The Biblical and Reformed Doctrine of the Self-Authentication of Scripture
In past lectures we studied the defense of the existence of God. We may summarize the results of those studies by saying that the existence of God does not need to be proved to men. God has so constructed the minds of men and creation that together they reveal the existence of God and leave men without excuse for refusing to honor or give thanks to the living and true God. Thus, by nature, innately, men are aware of the existence of the living God.
When we come to the subject of the Bible, we confront a distinct issue. By nature and creation men are not aware of the Bible or its message. This is a fundamental principle of Christian theology. It is so fundamental that our 1689 Confession of Faith begins by stating it:
Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable;2 yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation.
This means, of course, that only the Bible and its message can give this light. It is not available in nature. Because men do not know that the Bible is the Word of God in the same way that they recognize the existence of God by nature, it is essential for us to deal in a distinct way with the subject of the defense of the Bible as the Word of God. The question is, How do we know that the gospel of Christ presented to us in the Scriptures is true? This question is the question answered when we speak of the authentication of the Scriptures. Authentication refers to that which proves the Bible to be the Word of God. When we tell men how we know the Bible is the Word of God, we are authenticating the Scriptures.
In answering this question we are asking and answering two somewhat distinct questions. The two questions are: Why is the Bible authoritative? and How do I know it is authoritative? Christians in general have agreed that the Bible is innately authoritative because it is the Word of the living God. But a different question may be asked, How do I come to know and recognize that authority? How is that authority attested to me? When this question is asked, different answers have been given to it by those who believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God. It is this question with which we are now concerned: How is the Bible attested to me as true? In other words, How do we know that the message contained in the Scriptures is divine? In examining this subject three points will be considered.
- An Evaluation of the Alternative Theories of the Authentication of Scripture.
- A Presentation of the Biblical Doctrine of the Self‑Authentication of Scripture.
- A Clarification of the Common Misconceptions about the Self‑Authentication of Scripture.
I. An Evaluation of the Alternative Theories of the Authentication of Scripture
A. The Historical Appeal
There are those who appeal to the study of history in order to show that the Bible is the Word of God. This was the position of the Reformation Humanists like Erasmus. Many have followed them in more recent times. This view asserts that evidence outside or external to the Bible provided by historical investigation will attest to us the apostolic authorship and authenticity of the biblical canon. B. F. Westcott favors this view and summarizes it when he says, “external evidence is the proper proof both of the authenticity and authority of the New Testament …”[1]
I certainly do not wish to deny that the evidence provided by historical investigation supports the idea that the Bible is historically genuine. However, several objections may be raised against this position.
(1) It is contrary to the experience of most Christians. Very few, or none, come to believe that the Bible is the Word of God through a study of the historical evidence. Such a study has very little to do with the faith of most Christians. Does this mean that the faith of most Christians is defective or improper? Of course not!
(2) It is beyond the reach of most Christians. Many Christians do not have the intellectual capability of evaluating the thorny, historical questions regarding the Scriptures. Most do not have the time to read, let alone to understand, for example, Westcott’s weighty General Survey …
(3) It is insufficient for any Christian. What is biblical faith? It is the conviction, the inner certainty, the confident knowledge that the message of the Bible is true (Heb. 11:1). The fact is that the historical evidence (while important, helpful, and supporting) is neither clear, nor complete enough to ground true faith. This is why Warfield and others who have taken this position have admitted repeatedly that the evidence rises only to level of probability and then defended probabilism. At point after point judgments must be made on the basis of incomplete evidence. In support of this assertion I can only challenge the doubter to read for himself (even such a sympathetic and masterful treatment of the evidence as that presented by) Westcott.
(4) Ridderbos asserts, “An historical judgment cannot be the final and sole ground for the acceptance of the New Testament … To do so [accept the New Testament on such a basis‑-SW] would mean that the church would base its faith on the results of historical investigation.”[2] This would mean that for most Christians their faith, in reality, would be in the expert, the historical investigator himself. This would be a clear contradiction of the biblical view of faith and especially a passage like 1 Corinthians 2:4, 5.
