B ib lical Authority R econsidered*

Paul D. Hanson

1. A Modern Problem with H istorical R o o ts‫؛‬

T h e g e s t i o n of biblical au th o rity as w e face it to d a y is in a sen se
a m o d e rn o n e. T h at is to say, it stem s from th e kinds of q u estio n s
raised by th e E n lig h ten m e n t reg ard in g th e relation of biblical scholar-
ship to th e study of o th e r w ritings of an tiq u ity a n d th e relation of th e
h u m a n to th e divine. T h o u g h in certain w ays a d u m b ra te d by R enais-
sa n e e scholarship, th e se q u estio n s w ere n o t u rg en t issues to r th e
C h u rc h F ath ers, for M edieval S ch o la rs, ٠٢ to r th e R eform ers. F or th e
th e o lo g ia n s of all of th e se p erio d s. H oly S crip tu re w as G o d ’s W o rd ,
a gift of th e H oly Spirit.
W hile the questio n s pertain in g to biblical au thority g e n e ra te d by th e
E n lig h ten m en t w ere n o t raised explicitly by th e earlier d o cto rs of th e
c h u rc h , it is in accu rate to a s su m e th a t th e y w ere in n o c e n t of certain
basic theological p ro b lem s involved to biblical in terp rétatio n . Issues
w ere anticipated by th e m th a t w ould em e rg e in toller form in later
controversies, to dealing with such issues M edieval scholars drew u p o n
th e theological tradition tracin g back to A u g u stin e while at th e sa m e
tim e com ing u n d e r th e increasin g influence of an a s c e n d e n t n eo -
A ristotelianism . T h e tension b etw een th e se tw o traditions pro v id es toe
co n c e p tu a l b a c k g ro u n d for th e d e b a te o v er biblical au th o rity b e y o n d
th e M edieval P erio d into th e tim e of to e refo rm ers, th e C o u n cil of
T re n t, an d to e era of L u th e ra n a n d C alvinist o rth o d o x y .
T h o u g h th e A ugusttoian legacy is o ften identified as n eo -P lato n ic,
it is m ore ap p ro p riate to label it to e “faith seek in g -u n d erstan d in g ” posi-
tion, for while aw kw ard, this label accurately preserves the central point
in A ugustine’s views on biblical authority an d th e relation b etw een faith
a n d rea so n .
T h e im p o rtan ce of this th e m e in A u g u stin e’s th eo lo g y is a p p a re n t
in his recu rren t ex h o rtatio n reg ard in g to e q u est tor the truths of Chris-
tianity: ‘،Believe in o rd e r th a t y o u m ay u n d e r s ta n d .٩ Faith co u ld n ot

57
58 Paul D. Hanson

be discovered purely through the exercise of reason; his own agoniz-

ing struggle to find wisdom had dem onstrated that fact. Faith was a
gift of God granted through the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and the
mysteries of faith like the Trinity could be accepted only on the
authority of Scripture and the Church. But far ftom excluding rea-
son, faith provided the window through which the mind could peer
in its tireless effort “to understand by light of reason what you already
firmly hold by faith.”* The primacy of faith and the legitimacy of rea-
son rightly employed are thus held in balance by Augustine. Lest Chris-
tianity become a club open only te those trained in philosophy and
rhetoric, Augustine insisted that faith rested on a divine gift and that
the message of Scripture was the Good News of salvation. He there-
fore repudiated tee Manichean Felix’s claim that the Holy Spirit had
given te Manicheus a special revelation of astronomical teachings and
insisted that the message of Scripture concerned salvation:
“People often ask what Scripture has te say of the shape of
tee heavens. Many have argued about this subject, but our
authors (of the Scriptures) have omitted to tell us about it,
and with great wisdom, seeing that such knowledge is of no
advantage in eternal lite .”‫ﺀ‬
On tee other hand, faite did not exclude the importance of tee mind,
but freed tee believer te penetrate ever more deeply into its inexhaust-
ible meaning, and in teis penetration tee proper tool was the gift God
uniguely had given te humans, namely, reason.
Albertus Magnus and even more notably his star student Thomas
Aquinas are often credited with (٠٢ blamed ter, depending on one’s
perspective) introducing a shift in theological orientation and a realign-
ment of the relation between faith and reason due te their rapproche-
ment with Aristotelian philosophy, ft has been maintained that
Aquinas’s adoption of an Aristotelian epistemology is manifested in
his argument that knowledge of God, like all other knowledge, de-
rives from sense experience: ،،Beginning with sensible things our
intellect is led to the point of knowing about God that He exists .” 6
Though statements like the above combined with his five proofs ter
the existence of God can be interpreted along Aristotelian lines,
another side te Thomas’ thought argues against drawing such a sharp
Paul D. Hanson 59

dichotomy between him and Augustine. The faith/reason dialectic in

Thomas is ٠ ‫ ؛‬much too subtle a nature to justify simple contrasts. Thus,
both sides of his thought must be taken into account in assessing his
contribution to the problem of biblical authority.
On the one hand, it is hard to deny that Thomas’ deep apprécia-
tion of the philosophy of Aristotle helps to explain the significant role,
and, on the philosophical level of inquiry, even the autonomy he
attributed to human reason. Because God created all that is, and
because the image of the Creator is reflected in what is created, natu-
ral theology “follows the reasonable course of inferring divine truths
from meanings governing the physical world .” 7 Properly used, there-
fore, human reason can prove such fundamental theological truths
as “God is,” and “God is o ne,” which is to say that natural theology
can establish the groundwork of faith. Beyond this reason has two
other services to render theology: it can provide analogies for illus-
trating the deeper mysteries of faith like the Trinity (this analogical exer-
cise of reason is also fully reminiscent of Augustine), and it can refute
philosophical attacks on Christian doctrines by proving that those doc-
trines do not contradict sound reason.
On the other hand, Thomas states clearly that because God’s essen-
tial nature cannot be known by finite human minds the primary truths
of faith can be known only through G od’s revealing them through a
process transcending reason:
“The premises of Christian theology are revealed truths,
accepted on the word of the teacher who reveals them. Con-
sequently its typical method is the appeal to authority.”®
The primary authority he has in mind is Scripture, with a secon-
dary position accorded the teachers of the Church, a position so often
overlooked as to justify citing:
“[Theology’s] proper and indispensable court of appeal is to
the authority of the canonical Scriptures. The writings of the
Fathers of the Church are also proper sources, yet their
authority is not final. Faith rests on divine revelation made
60 P au l D. Haus©u

