This article explores the subject of Scripture and the Authority of God in the 21^st Century.  Part one will discuss the authority of God understood within Christian theism generally and historically.  Part two will discuss the authority of God historically within American culture.   Part three will consider God’s authority within 21^st century postmodern America as that philosophical system increasingly dominates most scholarly activities today.  Part four will be a Christian theistic response to the conditions discussed in part three.

Part One – The Authority of God Stated Biblically and Historically

“Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”  1 Samuel 15:29

“For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” Malachi 3:6

^“Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” James 1:17

^“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”[1] Hebrews 13:8
The Bible consistently presents God as unchangeable.  Theologically this characteristic of constancy is referred to as His immutability.  The benefit to the creation is immeasurable.  God being unwavering in His faithfulness means that He will fulfill all His promises to His creation. What a magnificent doctrine this is and one that is a central theme of the Christian faith.

Historically the Church has relied on and taught that God does not change because He has established with mankind a series of covenants of grace and mercy culminating in the offering of His Son Jesus Christ as a propitiation for the sin of mankind.  This is true within Christian theism regardless of the theme or subject matter.  In matters of sovereignty, soteriology, and sanctification God is said to be true and just, never demonstrating arbitrariness or fluctuation. Places where God is said to change His mind[2] refer to God changing his course of action and thus are related to His choices and not His character.[3]

As a doctrine of the Christian Church the authority of God means that God has spoken to the creation and it is the responsibility of the creation to hear and obey those words.  The Scriptures are replete with examples of this understanding.  For instance the prophet Micah opens his book with these words, “The word of the Lord which came to Micah of Moresheth in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.”[4]  In this verse we see Micah asserting that God had spoken His word to him at a specific time, addressed to specific people, and with a specific message.  Likewise, Jeremiah said, “The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord; saying, ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, write all the words which I have spoken to you in a book.’”[5]

God spoke directly to Adam and Eve in Eden.[6]  He spoke directly to Moses through the burning bush, on Mt. Sinai when He gave Moses His Law, and most wonderfully when He told Moses that He would raise up for His people a prophet like him and would put His words in his mouth.[7]  The Jewish people believe this to be Messianic and Christians affirm this as well by the testimony of the New Testament, finding fulfillment in Jesus Christ.[8]

Addressing the authority of God from this perspective speaks strongly of the doctrine of revelation.  Revelation is the act whereby God makes Himself known to His creation. God’s revelation appears in two distinct ways.  First there is the general revelation of God.  This is the revelation of Himself through His creation.  Paul discusses this in his letter to the Romans.  Second, there is the special revelation of God.  This is the revelation whereby God makes Himself known to His creation in a saving way.  Pinnock states that, “The glory of revelation in the Bible is that it presents an infinite, personal God making Himself known as the saving Lord who desires a covenant relationship with all human creatures.”[9]  The Bible states it this way: “He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him.”[10]  Bloesch adds that, “We do not grasp the theological significance of the Bible until we see it in its paradoxical relationship to the Holy Spirit, who brings to us “the mind of Christ” by which we can apprehend the revelational meaning of any particular biblical text.”[11]

Mankind is made in the image of God.[12]  What that means within the context of His revelation is that all of creation is exposed to God as creator.  Some make the argument that mankind can see from the beauty, order, and even complexity of the universe that God is Creator.  The New Testament states the same principle.[13]

Is this enough revelation to actually allow mankind to be saved? The Roman Catholic Church says it is not as general revelation can lead to an understanding that God is but cannot lead mankind to an understanding of their sinful condition before God.  The reformers, especially Luther and Calvin saw the depravity of man as an insurmountable obstacle to general revelation leading to salvation.

Special revelation goes beyond general revelation in that it encompasses the work of the Holy Spirit of God and in that sense makes special revelation effectual for knowing Him beyond seeing His works and for salvation. There are differing opinions in this area as well.  The Roman Catholic Church sees special revelation as effectual but only when apprehended.  Some of the reformers believed that special revelation could not ultimately be resisted.

It is by special revelation that mankind comes to know God relationally as “Father,” sustainer, deliver, redeemer, and in a plethora of other ways.  It is by special revelation therefore that mankind knows that God is a personal being, that He is omnipresent, omniscient, and loving.