B. The Ecclesiastical Appeal
Many appeal to the witness of the church in order to show that the Bible is the Word of God. Roman Catholicism is the key example of this position. It affirms that the Church is able to give the Christian an infallible authentication of the Canon. In other words, Roman Catholicism claims that the church is alone able to tell us for certain and with authority that the Bible is the Word of God. Of course, any view which gives to the Church any infallible authority must be unacceptable to Protestants. Furthermore, Rome contradicts the biblical teaching that “the canon is not established by the church, but the latter is established by the canon.” Thus Rome’s position involves “a reversal of the redemptive‑historical order.”[3] Compare the statement of Paul in Ephesians 2:20 that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.
C. General Objections
Here two convincing objections which apply to both the historical appeal (the appeal to history) and to the ecclesiastical appeal (the appeal to the church) must be looked at.
(1) An objection which applies to both the positions given above is that the thing to which we appeal in order to attest the Bible tends to replace the Bible as one’s practical authority. In other words, that to which we appeal in order to prove the Bible becomes the real authority of those who appeal to it. This lessens or weakens the practical influence of the Bible.
This problem is shown to be real in Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism’s appeal to ecclesiastical authority to prove the Bible is associated with a tendency to destroy the practical authority of the Bible for Roman Catholics. This is so because in its appeal to the church to prove the Bible the Bible ceases to be the absolute standard. In each of the choices given above the Bible is to be attested by means of an appeal to a higher standard. Thus each of the attempted answers is virtually a denial of the authority of the Bible. To appeal to any external authority to prove the Bible is to make something else have more authority than the Bible. To make anything else have more authority than the Bible is a denial of the supreme authority of the Bible. Though it is helpful to make a distinction, logically, between the authority of the Scriptures for us and its authority in itself,[4] it should always be remembered that its authority in itself and with us is from a single cause and for a single reason. It is the Word of God.
(2) It is important to note at this point that the whole effort to discover some standard external to or outside of the Bible to prove it to be God’s Word is misguided. This is the case for two reasons. First, since God has spoken and the Bible is itself the living Word of God, the highest possible authentication is the Bible’s own witness to itself. Second, if we think that a divine revelation following the original giving of the Bible is necessary in order to confirm it as God’s Word, there is no place to stop. This second revelation would require a third revelation to confirm it as God’s Word and so on without end. If the Bible as God’s voice or word from heaven does not attest itself, no amount of voices or words from heaven will ever be sufficient to attest it. Stonehouse has well said, “The only concrete form in which that authentication can come, if it is not to be derived from another objective revelation from the Lord of heaven, must be nothing other than the voice of Scripture itself.”[5]
II. A Presentation of the Biblical Doctrine of the Self‑Authentication of Scripture
The Reformed view of the self‑authentication of the Scriptures must now be systematically stated and exegetically defended. The Reformed view has often been misunderstood as a subjectivistic (feeling-related) appeal to the internal testimony of the Spirit. This misconception occurs when the testimony of the Holy Spirit[6] is divorced from the Reformed doctrine of the self-authentication[7] of divine revelation.[8] The doctrine of the testimony of the Holy Spirit can only be properly understood as one of a trilogy or series of three Reformed doctrines concerning the authentication of divine revelation. Furthermore, a deep appreciation of the convincing character of the biblical evidence for the Reformed solution to the problem of the authentication of Scripture is only obtained by viewing this series of three of doctrines together.
A. The Self‑Authenticating Character of General Revelation
No one has more forcefully stated the significance of the self‑authenticating character of natural or creation revelation than Cornelius Van Til where he said:
The most depraved of men cannot wholly escape the voice of God. Their greatest wickedness is meaningless except upon the assumption that they have sinned against the authority of God. Thoughts and deeds of utmost perversity are themselves revelational, that is, in their very abnormality. The natural man accuses or else excuses himself only because his own utterly depraved consciousness continues to point back to the original natural state of affairs. The prodigal son can never forget the father’s voice. It is the albatross forever about his neck.[9]
According to the biblical view of creation revelation man is always immediately confronted with divine revelation. God in His revelation is ceaselessly authenticating Himself to man. The creature can never escape the Creator. Natural or general revelation is self‑authenticating because it is the revelation of the Creator to the creature made in His image. The biblical evidence for this has already been presented. It will be merely summarized here.