through the prophets and apostles and set down in the eanon-
ical Scriptures, not on revelations, if there he any, made to
other holy teachers . ” ‫و‬
While thus insisting that the higher mysteries of Christian theology,
such as the Trinity, have been revealed—thereby reversing the order
followed in scientific inquiry where “reasoning precedes assent” since
here “assent precedes rationalization,” ١٥—Thomas refutes the concept
of double truth found in A v e r r h o is m with the argument that since all
truth comes from God, there can be no conflict between revealed fruths
and truths discovered by hum an reason:
“¥ e t sacred doctrine does make use of human reason, not
indeed to prove the faith (which would take away its merit),
but to clarify certain points of doctrine. Since grace does not
supplant nature, but perfects it, reason ought to be the ser-
vant of faith in the same way as the natural inclination of the
will is the servant of charity . . . ” ١١
The balancing of the respective claims of faith and reason that we
have observed gives evidence of Aquinas’ effort to create a synthesis
between the ways of the philosopher and the theologian while sacrifie-
ing the autonomy of neither. Though he was acutely aware that the
two operated with distinctly different methodologies, his confidence
in the capabilities of reason that had been purified by divine grace and
his conviction that the truth discovered through the proper exercise
of reason could only lead to the same God known through divine reve-
lation allowed him to see in the path of the philosopher a way that
laid the groundwork for the higher revealed truths. Etienne Gilson sum-
marizes Thom as’ position as follows:
“Thomism is an immense effort of intellectual honesty to
reconstruct metaphysics in such a way that its actual accord
with faith should appear as the necessary consequence of the
dem ands of reason itself, and not the accidental result of a
mere desire for conciliation .” ‫ﺀ ا‬
This synthesis enabled Thomas to uphold the primacy of faith for
Christian theology while at the same time it allowed him to apply the
reasoning faculties to the tasks of leading thinking people to the thresh­
Paul D. Hanson 61

old of faith and of demonstrating the intelligibility of faith in the light

of experience. Thus the famous dictum of Augustine, “love God and
do as you please,” found a natural extension in “believe in God and
think what you will.” Thomas could also formulate the matter in a
way very similar to Augustine: “The purpose of faith is to reach under-
standing of what is believed”^ Given this approach to the question
of biblical authority and the careful balance Aquinas maintained in the
faith/reason dialectic, whence the widely held notion that he
introduced a major paradigm shift away from Augustine’s “faith-
seeking-understanding” position towards an Aristotelian empiricism
that developed doctrine scientifically/rationally out of human
experience and observation?
The answer to that question lies in developments of a much later
period in which the syllogistic methodology of Aristotelianism did in
fact come to have a major impact on theology. Those developments
grew out of a very complex set of circumstances that we will turn to
below, after we have taken note of the emphatic reformulation of the
Augustinian position by the Reformers . ٢
Luther’s principles of sola gratia and sola scriptura stem directly
ftom his argument for the primacy of faith over reason in all matters
pertaining to salvation, as did the christological orientation of his the-
ology. Reason, enlisted by the hum an as the means to find God and
to work out o n e’s salvation was designated unabashedly by Luther
as ،‘a w hore.” Salvation came to hum ans strictly as a gift ftom God
through Christ and hence could be appropriated solely through faith,
ft is within this soteriological context that Luther’s thoughts on biblical
authority were located: The authority of the Bible was inseparably tied
to its testimony to Christ, for Christ was God’s gift through which sin-
hers were justified through faith, a gift received through the agency
of the Holy Spirit within the believer. The saving truth of Scripture
fous could not be grasped by hum an reason, for it entered human
experience in an unimposing earthly form. Those grasping for rational
proofs would encounter imperfections, most especially in the face of
an unvarnished story of a suffering and dying God.
Having thus insisted on the essential character of Scripture as God’s
gracious revelation of Christ, Luther feft ftee to comment on the imper­
62 Paul D. Hanson

