Because the Bible is the Word of God, it possesses distinct divine properties, or attributes (affectiones divinae). These are: divine authority (auctoritas divina), divine efficacy (efficacia divina), divine perfection (perfectio divirza), and divine perspicuity (perspicuitas divina). It is self-evident that these divine properties must be denied to Scripture if its divine inspiration is rejected, for they follow from the fact that the Bible is God's own inspired and infallible Word.
By the divine authority of Holy Scripture we mean the peculiar quality of the whole Bible according to which as the true Word of God it demands faith and obedience of all men and is and remains the only source and norm of faith and life. Our Savior Himself acknowledged and asserted the divine authority of the Bible by quoting it in all cases of controversy as the only standard of truth, John 10, 35; Matt. 4, 4-10; 26, 54; Luke 24, 25-27; etc. And the holy apostles claimed divine authority not only for the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but also for their own inspired writings, 1 Cor. 14, 37. 38; 2 Cor. 13, 3; Gal. 1, 8; 2 Thess. 3, 6. 14; 2, 15. Whoever therefore rejects Scripture or subjects it to human censorship and criticism becomes guilty of high treason against God; for Scripture possesses its divine authority not because of the holy men who wrote it nor because of the Christian Church, which reveres and teaches it, but from the living God, who has inspired holy men to write it. In other words, the Bible has divine authority because it is in every part the inerrant Word of the living God. Just because it is a God-breathed Scripture (γραφὴ θεόπνευστος), it is authoritative (αὐτόπιστος) and must therefore be both believed and obeyed. Because of its authority we believe the Bible on its own account, since it is the unique Book of God in which the sovereign Lord speaks to us. This fact we express dogmatically by saying that the divine authority of Holy Scripture is absolute, or free from dependence upon anything else for its existence and its certainty (auctoritas absoluta).
The divine authority of Holy Scripture is divided into causative authority (auctoritas causativa) and normative authority (auctoritas normativa). The causative authority of Holy Scripture is that by which it engenders and preserves faith in its own teachings through its very word, Rom. 10, 17. The normative, or canonical, authority of Holy Scripture is that by which it is the only norm and rule of faith, or the divinely instituted arbiter between truth and falsehood, John 5, 39; Luke 16, 29; Gal. 1, 8.
If the question is asked how Scripture exercises its causative authority, or how we may become sure of its divine truth, we must distinguish between divine assurance (fides divina) and human assurance (fides humana). The fides divina (faith assurance, spiritual assurance, Christian assurance) is wrought directly by the Holy Ghost through the Word (testimonium Spiritus Bancti). In other words, Scripture attests itself as the divine truth, John 8, 31. 32. Of this Quenstedt (I, 97) writes: "The ultimate reason by and through which we are led to believe with a divine and unshaken faith that God's Word is God's Word is the intrinsic power and efficacy of that Word itself, or the testimony and seal of the Holy Spirit, who speaks in and through Scripture, because the bestowment of faith ... is a work that emanates from the Holy Spirit." Doctr. Theol., p. 55. Of the internal witness of the Holy Ghost, by which divine faith in Scripture is engendered, Hollaz writes thus:
"By the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is here understood the supernatural act of the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, attentively read or heard, ... by which He moves, opens, and illuminates the heart of man and incites it to faithful obedience." (Ibid.)
That the Word of God, which the Holy Spirit has given to us through the prophets and apostles, really possesses causative authority, or the power of attesting itself as the divine truth, independently of any external proof (fiiles humana)~ is clearly taught in Holy Scripture. To the Corinthians St. Paul writes that his "speech and preaching was in demonstration of the Spirit and power," 1 Cor. 2, 4. 5, which means that the preaching of the apostle was spiritually effective in working faith and obedience in his hearers. To the Thessalonians the same apostle writes that they received the Word of God which they heard of him not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the Word of God, and this because the divine Word "effectually worketh in you that believe," 1 Thess. 2, 13. 14. Again to the Corinthians, St. Paul writes that his Gospel came unto them not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Ghost and in much assurance, so that they became followers of the Lord, 1 Cor. 1, 5. 6. The same causative authority as St. Paul ascribes to the divine Word in these passages Christ asserts, when He says: "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself," John 7, 17. From John 6, 40 we learn that "to do His will" means to hear and believe the divine Word, so that He ascribes the working of divine assurance to the divine Word itself. In this way, then, and only in this way, do we receive divine assurance of the truth of God's Word: Scripture attests itself as the true Word of God through the power of the Holy Ghost, who operates through the divine Word. This truth is of great practical importance; for whenever doubts arise in the heart of the Christian regarding the divine Word, the only way in which to dispel them is to "search the Scriptures," John 5, 39, since they are the divine means by which the Holy Spirit enlightens and confirms him in the divine truth, 1 John 5, 9. 10; John 3, 33; 2 Cor. 1, 20-22; Eph. 1, 13.
Against the charge of Roman Catholic theologians that Lutheran theology here argues in a circle (argumentum in circulo, idem per idem) we reply that, if Scripture cannot be relied upon in its testimony concerning itself, it cannot be relied upon in any other of its teachings. Moreover, the Lutheran argument regarding the causative authority of Scripture is not an argumentum in circulo, but rather one from effect to cause (ab effectu ad causam), and whoever denies the validity of this reasoning has no other choice than agnosticism and atheism. Quenstedt says very rightly (I, 101): "The papists therefore wrongly accuse us of reasoning in a circle when we prove the Holy Scriptures from the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the testimony of the Holy Spirit from the Holy Scriptures. Else it would also be reasoning in a circle when Moses and the prophets testify concerning Christ and Christ concerning Moses and the prophets." Doctr. Theol., p. 56
While the fides divina, or spiritual assurance, is the gift of the Holy Spirit through the Word (faith engendered through the Word by the Holy Ghost), the fides humana, or human assurance, is based upon arguments or processes of reason. These arguments are either internal or external. The internal proofs for the divine authority of Holy Scripture relate to its marvelous style, the unique harmony of its parts, the sublime majesty of its subjects, its amazing predictions of future events and their remarkable fulfilment, the sublimity of its miracles, and the like. The external proofs relate to the astounding effects which the Bible has wrought wherever it was spread, such as the conversion of men steeped in spiritual ignorance and vice, the heroic faith of the martyrs, the moral and social improvements which the Gospel has effected, etc. As the rational study of the book of nature points to its divine Creator, so the rational study of the book of revelation suggests that it is the work of a divine Author and that therefore it is more reasonable to believe than to disbelieve its claims (the scientific proof for the divine authority of Scripture).