Psalm 19 asserts that creation has a voice. It was created by the Word of God. Now it speaks a word to men. With its voice it declares loudly, clearly, abundantly, ceaselessly, and universally the glory of the living God. Romans 1:18f. reflects on this Psalm. It goes on to assert that such revelation leaves men without excuse because it actually imparts to them a certain knowledge of God. By it that which is known about God is made evident in them and to them. His eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen and understood by men. Thus, in a certain sense, the apostle can assert that men know God, the law of God, and the ordinance of God that those who break His laws must die. Though they suppress the truth, they do possess the truth. This view of things is clearly confirmed by the rest of Scripture which steadfastly refuses to utilize rational argumentation to prove the existence of God. Even in Acts 17 where Paul faces complete pagans the existence and attributes are rather asserted, assumed, and declared than proven or argued. When Paul cites heathen poets in support of his testimony, it is clear that he assumes that even those barren of the light of redemptive revelation possess a certain suppressed knowledge of God that comes to distorted expression in their systematic thought.
Let it be clear what the force of the testimony of Scripture is. It is not that men may know God; nor that they potentially know God and will come to know Him if they will use their reason aright. It is not that men by natural revelation have a certain vague notion of some undefined deity. It is rather that men are immediately confronted with a clear and unavoidable revelation of the true and living God.
This distinct view of Scripture has been clearly asserted by the great teachers of the Reformed faith. Calvin frequently asserted just this in the opening pages of the Institutes (1:3:1, 2, 3; 1:4:1,2; 1:5:1,2,4, 11,15; 1:6:1,2). The statement of 1:5:4 is typical: “They perceive how wonderfully God works within them, and experience teaches them what a variety of blessings they receive from his liberality. They are constrained to know, whether willingly or not, that these are proofs of his divinity: yet they suppress this knowledge in their hearts.” Owen has made the point yet more clear and stated it with the precision of technical language. He says after citing Romans 1:19 and 2:14, 15: “And thus the mind doth assent unto the principles of God’s being and authority, antecedently unto any actual exercise of the discursive faculty [the capacity of men to engage in a line of reasoning‑-SW] or reason, or other testimony whatever.”[10]
The self‑authenticating character of Scripture has for its significant setting the self‑authenticating character of general revelation. The evidence for the self-authentication of Scripture is never given its proper weight divorced from this backdrop. John Murray has seen this relationship. “If the heavens declare the glory of God and therefore bear witness to their divine Creator, the Scripture as God’s handiwork must also bear the imprints of his authorship.”[11] This argument may, however, be put even more emphatically. It may be said that if general revelation is self‑authenticating, how much more must special revelation as it is written down in the Bible be self‑authenticating. The fact is that the great difference between general and special revelation is that special revelation has a far more direct and personal character than general revelation. In general revelation creation speaks to us of God. In special revelation God Himself approaches us directly and personally speaking words to us. J. I. Packer teaches that the purpose of God’s speaking to men is to make friends with them. He then goes on to speak of the fact that general revelation is insufficient for this end.
As against those who hold that general revelation, and `natural religion’ based on it, can suffice for man without the Bible, we must observe that Paul’s analysis shows up the insufficiency of general revelation. It shows us, first, that general revelation is inadequate as a basis for religion, for it yields nothing about God’s purpose of friendship with man, nor does it fully disclose His will for human life. Even Adam in Eden needed direct divine speech, over and above general revelation to make known to him all God’s will.[12]
If the comparatively indirect and impersonal general revelation authenticated itself to men as divine revelation, how much more will direct and personal speaking by God to men in special revelation constrain recognition by its self‑authentication. Owen makes this very point:
We need no other arguments to prove that God made the world but itself. It carrieth in it and upon it the infallible tokens of its original … Now, there are greater and more evident impressions of divine excellencies left on the written word, from the infinite wisdom of the Author of it, than any that are communicated unto the works of God, of what sort so ever. Hence David, comparing the works of God, as to their instructive efficacy in declaring God and his glory, although he ascribes much unto the works of creation, yet doth he prefer the word incomparably before them, Ps. xix. 1‑3, 7‑9, cxvlvii. 8, 9 etc., 19, 20.[13]
The relation of the self‑authentication of general revelation to the self‑authentication of the Scriptures (special revelation) may also be presented by way of the following three step piece of logic or syllogism.
