THE
DIVINE AUTHORITY OF HOLY
SCRIPTURE
by John Theodore Mueller TH. D
1934
By the divine authority of
Holy Scripture we mean the peculiar quality of the whole Bible
according to
which as the true Word of God it demands faith and obedience of all men
and is
and remains the only source and norm of faith and life. Our Savior
Himself
acknowledged and asserted the divine authority of the Bible by quoting
it in
all cases of controversy as the only standard of truth, <page
121> John
10:35; Matt. 4:4-10; 26:54; Luke 24:25-27 ; etc. And the holy apostles
claimed
divine authority not only for the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but
also for
their own inspired writings, 1Cor. 14:37, 38; 2Cor. 13:3; Gal. 1:8;
2Thess.
3:6, 14; 2:15. Whoever therefore rejects Scripture or subjects it to
human
censorship and criticism becomes guilty of high treason against God;
for
Scripture possesses its divine authority not because of the holy men
who wrote
it nor because of the Christian Church, which reveres and teaches it,
but from
the living God, who has inspired holy men to write it. In other words,
the
Bible has divine authority because it is in every part the inerrant
Word of the
living God. Just because it is a God-breathed Scripture, it is
authoritative
and must therefore be both believed and obeyed. Because of its
authority we
believe the Bible on its own account, since it is the unique Book of
God in
which the sovereign Lord speaks to us. This fact we express
dogmatically by
saying that the divine authority of Holy Scripture is absolute, or free
from
dependence upon anything else for its existence and its certainty (auctoritas absoluta).
The divine authority of Holy
Scripture is divided into causative authority (auctoritas causativa)
and normative authority (auctoritas normativa).
The causative authority of Holy Scripture is that by which it engenders
and
preserves faith in its own teachings through its very word, Rom.
If the question is asked how
Scripture exercises its causative authority, or how we may become sure
of its
divine truth, we must distinguish between divine assurance (fides
divina)
and human assurance (fides humana).
The fides
divina (faith assurance, spiritual
assurance,
Christian assurance) is wrought directly by the Holy Ghost through the
Word (testimonium
Spiritus Sancti).
In other words, Scripture attests itself as
the divine truth, John 8:31-32. Of this Quenstedt
(I,
97) writes: "The ultimate reason by and through which we are led to
believe with a divine and unshaken faith that God's Word is God's Word
is the
intrinsic power and efficacy of that Word itself, or the testimony and
seal of
the Holy Spirit, who speaks in and through Scripture, because the
bestowment of
faith… is a work that emanates from the Holy Spirit.” (Doctr. Theol., p. 55.) Of
the internal witness of the Holy Ghost, <page 122> by which
divine faith
in Scripture is engendered, Hollaz writes
thus:
"By the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is here understood the
supernatural act of the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God,
attentively read
or heard,… by which He moves, opens, and illuminates the heart of man
and incites
it to faithful obedience." ( Ibid.)
That the Word of God, which
the Holy Spirit has given to us through the prophets and apostles,
really
possesses causative authority, or the power of attesting itself as the
divine
truth, independently of any external proof (fides
humane), is clearly taught in Holy Scripture. To the
Against the charge of Roman
Catholic theologians that Lutheran theology here argues in a circle (argumentum in circulo,
idem per idem) we reply that, if Scripture cannot be relied upon in
its
testimony concerning itself, it cannot be relied upon in any <page
123> other
of its teachings. Moreover, the Lutheran argument regarding the
causative
authority of Scripture is not an argumentum
in circulo, but rather one from effect
to cause (ab effectu ad causam),
and whoever denies the validity of this
reasoning has no other choice than agnosticism and atheism. Quenstedt
says very rightly (I, 101): "The papists therefore wrongly accuse us of
reasoning in a circle when we prove the Holy Scriptures from the
testimony of
the Holy Spirit and the testimony of the Holy Spirit from the Holy
Scriptures.
Else it would also be reasoning in a circle when Moses and the prophets
testify
concerning Christ and Christ concerning Moses and the prophets." (Doctr. Theol.,
p. 56.)
While the fides divina, or spiritual assurance, is
the gift of the Holy Spirit through the Word (faith engendered through
the Word
by the Holy Ghost), the fides humana,
or human assurance, is based upon arguments or
processes of reason. These arguments are either internal or external.