All these arguments are utilized in Christian apologetics to demonstrate the futility of infidelity and its atheistic claims. But all arguments of reason do not beget "a divine, but merely a human faith; not an unshaken certainty, but merely a credibility or a very probable opinion" (Quenstedt). Hence the value of these arguments must not be overestimated, for they can never make any person a believing child of God. But neither must they be underestimated, since they are of great value in refuting the flippant charges of infidels and in strengthening Christians against the very doubts which from time to time arise in their own hearts. Cf. 1 Cor. 15, 12-19; Acts 17, 28. Nevertheless, no matter how reasonable these arguments may be, they never produce repentance and faith, since the conversion of a sinner is effected alone through the preaching of the Word of God, the Law bringing about contrition (terrores conscientiae, Rom. 3, 19. 20) and the Gospel, faith in Christ, Matt. 28, 19. 20; Acts 2, 37-39; Mark 16, 15. 16.
In his ministry the Christian theologian employs arguments of reason chiefly to induce unconverted persons to read or hear God's Word, or we may say he uses them just as church-bells, which invite men to listen to the proclamation of the divine truth. In no case, however, may he employ them as substitutes for the Law and the Gospel, or the Word of God, Luke 16,29-31; 24, 47. 48.
If the question is asked how a person may be sure whether his assurance is fides divina or fides humana., the following points must be considered. The testimony of the Holy Spirit never occurs: a. outside, or in opposition to, Holy Scripture (enthusiasm), so that the "Christian assurance" or the "Christian experience" of all who reject the Bible as the Word of God is mere self-deception; b. by meam of mere arguments of reason or on the ground of human authority ("I believe the Bible because the Church teaches it"); c. together with the repudiation of Christ's vicarious satisfaction, so that the assurance of divine grace which Modernists claim (Ritschl, Harnack) is pure fiction. On the other hand, the testimony of the Holy Spirit occurs in all true believers who accept Holy Scripture as the Word of God, and that upon its own witness, for this very faith in Scripture is the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. To this truth all true believers must hold, especially in hours of trial, when they do not feel the gladdening effects of the Spirit's witness in them, 1 John 5, 9. 10. The very fact that they are believers proves the effective presence of the Holy Ghost in their hearts, for without the Holy Spirit it is impossible to have savmg faith, 1 Cor. 12, 3; Acts 16, 14.
With regard to the effects of the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the believer the Formula of Concord rightly argues that these must not be judged ex semu, or by feeling, since the Holy Ghost is always operative in his heart as long as he adheres to God's Word, no matter whether he feels His operation or not. The feeling of the Spirit's operating grace belongs to the fruits of faith in the truth of the Gospel and thus to the external witness of the Holy Ghost (testimonium Spiritus Sancti externum), while His internal witness (testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum) is identical with saving faith, or true confidence in the divine promises of the Word. In the same vein Luther writes: "We do not distinguish the Holy Spirit from faith, nor is He contrary to faith; for He is Himself the assurance in the Word, who makes us certain of the Word, so that we do not doubt, but believe most certainly and beyond all doubt that it is just so and in no respect whatever different from that which God in His Word declares and tells us." (Erl. Ed., 68, 153 f.)
By virtue of its normative or canonical authority, Holy Scripture is the only norm of faith and life and therefore also the only judge in all theological controversies. As the only rule of faith, Scripture performs both a directive and a corrective function; for, on the one hand, it directs the thoughts of the human mind in such a way that they abide within the bounds of truth; and, on the other, it corrects errors, inasmuch as it is the only standard of right and wrong (Hollaz). Calov says very correctly (I, 474): "The Holy Scriptures are a rule according to which all controversies in regard to faith or life in the Church should, and can be, decided, Ps. 19, 7; Gal. 6, 16; Phil. 3, 16; and as a norm they are not partial, but complete and adequate, because besides the Scriptures no other infallible rule in matters of faith and life can be given. All other rules besides the Word of God are fallible; and on this account we are referred to the Holy Scriptures as the only rule, Deut. 4, 2; 12, 28; Josh. 23, 6; Is. 8, 20; Luke 16, 29; 2 Pet. 1, 19, to which alone Christ and the apostles referred as a rule, Matt. 4, 4 fi.; 22, 29. 31; Mark 9, 12; John 5, 45; Acts 3, 20; 18,28; 26, 22." Doctr. Theol., p. 61
With regard to the use of Scripture as the norm of faith (norma doctrinae, iudex controversiarum), it must be held that not only theologians (2 Tim. 2, 2), but also all Christians in general should so employ the Word of God (Acts 17, 11), since it is their duty to supervise the ministry of their teachers (Col. 4, 17), to avoid all false prophets (Rom. 16, 17; Matt. 7, 15), and to spread the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ by personal evangelism (Col. 3, 16; 1 Pet. 2, 9). The spiritual ability to judge all matters of faith and doctrine Holy Scripture ascribes to all believers in express words, John 6, 45; 10, 4. 5. 27. Hence whoever denies the ability and authority of all Christians to judge questions of Christian doctrine or life opposes Christ and reveals himself as an antichrist. Luther writes very earnestly on this point: "To know and to judge matters of doctrine is a privilege which belongs to every believer, and every one is anathema who infringes upon this right even but a little. For in many incontestable passages of Scripture, Christ has granted this privilege to His Christians, for instance, in Matt. 7, 15: 'Beware of false prophets,' etc. This warning He addressed to the people in contrast to their teachers, commanding them to avoid all false prophets. But how can they avoid them if they do not know them? And how can they know them if they have no right to judge their doctrine ? Yet Christ gave to the people not only the right, but also the command to judge, so that this one passage suffices against the verdicts of all Popes, fathers, church councils, and schools that ascribed the authority to judge and pass sentence (upon the teachers of the Church) only to bishops and priests, and robbed the people, or the Church, the queen, in a most ungodly and sacrilegious manner."