fections which he deemed a natural part ٠ ‫ ؛‬the human vehicle through

which God chose to be revealed. Indeed it is not exaggerating the
point to insist that for Luther recognition of those imperfections played
an essential role in clarifying that the central miracle of the Bible’s
authority was inextricably bound up with the miracle of the Incarnation:
“Holy Scripture is G od’s Word, written and (so to speak)
spelled and constructed from letters just as Christ is the eter-
nal Word of God veiled in humanity. And just as Christ is
viewed and treated in the world, so it is with the written Word
of God. It is a worm and not a book, compared with other
books.” ١*
Luther here uses his typical earthy language to emphasize an impor-
tant theological point. While efforts to dignify Scripture by arguing for
its classic perfection may be well intended, they obscure the central
truth of the Incarnation! And as can be seen in contemporary debate
over the Bible, such efforts can quickly lead to a shifting of the grounds
of belief ( ^ ٨١ faith to rational proofs. Not by inductive arguments drawn
from an inerrant document, but in the imperfection of ordinary lan*
guage God addresses hum ans and continues the redemptive proc-
ess. In other words, it is through normal human formulations (uerba)
that God’s Word becomes present among believers (scriptura ), thanks
to the activity of the Holy Spirit:
“Holy Scripture reads like a dreary thing, and is unadorned
and unembellished, so much so that one can hardly imagine
how one could believe in this divine W ord... yet faith comes
from this divine W ord... through the inner gift of the Holy
Spirit.’” *
Luther’s key distinction between uerba and scriptura must be kept
in mind when we come to contrast his position with later theories of
verbal inerrancy. The central issue in that contrast is often obscured
by appeal to the literalism that characterized much of Luther’s expo-
sition of Scripture as evidence for an inerrancy position. The impor-
tance of Luther’s appeal to the sensus literalis is undeniable and it
functioned in two ways. First, Luther enlisted the literal sense of Scrip-
ture in his attack on certain practices and teachings of the Church of
Paul D. Hanson 63

Rome. Closely related was Luther’s attack on the allegorical hermeneu-

tics 0 ‫ ؛‬medieval exegesis. In both cases, however, Luther’s efforts to
understand the literal sense of Scripture (in harmony with many of
the early Church Fathers, especially the Antiochians and Augustine)
grew out of the desire to hear the living Word of Cod rather than out
of an attempt to pin down a timeless truth dictated by God in antiq-
uity. It is clear from the style that runs throughout his expository works
that C od’s Word for him was not a document frozen in form and rigid
in its address but a living and dynamic Word in which the Holy Spirit
addressed each age anew through the preaching office of the church.
It was in the effort to grasp the precise meaning of that divine address
that Luther learned all that he could 6 0 m the linguists and philologians
of his time and felt no compunctions in coming to some rather radical
theological conclusions. It is only by keeping clearly in mind Luther’s
distinction between verba as human vehicles and scriptura as C od’s
address that one will be able to understand that not a contradiction
but an important theological dialectic ties together Luther’s careful
attention to literal detail with his bold theological proposals. To take
one example, Luther concluded that dames was an ،،epistle of straw”
not out of some wild speculative theory but through a carefully rea-
soned exegetical argument that enabled him to distinguish between
،‘the manger’s straw” and the divine baby!
When the question of Luther’s relation to later hermeneutical
methods is broached, it is therefore essential that the central themes
of his expository theory be drawn into the comparison and not those
aspects that are merely the accidents of his historical age. For exam-
pie, in relation to the later inerrancy theories, Luther’s acceptance of
the narratives of Genesis as litoral accounts of history is an offshoot
of the prevailing worldview of his time. It says nothing about his under-
standing of inspiration. Comparing his approach to the Bible with the
historical-critical method that began to develop some two centuries
lator leads to a more positive conclusion: While on the one hand Luther
did not have to respond to the challenges later raised by the Enlight-
enm ent to the traditional understanding of toe Bible as G od’s Word,
indicating that it would be anachronistic to try to find in Luther the
historical-critical method as such, nevertheless Luther’s search for the
64 Paul D. Hanson

plain meaning of the Bible and his applieation of the most advanced
linguistic and historical tools of his time prepared the way for a more
critical approach to biblical research. Above all, however, it was
Luther’s clear distinction between the Bible as a human document and
Scripture as God’s Word revealed to us precisely within that human
docum ent by the Holy Spirit that makes Luther a forerunner of later
critical biblical scholarship. But that statement reguires a huge qualifi-
cation: Only those applications of critical methods that are enlisted
in the service of the search for God’s living address can be in a sense
fraced bac^ to Luther. Historical-critical research, camied on as a purely
historical science as it is in many academic settings today, relates to
the concerns that preoccupied Luther only in an indirect manner analo-
gous to his interest in the methods of Renaissance scholarship.
As in so many areas, so too in regard to the question of biblical
authority, John Calvin’s views were closely related to Luther’s, though
the particular stamp of the French reformer is unmistakable. Calvin
acknowledged the role of reason in the Christian faith, for God’s glory
was present in all of creation to be seen by anyone whose vision was
unimpaired; however, since both human perception and the knowl-
edge of God that God had implanted in humans was clouded by sin,
true knowledge could come only when the Holy $pirit awakened faith
in Christ, through which alone comes knowledge of God. As in the
case of Luther, G od’s gift in Christ came through G od’s condescen-
sion according to Calvin: “Jt is evident from this that we cannot believe
in God except through Christ, in whom God in a manner makes Him-
self little, in order to accommodate Himself to our com prehension . ” ’ ‫آ‬
This incarnational view of God’s presence, or in terms of $cripture,
what Calvin called G od’s “lisping” in order to be comprehensible to
humans, gave him perfect freedom to comment on human forms such
as anthropomorphisms in Scripture, for in the Bible God has chosen
“to represent himself to us, not as he is in himself, but as he seems
to us,”’®that is to say, in normal human speech.
As modern biblical scholars and theologians we feel quite at home
in reading the expository works of Luther and Calvin. Our assessment
of the syllogistic pattern of the scholastic works of the ^sLReform ation
period is usually quite different, not to mention our reaction to the
Paul D. Hanson 65

