Austin's Blog

Baptist theologian Millard J. Erickson notes that the religious authority of the Bible is not direct but indirect. He writes, “…God himself is the ultimate authority in religious matters. He has the right, both by virtue of who he is and what he does, to establish the standard for belief and practice…he has delegated that authority by creating a book, the Bible. Because it conveys his message, the Bible carries the same weight as God himself would command if he were speaking to us personally.”[1] There really are only four options for where on grounds religious belief: 1) private interpretations and subjective experience, 2) religious leaders, 3) the church, or 4) the Bible alone. Rarely does God speak privately to individuals and prophets. The authority of religious leaders is derivative and not exactly the same sort as the authority of God himself. Furthermore, God’s authority is not delegated to an institution.

Erickson goes on to discuss ways Christians have sought to the convinced of its divine origin and authorship. The Roman Catholic position argues that one comes to accept the Bible through the means of the church itself. Arguments are marshalled for the divine origin of the church in order that she may certify its charter, the Bible. If the church is from God, surely the Word they gave to the world is also. As it is claimed, God gave religious jurisdiction to the apostles and its authority has been passed down in succession through leaders in councils and the papacy. The Church then is the basis for the authority of the Bible.

Another group emphasizes human reason as a means of establishing and defending the Bible’s authority. People simply have to examine the evidence and they will be convinced. The Bible exhibits certain features that when examined thoroughly yields great certainty concerning its validity. Fulfilled prophecy has been an often-trotted strain of evidence from earliest times in the church’s history. The Bible also contains miracles which serve to authenticate its messengers and the message much like they did during apostolic times. Jesus’ character is such that anyone who studies him as a person will be convinced of his excellence. Other arguments related to the resurrection, the Bible’s consistency and teaching, archeology, and its historical reliability all serve to showcase its divine stamp.

Erickson favors a third position related to the work of the Holy Spirit. The scholar writes, “…there is an internal working of the Holy Spirit, illuminating the understanding of the hearer or reader of the Bible, bringing about comprehension of its meaning and creating certainty concerning its truth and divine origin.”[2] The Holy Spirit’s work is necessary in this endeavor for three reasons: 1) there’s an ontological gap between the creature and Creator, 2) the noetic effects of sin are such that a simple examination of the evidence will be unconvincing, and 3) human beings desire certainty concerning divine matters. Dr. Erickson notes that there is a pattern of authority for the Bible writing, “The objective word, the written Scripture, together with the subjective word, the inner illumination and conviction of the Holy Spirit, constitutes the authority for the Christian.”[3]

[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. (2nd ed, Baker, 1998), 271.

[2] Ibid., 273.

[3] Ibid., 277.