AP

Sometimes you come across lies so dangerous and pernicious that an explanation is required to prevent damage to the church and an undermining in confidence in God’s word.

This past week I came across someone rehashing the old argument that Scripture being the supreme authority in matters of faith is bunkum. Essentially, they say: “How can one believe the Scriptures to be the word of God without the church’s authoritative determination of that?” “The church determined the canon.” “The Scriptures do not stand alone. They need the church’s interpretive authority to back it up.” It is the kind of thing that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox love to assert, as they seek to position themselves as an authority beside or even over Scripture. They actively seek to undermine confidence in the Reformation and any other church outside their so-called “one-true-church”.

The argument as it turns out is easily refuted. Consider Calvin in his Institutes (I, vii):

1. Scripture has its authority from God, not from the church

Before I go any farther, it is worthwhile to say something about the authority of Scripture, not only to prepare our hearts to reverence it, but to banish all doubt.

… 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! …

2. The church is itself grounded upon Scripture

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.

Groundless, too, is their subtle objection that, although the church took its beginning here, the writings to be attributed to the prophets and apostles nevertheless remain in doubt until decided by the church.

…while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures, it does not thereby render authentic what is otherwise doubtful or controversial …

… As to their question—How can we be assured that this has sprung from God unless we have recourse to the decree of the church?—it is as if someone asked: Whence will we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Indeed, Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their colour, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste.

Calvin reminds us a couple of things. First, the church itself is established from Scripture and built upon on the words of the apostles and prophets (i.e. the word of God).  This means that Scripture does not rely on the church. It is the other way round. Scripture does not need the church for its testimony.

It reminds me of that verse in John 2:24-25:

But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.

At what point did Jesus require man to back him? It is upon God’s testimony that the church is established, built, brought forth, given birth. While mankind no doubt benefits from the church that attests to the truth of God’s word, it is arrogant to think that Scripture itself requires the church.

The second thing Calvin reminds us of is that Scripture is its own authority; it is self-authenticating. While we have no doubt read books and have been assisted by apologetics to give us confidence of Scripture, none of these things give Scripture its authority. Otherwise, those things themselves would be the authority! Even Reason itself does not give Scripture its authority. Scripture is not anti-reason. It transcends reason just as God himself transcends rationality.

This brings us to the heart of the issue: the presumption that somehow, God has made the church to be the institutional entity that deserves a right to a parallel authoritative voice.

Consider Calvin’s words again, this time from his prefatory address to King Francis:

Our controversy turns on these hinges: first, they contend that the form of the church is always apparent and observable. Secondly, they set this form in the see of the Roman Church and its hierarchy. We, on the contrary, affirm that the church can exist without any visible appearance, and that its appearance is not contained within that outward magnificence which they foolishly admire.

…But among the Jewish people how often was it so deformed that no semblance of it remained? What form do we think it displayed when Elijah complained that he alone was left [1 Kings 19:10, or 14]?

Calvin reminds us that there were plenty of times in history where the institutional church (in the form of Old Testament Israel) was itself against God and would deny the words of God.

The “prophets” during Ahab’s time rejected Elijah. The priests and prophets of Jeremiah’s day rejected his message (Jeremiah 28:1–17 cf. Jeremiah 6:13).

Let us not be fooled by any argument from any institutional church that sets itself up as the authority next to the word of God. This is rather like a photobomber who appears in the picture of Scripture.

The church’s authority is a derivative one as the moon’s light is a derivative from the sun. Its truthfulness is only insofar as it illumines the truth already present in Scripture. The institutional church has no business in making claims for itself as a parallel authority.

Another question arises: “How then can one be convinced of an interpretation of Scripture if in the end, its illumination comes by the Holy Spirit who speaks through it and that event is private and internal?”

The answer is not to turn to an external, institutional authority. The answer is simply to acknowledge that Scripture is spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14). Scripture’s authoritative interpretation becomes clear as the Holy Spirit gives clarity about it. To set up an extra-biblical authority is to set up an authority of which Scripture itself does not approve. Besides, Reformed theology does not establish private interpretations (2 Peter 1:20), but weighs various interpretations, be they ancient or modern.

– Bryan Kim