arguments ‫؛‬٠٢ biblical inerrancy that arose in the 18th century. What
accounts for these changes?
The changes that occurred in approaches to the Bible in the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries were actually set in motion by the
Reformation itself. Though the methods of interpretation applied by
Luther stood in continuity with earlier frends (e.g., Augustine’s empha-
sis on the primacy of the literal sense and the sober exegetical approach
of the Abby of St. Victor), ‫ ة‬major change came in the way in which
Luther repositioned the Bible as sole authority in matters of faith. A
far greater weight fell upon the task of biblical interpretation, and the
more Luther’s so/a scriptura emphasis gained ascendency, the less
relief came from other authorities, such as the ecclesiastical
magisterium or the unmediated inspiration of the spirit. The inevita-
ble result was an intensifying clash over the theological conclusions
drawn from the Bible in areas such as predestination, justification, and
Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Luther himself was much troubled
by the increasing exposure of the Reformation churches to criticism
as each group sought to buttress its particular doctrines on the basis
of its own biblical exegesis.
The Roman Catholic theologians lost no time in arguing that the
doctrinal chaos that had developed among the groups that had severed
ties with Rome was proof that $cripture could not be understood apart
from the authoritative guidance of the Magisterium. As the sixteenth
century gave way te the seventeenth, the attack on the authority of
the Bible took an ironic turn as the already serious threat coming from
Catholic theologians was exacerbated by the growing intensity of a
parallel attack coming from the children of the Enlightenment, origi-
nally m ounted by the Erench Deists, though the originally mild criti-
cism of the Deists in England gradually accelerated in intensity. What
could be done te shore up the crumbling fortifications of what was
perceived, not inaccurately, te be the heart of the Reformation mes-
sage, the principle of sola scriptura?
In light of the exegetical-doctrinal ambiguities left in the wake of
the Augustinian “faith-seeking-understanding” approach of the origi-
nal Reformers, it is not hard to understand why recourse was taken
te the alternative method of tee time, that tracing ultimately back to
66 Paul D. Hanson

Aristotle, reeved in Medieval times, and in use within eertain Catho-

lie theologieal eircles. The new approach pressed reason into the serv-
iee of returning the Bible to its once undisputed position of authority
by adducing proofs, such as the miracles, the purported consistency
of biblical teaching, and the infallibility of the Bible in all areas of
knowledge.
In a battle that was waged with particular severity between the vari-
ous Protestant bodies as they strove to construct a biblical basis for
their particular doctrines, but which also witnessed Roman Catholics
disputing with their Protestant foes, the philosophical victor was
Aristotelian methodology. As at no other point in the history of the
Christian church the syllogistic method held sway as reason was put
to work producing proofs of Christian truths which, ironica^lly, reason
was simultaneously either demolishing (Deism, Rationalism, and later
Science) or undermining (inner-Protestant and Protestant-Catholic
polemics). The battle casualties were many, including the delicate
faith/reason dialectic within Thomistic tradition and the closely related
Augustinian “feith-seeking-understanding” tradition within the Prot-
estant bodies.
It is of the nature of polemic that a position tends to become more
and more rigid. By the mid-seventeenth century Francis Turretin of
Geneva (1623-1687), in his In stitu tio th e o lo g ia e e le n c tic a e ,
presented an argument for inerrancy based on reason, according to
which the biblical authors “were so acted upon and inspired by the
Holy Spirit, both as to the things themselves, as to the words, as to
be kept free from all e r r o r . I n e r r a n c y was elevated to an essential
belief: “The prophets did not make mistakes in even the smallest par-
ticulars. To say that they did would render doubtful the whole Scrip-
ture . ” 20 Turretin also included the transmission of the biblical text in
his doctrine:
“Nor can we readily believe that God, who dictated and
inspired each and every word of these inspired men, would
not take care of their entire preservation”2*
The Aristotelian cast of his thinking and the primacy accorded to
the role of reason comes to expression in this statement:
Paul D. Hanson 67

“Before faith can believe, it must have the divinity of the wit-
ness, to whom faith is to be given, clearly established, from
certain true marks which are apprehended to it, otherwise
it cannot believe...-The Bible with its ©١٧١٦ marks is the argu-
ment on account of which 1 believe . ”‫ال‬
One of the results of this argument from reason was that all apparent
errors ٠٢ inconsistencies found in the Bible had to be harmonized
Turretin’s program was adopted in the Helvetic Consensus Formula
of 1675, sponsored by the cantons of Zürich, Basel, Bern and
Schaffhausen ،
In contrast to this development in Switzerland, the basic teachings
of the reformers, and a generally Augustinian faith-leading-to-
understanding position was adopted by the writers of the Westmin-
ster Confession. Rational proofs for the authority of Scripture were
repudiated, with reliance being placed on C od’s testimony in the
human heart by the Holy Spirit. The focus of attention returned to
the saíuific role of Scripture, that is to say, to “The whole counsel of
Cod concerning all things necessary for His own glory, m an’s salva‫־‬
tion, faith and life ‫״‬ With regard to other areas of human discourse,
appeal to the Bible was not to become a substitute for the proper func-
tion of human reason, which Cod had given humans for the purpose
of ordering their everyday lives. Scripture, for example, was not to
be aligned on one side or other of the scientific arguments of the day.
Even in religious matters like forms of worship and church govern-
ment, Scripture did not supply simple answers but invited the enlight-
ened use of reason and wisdom.
On American soil, the stage ‫؛‬٠٢ continued struggle between the tradi-
tional Augustinian tradition and the emerging Aristotelian position was
set with the founding of Princeton Seminary in 1 8 2 ‫ ل‬. Under toe profes-
sorships of Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, and finally Archibald
A. Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield, the Westminster Confession was
subjected to interpretation partially in the light of Turretin’s scholastic
theology, with considerable attention being given to the doctrine of
inerrancy. It is important to note that, especially as developed by the
younger Hodge and by Warfield, it is a far more complicated doc-
trine than is commonly recognized by protagonists on both sides of
 Paul D. Hanson

