The Authority of Scripture

WCF Chapter I
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

This section was written as a rebuttal to the RCC's claim to ultimate authority, and therefore authority over the Scriptures. The authority of God's word does not depend upon man or upon the church. It depends upon God Himself whose word it is. There can be no higher authority than God and His word! If God says it, that settles it!
God's word therefore ought to be received, believed, and obeyed. Since it is the ultimate authority, it demands ultimate submission and it governs all things. All human authority is derived from Scripture alone.
Eg. The authority of the husband as head of the house is derived from Scripture.(Ephesians 5) The authority of the civil magistrate; those who rule in the State is derived from Scripture (Rom 13). The authority of Elders to rule in the church is derived from Scripture. (1Peter 5)
Not only does the authority to rule come from the Scriptures, but those who rule must rule by the Scriptures. One of our core values at Unity states:
6. We are committed to the development of godly leaders who meet the qualifications of Scripture and who lead according to the standards of Scripture.

Our Lord Jesus Christ never appealed to tradition as authoritative; (every time He mentioned tradition it was only to denounce it) nor did He ever appeal to the church or its leaders as authoritative. Jesus always and only appealed to the Scriptures as the final authority in all matters.

Simply put - there is no authority higher than God's word. Scripture must be the axiomatic starting point.

The Bible, in many places, claims to be the inspired, infallible word of the living God. Why then do some believe it and some do not?
Calvin - "Those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit, acquiesce implicitly to Scripture."
In other words, the reason a person believes is because, "the Spirit produces belief in the minds of the elect." (Crampton)

WCF
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

Can we prove that the Bible is the Word of God? Can we use apologetics and bring in evidences that will prove the truth of Scripture? No, not really. The ultimate persuasion that the bible is the word of God comes only from the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit only gives this persuasion as we go to Scripture. Some would call that circular reasoning, but we call it Biblical reasoning.
But aren't there evidences that help us in some way? Yes, these evidences are useful and though they cannot prove the truth of the Bible, they do two things:
1) They help us refute the arguments of skeptics and show the fool his folly. The skeptic says the Bible is not historically accurate. We show him that it is and we remove that argument he has against the Bible. We haven't proved the truth of Scripture, but we have proven the falsity of his argument.
2) These evidences help us as believers to demonstrate the truth of what we believe. We say we believe the Bible is the Word of God. We would therefore expect that there would be consistency in all its parts and that is exactly what we find. Etc., etc. We do not believe that there are any real contradictions in Scripture and that is what we actually find when we interpret it correctly.

Can the church assist us in coming to understand and have respect for the Word of God? Yes. Most of us were led by the church and it's teachers to an understanding of Scripture and respect for it. But we do not believe based upon the testimony of the church.

Can "The heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style", cause us to give praise to God and be in awe of Him? Yes, but by themselves, these do not infallibly persuade.

There are many ways in which the Scripture evidences itself to be the Word of God, but proof can only come from the Spirit of God. Faith is a gift of God which He works in us by His Spirit. God chooses us and causes us to see and believe that His word is truth.

Gordon Clark:
"Logically, the infallibility of the Bible is not a theorem to be deduced from some prior axiom. The infallibility of the Bible IS the axiom from which doctrines are themselves deduced as theorems. Every religion and every philosophy must be based on some first principle. And since a first principle is first, it cannot be 'proved' or 'demonstrated' on the basis of anything prior. As the catechism says, 'The Word of God is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him.'"

Robert Reymond put it this way:
"The authority of the Word of Scripture is the only ground sufficiently ultimate to justify all human truth claims."

In other words, the only means by which we know anything is true is by the truth of Scripture. Unless a system of thought or idea is based somehow upon the truth of God's word, then there can be no authority and no real basis whatsoever for that idea.

You've heard the expression "The Buck stops here." The Buck stops at the Bible. You cannot go beyond it or above it or deeper than it in order to prove it. No - it is the basis to prove all other truths, including the truth that the Bible is the word of God.

What Books Belong in the Bible?

What books or writings are to be considered as being the Word of God?
The very last statement of the WCF I, 1., implies the canon of Scripture is complete or closed. The former ways of God's revealing Himself through miraculous gifts of utterance have ceased. Now in the next two sections (2 & 3) the canon of Scripture is defined as containing only the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. The books called the apocrypha are identified as uninspired writings.