On the other hand, however, it must be affirmed that Christians must judge doctrinal matters not according to their own thoughts, but solely according to Scripture, 1 Pet. 4, 11, since in all matters of doctrine it alone is the iudex controversiarum. The objection of the papists that Scripture as a "dumb book" is unable to decide any matter is in opposition not only to Holy Scripture itself, which claims for itself this very authority, Matt. 4, 4 ff.; Rom. 3, 19; John 7, 51, but also to reason, by which men are prompted to use authoritative records to decide issues in controversy (cf. the decisions of the Supreme Court). Every sensible person clearly understands what is meant by such phrases as "The Law decides," or "The Bible decides." Holy Scripture certainly is more capable of deciding questions of controversy than are the papal decretals, to which the papists have recourse in determining what to teach. Our Lutheran dogmaticians were quite right when they declared: "Scripture is never mute except where under the Papacy it is prevented from speaking. (Scriptura Sacra non est muta nisi in papatu, ubi prohibetur loqui.)
In what manner controversial questions should be decided by the use of Holy Scripture may be stated briefly thus: First determine the controversial point (status controversiae) and then place it in the light of all clear Scripture-passages that treat of the particular point in question (sedes doctrinae; dicta. probantia). In this manner Holy Scripture is given an opportunity to exercise its judicial function, not indeed by external compulsion (vi externa), but by internal persuasion (vi interna). Just so Christ employed the Scriptures as a judge in controversy when He said to the Pharisees: "There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust," John 5, 45; for here He referred to Moses inasmuch as he is speaking in Holy Scripture.
By adhering to Holy Scripture as the sole source and norm of faith, the true visible Church of Christ on earth proves its orthodox character; in other words, the orthodox Church of Christ on earth is found only where Holy Scripture is obeyed and followed in all questions of faith and life. It was for this reason that Luther so earnestly emphasized the doctrine of sola Scriptura as the formal principle of the Reformation and that to-day the confessional Lutheran Church insists upon this doctrine with the same determination. As soon as a Church, either in theory or in practise, rejects the authority of Scripture (Schriftprinzip), it ceases to be orthodox and becomes heterodox, that is to say, an erring Church, or a sect.
In connection with the normative authority of Holy Scripture it must be emphasized that human reason in its magisterial use (usus magisterialis) must never be allowed a place beside the Bible. In other words, man's natural knowledge of God, even so far as it is correctly retained in his perverted intellect, must never be coordinated with, but always be subordinated to, God's Word. Unless this is done, Scripture is not allowed to stand as the only judge of faith. But human reason in its ministerial, or instrumental, sense or reason as "the receiving subject or apprehending instrument'" (Hollaz) must certainly be employed whenever Scripture is used as the norm of faith; for "as we see nothing without eyes and hear nothing without ears, so we understand nothing without reason" (Hollaz). This so-called instrumental use of reason (usus organicus; usus instrumentalis) implies both the correct use of the laws of human speech (grammar) and of the laws of human reasoning (logic), because God, in giving His Word to men, accommodated Himself both to the canons of human speech and thought. This truth we considered already when we referred to Melanchthon's dictum: Theologia debet esse grammatica, and to Luther's statement that whoever errs in grammar is bound to err also in doctrine.
However, just as human reason in general, so also human logic in particular serves the theologian only as a formal discipline (the science of correct and accurate thinking) and not as a philosophy or a metaphysical system, in which sense the term is sometimes used. In addition, even when logic is employed as a formal discipline (the science of reasoning), it must always be kept within its legitimate bounds. In other words, the theologian must always be on his guard against fallacies, or against untruths derived from the misuse of logic. For example, from the general truth of Scripture "God so loved the world" every person in this world may argue : "God so loved me,"since the concept "world" includes every human being. In other words, the conclusion attained must always be a truth already contained in the premises, or in the Scriptural statements, according to the axiom: "Whatever inferences (consequentiae legitimae) are drawn from the declarations of Scripture must be proved as being directly expressed in the clear words of Scripture. ("Was man aus den Schriftwahrheiten erschliesst, muss als in den Schriftworten ausgedrueclct nachgewieaen werden.")
On the other hand, when logic is used to propose new doctrines not set forth in Scripture, the authority of Scripture (Schriftprinzip) is annulled, and logic is made to serve as a teacher of false doctrine. Examples of misapplied logic are the following: "Since God has not elected all men, He does not desire to save all men." Or: "Since Peter was saved and Judas was lost, there must have been in Peter some cause why he was saved." Or: "Since every body is in space locally, Christ's body cannot be truly present in the Lord's Supper." Or: "Since the finite is incapable of the infinite, there can be no communication of attributes in the person of the God-man." Or: "As many persons there are, so many essences; hence there must be three essences in the Godhead."