the inerrancy debate .‫ ئ‬What is inerrant is the “official teaching” of

the biblical writers, whereas in other matters they were not exempt
from the fallible ٠٢ erroneous views of their times:
“It must be remembered that it is not claimed that the Scrip-
tures any more than their authors are omniscient... They are
written in human languages, whose words, inflections, con-
structions, and idioms bear everywhere indelible traces of
human error .”٤٥
In spite of such formulations, what succeeding generations found
in the Princeton theologians was the more rationalizing side of their
inerrancy argument. Hodge, for example, faced with the presence
of factual ereors and inconsistencies in the Bible, carefully distinguished
between the original manuscripts and latter ones:
“Nevertheless the historical faith of the church has always
been, that all the affirmations of Scripture of all kinds whether
of spiritual doctrine or duty, ٠٢ of physical or historical fact,
٠٢ of psychological ٠٢ philosophical principle, are without any
error, when the i'ps/ss/ma verba of the original autographs are
ascertained and interpreted in their natural and intended
sense .”٤٥
While some recent evangelical scholars have rightly emphasized the
exegetical and theological significance of “natural and intended sense”
in formulations such as the above, more commonly the Hodge-
Warfield position has been cited in defense of a rigid doctrine of ver-
bal inerrancy.
The result of that development has been a century-long controversy
over biblical authority, culminating in such contemporary events as
the recent split within the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, Harold
Lindsell’s vitriolic attacks on the faculties of Puller Theological Semi-
nary and North Park Seminary, and the purge of the faculty of Cor-
don Conwell Theological Seminary, a bitter struggle in which Lindsell
was again active.
Though these recent crises and the overall dissension among Chris-
tians that continues to result from differing views on biblical authority
deserve careful scrutiny, we must allow to suffice as background to
Paul D. H anson 69

Part II of this essay our brief account of the long journey from Medie-
val hermeneutics ‫؛‬٠ the present controversy over the Bible, P e r s is t^
down to the present is a major philosophical controversy and a set
of ensuing hermeneutical questions. Alongside of each other the spirits
of Aristotle and Augustine continue to contend. One urges the attempt
to establish as a prerequisite for faith the authority of the Bible on the
basis of demonstrable-proofs. According to this view literal inerrancy
is a mark of the Bible’s truth and must be rationally defended as a
bulwark of the truths of Christianity against paganism. The other posi-
tion, in Augustinian fashion beginning with the primacy of faith, recog‫־‬
nizes in $cripture the Holy Spirit’s witness to C od’s saving gift in Christ.
According to this view clarity regarding the spiritual intent of the Bible
ftees the comm entator to treat apparent errors and inconsistencies as
natural aspects of the hum an form in which God has chosen to be
revealed and invites the Christian to use literary and historical methods
guided by sound human reason in the service of faith seeking under-
standing. Fortunately there are not lacking today thoughtful Chris-
tians who seek to peer behind the present impasse to rediscover the
Spirit that generously visited both Augustine and Aquinas and that
revealed to them the way in which the faith, which alone could receive
C od’s saving grace, could be aided by reason; which is to say that
there remain students in the various theological camps who whole-
heartedly affirm the primacy of faith while not ignoring the useful func-
tion played by enlightened reason within a community that seeks clear
understanding both for its inner life and as something that can con-
tribute to meaningful dialogue with those on the outside. Among such
students many issues remain to be debated. For that reason we push
on to consider the present state of the question.

II. B ib lical Authority Today

Biblical scholars and theologians today need to cooperate in the

search for an understanding of biblical authority that is both compre-
hensible to modern minds and faithful to the Christian Gospel. The
context of such study within the confessional and incarnational life
of the church cautions against certain understandings of biblical
70 Paul D. Hans©n

authority, such as understandings devised to repress dissent ٠٢ to ‫؛‬une-

tion as a means 0 ‫ ؛‬ecclesiastical coercion. The church’s understand-
ing of the authority of Scripture should arise instead from the
theological effort of defining its identity and the vocational commit-
ment to live in faithfulness to the Gospel. This contextual approach
to the question does not excuse hard exegetical and theological work
but merely rescues that work from polemics (whether of an ecclesiasti-
cal or academic variety) and returns it to the life of faith.
It will here be argued that this contextual approach com m ends a
position standing in continuity with the Augustinian tradition which,
while not without eloguent testimony in the writings of Aguinas, was
begueathed to the modern world especially through the writings of
Luther and Calvin. It is a position that stresses the primacy of faith
over reason, but at the same time enlists reason in the service of faith.
Luther could summarize the confessional heart of Scripture and at the
same time address the guestion of canon with the phrase “was
Christum treibet.” This Gospel-centered understanding of Scripture,
while not denying the importance of the rich diversity of traditions
within the Bible, provides a solid foundation for understanding the
abiding authoritativeness of Scripture. Confessing that God is faithful
to G od’s creative, redemptive purposes and that God is present in
Christ in accordance with those purposes allows us to acknowledge
that in the Gospel we receive the Holy Spirit’s testimony to G od’s will,
which testimony in turn guides our understanding of the rest of Scrip-
ture and of the life of faith based on that understanding. In the figure
of Christ the major them es of Scripture—such as G od’s action on
behalf of the oppressed, the sick, and the lonely and G od’s commit-
ment to the restoration of harmony throughout creation—are drawn
together into one powerful image that claims the hearts of contem-
porary believers and enlists them as God’s new people within the divine
drama. The question of biblical authority thus is resolved by being
directed away from the realm of verification theory towards the realm
of covenant fidelity: to acknowledge the authority of the Bible is to
accept the claim God places on believers through G od’s self-revelation
‫؛‬٨ Scripture, a claim that becomes particularly personal and poignant
in the relationship of Christians to Christ. Acknowledgement of bibli-
Paul D. Hanson 71

