The Authority of Scripture
By J. D. ("Doc") Watson, D.R.E.
[This article is an excerpt from Chapter 5 of the book Sola Scriptura: A New Call To Biblical Authority by the founder of Sola Scriptura Ministries.]
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. (II Pet. 1:19)
We again emphasize II Peter 1:19, which we examined in the last chapter. As we saw there, God’s Word is the "more sure Word of prophecy," the absolutely authoritative Word of God.
Perhaps they key to understanding the authority of Scripture, whether or not we actually embrace that authority, is to understand that authority in our lives can have only three forms: man and his reason, the church and its traditions, or God and His Word.
Man and His Reason
Of course, we know that this refers to the "non-religious" people of the world, those who have no desire for God or religion whatsoever. More specifically, however, we are speaking of the critical reason of modern religion, which has spilled over into evangelical Christianity. This describes the liberals and the moderates who undermine the Word of God.
Rene Pache, an evangelical French theologian, puts the matter this way:
Beyond expression is the sense of relief with which some theologians have freed themselves from the "straight jacket" of an infallible Bible, as they have substituted for it their own reasonings.(1)
How happy people are today who have "released" themselves from the "bondage" of authority, who now view themselves as being totally free to express themselves. S. Van Mierlo, a Belgian writer, adds this fascinating principle:
Modern theologians condemn "authoritarian religions" and will not permit any authority outside of man to be imposed on men.(2)
Mierlo goes on to demonstrate quite logically how the result of this is still an authoritarian religion. How can this be? Because unknowledgeable people have to go to their favorite theologian for answers (since most of them differ) and that theologian then becomes their authority. So, the result of this is that God’s authority has been rejected and replaced by man’s authority. No one has said this better than Martyn Lloyd-Jones:
. . .the modern position amounts to this, that it is man’s reason that decides. You and I come to the Bible and we have to make our decisions on the basis of certain standards which are obviously in our own minds. We decide that one portion conforms to the message which we believe, and that another does not. . .We are left with the position that man’s knowledge and man’s understanding are the final arbiters and the final court of appeal. That was precisely the position of the old Liberalism.
However, some would put the case a little differently. They say that you must recognize as the Word of God that which speaks to you. When something in the Bible speaks to your condition, then it is the Word of God; and when it does not, it is not the Word of God. That, of course, is just to put yourselves into a thoroughly subjective position. It still leaves man in control; man is still the authority who decides what is truly the Word of God and what is not.(3)
But modern theology falls even deeper into error. Attempting to escape from the evangelicals, the liberals say that conservative evangelicals are "Bibliolaters," that is "Bible worshipers" who put the Bible before the Lord. Of themselves they then say, quite piously, "The Lord is our authority." But how, may we ask, do they know the Lord? There is absolutely no way to know the Lord outside of His Word.
The Church and Its Traditions
Throughout the history of the church, tradition has infinitely more influence on church government, polity, and ministry than has the Word of God. Basically, there are two representative examples.
First, we consider the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. Saint Bellarmine (1542-1621), one of the greatest theologians that Roman Catholicism ever produced, maintained that the authority of the Scripture was founded on the church,(4) and was a passionate defender of papal authority.(5) Before this, there was the famous Roman Catholic theologian and Dominican monk Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who maintained that the Bible could only be interpreted by the church fathers and church councils.(6) Then, at the Vatican Council of 1870, came the decree of papal infallibility. This decree stated that when the pope speaks ex cathedra (Latin for "from the chair"), whatever he said is infallible and that whatever he said must believed for salvation.(7)
W. A. Criswell tells of his long conversation with a Catholic monk while traveling on a train from Munich to Zurich. He asked the monk about several Roman Catholic dogmas, such as the bodily assumption of Mary to heaven (pronounced by Pope Pius XII in 1950), the immaculate conception of Mary (1854), and transubstantiation (the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist that says the bread and wine of communion become the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ, which is nothing short of pagan cannibalism). In each and every case, the monk avowed that it was true simply because the pope said it was true. In Criswell’s own words:
He finally admitted to me that he closed his eyes to all other considerations and accepted the dogmas of the church blindly.(8)
There are many so-called "evangelicals" today who want to make room for our "Catholic brethren," but there is absolutely nothing Christian about Catholicism. In fact, as early as the second century "the church" was drifting away from the Scriptures and Roman Catholicism was born, which in turn has tried, with fire and sword, to stamp out the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Second, Roman Catholicism, however, is not the only group that is guilty of traditionalism. In many ways, guilt also falls upon evangelical and fundamental Christianity. No, this is not true in the open, direct, blasphemous way of Roman Catholicism, but it is true in other ways that are almost as damaging.
