Scripture’s Authority

Isa. 8:16­–20 (one of Gerhard's favorites)

1 Corinthians 4:6 (Sola scriptura; cf. Lockwood)

2 Peter 1:16­–21 (cf. Quist, The Reason I Believe, 54–55)

J.A.O. Preus, “The Authority of Scripture.”

Augustine, Letter 19: “We have learned to confer the honor of unhesitating assent to the canonical books alone. Other books we read in such a way that, regardless of how distinguished they may be in sanctity and doctrine, we do not think they are true simply because they think so, but because either through the canonical authors or through sound reasoning they were able to convince us that [their position] is not inconsistent with the truth.”

Luther (WA 21:476.1): “Value God’s Word more than your feelings.”

Anonymous blog comment: “Who has the right to look into God’s face and say He got it wrong when inspiring Paul’ s pen?”

Gerhard, On Scripture, § 37: For the foundation we lay out the following syllogism,
which is the prime, indemonstrable {or: “axiomatic”} principle of Christian
theology: Whatever God makes known in His Word everyone must accept with the
obedience of simple faith. The Word of God is set forth in Scripture. So whatever
is set forth in Scripture must be accepted with the obedience of simple faith.
Whoever denies the minor proposition can no longer be dealt with as a Christian
but as a pagan who must first be persuaded of the authority of canonical
Scripture.

Budding Thesis: Scripture is the sole source of Christian theology, the fides quae (nature an imperfect revelation of theology in general but not Christian), but Scripture is not the sole source of fides qua which usually comes through preaching first (Rom. 10.14). Confirmation:

Gerhard, On Scripture, § 22. However, if those who totally reject [Scripture] are to be persuaded of its authority, then one should have recourse to the three classes
[of witnesses] given above. For though the Holy Spirit is the chief and supreme
witness, this is not where one should start in the conversion of such people;
that is to say, they should not be told just to wait until the Holy Spirit,
apart from means, testifies of Scripture’s authority in their hearts. Rather,
they should be brought to the witness of the church, which in this respect
serves the role of a teacher for the pagan student. Therefore just as “a
student must first suspend disbelief” until he can later come to a decision for
himself about what he has been taught, so also must the pagan give his assent
to the church’s witness, this being the first stage of inquiry into Scripture’s
authority. Then one should add the internal proofs of antiquity, the prophecies,
the miracles, etc., seeing as the sole witness of the church alone is
insufficient for persuading the pagan of Scripture’s divine authority since he
may still doubt whether that church is the true church of God. Therefore just
as a teacher must not only set forth his teachings but must also corroborate
their veracity, so also it is insufficient for the church to assert, “These are
the divine Scriptures,” without also offering the reasons for its assertion.
Then at last it may follow <C1:10> that the Holy Spirit will Himself bear
witness in [the pagan’s] heart and seal the truth of His own Words. On this
Augustine (Contra epist. fundam., ch. 5) writes thus: “Let us follow
those who first invite us to believe what we cannot yet perceive so that,
strengthened in our faith, we may come to understand what we believe, not
anymore because of men but because of God Himself internally confirming and
enlightening our minds.”
§ 23. The lovely account in John 4 is pertinent here and can
clarify the whole matter. The Samaritan woman, who had heard Christ and learned
from Him the truth, “left into the town and told them, ‘Come and see a man who
told me everything I have done. Can this be the Christ?’” (vv. 28-29). Those
Samaritan townsfolk were led to Christ, and after hearing Him say (v. 42): “It
is no longer,” (for so it is in the Greek), “because of your word that we
believe, for we have heard Him ourselves and know that this is the Savior of
the world.” So also we are brought, by the church’s witness as if kindly
leading us by the hand, to Christ who speaks to us in the Scriptures.
Afterwards the voice of Christ so strikes our spirits that we no longer believe
because of the church’s witness but ourselves fully know the majesty of the
heavenly Word by the working of the Holy Spirit.

In their discussions concerning the sufficiency of Scripture Lutheran theologians maintained that it was proper to draw consequences from Scripture, that these inferences, or conclusions, had the force of doctrina divina, and that they were even necessary for salvation at times. In other words, a legitimate consequence drawn from Scripture is as Scriptural as the Biblical passage from which it is drawn. It first became necessary to articulate this essential principle because of the precipitate suggestions of Bucer and other Calvinists that doctrinal controversies ought to be settled by an appeal to the ipsissima verba of Scripture, when in fact it was the interpretation of the ipsissima verba that was under debate. However, it was primarily against the Socinians that the principle was argued. Adopting a Sadducean-like exegesis, the Socinians held that doctrine could not be based on consequences drawn from Scripture. This rigid position lay behind their rejection of the Trinity and the deity of Christ: there was no passage in the Scriptures, they averred, that explicitly taught these dogmas. It was their boast that their theology was based on Scripture without any consequences. The Lutherans on their part insisted that it was a legitimate exegetical procedure to draw consequences from Scripture and that these consequences had the force of doctrine.^235^ Christ Himself appealed to consequences in demonstrating fundamental articles of faith. He proved the resurrection of the dead from a Scripture passage that did not explicitly teach the resurrection (Mark 12:26), and He predicted His own resurrection on the basis of Old Testament passages that did not explicitly teach this. That He was Messiah was based on an inference from the Old Testament Scriptures (John 5:39; Acts 10:43), and even today we cannot prove that Jesus is the Christ except through legitimate conclusions drawn from the Old Testament. Calov points out that even fides specialis is always built on an inference drawn from Scripture. To be certain of his salvation, a sinner must draw conclusions from Scripture passages that teach that God wishes to save all men.^[1]