cal authority is thus an aspect of faith’s response to G o d s gacious

initiative. As in the reception of divine grace in all of its forms, it is
self-authenticating, or put another way, it arises from the testimony
of the Holy Spirit within foe believer and within the gathering of the
faifofol called the Church. In seeking to understand specifically what
the message of Scripture is to any given period ٠٢ situation of course
we must use all of the faculties given by God to humans, among which
human reason assumes an important place. But human reason func-
tions not to prove that Scripture is G od’s saving gift to all who receive
it with repentance and faith but to clarify as fully as humanly possible
the richness of that gift and its applicability to lifo.
Prom this it becomes clear that the discussion of biblical authority
involves less a rational philosophical process than an exercise of faith,
what the Apostle Paul describes as “hearing wifo faith” (Gal. 3:2) ٠
Through foe paradigms of Scripture and the vision of redemption and
healing that they foster the Church receives its clearest understand-
ing of its nature and mission. Without those paradigms and that vision
it would lose direction. The authoritativeness of Scripture lies in the
indispensable direction it gives the Church and the believer as they
seek to live in obedience to G od’s will.
Viewing biblical authority within the context of the lifo of faith
precludes a primitivistic or romantic recourse to the Bible as if it were
a thesaurus of timeless solutions rather than the witness to the abid-
ing presence of God in our world. In our day we are called to faithful-
ness amidst realities many of which were not a part of foe biblical world.
The authority of foe Bible is properly grasped when it empowers us
to be obedient to God’s will within these changing circumstances,
replete as they often are with ambiguities. Por example, it is our bibli-
cal faith that makes us sensitive to the convicting message regarding
our relation to Judaism elicited by the Holocaust. It is our conscious-
ness of the living Word that awakens in us foe hitherto unrecognized
dimensions of a Trinitarian doctrine of creation in an environmental
crisis that is giving the lie to human efforts to save nature that over-
look foe more radical need for the redemption of the sinful human
profligate. It is Scripture springing to lifo in our communities of faith
that is opening our eyes to the lesson coming from developing nations
72 Paul D. Hanson

regarding the c e n tr a lity ٠ ‫ ؛‬suffering and sacrifice in the Christian life.

From our communion with Scripture comes a vivid sense of G od’s
presence in the concrete affairs of our world and a call to become
advocates of divine justice and mercy in all aspects of our daily lives.
Because the Bible opens up to us a vision of reality as God intends
it and a call to vocations of healing at the points of rupture and decay,
the normative message of Scripture should be something that the
Christian can articulate in terms that flow naturally from his or her
own experience and vocabulary. 1‫ ؛‬asked to state that message in my
own vocabulary, I would answer roughly as follows;
All of reality, including the human family living within its nat-
ural environment, is the creation of a loving God graciously
given as the habitation within which all creatures can fulfill
their being by glorifying God. Humans have a specific respon-
sibility within this creation, that of living in harmony with God’s
will so as to enhance that cosmic praise. Human rebellion
against God’s purpose and ensuing sin, however, have dis-
rupted the created order, and infroduced the specter of divine
judgment on a scale threatening the viability of life on the
entire earth. Though G od’s righteousness precludes G od’s
overlooking sin and allowing reality to slip ‫؛‬٢٥٨١ its moral foun-
dation into the chaos of an am o ral universe, God chose a
people to experience proleptically and to bear witness to the
redemption and healing of the fallen world. After preparing
this people through a promise to their ancestors, God called
them into community by delivering them ftom slavery, thereby
designating the stuff of human history and experience as the
place of divine-human encounter and establishing a relation-
ship on the basis of pure grace (Deut 7:7-8). The covenant
thus established became the context within which God’s Spirit
was active fostering a fitting response in worship and tutor-
ing a servant people in the task of bearing witness through
their life in the world to the compassion and righteousness
of God revealed in God’s gracious creative and redemptive
acts. Unfolded in G od’s ongoing relation to that Feople was
thus a tradition of worship as the guintessential response of
Paul D. Hanson 73

hum ans to the prevenient grace of God and a tradition of

defining rules of life together and of life in relation to other
peoples that were in harmony of G od’s nature and purpose.
The tragedy of a people called to partnership in God’s pur-
pose and nevertheless persisting in rehellion was addressed
most incisively “in the middle of time” by God’s Messiah,
Jesus. In Jesus Christ the disciples recognized the God, long
confessed to be present in the midst of human life, drawing
near in the most intimate possible way, by becoming one with
them in human form. In Christ the identity and mission of
G od’s people were clarified as never before or since. It is for
this reason that the Gospel of Jesus Christ forms the heart
of Christian Scripture and provides the essential lens for
understanding the whole.
This is not to claim that a christological reading must be
imposed upon every Old Testament text as a precondition
to its gaining significance for Christian faith, say after the man-
ner of von Rad’s typological method. Seen within the con-
text of covenant, every stage of G od’s relationship with God’s
people has significance for faith, and not just as promulga-
tion of law, but as Law and Gospel, as can be demonstrated
so clearly within the exodus and Sinai narratives. The cen-
trality of Christ, rather, stems from the fact that in Jesus’ life,
death, and resurrection, the history of G od’s creative,
redemptive activity reaches a climactic point, from which faith
receives its clearest and deepest insight into divine purpose
until that awaited completion when God will be “everything
to everyone” (I Cor. 15:58)،
Submitting this personal ،‘credo” as merely illustrative of a point,
we return to the question of biblical authority. Wherein lies that
authority? ft lies in its power to extend the biblical story of creation’s
origin in God’s love, its endangerment in human rebellion, and its heal-
ing in divine grace as an invitation to full participation with the assur-
ance that in that participation lies the completion of our own being.
In that invitation the church recognizes its birth as a people called forth
ftom bondage and justified before God by grace and accepts its call­
74 Paul D. Hanson