Historically the Church has defined the scope of authority in a number of ways.  While there may be more definitions in the mind of some, it is consistent with a majority of scholars to limit the discussion of the authority of God to five categories.  They are: 1) Sola Ecclesia – the view that tradition is equally infallible with the Scriptures and serves as a basis for the development of Church faith and practice since it serves to define and interpret Scripture; 2) Prima Scriptura – the view that God has provided the Church the Bible and its traditions with the latter serving to supplement the former; 3) Regula Fidea – the view that tradition as passed on generation to generation in an unbroken chain of apostolic teachings and is a co-equal source of authority; 4) Sola Scriptura – as the name implies this view asserts that Scripture alone is the infallible source of God’s authority; and 5) Solo Scriptura – the view that tradition is useless and in fact confuses the clear teaching of the only infallible source of authority, the Bible.

It may be obvious to some readers but worth stating here that lost in some of the definitions above is the idea that all of Scripture combined forms the canon.  The canon has historically been defined as the rule of faith and standard by which we evaluate every creed, confession, tradition, doctrine, or dogma in order to determine whether or not it is consistent with the revealed Word of God.  In the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, the Scriptures were given to teach us “what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man.”[14]

Views of Authority Determine Views of Scripture

It is necessary to state clearly early in this paper that one’s view of the Bible will have a direct and consequential effect upon their view of the doctrine of the authority of God.  It is not unreasonable to assert that without a vigorous view of the doctrine of authority “non-evangelical scholars cannot hope to be regarded as authentically Christian theologians while they are perceived as hostile to Scriptural authority.”[15]  It must also be noted that some see within the scope of this type of discussion the need to clarify authority over and against infallibility, seeing differences between evangelicals and fundamentalists at this point.  Many attribute these differences to presuppositions that influence the hermeneutic task.[16]  An interesting example of one’s presuppositions influencing their view of Scripture is shown in the following comments by David E. Frederickson, a critic of the evangelical Christian belief that the Scriptures are authoritative for faith and practice.  He opines, “. . . the nature and authority of Scripture, (is) a hot topic because of the unrealistic but broadly shared expectation that the Bible can settle, with certainty, contentious moral issues. Unfortunately, the fiery prose of those championing the Bible’s moral clarity has not brought light.”[17]  Obvious to readers of this paper will be the assumption on Frederickson’s part that the Bible does not speak with moral clarity on the issues facing mankind in the twenty-first century.  Demonstrating the same dependence on presupposition that he views unfavorably in others, Frederickson ends up looking naïve or hypocritical.  It is both best and correct to admit from the onset that all people bring a particular view or understanding into any inquiry by which they interpret information.[18]

Still others question the validity of speaking in terms of normative versus incidental authority.[19]  They see the current discussions of authority both anachronistic and unnecessary given the effects of postmodernist thinking and the indifference toward authority attributed to a modern secular ethos dominated by contingency, relativism, temporality, and autonomy.  Westhelle rightly reminds us that the Enlightenment has severe consequences for biblical authority:

Much of the current debate over the authority of the scriptures, particularly in the United States of America, is a debate over these two options, not realizing that the responses offered still leave the basic question unchallenged. Both foundationalism and fundamentalism are, in fact, celebrations of the Enlightenment’s biblical criticism. Both are a concession to Lessing’s thesis that “accidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason.” Fundamentalism opted for the truths of history without the aid of reason where as foundationalism went with the truths of reason without historical claims of the Bible. It was an affirmation of Lessing’s thesis but validated through the different truths Lessing proposed as exclusive and exclusionary options.[20]

The Roman Catholic Church as well as Eastern Orthodox believers would subjugate Scripture to the traditions developed by the Church throughout its history.  Forestell explains that position well when he states, “Thus it becomes apparent that the Scriptures, inspired though they be, and enjoying, as they do, the privilege of inerrancy, are not an immediate rule of faith nor source of certitude apart from the living teaching authority of the Church. This is due to the historical and human manner in which God chose to reveal Himself, conditioning His Scriptures to the lives and times of the sacred author, and leaving them to a living organ of interpretation, capable at all times of nourishing the faithful from this source, according to their needs.”[21]  McGowan would reply to the Roman position by reminding his readers that every creed, confession, and dogma adopted by the church must past muster at the bar of Scripture and absent a positive affirmation from Scripture of such traditions they must be rejected.[22]

Martin Luther also disagreed with this Roman Catholic view and did so with the strongest of words.  He wrote, “All articles are sufficiently established in the Holy Scriptures, so that it is not necessary to establish any beyond these.  All commandments of good works are sufficiently stated in the sacred Scripture so that it is not necessary to formulate any beyond these.  Nothing in respect of either faith or morals can be established as necessary to salvation beyond what is taught in Scripture.  No one is bound to believe more than what is based in Scripture.”[23]