With respect to the use of Holy Scripture as the only source and norm of faith our Lutheran dogmaticians rightly said that it is God's Book designed for all men, Luke 16, 29-31; John 5, 39; Acts 17, 11; even for children, 2 Tim. 3, 15; 1 John 2, 13. (Finis cui Scripturae sunt omnes homines.) For this reason the papal injunction against universal Bible-reading is antichristian. However, it is equally true that all men should use Holy Scripture for obtaining salvation, 2 Tim. 3, 15, and not merely for the purpose of enriching their knowledge in general or of improving their style. (Finis cuius Scripturae Bacrae fides in Ohristum et salus aeterna est.) From this it is clear that it is also the will of God that the Bible s-hould be translated into the various languages used in the world. (Versiones Scripturae Bacrae non solum utiles, sed etiam necessariae sunt.) The duty of translating the Bible into foreign languages is included in Christ's command to teach all nations, Matt. 28, 20.
While Holy Scripture is the absolute norm of faith (norma normans, nonna. absoluta, norma primaria, norma decisionis), the Lutheran Church recognizes its officially received Confessions, or Symbols, as secondary norms (norma normata, norma secundum quid, norma secundaria, norma discretion is), or as true declarations of the doctrines of Holy Scripture, which all Lutheran theologians must confess and teach. For this reason the confessional Lutheran Church demands of all its public teachers and ministers a bona-fide subscription to all its Confessions as the pure and unadulterated declarations of God's Word (quia, not quatenus). In other words, no public minister is permitted to administer his sacred office unless he declares himself convinced that the Lutheran Confessions set forth the pure Word of God.
However, while Holy Scripture as the deciding norm (norma decisionis) is absolutely necessary, the Confessions as the distinguishing norm of the Church (norma discretionis) are only relatively necessary. The former decides which doctrines are true or false; the latter, whether a person has clearly understood the true doctrines of Scripture. (Norma discretionis discernit orthodoxos ab heterodcxis.)
Although Scripture sufficiently attests itself as the divine truth in the believer's heart, God in His infinite wisdom has provided that it should be attested also historically. That is to say, by proper historical investigation we fully know which books were composed by the sacred writers (prophets and apostles), through whom God wished to give His Word to the world. This historical evidence is of great value, on the one hand, against the papists, who by their antichristian decrees elevate human books to the dignity of the divine Scriptures, and, on the other, against unbelieving higher critics, who seek to degrade the Holy Scriptures to the level of human compositions. In addition, the historical evidence on behalf of the authenticity and integrity of the Bible is of value also for believing Christians, since at times the testimony of the Holy Spirit in their hearts may be weakened or suppressed entirely by doubts.
For the divine authority of the Old Testament we have the express testimony not only of the Jewish Church, but also of our omniscient Savior, who without qualification acknowledged the Bible that was in use at His time as canonical, Luke 16, 29; 24, 44; John 5, 39; 10,35; Matt. 5, 17. Had the Jewish Church erred regarding its canon, our divine Lord could not have declared it to be "the Scriptures," John 5, 39. The Old Testament Apocrypha were received as canonical neither by the Jewish Church nor by Christ. The .fact that the Roman Catholic Church nevertheless elevated them to canonical rank proves its antichristian character. For the Scriptures of the New Testament we have Christ's direct statement and promise that both His own and the apostles' Word shall be preserved and acknowledged as the infallible norm of faith to the end of time, Matt. 24, 35; John 17, 20; Eph. 2, 20. If the divine Word is not recognized as such, the fault rests not with Scripture, but with the blindness and perverseness of those who decline to believe God's Word.
The historical testimony of the canonical books of the New Testament has been adequately supplied by the ancient Christian Church (ecclesia primitiva). Its acknowledgment of the four gospels, the thirteen epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of John, and the First Epistle of Peter was unanimous (Homologumena). With regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and the Third Epistle of John, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and Revelation, doubts were expressed, so that they were classified as Antilegomena. (Cf. Eusebius, Church History, Bk. III.) Nevertheless, though the canonical character of the Antilegomena was questioned by some, each received sufficient testimony to entitle it to a place in the canon, from which all spurious apostolic writings (pseudepigraphs) were rigidly ruled out. In case, however, the authority of the Antilegomena as a source and norm of faith should be denied to-day (cf. Luther's verdict on the Epistle of St. James), the same doctrines which are set forth in them may be sufficiently proved from the Homologumena, since the Antilegomena do not contain a single doctrine that is not taught in the Homologumena.
The question whether also the later Christian Church has the authority to declare certain books to be canonical must be denied most emphatically. When the ancient Church dliferentiated between Homologumena and Antilegomena, this was a purely historical procedure, involving nothing more than the question whether certain books were written by such and such an apostle of Christ or not; but when in the sixteenth century the Council of Trent, contrary to the historical judgment of the early Church, declared that also the Apocrypha should rank as canonical, it arbitrarily added to the fixed canon writings which neither Christ nor His holy apostles accepted as such. The later Christian Church cannot change or supplement the established canon, because it is not in a position to furnish the historical evidence which is required to pronounce a certain book canonical or not. The Lutheran dogmatician Chemnitz very correctly called it an antichristian undertaking to eliminate the distinction between the Homologumena and the Antilegomena which the ancient Christian Church has established.
With regard to the manner in which the primitive Church proceeded in fixing the Biblical canon, Chemnitz writes (Ex. Trid., I, 87): "The testimony of the primitive Church in the times of the apostles concerning the genuine writings of the apostles the immediately succeeding generations constantly and faithfully retained and preserved, so that, when many others (writings) afterwards were brought forward, claiming to have been written by the apostles, they were tested and rejected as supposititious and false, first, for this reason, that it could not be shown and proved by the testimony of the original Church either that they were written by the apostles or approved by the living apostles and transmitted and entrusted by them to the Church in the beginning; secondly, because they proposed strange doctrine not accordant with that which the Church received from the apostles and which was at that time still preserved in the memory of all." Doctr. Theol., p. 85
With regard to the gospels of Mark and Luke and the Acts of the Apostles it may be said that the ancient Church placed these unanimously and without any qualification among the Homologumena, though they were not written by apostles. This was done on the ground that the two gospels were composed under the supervision of St. Peter and St. Paul, respectively, while the Book of Acts was accepted as a canonical Scripture fully approved by St. Paul. Since the ancient Christian Church has placed these writings among the Homologumena, the question concerning their place in the canon ought not to cause any difficulties to-day; at best it is only of academic interest.