ing as servants of G od’s plan ٠ ‫ ؛‬redemption and healing. As the ontol-

ogy of the ehurch thus arises naturally from the biblical story, so too
the authority of S c r i p tu r e 3 S the primary source of the church’s knowl-
edge of God and of its own identity arises as a self-authenticating gift
received in faith. Both are comprehensible only on the basis of the
activity of the Holy spirit.
In reflecting on the church’s relation to the question of biblical
authority, we might draw the homey analogy of the infant at her
m other’s breast. Waking from her slumber, impelled by thirst toward
the nipple, she does not stop short, stare at the nipple, and ask, ،‘are
you certified to feed a baby like m e?” Of course not! She knows the
source of her life-milk and knows that it fulfills her deepest need and
desire. Similarly, we confess that the Bible is authoritative not on the
basis of a rational line of argumentation invoking inerrancy, infallibil-
ity, ٠٢ inductive logic. Prom the Bible we have come to know the God
who creates and sustains all reality out of sovereign love, who attends
to the poor and oppressed with compassionate justice, who enters
human suffering and death to reconcile an estranged human family,
and having redeem ed us, calls us into a partnership of healing. Is that
which is the source of our knowledge of God, of our vision of God’s
purpose, of our encounter with the Messiah, of our call to vocation
as G od’s people, of our hope for creation’s healing, is that source
authoritatiue? Does an infant doubt whether her mother’s breast is cer-
tified for delivering milk?
I confess with the Reformers that acknowledgement of the authority
of Scripture, like acknowledgement of the Lordship of Christ, comes
as a gift of God through the testimony of the Holy Spirit. In other
words, it proceeds from faith. To build up a rational set of proofs for
the authority of the Bible and to posit them as a precondition for faith
is alien to my Augustinian understanding of our biblical confessional
heritage.
Furthermore, every effort to establish the Bible’s inerrancy as a basis
for faith and to advance rational proofs for the Bible’s authority not
only misses the central testimony of Scripture to the antecedent nature
of divine grace in G od’s creative, redemptive purposes in the world,
thereby confusing Gospel with a compendium of propositions] truths.
Paul D, Hanson 75

it either makes the serious theologieal error of confusing marks of the

i n c a r n a t i o n a l nature of G od’s presence among humans with errors
introduced by copyists, or, even worse, it harmonizes or rationalizes
those marks out of existence. Far more profound theologically was
Calvin’s reference to the “lisping” of God, that broken communica-
tion graciously accommodating the divine ineffability to a level of com-
prehension graspable by humans. Within this understanding of the
so-called ercors of the Bible, the fresh new attention to the social world
of the Bible found among some contemporary scholars becomes the-
©logically very significant as a witness te a God who chooses to be
present with humans where they are, in societies burdened with dis-
criminating structures, regressive economic and political institutions,
and inadequate forms of language.
Clearly, the guestion of the authority of the Bible will not be solved
through hierarchical fiat, through coercion, or through formal logic.
It will be addressed indirectly, however, as the church enlists the best
of its exegetical, theological, and poetic talents in the demanding task
of biblical interpretation, in the creative exercise of reformulating its
confession, and in the existential act of embodying that confession
within its everyday life in the world. Regarding the importance of
embodying our confession, I would imagine that Mother Teresa spends
very few hours giving lectures on the authority of the Bible; yet the
clarity with which the authoritative power of the Gospel is proclaimed
in her life is an inspiration te countless humans.
Though 1 have been guite blunt in dismissing the fuss over iner-
rancy as theologically misdirected, there are two sides of the criticism
coming from conservative evangelical circles that 1 take very seriously.
First: Liberal and main-stream Christianity often fail te proclaim the
Gospel with clarity, even as they do a poor job of living that same
Gospel. Freguently the accusation is made that this failure is the direct
result of denying the verbal inerrancy of Scripture. The more accurate
and far more serious accusation is that we too freguently harden our
hearts to the witness of tee Holy Spirit te the grace and mandate of
the Gospel. Also on this negative side, therefore, it is important te
76 Paul D. Hanson

keep the question of biblical authority focused on faith. It is not that

our logic is at fault—it is our refusal to accept God’s gift of faith that
must be -Scrutinized.
The second side of the conservative critique that I take seriously
is this: The nonliteralist understanding of Scripture fosters a subjecti-
vism that amounts to little more than finding in Scripture what the
sinful heart sets out to find. Here too, the challenge is a theological
one, and will not be met by appealing to a concept of literalism that
simultaneously denies the subjective element in all interpretation and
disguises dogmatic presuppositions under the aura of objectivity.
Rather, the integrity of the biblical text must be respected and appropri-
ate methods of interpretation must be applied as a means of allowing
the message of Scripture to restrain human subjectivity, whatever its
source and character.
The question regarding the methods of interpretation that are use-
ful in the effort to allow Scripture to speak with autonomy and power
is a vast subject that cannot be covered here. However, it should be
noted that for all of the controversy that it has engendered, the
historical-critical m ethod remains central in this task, for its questions
regarding original meaning, setting, and function are precisely those
that function to restrain modem subjectivity and to maintain the auton-
omy of the biblical witness. At the same time, however, it is an illu-
sion to imagine that the historical-critical method enables the biblical
theologian to operate with scientific dispassion. If the spiritual mes-
sage of Scripture is to be clarified, historical-critical tools will be useful
only as aids to faith seeking understanding.
This already implies that the most appropriate context for the theo-
logical interpretation of the Bible is the living community of faith, which
for Christians is of course the church. It is not as individuals but as
members of the church that we are conscious of belonging to a living
communion that reaches back to the biblical co m m u n ities that define
our identity and purpose. As we engage critically with the testimony
of those communities in the awareness that we through their recorded
memory relate to the living God and not te frozen propositions, we
affirm that their scriptural heritage has bequeathed to us a trustworthy
guide te our spiritual understanding, thanks te tee guidance of tee
Paul D. Hanson 77