The
internal proofs for the divine authority of Holy Scripture relate to
its
marvelous style, the unique harmony of its parts, the sublime majesty
of its
subjects, its amazing predictions of future events and their remarkable
fulfillment, the sublimity of its miracles, and the like. The external
proofs
relate to the astounding effects which the Bible has wrought wherever
it was
spread, such as the conversion of men steeped in spiritual ignorance
and vice,
the heroic faith of the martyrs, the moral and social improvements
which the
Gospel has effected, etc. As the rational study of the book of nature
points to
its divine Creator, so the rational study of the book of revelation
suggests
that it is the work of a divine Author and that therefore it is more
reasonable
to believe than to disbelieve its claims (the scientific proof for the
divine
authority of Scripture).
All these arguments are
utilized in Christian apologetics to demonstrate the futility of
infidelity and
its atheistic claims. But all arguments of reason do not beget "a
divine,
but merely a human faith; not an unshaken certainty, but merely a
credibility
or a very probable opinion" (Quenstedt).
Hence
the value of these arguments must not be overestimated, for they can
never make
any person a believing child of God. But neither must they be
underestimated,
since they are of great value in refuting the flippant charges of
infidels and
in strengthening Christians against the very doubts which from time to
time
arise in their own hearts. Cf. 1Cor.
In his ministry the Christian
theologian employs arguments of reason chiefly to induce unconverted
persons to
read or hear God's Word, or we may say he uses them just as
church-bells, which
invite men to listen to the proclamation of the divine truth. In no
case,
however, may he employ them as substitutes for the Law and the Gospel,
or the
Word of God, Luke
If the question is asked how a
person may be sure whether his assurance is fides
divina or fides
humana, the following points must be
considered.
The testimony of the Holy Spirit never occurs: a. outside, or in
opposition to,
Holy Scripture (enthusiasm), so that the "Christian assurance" or the
"Christian experience" of all who reject the Bible as the Word of God
is mere self-deception; b. by means of mere arguments of reason or on
the
ground of human authority ("I believe the Bible because the Church
teaches
it"); c. together with the repudiation of Christ’s vicarious
satisfaction,
so that the assurance of divine grace which Modernists claim (Ritschl, Harnack)
is pure
fiction. On the other hand, the testimony of the Holy Spirit occurs in
all true
believers who accept Holy Scripture as the Word of God, and that upon
its own
witness, for this very faith in Scripture is the testimonium Spiritus
Sancti.
To this truth all true believers must hold, especially in hours of
trial, when
they do not feel the gladdening effects of the Spirit's witness in
them, 1John
5:9, 10. The very fact that they are believers proves the effective
presence of
the Holy Ghost in their hearts, for without the Holy Spirit it is
impossible to
have saving faith, 1Cor. 12:3; Acts 16:14.
With regard to the effects of
the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the believer the Formula
of Concord rightly argues that these must not be judged ex
sensu, or
by feeling, since the Holy Ghost is always operative in his heart as
long as he
adheres to God's Word, no matter whether he feels His operation or not.
The
feeling of the Spirit's operating grace belongs to the fruits of faith
in the
truth of the Gospel and thus to the external witness of the Holy Ghost (testimonium Spiritus Sancti externum), while His
internal witness (testimonium Spiritus Sancti
internum) is identical
with saving faith, or true confidence in the divine promises of the
Word. In
the same vein Luther writes: "We do not distinguish the Holy <page
125> Spirit from faith, nor is He contrary to faith; for He is
Himself the
assurance in the Word, who makes us certain of the Word, so that we do
not
doubt, but believe most certainly and beyond all doubt that it is just
so and
in no respect whatever different from that which God in His Word
declares and
tells us." (Erl.
Ed., 58, 153 f.)
By virtue of its normative or
canonical authority, Holy Scripture is the only norm of faith and life
and
therefore also the only judge in all theological controversies. As the
only
rule of faith, Scripture performs both a directive and a corrective
function;
for, on the one hand, it directs the thoughts of the human mind in such
a way
that they abide within the bounds of truth; and, on the other, it
corrects
errors, inasmuch as it is the only standard of right and wrong (Hollaz). Calov says
very correctly
(I,474): "The Holy Scriptures are a rule
according to which all controversies in regard to faith or life in the
Church
should, and can be, decided, Ps. 19:7; Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:16; and as a
norm
they are not partial, but complete and adequate, because besides the
Scriptures
no other infallible rule in matters of faith and life can be given. All
other
rules besides the Word of God are fallible; and on this account we are
referred
to the Holy Scriptures as the only rule, Deut. 4: 2; 12:28; Josh. 23:6;
Is.