The integrity of the New Testament may be assumed a priori, since Christ assures us that His Word, as this is set forth in the writings of the holy apostles, or in Holy Scripture, John 17, 20; Eph. 2, 20; John 8, 31. 32, shall never pass away, Matt. 24, 35. The integrity of the Old Testament is guaranteed by Christ's direct and express testimony, John 5, 39.
With respect to the various versions of the Bible we rightly hold that not only the original Hebrew and Greek texts, but also the translations of these texts are really and truly God's Word, provided they fully agree with the original reading. On the other hand, where translations deviate from the original texts and teach anything contrary to them, they must be rejected as not being the Word of God. Since translators never write by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but are subject to the common failings of men, all Bible versions must be diligently compared with the original text to ascertain whether they are correct or not, and for this reason the theologian ought to possess an adequate knowledge of Hebrew and Greek.
However, the gap between the original text and its translations must not be widened unduly, so as to create doubts regarding their authority; for the language of Scripture is in most instances so direct and simple that any translator who performs his work conscientiously is compelled by the clear and direct language of Scripture to reproduce the sense of the original. Even the Vulgate sets forth the chief truths of the Christian faith with sufficient clearness though it is fraught with errors from beginning to end. However, the arbitrary promulgation of the Vulgate as the only authoritative text by the Roman Catholic Church was an act so altogether contrary to the spirit of Christ and His apostles that it furnishes additional proof that the papal Church is the Church of Antichrist.
Luther's methodological advice that the minister, when teaching the Catechism, "should above all things avoid the use of different texts and forms, but adopt one form and adhere to it, since the young and ignorant people will easily become confused if we teach thus to-day and otherwise next year, as if we thought of making improvements," applies also to the use of Bible translations in the pulpit or wherever else Christian ministers may instruct the common people.
Because Holy Scripture is the inspired Word of God, it possesses not only divine authority, but also divine efficacy, that is to say, the creative power to work in man, who by nature is spiritually dead, both saving faith and true sanctification, Rom. 10, 17: faith; 1 Pet. 1, 23: regeneration; John 17, 20: faith and sanctification. The Word of God does not merely teach man the way of salvation and show him the means by which he may attain it; but by its truly divine power (vis vere divina) it actually converts, regenerates, and renews him. This unique efficacy is possessed by no other book in the world nor by any discourse of man unless these repeat God's Word as set forth in the Bible; for the divine efficacy of Scripture is nothing else than God's power in the Word, Rom. 1, 16. Luther is certainly right when he writes (Smalcald Art.1 VIII, 3): "We must firmly hold that God grants His Spirit or grace to no one except through or with the preceding outward Word." And again (Large Cat.1 101): "Such is the efficacy of the Word, whenever it is seriously contemplated, heard, and used, that it is bound never to be without fruit, but always awakens new understanding, pleasure, and devoutness and produces a pure heart and pure thoughts. For these words are not inoperative or dead, but creative, living words."
In opposition to all erroneous doctrine on this point, which either denies the divine efficacy of Scripture altogether and ascribes to it only a moral direction and instruction (Unitarianism, Pelagianism) or separates the divine power from the Word (enthusiasm, Calvinism), we further describe the divine efficacy as follows: -
a. The Word of God set forth in Scripture does not operate in a natural way, i. e., neither through logical demonstration, appealing to reason, nor through rhetorical eloquence, appealing to the emotions, but in a supernatural manner (efficientia vere divina), inasmuch as the Holy Spirit, who is inseparably combined with the Word, persuades the human mind of the divine truth through the very Word which it contemplates. This is clearly attested by St. Paul, who writes: "My speech and my preaching was ... in demonstration of the Spirit and of power," 1 Cor. 2, 4. Quenstedt says correctly: "It is tlie innate power and tendency of God's Word always to convince men of its truth." (Verbum Dei virtutem exercet per contactum hyperphysicum.)
b. The divine Word of Holy Scripture has infinite, almighty power (vis infinita, potentia Dei, omnipotentia), for the same almighty power which is essentially in God is by way of communication (communicative) in His Word. This truth is propounded in the following Scripture-passages: Rom. 1, 16. 17: "It is the power of God unto salvation"; Eph. 1, 19. 20: "Who believe according to the working of His mighty power''; 2 Cor. 4, 6: "God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts sc., through the Gospel, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Baier writes, in full agreement with all these passages: "The same infinite virtue which is essentially per se and independently in God and by which He enlightens and converts men is communicated to the Word." Doctr. Theol., p. 505
c. The divine power which inheres in the Word is not irresistible, but resistible (efficacia resistibilis); that is to say, the saving effects of the Word may be withstood though in itself the Word is omnipotent, Matt. 23, 37; 2 Cor. 4, 3. 4. This resistible character of the divine Word Quenstedt describes as follows: "Accidentally it may be inefficacious, not from any deficiency of power, but by the exercise of perverseness, which hinders its operation, so that its effect is not attained." This fact is asserted in Acts 7, 51, where the apostle addresses the hardened Jews thus: "Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye." How the omnipotent Word of God may be resisted by impotent man is indeed unintelligible to human reason ; yet for this we have an analog in the realm of nature, where natural life, though it owes its origin and existence to God's omnipotent power, may be destroyed by man's feeble hand. Luther's canon of judgment in this matter is correct : ''When God works through means, He can be resisted'; but when He works without means, in His revealed glory (in nuda maiestate), He cannot be resisted." Thus the spiritual resurrection, which is effected through the means of grace, Luke 2, 34; Eph. 2, 1; Col. 2, 12, may be resisted, 1 Cor. 1, 23; 2 Cor. 2, 16, while the bodily resurrection, which will be effected by God's sovereign command, cannot be resisted, Matt. 25, 31. 32; John 11, 24.