One of the ways we turn to traditionalism is in our clinging to associations, conferences, and other such groups. All of these types of organizations have their stated creeds and statements of dogma, to which you must give allegiance or you cannot fellowship with those "brethren." Certainly, the motive behind this is doctrinal purity, so what is the harm? The harm is this: that doctrinal statement has become the authority of that organization instead of the Word of God. At this point, may we lovingly but boldly ask, Who do such men think they are? Where in Scripture does it say that we must sign a paper that men wrote? Where in Scripture does it say to form organizations of churches that often are more concerned about business meetings than Biblical ministry? What God really wants is to see independent churches that are carrying on dynamic, Biblically centered ministries.
Another example of traditionalism are the programs, gimmicks, methods, and so called "ministries" in today’s churches. From whence do such things come? Do they come from the Scriptures? No, these things come from the mind of men who evidently think that God needs help in ministry. They evidently do not believe that the Scriptures outline Biblical ministry and that by following that outline we will have the results that God wants. We will return to this theme in Chapter 9, but may we say here that if we believe in Biblical authority, we must apply it to church ministry. This leads us to the third and final possible alternative for authority in our lives.
God and His Word
As we saw in our last chapter, the Greek for "sure" in II Peter 1:19 is bebaios, which means "fit to tread on, having a firm foundation." So, as long as we cling to the Word, we will be firm, unshakable, sure, and certain. The reason for this "surer proof" is because the Word of God came by inspiration and is, therefore, absolutely authoritative in every aspect of life and ministry.
With this in mind, what then is the relationship of the Church to the Scriptures? This was the very question raised by the reformers as they battled the Roman Catholic church. The answer is simple when we immerse ourselves in the Word: the Church is the servant of the Scripture, not the other way around. The first proof of this is that the church obviously didn’t produce the Old Testament, but the first church, the apostles, and even the Lord Jesus Himself submitted to It.
The second proof that the church is the servant of the Scripture is that the church came as a result of the Word of God, that is, the preaching and teaching of the Apostles. Perhaps this is best seen by reading one who witnessed the Reformation first hand. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, the first edition of which he wrote at 26 years of age, John Calvin (about whom we will say more in Chapter 7) wrote these powerful words:
Scripture has its authority from God, not from the church. . .But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men!. . .Thus these sacrilegious men, wishing to impose an unbridled tyranny under the cover of the church, do not care with what absurdities they ensnare themselves and others, provided they can force this one idea upon the simple-minded: that the church has authority in all things.
But such wranglers are neatly refuted by just one word of the apostle. He testifies that the church is "built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles" (Eph. 2:20). If the teaching of the prophets and apostles is the foundation, this must have had authority before the church began to exist.(9)
The third proof that the church is the servant of the Scripture and not the other way around is that the Pastoral Epistles, Acts, I Corinthians, and even Revelation 2 and 3 reveal exactly how the Church is to be run. As we look around today, however, we do not see our evangelical churches being run on this authority. This is why I submit here that the Scriptures are being made to serve the church! Many today go in and do what they want to do not what the Word says to do.
A common statement used today to justify whatever we want to do in the church is, "Well, the Scriptures are silent on this thing; they don’t say we can’t do this thing, so it must be okay." But such an attitude says that God did not outline in His Word absolutely everything we need for Christian living and ministry. If we really believe in Biblical authority, we will say this instead: "Since the Scriptures don’t mention this thing or anything like it, then it must not be worthy of mention." Dear Christian, the Scriptures are either absolutely authoritative or they are not authoritative at all.
At the risk of belaboring my point, I want to offer a representative example of the undermining of God’s Word that is going on today. In one of his many books, one of today’s most noted and popular writers says he believes in the authority of Scripture:
If I could have only one wish for God’s people, it would be that all of us would return to the Word of God, that we would realize once and for all that His book has the answers. The Bible IS the authority, the final resting place of our cares, our worries, our sorrows, and our surprises. It is the final answer to our questions, our search.(10)
This sounds well and good and is a typical evangelical statement. In another one of his books, however, the same author, after again saying that he believes in Biblical authority, then writes:
By traditionalism, I have in mind mainly an attitude that resists change, adaptation, or alteration. It is holding fast to a custom or behavior that is being blindly and forcefully maintained. It is being suspicious of the new, the up-to-date, the different.(11)
Now, we are in total agreement with this when it comes to man’s traditions, but what if we are "holding fast to a custom or behavior" outlined in the Word of God? What if we are "suspicious of the new, the up-to-date, the different" when it is not found in the Scriptures? Are we then blind? I’m not reading anything into the writer’s words, for he continues:
By now you’ve guessed where I stand. Clearly my position is on the side of openness, allowing room for the untried, the unpredictable, the unexpected, all the while holding fast to the truth.
