theology. Traditions have their origin in the sect of the Pharisees. They are the weapons of heretics. They propagate countless lies and false doctrines and, when made to be equal with Scripture, destroy the whole organic foundation of our faith. The origin of traditions is often unknown. They often contradict each other. Their pernicious effects have been clearly seen in the abuses of the Roman Church.