The word canon simply means "rule", "standard" or "measuring rod." The canon of Scripture concerns exactly which books are inspired by God, and which are not. The WCF states in section 2 of chapter one that:

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these:
(then it lists the 39 books of the OT and 27 of the NT that you have in your Bible)
All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.

These 66 books and these only are given by infallible inspiration of God. These only are to be the rule or canon for the church. These books only tell us what we must believe and how we must live. Only these 66 books are authoritative. Only these books are the Word of God.

In contrast to this view, the RCC states that though these 66 books of the Bible are the Word of God, so is the Apocrypha. They also define the Word of God to include the Roman Catholic Church's official tradition, which they say is an equally inspired interpretation of the Bible. That official interpretation must be believed by Catholics just as absolutely as the believe in the Bible. They will tell you that they do not add to Scripture at all, they simply explain it properly. But that tradition or the official interpretation of Scripture is equally binding on the conscience of the individual Roman Catholic.

The Protestant position is that the Bible alone can bind the conscience of a believer. Chapter 20 of the WCF says:
II. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.

The OT was completed around 400 B.C. with Malachi. 400 years later God began to speak again to His people. God spoke through the angel Gabriel to the shepherds & Mary, He spoke in dreams & visions, and through John the Baptist. Then in the fullness of time God sent His Son, who is the Word of God made flesh. Christ validated the existing OT canon of Scripture. He did not validate the Apocrypha. He quoted from virtually every book of the OT as being the Word of God, but there is no reference at all to the Apocrypha.

Therefore, Section 3 of the WCF says:
III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.

Christ then commissioned His apostles and "pre-authenticated" them (and a few other apostolic representatives such as Luke and Mark) as those who would be the agents of the divine revelation of the NT Scriptures. He gave the Holy Spirit to them and breathed out His Word through them. Of course they were endowed with miraculous gifts in order to confirm that their message was divine truth.

2 Peter 1:21 "no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

The later additions of books of mere human authorship and traditions of men are not necessary if Scripture alone is given that we might be complete and equipped for every good work. When the last apostle died, then the giving of special revelation ceased. The canon was closed.

What is the Apocrypha?
Seven extra books that the RCC includes in their Bible: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (or Ecclesasticus), and Baruch
These were made a part of the Catholic Bible at a much later date than they were written. The books had all been written by the time of Christ, yet were not added to the Canon by the RCC until the Council of Trent in 1546. There is good reason to believe that they added them after the fact in order to support some of their heretical doctrines.

Rome added them because they believe that the RCC has the authority to establish the canon. Protestants would say, no - the church does not have the infallible authority to establish what the canon is, but the church does have the duty to recognize, accept and submit to those books that are inspired.
Why does the Protestant Church reject the Apocrypha?
These books were added to the OT because they were written before the time of Christ.

-The Jewish Historian Josephus did not include the apocrypha in his list of the Hebrew Scriptures. He said "they are not worthy of credit with the OT books." The OT as the Jews originally had it did not include the apocrypha.
-They were never part of the Palestinian Canon adopted by Jesus and the Apostles.
-The early church theologians did not view the apocrypha as part of the Bible, with the exception of Augustine, who later changed to a more Protestant position.
-Even Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin did not accept the Apocrypha as canonical.
-Several of the books themselves disclaim to be inspired Scripture.
-Historical errors and falsehoods are found in the books.


The Bible is the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments alone.

Scripture - a Final Revelation

Sola Scriptura
Scripture - a Final Revelation














Christianity is based upon revelation from God.
We as reformed Protestants are committed to the principle of "Sola Scriptura", or Scripture alone. Through Scripture, God has revealed all that is necessary for us to know about Himself, and about our salvation. In fact, we say that the "Holy Scripture alone is our infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice.

Scripture alone is able to bring a person to saving faith in Jesus Christ. No mere man can do it, nor can the church, nor a vision or some experience. General revelation cannot bring man to saving knowledge of God. The Bible alone reveals the way of salvation and the way to please God.

Last week we looked at Chapter one, Section one of the WCF. The last sentence of Sect. 1 says: "which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."