d. The divine power must never be separated from the Word of Scripture; that is to say, the Holy Ghost does not operate beside or outside the Word (enthusiasm, Calvinism, Rathmannism in the Lutheran Church), but always in and through the Word, Rom. 10, 1"'; 1 Pet. 1, 23; John 6, 63. This important Scriptural truth our Lutheran theologians have always maintained against the Reformed (Zwingli: "The Holy Spirit requires no leader or vehicle" (dux vel vehiculum) ; Hodge: "Efficacious grace acts immediately"). The practical result of the separation of the divine power from the divine Word of Scripture is the rejection of the Bible as the only source and norm of faith (norma normans). This is proved by the very fact that the enthusiasts have invariably placed the "inner word" (verbum internum), or the "spirit," above Holy Scripture (verbum externum), assigning to the latter an inferior place in the realm of divine revelation. To the enthusiasts the Bible is only a norma normata, or a rule of faith subject to the "inner word," that is, to their own notions and figments of reason. On the other hand, the practical result of the acceptance of the Scriptural doctrine that the Holy Spirit is inseparably united with the Word is the absolute subjection of every thought to the Word of God, as this is set forth in the Bible, 2 Cor. 10, 5. In this case every doctrine which is opposed to Scripture is rejected as false, no matter to what source it may be attributed, whether it be the "spirit," the "inner word,"the "inner light," "reason," "science," "the Church," "the Pope," and the like. Unless we fully accept the Scriptural doctrine that the Holy Spirit is indissolubly united with the Word of Scripture, we cannot regard this precious Book of God as the only source and standard of faith. It was for this reason that our Lutheran theologians so strenuously defended the inseparable unity of the Word and the Spirit. Hollaz writes, for example: "The efficacy of the divine Word is not only objective or significative, like the statue of Mercury, for instance, which points out the path, but does not give the power or strength to the traveler to walk in it; but it is effective, because it not only shows the way of salvation, but saves souls." Doctr. Theol., p. 504
Whenever in our Christian prayers we ask God "to give His Spirit and power to the Word," we do not imply that at times the Spirit is absent from the Word with His divine and effective power, but we rather confess by these words that our own human effort or skill in applying the Word of God is of no avail whatever, 1 Cor. 3, 6. Luther in his exposition of Ps. 8, 3, writes on this point: "We must put off the foolish confidence that we ourselves can effect anything through the Word in the hearts of our hearers; rather should we diligently continue in the prayer that God alone, without us, would render mighty and active in the hearers the Word which He proclaims through preachers and teachers." (St. L., IV, 626.)
In their controversy with the enthusiasts (Reformed) the Lutheran theologians averred that Holy Scripture is efficacious also extra usum. By this phrase they meant to say that the Holy Spirit is perpetually connected with the Word, so that it retains its power even when not in use. This truth had to be maintained also against the Lutheran theologian Rathmann, who contended that the "divine efficacy is external to the Word." Against this error the efficacy of the Word even when not in use (extra usum) was maintained in order that the Word of God might not be reduced to the level of human words cf. Doctr. Theol., p. 507. The statement regarding the efficacy of the Word of God extra usum was thus used to emphasize the Scriptural truth that God's Word is always in itself a "power of God unto salvation," Rom. 1, 16.
Although the Holy Ghost is always active through the Word, we must not judge His activity from feeling (ex sensu). The Formula of Concord comments on this point: "Concerning the presence, operation, and gift of the Holy Ghost we should not and cannot always judge ex sensu, as to how and when they are experienced in the heart; but because they are often covered and occur in great weakness, we should be certain from, and according to, the promise that the Word of God preached and heard is (truly) an office and work of the Holy Ghost, by which He is certainly efficacious and works in our hearts, 2 Cor. 2, 14 ff.; 3, 5 ff." Thor. Decl., II, 56.
While we ascribe divine efficacy to the entire Word of God us set forth in Holy Scripture, we, nevertheless, rightly distinguish between the efficacy which is proper to the Law and that which is proper to the Gospel. The divine Law has the power to make men "guilty before God," Rom. 3, 19, since "by the Law is the knowledge of sin," Rom. 3, 20. More than this the Law cannot do; its sphere is the working of contrition (contritio, terrores conscientiae). The Gospel, on the other hand, works faith and so regeneration and conversion, Rom. 10, 17; 5, 1. However, by this very operation it inscribes the divine Law into the heart, Jer. 31, 31 ff.; that is to say, it makes man willing to obey the Law with a cheerful and ready mind, Ps. 110, 3; Rom. 12, 1; Gal. 2, 20. (Lex praescribit, evangelium inscribit.) Moreover, by this very operation it also relieves man from the fear of death and gives him power to triumph over this last foe, 1 Cor. 15, 55. Through the power of the Gospel the sinner, who by nature is subject to death, Heb. 2, 15, and without hope in the world, Eph. 2, 12, is received into Christ's Kingdom of Grace, John 3, 16-18, and finally into His Kingdom of Glory, Phil. 1, 3-6; Eph. 1, 16-19; 1 Pet. 1, 3-5.
The divine perfection, or sufficiency, of Holy Scripture is that property by which it teaches everything that is necessary for salvation. Gerhard defines this property of Scripture as follows (II, 286): "The Scriptures fully and perfectly instruct us concerning all things necessary to salvation." The Scripture proof for this doctrine is clearly set forth in 2 Tim. 3, 15-17; John- 17, 20; 1 John 1, 3. 4. Since Holy Scripture is sufficient, or perfect, it requires no supplementation either through traditions (papists) or new revelations (enthusiasts) or doctrinal progress or development (modern rationalistic theologians). The way of salvation taught in the Bible is absolutely complete, Matt. 28, 20; Mark 16, 15. 16. Gerhard, arguing against the Romanists, rightly says: "Laying aside tradition, we adhere to Scripture alone."