Holy Spirit both in moments of literary ereation, transmission ١ and

subsequent interpretation. To follow the tendency of certain new
“movements” of totally discrediting tradition (largely on the basis of
a confusion between inspired message and the human vehicles bear-
ing that message) is to gullibly place confidence in an arrogant new
age mentality that impoverishes itself by closing itself off from the tes-
timony of the Holy Spirit in ages past.
The church, as context for interpretation, offers a second source
of restraint on hum an subjectivity, namely, the witness of communi-
ties differing from one’s own in terms of geographic, socio-economic,
and racial location. Since a large segment of the subjective element
in interpretation has its roots in ideology, the leavening influence of
the church catholic is essential. Openness to critique in the search for
integrity in interpretation will lead to more than inner-Christian dia-
logue, however. Our own often unconscious captivity to ideological
presuppositions can often be broken in discussions with people of other
faiths ٠٢ systems of thought (for example, the Capitalistic com ponent
in our “faith” can be exposed by the critique of Marxists).
Finally, though, all efforts to com prehend the meaning of Scrip-
ture and to grasp the significance of biblical authority are doom ed if
the inte^retive enterprise does not locate its ultimate aim in doxol-
ogy. For doxology alone acknowledges that when humans open them-
selves to the message of Scripture they are encountered by God,
leading to a sense of gratitude, humility, and awe that finds its most
fitting expression in praise:
0 the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable are G od’s judgments and how inscruta-
ble God’s Ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord,
٠٢ who has been God’s counselor? © ٢ who has given a gift
te God that God might be repaid? For from God and through
God and te God are all things. To God be glory forever.
Amen (Rom 36-1:33 ‫) ل‬.
78 Paul D. Hanson

N o te s

1This article is based on a lecture delivered at the Consultation on Bible and

Theology, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, October 6-7, 1989. The author
is grateful for the criticism he received from participants in that Consultation,
in particular, for Professor dohn Leith’s comments on Thomas Aquinas. He
also benefited greatly from discussion with Professor Mark Edwards ٠٨ the
Post-reformation Period-

2In Part 1 of this study the author has drawn upon the fine study of Jack Rogers,
“The Church Doctrine of Biblical Authority,” 17-46, in Biblical Authority
(Jack Rogers, ed., Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1977 )٠

3This classic Augustinian position is developed most fully in Book IX of De

Trinitate (cf. in that same work ٧ !! 6.12, and XV 2.2).

*Ep. 120.2 (Migne, Patrología Latina 33.452), quoted in The Cambridge

H isto ‫^؛‬‫آﺀﻣﺤﺎﺀه‬ Greek and Early Medieval Philosphy (A. H. Armstrong
(ed.); Cambridge: At the University Press, 1967), 352■

*De G enes‫ ؛‬ad litteram II, 20, quoted in A. D. R. Polman, The Word
of God According to St. Augustine (A.J. Pomerans; Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1961), 59-60.

6Cited in E. L. Miller, ed., C lassical Statem ents on Faith and Reason

(New ¥ork: Random House, 1970), 36.

*Exposition, De Trinitate, ii. 2. Thomas Gilby (tr. ‫ ظ‬ed.), St. Thomas

Aquinas: Theological Texts (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), 24.

*Summa Theologica I, Q 1, Art 8. Gilby, 22،

9Sum m a Theologica I, Q 1, Art 8. Gilby, 23.

19Exposition, De Trinitate, 2 .‫؛؛‬. Gilby, 26.

”Summa Theologica 1, Q 1, Art 8. A. M. Fairweather, Nature and Grace:

Selections from the Sum m a Theologica of Thomas A quinas ‫ واآلا ? ا‬،‫ل‬€‫ا‬-
phia: Westminster, 1954), 45-46.

1*Etienne Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas

(L. K. Shook, tr.; New York: Random House, 1956 [original French edition,
1948]), 23.

13Exposition, De Trinitate, ii. 2. Gilby, 28.

Paul D. Hanson ‫?و‬

14Cf., B. A. Gerrish, “Biblical Authority and Reformation,” SJT 10 (1947),

343.

1*Weimarer A u sg a b e 48, 13.

1*Weimarer Ausgabe 16, 82.

17John Calvin, Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Feter
(W. B. Johnston, ٤٢.; Grand Rapids: Berdmans, 1963), 230.

18Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1, x v i 1 3 : ‫؛‬.F. 1. Battles (tr.). The

Library of Christian Classics, vol. 20 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 227.

19As cited in L. McD. Allison, “The Doctrine ٠‫ ؛‬Scripture in the Theology

of John Calvin and Francis Turretin,” Th. M. Thesis, Princeton Theological
Seminary, 1958, 59-60.

20Allison, 60.

**Allison^ 60.

» A l l i s o n : 61■

” Westminster Confession, Ch ‫ل‬, sect vi.

24Cf., ،،Cid Princeton, Westminster, and Inerrancy,” M. Silva, in H. M. Conn

(ed.), Inereancy and Hermeneutic: A T radition, A Challenge, A Debate
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), 67-80.

“ A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, “Inspiration,” Presbyterian Review

(No. 6, April 1881), 237-38.

“ Hodge and Warfield, 238.

 ‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your r e s p e c tiv e ATT,AS subscriber a g r e e m e n t.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.