Major Premise: Divine Revelation is Self‑Attesting.
Minor Premise: Scripture is Divine Revelation.
Conclusion: Scripture is Self‑Attesting.[14]
Let me illustrate how our knowledge of general revelation forms the essential context for appreciating the self-authenticating character of Scriptures. Revelation is like a jigsaw puzzle. General revelation like that we studied in Romans 1:18-23 gives us the borders of that puzzle, but the crucial inner pieces necessary to complete the puzzle are missing. From the border pieces you can tell generally what color and shape those pieces must be, but you cannot see the picture clearly because the crucial pieces are missing. Suppose a mother and a child were putting together such a jigsaw puzzle and realized when they were almost done that several crucial pieces were missing. They look all over the house for those missing pieces and finally under a cushion on the couch they find several jigsaw puzzle pieces. When they place them in the puzzle, they fit perfectly, they are the right color, and they complete the picture perfectly. Now suppose when the father comes home, he questioned them and asked how they knew for sure that they found the right pieces. Would he be able to convince them that they had the wrong pieces? No! What could they do to convince the father that they had the right pieces? All they could do would be to show him the puzzle and hope that he had not had such a bad day at work that he would not see the obvious fit.
It is precisely the same with the special revelation contained in the Bible. It fits with general revelation. First, it reveals the same God which men know by nature. Second, it reveals the same wicked situation which men know by nature. It teaches that men are wicked sinners doomed to death by a just God. Men, according to Romans 1:18-2:16 know this by nature. Third, it explains why a just God continues to show common grace to such wicked sinners. According to the Bible men are aware of the fact that God continues to show goodness to them despite their wickedness and despite His holiness. The Bible explains that mystery by revealing the purpose of God to save sinners. Fourth, the Bible reveals the only way in which wicked sinners under the wrath of God can be justified by a holy God. Even though its doctrine of the Son of God coming to suffer the penalty which His people deserved is too wonderful ever to have been thought of by natural reason, yet when it is considered it is obvious that only through such a gospel can sinners be saved. These pieces, you see, fit the puzzle of general revelation perfectly. This is the reason why when the Spirit opens sinners’ eyes, the gospel is immediately received. Its divine truthfulness is obvious. It fits the suppressed truth which the sinner already knows.
[1]B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 502.
[2]Ridderbos, Authority of the New Testament, (St. Catherine’s, Ontario: Paideia Press, 1978) 36.
[3]Ridderbos, Authority, 36. Cf. Calvin at 1:7:2 of the Institutes.
[4]The Latin is quoad nos and quoad se.
[5]Stonehouse in The Infallible Word, 105.
[6]The frequently used Latin phrase is testimonium Spiritus Sanctus.
[7]The frequently used Latin phrase is autopistia.
[8]Ridderbos, Authority, 9ff.
[9]Van Til in The Infallible Word, 274, 275
[10]John Owen, Works, 4:84, 87, 88.
[11]Murray on p. 46 of The Infallible Word.
[12]J. I. Packer, God Has Spoken (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979) 54-55.
[13]John Owen, Works, 91.
[14]The propriety of this syllogism might be challenged especially with regard to the propriety of the major premise. The major premise is based on applying to revelation in general what is true of the self‑authentication of general revelation. This is justified by the fact that general revelation is self‑attesting because of the nature of the Creator/creature relationship. Since this same relation underlies all revelation, divine revelation in general must be self‑attesting.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