Modern Evangelicals would take exception to this Roman Catholic proposition seeing a usurpation of the central issue of this paper, namely the authority of God as understood in His Holy Word.  Wachler points out that people will only follow the Word of God when it is seen as the supreme authority for faith and life.  Absent this view God’s people become aimlessly wandering sheep.  “If the church must depend on the diffuse opinions of learned theologians and historical-critical scholars to determine what in Scripture is presumably genuine or spurious, reliable report or legendary distortion, Spirit-wrought witness or the influence of pagan religions and philosophies, etc., then the Word of its God and Savior no longer possesses ultimate authority. It has passed over to men who, however, can never have ultimate authority, since historical research can never go beyond a “presumably.””[24]  Pinnock suggests that just such a state of wandering exists today among many Christian theologians and scholars.  He states, “Now however there is a strong emphasis on the diversity of Scripture.  With the increased stress on the human character of the text has come a vision of it as a developing human witness full of complex and even competing ideas.  The Bible, therefore, cannot be appealed to with hope of achieving a coherent picture in a conceptual sense.”[25]

These are divergent views on the topic of the authority of God and what he has spoken.  It appears that these different views are becoming more sharply contrasted not increasingly congealed.  Has this had any effect on American culture?

Next Post: Part Two – The Authority of God Historically in American Culture

     [1]Unless otherwise noted all Scripture references are from The New American Standard Bible, The Lockman Foundation (Chicago, IL: Moody press, 1995).

     [2]Exodus 32:14 for instance says that God changed His mind concerning the judgment He previously stated He would bring upon the Hebrews for their disobedience.

     [3]Robert B. Chisholm, “Does God Change His Mind?” Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995): 387-399.

     [4]Micah 1:1.

     [5]Jeremiah 30:1-2.

     [6]Genesis 2:16, 3:13.

     [7]Exodus 3, Exodus19-20, Deuteronomy 18:18-20.

     [8]John 6:14, Acts 7:37, 52.

     [9]Clark H. Pinnock, The Scripture Principle (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2006), 32.

     [10]Ephesians 1:9.

     [11]Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration, and Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 11-12.

     [12]Genesis 1:27.

     [13]John 1:1-4.

     [14]F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1984), 86.

     [15]Carl F H. Henry, “Theology and biblical authority,” A review article of the uses of scripture in recent theology by D H Kelsey. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 19 no 4 (Fall 1976): 315-323.

     [16]John P. Bartkowski, “Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy : Conservative Protestants and the             Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture.”  Sociology of Religion, 57 no 3 (Fall 1996): 259-272.  Bartkowski presents a hermeneutic model based on evaluation of two areas of Christian concern – the relationship between husband and wife and child discipline in the home.  He sets forth his research as one way to demonstrate that evangelicals and fundamentalists view the authority of the Scriptures differently depending on the presuppositions they bring into their interpretation.  While it cannot be argued that people do bring their presuppositions into the interpretative task it does not follow that holding a view of Scripture as authoritative for faith and practice must somehow be the result of circular reasoning.  Logic demands that while various interpretations can all be wrong at the same time on the same subject they cannot all be right at the same time and on the same subject.  Thus one can hold a correct view of the authority of the Scriptures personal presuppositions notwithstanding.

   [17]David E. Fredrickson, “A piece of Scripture on part of the Bible: listening to Romans 15:1-6,” Word & World, 26 no 4 (Aut 2006): 412-418.

   [18]Brueggemann for example defines presupposition as script, and suggests that “People live their lives by a script that is sometimes explicit but often implicit. That script may be one of the great meta-narratives created by Karl Marx or Adam Smith or it may be an unrecognized tribal mantra like, “My dad always said . . . .” The practice of the script evokes a self, yields a sense of purpose and provides security.”  See Walter Brueggemann, “Counterscript.” Available from http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3307 Accessed January 22, 2009.

     [19]J. Christiaan Beker, “The authority of Scripture: normative or incidental?”  Theology Today 49 no 3 (Oct. 1992): 376-382.

     [20]Vítor Westhelle, “Luther on the authority of Scripture,” Lutheran Quarterly ns 19 no 4 (Wint 2005): 373-391.

     [21]J. Terence Forestell, “Limitation of inerrancy,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 20 (Jan 1958): 9-18.

     [22]A.T.B. McGowan, The Divine Authenticity of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 209.

     [23]Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), 5.

     [24]Gottfried Wachler, “The Authority of Holy Scripture,” Concordia Journal 10 no 5 (S 1984): 171-180.

     [25]Pinnock, 96.  Pinnock attributes this development to Walter Bauer who wrote in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity that the early church tolerated diverse and mutually exclusive beliefs.

Questions or comments? Share them through the Contact page.