What are those "former ways of God's revealing Himself?"
There was the audible voice of God, there were dreams and visions, there were tongues and prophecies, and miracles. These ways of God's revealing His will were temporary. How do we know they were temporary?
Let's take a look at 1Corinthians 13:8-13
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

1. Paul said that tongues, prophecy and the special gift of knowledge were temporary. All 3 would cease at some point.
2. In contrast to these three gifts, "faith, hope and love" remain.
3. V. 9 says, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part" - Revelation through these gifts is partial - incomplete.
4. v. 10 says, "but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears." The Greek word for "perfection" is "teleios", which means "brought to its end, finished; wanting nothing necessary to completeness". In other words, the partial or temporary means of revelation would be replaced by something that was permanent and complete. At that time there would be no need for further revelation. I.e. when the Scriptures were completed the temporary revelatory gifts would cease.
5. V. 11, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." The state of childhood is state of immaturity and limitations. "The temporary partial revelation was like the childish ways that would be replaced by adult ones (the complete revelation)." (J. Adams) Those who seek to speak in tongues and have the miraculous gifts of prophecy and knowledge today are trying to go back to when the church was in the period of childhood. Since we have the completed Scriptures, there is no need to go backward.
6. V. 12, " Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
The mirrors in those days were not like our mirrors. They were bronze mirrors that reflected a poor, fuzzy, dim image. The mirrors we have today allow us to see ourselves clearly face to face. So today, since the Scriptures have been completed, it is like seeing face to face - that is, we see the truth much more clearly now. It has come into sharper focus.
Paul has not made any reference here to heaven or the eternal state. He has been discussing God's methods of revelation. He is not introducing another subject here.

7. "Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." It says nothing about heaven here. When Paul says "I shall know fully", Gary Crampton says he means that he "would know fully all that God has chosen to reveal" i.e. the Scriptures.
If Paul meant to refer to heaven in v. 12 then v. 13 would make no sense. "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
If Paul was talking about the eternal state, love would remain, but not faith and hope. Faith and hope will not be necessary in heaven! Faith will be turned to sight! Hope will be realized!

The prophet Daniel said, in 9:24 "Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy."
Daniel refers to a time when vision and prophecy would be sealed up. Paul simply reiterates this fact.

John MacArthur states that: "The Bible records only three periods of history in which human beings were given the gift of performing miracles (that would authenticate the message of those called to proclaim it):
1. During the ministries of Moses and Joshua.
2. During the ministries of Elijah and Elisha
3. During the ministries of Jesus and the apostles.

"Each period lasted only about 70 years and then abruptly ended. The NT miracle age was for the purpose of confirming the Word as given by Jesus and the apostles."

Hebrews 2:3-4 says, "This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."
The writer tells the purpose of these miracles - to confirm the message of salvation. He even speaks of these miraculous gifts as if they had already ceased.

Tongues and other sign gifts have ceased because the NT has been completed. Nothing is to be added to the Bible. If tongues really were for today, then we would still have revelation from God and the Bible would keep being written, but we know this is not the case. Nowhere in the writings of the early church fathers do we find a reference to the practice of tongues.
MacArthur said that "The historians and theologians of the early church unanimously maintained that tongues ceased to exist after the time of the apostles. The only exception of which we know was within the movement led by Montanus, a second century heretic who believed that divine revelation continued through him beyond the NT."
Apparently no other tongues-speaking was practiced in Christianity until the 17th and 18th centuries, when it appeared in certain RCC groups and the Shakers. Then in the 19th century, the Irvingites in London claimed to speak in tongues and have new revelations of the Spirit. Around the turn of the 20th century the holiness movement started, which later developed into modern Pentecostalism. The Charismatic movement which began in the 1960's, brought the practice of tongues and new revelations beyond Pentecostalism into other churches - both Protestant and Catholic.

But in contrast to this relatively recent movement which we are in the midst of, we hold to the historic Protestant and biblical position - which is that the miraculous, revelatory gifts have now ceased because their purpose has ceased - and the Scriptures are complete. God's written word is that perfect, complete and final revelation of God until we go to live with Him forever.

Scripture alone is the only revelation from God we have today. It is the only revelation we need. It is sufficient for all of life and godliness until Christ returns.