When considering the divine sufficiency of Holy Scripture, wemust carefully observe the following points: -
a. Holy Scripture does not contain everything which men may know; for with regard to matters of earthly concern it offers very little instruction (the Bible is not a "text-book of science"). Earthly affairs are treated in Scripture only in so far as they pertain to the divine counsel of salvation (the creation of the world, etc.).
b. Holy Scripture does not reveal all divine things which man might desire to know; for also in the spiritual sphere its proper scope is the saving of sinners, 2 Tim. 3, 16-18; 1 Cor. 13, 12; Rom.ll, 33.
c. Nevertheless, Holy Scripture contains all things "necessary to be known for the Christian faith and life and, therefore, for theattainment of eternal salvation" (Quenstedt). All those who deny this truth reject the Schriftprinzip, or the basic Christian doctrine· that Holy Scripture is the only source and norm of faith. The papists make of Scripture a restricted norm (norma remissiva) and teach a perfectio implicita Scripturae Sacrae; that is to say, they regard Scripture as sufficient only when its teachings are supplemented by those of the Church, or the Pope. The papists thus degrade Scripture to a norma normata.
Its holy doctrines, Scripture sets forth either in direct words (HaTa e1JT6v) or according to the sense (κατὰ ῥητόν). For the first we may cite the express teaching of salvation by grace, through faith in Christ, John 3, 16; Rom. 3, 24. 28; for the latter, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, Matt. 28, 20. However, Holy Scripture never states mere "general principles" from which the Christian theologian or the Christian Church must "develop" the doctrines; for it is not a book of "general principles," but of doctrines. In order that the theologian may be kept from teaching false doctrine, he must constantly bear in mind that he is to teach nothing but what Scripture itself teaches in clear words. That is what Luther means when he writes: "In the Christian doctrine we must not assert anything which Holy Scripture does not teach." St. L., XIX, 592. Again: "All Christian articles must be of such a nature that they are not only certain to the Christians themselves, but also are so confirmed by manifest and clear Scripture-passages that they can stop the mouths of all (adversaries), so that they can say nothing against them." St. L., XVIII, 1747.
(Perspicuitas, Claritas Scripturae Sacrae.)
When we say that Holy Scripture is perspicuous, or clear, we mean that it sets forth all doctrines of salvation in words so simple and plain that they can be understood by all persons of average intelligence. The Lutheran dogmatician Baier expresses this thought as follows: "Any man acquainted with the language, possessed of a common judgment, and paying due attention to the words may learn the true sense of the words . . . and embrace the fundamental doctrines." The perspicuity of Scripture is definitely taught in clear passages: Ps. 119, 105. 130; 19, 7. 8; 2 Pet. 1, 19; 2 Tim. 3, 15. In addition to this, it is presupposed in all those passages in which all men are exhorted to search the Scriptures for salvation, John 5, 39; Luke 16, 29; Acts 17, 11; 2 Thess. 2, 15; Is. 34, 16; 1 John 2, 13. 14. Whoever, therefore, rejects the perspicuity of the Bible (papists, enthusiasts, modern rationalistic theologians) must also reject the basic truth that Scripture is the only principium cognoscendi, thus compelling the Christian believer to base his faith upon the human expositions either of the Church or of individual Bible scholars.
Keeping in mind that Holy Scripture is a clear book, the Christian exegete must scrupulously refrain from foisting upon its sacred text his own subjective views (eisegesis) and regard it as his sole function to exhibit the true meaning of God's clear Word (exegesis: the leading forth of the sense of Scripture) ; in other words, he must allow Scripture to interpret itself. (Scriptura Scripturam interpretatur; Scriptura sua luce radiat.) Negatively the function of the Christian exegete may be described as the removal of all textual difficulties by proper grammatical instruction and of all misinterpretations by erring expositors; positively, as the exhibition of the true sense of the text (manductio ad nudam Bcripturam) in the light of its context and parallel passages.
Hence a true Christian exegete must possess the following qualifications: a) He must regard the whole Bible as the inerrant Word of God; b) he must treat Holy Scripture as a book which is clear in itself; c) he must conscientiously point out the real sense of the text; and d) he must be able to refute the erroneous human opinions which false teachers or misguided orthodox theologians have foisted upon the text.
With regard to the perspicuity of Holy Scripture we may yet observe the following points: -
a. Holy Scripture is preeminently clear with respect to those things that are necessary for salvation. We readily admit that Scripture contains passages which are more or less obscure not only to the average Christian, but also the Christian theologian. But this fact does not disprove the doctrine of the perspicuity of the Bible. The passages which in themselves are obscure do not set forth fundamental articles of the Christian faith, but pertain, as our dogmaticians have said, commonly to "onomastic, chronological, topographical, allegorical, typical, or prophetical matters" (Quenstedt). Of the passages which propound doctrines some are less clear than others or, as Gerhard remarks: "What is obscurely expressed in one passage is more clearly explained in others," and in all such cases the more obscure must be intepreted in the light of the clear (sedes doctrinae; analogia fidei). But also this fact does not disprove the doctrine of Biblical perspicuity. In his exposition on Ps. 37 Luther comments very aptly: "But if any one of them (the papists) should trouble you and say: 'You must have the interpretation of the Fathers, since Scripture is obscure,' then you must reply: 'It is not true. There is no clearer book upon earth than is Holy Writ, which in comparison with all other books is like the sun in its relation to all other lights.' They say such things only because they want to lead us away from Scripture and elevate themselves to the position of masters over us in order that we might believe their dream sermons. . . . For that is indeed true: Some passages in Scripture are obscure, but in these you find nothing but what is found in other places and in clear and plain passages. Then came the heretics and explained the obscure passages according to their own reasonings, and with these they combated the clear passages and foundation of faith. So the Fathers fought them with the clear passages, and with them they shed light upon the obscure, proving in this way that what is said obscurely in some passages is set forth clearly in others. Do not permit yourselves to be led out of, and away from, Scripture, no matter how hard they the papists may try. For if you step out of Scripture, you are lost; then they will lead you just as they wish. But if you remain in Scripture, you have won the victory and you will regard their raging in no other way than when the crag of the sea smiles at the waves and billows. All their writings are nothing else than waves that rock to and fro. Be assured and certain that there is nothing clearer than the sun, I mean, Holy Scripture. If a cloud drifts before it, nothing else than the same clear sun is nevertheless behind it. If then you find an obscure passage in Scripture, do not be alarmed, for surely the same truth is set forth in it which in another place is taught plainly. So if you cannot understand the obscure, then cling to the clear." St. L., V, 334 ff. These defiant statements of Luther reecho the clear truths which Holy Scripture itself teaches concerning its perspicuity, Ps. 119, 105; 2 Pet. 1, 19 f. (Cf. also Luther's defense of the perspicuity of Scripture in his famous work De Servo Arbitrio. St. L., XVIII, 1681 ff.)