8:20; Luke 16:29; 2Pet. 1:19, to which alone Christ and the apostles
referred
as a rule, Matt. 4:4ff.; 22:29, 31; Mark 9:12; John 5:45; Acts 3:20;
18:28;
26:22." (Doctr.
TheoL, p. 61.)
With regard to the use of
Scripture as the norm of faith (norma doctrinae, index controversiarum),
it must be held that not only theologians (2Tim. 2:2), but also all
Christians
in general should so employ the Word of God (Acts 17:11), since it is
their
duty to supervise the ministry of their teachers (Col. 4:17), to avoid
all
false prophets (Rom. 16:17; Matt. 7:15), and to spread the pure Gospel
of Jesus
Christ by personal evangelism (Col. 3:16 ; 1Pet. 2:9). The spiritual
ability to
judge all matters of faith and doctrine Holy Scripture ascribes to all
believers in express words, John 6:45; 10:4.
On the other hand, however, it
must be affirmed that Christians must judge doctrinal matters not
according to
their own thoughts, but solely according to Scripture, 1Pet. 4:11,
since in all
matters of doctrine it alone is the index
controversiarum. The objection of the
papists
that Scripture as a "dumb book" is unable to decide any matter is in
opposition not only to Holy Scripture itself, which claims for itself
this very
authority, Matt. 4:4ff.; Rom. 3:19; John 7:51, but also to reason, by
which men
are prompted to use authoritative records to decide issues in
controversy (cf.
the decisions of the Supreme Court). Every sensible person clearly
understands
what is meant by such phrases as "The Law decides," or "The
Bible decides." Holy Scripture certainly is more capable of deciding
questions
of controversy than are the papal decretals,
to which
the papists have recourse in determining what to teach. Our Lutheran dogmaticians were quite right when they
declared:
"Scripture is never mute except where under the Papacy it is prevented
from
speaking. (Scriptura Sacra non est
muta nisi in papain,
ubi prohibetur
loqui.)
In what manner controversial
questions should be decided by the use of Holy Scripture may be stated
briefly
thus: First determine the controversial point (status controversiae) and then place it
in the light of all clear Scripture-passages that treat of the
particular point
in question (sedes doctrinae; dicta probantia). In this manner Holy Scripture is
given an
opportunity to exercise its judicial function, not indeed by external
compulsion (vi externa), but
by internal persuasion (vi interna).
Just so Christ employed the Scriptures as a
judge in controversy when He said to the Pharisees: "There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom
<page 127> ye trust," John
By adhering to Holy Scripture
as the sole source and norm of faith, the true visible Church of Christ
on
earth proves its orthodox character ; in other words, the orthodox
Church of
Christ on earth is found only where Holy Scripture is obeyed and
followed in
all questions of faith and life. It was for this reason that Luther so
earnestly emphasized the doctrine of sola Scriptura as the formal
principle of the Reformation
and that today the confessional
In connection with the
normative authority of Holy Scripture it must be emphasized that human
reason
in its magisterial use (usus magisterialis)
must never be allowed a place beside the Bible. In other words, man's
natural
knowledge of God, even so far as it is correctly retained in his
perverted
intellect, must never be coordinated with, but always be subordinated
to, God's
Word. Unless this is done, Scripture is not allowed to stand as the
only judge
of faith. But human reason in its ministerial, or instrumental, sense
or reason
as "the receiving subject or apprehending instrument" (Hollaz) must certainly be employed whenever
Scripture is
used as the norm of faith; for "as we see nothing without eyes and hear
nothing without ears, so we understand nothing without reason" (Hollaz). This so-called instrumental use of
reason (usus organicus; usus instrumentalis) implies
both the correct use of the laws of human speech (grammar) and of the
laws of
human reasoning (logic), because God, in giving His Word to men,
accommodated
Himself both to the canons of human speech and thought. This truth we
considered already when we referred to Melanchthon's
dictum: Theologia debet esse
grammatica, and to
Luther's statement that whoever errs in grammar is bound to err also in
doctrine.
However, just as human reason
in general, so also human logic in particular serves the theologian
only as a
formal discipline (the science of correct and accurate thinking) and
not as a
philosophy or a metaphysical system, in which sense the term is
sometimes used.