[My wife] and I are neither brilliant nor worldly wise, but we do learn fast and we stay flexible, always open to innovative ideas. . .If a fresh idea, never tried before, makes sense, we’ll give it a whirl! If it fails, we learned. If it works, we get all the more excited!
This is so appalling that it’s hard to know where to begin! First, God doesn’t ask us to be brilliant, and He certainly doesn’t ask us to be worldly wise. He asks us to be obedient. Second, "makes sense" to whom? Man, not God. Third, "give it a whirl?" I don’t recall a verse of Scripture that tells us to give anything "a whirl," but I find many that tell us to obey and many that outline what to do. Fourth, Christian service is not a matter of trial and error. We must disagree with the writer when he says, "If it fails, we learn," for he obviously didn’t learn that when we do what God says and do it the way He says, we won’t fail. Fifth, why can’t the writer, and all of us, "get all the more excited" by just doing things God’s way. Sixth, in light of the second paragraph above, it is difficult to know what the writer means when he says "holding fast to the truth."
Dear Christian, God doesn’t want simply our physical activity, nor does He need our mental productivity, rather He demands our total reliability. He wants to use us, but He wants to do it His way, and His way is outlined in His Word. We have inundated His church with man-made programs, gimmicks, humanistic psychology, and a plethora of other "helps" just to get results, but what kind of results are they? They will not be lasting results, for just as man’s ideas come and go, so will the followers of such ideas come and go. Only when we follow the Word will we have lasting, permanent results. As Paul tells us:
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. (I Cor. 3:6-7)
I’d also like to add that in one of the aforementioned author’s radio broadcasts he was preaching on the qualifications of elders (bishops and pastors) in I Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 and explained them quite well. The problem was, however, that he prefaced his explanation with the statement that these are only the "ideal" and that we should never expect to find them. This is clearly a grave error. These are qualifications, not ideals. If a man does not measure up to these standards, he is not qualified. Indeed, many of the problems in Christianity today stem from men in leadership who are not Biblically qualified to be there.
As we bring this chapter to a close, and we’ll explore this subject in much more detail beginning in Chapter 7, what is the final conclusion of believing in Biblical authority? Every Christian says he or she believes in Biblical authority, but do we really believe it? May we put the matter this way:
The final conclusion of believing in Biblical authority is that we do that which It says, refrain from doing what It forbids, and add nothing to It or subtract nothing from It.
But wait! Won’t this cross many traditional lines? Yes! Won’t some people get upset? Yes! Won’t this appear totally alien from that which the church has grown accustomed? Yes!. But if we do anything less, if we add or subtract anything, we have crossed over to one or both of the other authorities, human reason or church tradition. Once again, God’s Word is either totally authoritative or It isn’t authoritative at all.
Earlier in this chapter, I referred to the liberals and the moderates who undermine the Word of God. I fear that the vast majority of professed Christianity today is actually closer to being moderate than it is to being evangelical. It is drifting farther and farther away from Biblical authority every day. Instead of asking, "What saith the Scripture?" (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30), we ask, "What saith psychology?" or "What saith business?" or "What saith results?" How desperately we need a return to Biblical authority!
NOTES
1. Rene Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), p. 314-315).
2. Cited in Pache, p. 315.
3. Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn, Authority (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), pp. 35-36.
4. Conciliis, Lib. II, Ch. 12.
5. Will and Ariel Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. VIII (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963), pp. 77-78.
6. Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1966), p. 258.
7. Ibid, p. 427.
8. W. A. Criswell, Why I Preach That the Bible is Literally True (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1969), pp. 184-186.
9. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated and indexed by Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), Book I, Chapter VII, Sections 1 and 2.
10. Charles R. Swindoll, Growing Deep in the Christian Life (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1986), p. 56.
11. Charles R. Swindoll, Living Above the Level of Mediocrity (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1989), pp. 162-165.