b. The perspicuity of Scripture must not be identified with comprehensibility of its mysteries of faith (perspicuitas rerum). The very doctrines which we must believe for our salvation, for instance, the incarnation of Christ, the Holy Trinity, the personal union of the two natures in Christ, the atonement through Christ's vicarious suffering and death, etc., will always remain unintelligible to human reason (res inevidentes). But these incomprehensible mysteries of our faith are set forth in words so intelligible (perspicuitas verborum) that every person of ordinary intelligence who understands human speech can receive them into his mind (apprehensio simplex) and through the supernatural operation of the Holy Ghost can apprehend them also spiritually (apprehensio spiritualis sive practica). For this reason our Lutheran dogmaticians have called the perspicuity of Scripture a claritas verborum, or claritas externa, or claritas grammatica, etc. on this point Gerhard quotes Luther (1, 26), who writes: "If you speak of the internal clearness, no man understands a single iota in the Scriptures by the natural powers of his mind unless he has the Spirit of God; for all men (by nature) have obscure hearts. 'The Holy Spirit is required for the understanding of the whole of .Scripture and of all its parts. If you refer to the external clearness of Scripture, there is nothing that is left obscure or ambiguous, but all things brought to light in the Word are perfectly clear." Doctr. Theol., p. 73 The whole doctrine of the dearness of Scripture may be summed up as follows: Scripture is clear externally (claritas verborum) to all men of sound minds, internally (claritas spiritualis) only to believers, and essentially (claritas rerum, the understanding of the mysteries of the faith) - only to the saints in heaven, 1 Cor. 13, 12.
a. Who understand neither human speech in general nor "Scriptural speech in particular;
b. Who are so filled with prejudice that they refuse to give the words of Scripture honest consideration;
c. Who foolishly endeavor to comprehend the divine mysteries 'by means of their blind reason;
d. Who are filled with enmity against the divine truths which Scripture teaches, Ps. 18, 26; John 8, 43-47; 2 Cor. 4, 3. 4. This explains why so many errorists arrogantly reject Holy Scripture as an obscure book. "Blind unbelief is sure to err and scan His work in vain." (Cowper.)
"Blind unbelief" has also suggested the objections which have been preferred against the perspicuity of Holy Scripture. Among these we may note the following : -
a. The institution of the holy ministry. Answer: Christ did indeed institute the public ministry, not, however, to render the Bible clear, but to preach the Gospel, which the Bible propounds so clearly, Mark 16, 15. 16; Matt. 28, 19. 20, and by this means to guide men to heaven, Heb. 13, 17; Ezek. 3, 18.
b. The dissensions and factions within the visible Christian Church. Answer: These, alas t exist, but only because men insist on rejecting the clear doctrines of Scripture, John 8, 31. 32; 1 Tim. 6, 3 f.
c. Obscure passages occur in Scripture. Answer: Such passages do not disprove the perspicuity of Scripture since the doctrines of salvation are taught with great clarity. St. Augustine rightly says: "In the clear passages of Scripture everything is found that is necessary for faith and life."
d. The unintelligible mysteries of the faith. Answer: These mysteries are indeed beyond the grasp of human reason, but they are taught in language so plain that it is intelligible even to a normal child.
e. Special passages of Scripture allegedly admit its obscurity. Passages such as 2 Pet. 3, 16 and 1 Cor. 13, 12 have been pointed out by those who deny the perspicuity of Scripture. Answer: St. Peter declares that among the things which St. Paul writes in his epistles (lv al~) there are some that are hard to be understood (<5vov61Jm). Holy Scripture indeed contains many things which admittedly are ''hard to be understood." However, this does not disprove its perspicuity; for wherever it teaches the way of salvation, it is perfectly clear.
In 1 Cor. 13, 12 St. Paul does not speak of Holy Scripture, but of our knowledge of God and divine truth, which now is mediate and imperfect, but which in heaven will be immediate and perfect. Hence also this passage does not disprove the perspicuity of Scripture.
The perspicuity of Scripture is denied both by the papists ("The Scriptures are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance." Cardinal Gibbons, ThB Faith of Our Fathers~ p. 111) and the enthusiasts. The papists claim that the Scriptures must be interpreted by the Church, or the Pope, while the enthusiasts assert that they must be expounded by means of the "inner light." In the last analysis both papists and enthusiasts resort to human reason to expound Scripture, just as modern rationalists do, who aver that the Bible must be interpreted in the light of modern intelligence. In all three cases the charge against God's holy and clear Book of salvation is prompted by deliberate opposition to the blessed Gospel of Christ, 1 Cor. 1, 22. 23.