In addition, even when logic is employed as a
formal
discipline (the science of reasoning), it must always be kept within
its
legitimate bounds. In other words, the theologian must always
<page
128> be on his guard against fallacies, or against untruths derived
from the
misuse of logic. For example, from the general truth of Scripture "God
so
loved the world" every person in this world may argue: "God so loved
me," since the concept "world" includes every human being. In
other words, the conclusion attained must always be a truth already
contained
in the premises, or in the Scriptural statements, according to the
axiom:
"Whatever inferences (consequential legitimae)
are drawn from the declarations of Scripture
must be proved as being directly expressed in the clear words of
Scripture.
("Was man aus
den Schriftwahrheiten erschliesst,
muss als in den
Schriftworten ausgedrueckt
nachgewiesen werden")
On the other hand, when logic
is used to propose new doctrines not set forth in Scripture, the
authority of
Scripture (Schrift-prinzip)
is annulled, and logic is made to serve as a teacher of false doctrine.
Examples of misapplied logic are the following: "Since God has not
elected
all men, He does not desire to save all men." Or: "Since Peter was
saved and Judas was lost, there must have been in Peter some cause why
he was
saved." Or: "Since every body is in space locally, Christ's body
cannot be truly present in the Lord's Supper." Or: "Since the finite
is incapable of the infinite, there can be no communication of
attributes in
the person of the God-man." Or: "As many persons there are, so many
essences; hence there must be three essences in the God- head."
Misdirected logic has proved the source of so many errors in theology
that
Gerhard's warning is well taken (II, 371): "Not human reason, but
divine
revelation is the source of faith ; nor are we to judge concerning the
articles
of faith according to the dictates of reason; otherwise we should have
no articles
of faith, but only decisions of reason. The cogitations and utterances
of
reason should be restricted and restrained within the sphere of those
things
which are subject to the decisions of reason and not be extended to the
sphere
of such matters as are placed entirely beyond the reach of reason." (Doctr. Theol., p. 32 f.)
With respect to the use of
Holy Scripture as the only source and norm of faith our Lutheran dogmaticians rightly said that it is God's Book
designed
for all men, Luke 16:29-31 ; John 5:39; Acts 17:11; even for children,
2Tim.
While Holy Scripture is the
absolute norm of faith (norma normans, norma
dbsoluta, norma
primaria, norma
decisionis), the
Lutheran Church recognizes its officially received Confessions, or
Symbols, as
secondary norms (norma normata, norma
secundum quid, norma
secundaria, norma
discretionis), or as
true declarations of the doctrines of Holy Scripture, which all
Lutheran
theologians must confess and teach. For this reason the confessional
However, while Holy Scripture
as the deciding norm (norma
decisionis) is absolutely necessary, the
Confessions as the
distinguishing norm of the Church (norma discretionis) are only
relatively necessary. The former
decides which doctrines are true or false; the latter, whether a person
has
clearly understood the true doctrines of Scripture. (Norma discretionis
discernit orthodoxos
ah heterodoxis.)
Although Scripture
sufficiently attests itself as the divine truth in the believer's
heart, God in
His infinite wisdom has provided that it should be attested also
historically.
That is to say, by proper historical investigation we fully know which
books
were composed by the sacred writers (prophets and apostles), through
whom God
wished to give His Word to the world. This historical evidence is of
great
value, on the one hand, against the papists, who by their antichristian
decrees
elevate human books to the dignity of the divine Scriptures, and, on
the other,
against unbelieving higher critics, who seek to degrade the Holy
Scriptures to
the level of human compositions. In addition, the historical evidence
on behalf
of the authenticity and integrity of the Bible is of value <page
130>
also for believing Christians, since at times the testimony of the Holy
Spirit
in their hearts may be weakened or suppressed entirely by doubts.
For the divine authority of
the Old Testament we have the express testimony not only of the Jewish
Church,
but also of our omniscient Savior, who without qualification
acknowledged the
Bible that was in use at His time as canonical, Luke 16:29; 24:44; John
5:39;
10:35; Matt. 5:17. Had the Jewish Church erred regarding its canon, our
divine
Lord could not have declared it to be "the Scriptures/' John
The historical testimony of
the canonical books of the New Testament has been adequately supplied
by the
ancient Christian Church (ecclesia primitiva).
Its acknowledgment of the four gospels, the
thirteen epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of John, and the First
Epistle of
Peter was unanimous (Homologumena).
With regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter,
the
Second and the Third Epistle of John, the Epistle of James, the Epistle
of
Jude, and Revelation, doubts were expressed, so that they were
classified as
Antilegomena. (Cf. Eusebius, Church History, Bk. III.) Nevertheless,
though the
canonical character of the Antilegomena was questioned by some, each
received
sufficient testimony to entitle it to a place in the canon, from which
all
spurious apostolic writings (pseudepigraphs)
were
rigidly ruled out. In case, however, the authority of the Antilegomena
as a
source and norm of faith should be denied today (cf. Luther's verdict
on the
Epistle of St. James), the same doctrines which are set forth in them
may be
sufficiently proved from the Homologumena,
since the
Antilegomena do not contain a single doctrine that is not taught in the
Homologumena.
The question whether also the
later Christian Church has the <page 131> authority to declare
certain
books to be canonical must be denied most emphatically. When the
ancient Church
differentiated between Homologumena and
Antilegomena,
this was a purely historical procedure, involving nothing more than the
question whether certain books were written by such and such an apostle
of
Christ or not; but when in the sixteenth century the Council of
With regard to the manner in
which the primitive Church proceeded in fixing the Biblical canon, Chemnitz writes (Ex. Trid.,
I,
87): "The testimony of the primitive Church in the times of the
apostles
concerning the genuine writings of the apostles the immediately
succeeding
generations constantly and faithfully retained and preserved, so that,
when
many others [writings] afterwards were brought forward, claiming to
have been
written by the apostles, they were tested and rejected as
supposititious and
false, first, for this reason, that it could not be shown and proved by
the
testimony of the original Church either that they were written by the
apostles
or approved by the living apostles and transmitted and entrusted by
them to the
Church in the beginning; secondly, because they proposed strange
doctrine not
accordant with that which the Church received from the apostles and
which was
at that time still preserved in the memory of all" (Doctr.
Theol., p. 85.)
With regard to the gospels of
Mark and Luke and the Acts of the Apostles it may be said that the
ancient
Church placed these unanimously and without any qualification among the
Homologumena, though they were not written
by apostles.
This was done on the ground that the two gospels were composed under
the
supervision of St. Peter and
The integrity of the New
Testament may be assumed a priori, since Christ assures us that His
Word, as
this is set forth in the writings of the holy apostles, or in Holy
Scripture,
John 17, 20; Eph. 2, 20; John 8, 31. 32,
shall never
pass away, Matt. 24, 35. The integrity of the Old Testament is
guaranteed by
Christ's direct and express testimony, John 5, 39.
With respect to the various
versions of the Bible we rightly hold that not only the original Hebrew
and
Greek texts, but also the translations of these texts are really and
truly
God's Word, provided they fully agree with the original reading. On the
other
hand, where translations deviate from the original texts and teach
anything
contrary to them, they must be rejected as not being the Word of God.
Since
translators never write by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but are
subject to
the common failings of men, all Bible versions must be diligently
compared with
the original text to ascertain whether they are correct or not, and for
this
reason the theologian ought to possess an adequate knowledge of Hebrew
and
Greek.
However, the gap between the
original text and its translations must not be widened unduly, so as to
create
doubts regarding their authority; for the language of Scripture is in
most
instances so direct and simple that any translator who performs his
work
conscientiously is compelled by the clear and direct language of
Scripture to
reproduce the sense of the original. Even the Vulgate sets forth the
chief
truths of the Christian faith with sufficient clearness though it is
fraught
with errors from beginning to end. However, the arbitrary promulgation
of the
Vulgate as the only authoritative text by the Roman Catholic Church was
an act
so altogether contrary to the spirit of Christ and His apostles that it
furnishes additional proof that the papal Church is the Church of
Antichrist.
Luther's methodological advice
that the minister, when teaching the Catechism, "should above all
things
avoid the use of different texts and forms, but adopt one form and
adhere to
it, since the young and ignorant people will easily become confused if
we teach
thus today and otherwise next year, as if we thought of making
improvements,"
applies also to the use of Bible translations in the pulpit or wherever
else
Christian ministers may instruct the common people.
[Note: From
“Christian Dogmatics,” by John Theodore
Mueller TH. D., professor of
Systematic Theology, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis,
Mo. Copyright 1934 by Concordia publishing house.]
DISCLAIMER The preceding article is a sample and advertisement for the book, "Christian Dogmatics" by John Theodore Mueller. It is provided for educational purposes only and cannot be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder.