The Authority of
Scripture
By Dr. J.
D. Watson
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)
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.
