Biblical Authority in Matters of Faith and Practice, Part 1

^{Note: Reprinted from Worship in Song by Scott Aniol, published by BMH Books, Winona Lake, Indiana, www.bmhbooks.com. Used by permission.}

CHAPTER ONE

Biblical Authority in Matters of Faith and Practice

The great sixteenth century Reformer, Martin Luther, fought against the Roman Catholic Church to recover biblical orthodoxy. His efforts resulted in the recovery of the five Solas: Solus Christus (Christ alone), Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Soli Deo Gloria (the glory of God alone), and per­haps the most foundational, Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone).

In contrast to Roman Catholics who find equal authority in both Scripture and tradition, Protestants believe the Bible is the supreme authority in matters of faith and practice. Wayne Grudem summarizes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura well: “The sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture contained all the words of God he intended for his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains all the words of God we need for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly.” ¹

In summary, the Bible is sufficient as the ultimate authority for a Christian in all matters of faith and practice. All three pri­mary terms in this summary are important—authority, faith, and practice. Only the written Word of God is the final authority for the Christian. This authority applies to doctrinal issues—whether belief in the virgin birth, justification by faith alone, or the hypostatic union of Christ—and it applies to practice, also.

Belief in Sola Scriptura flows directly from the doctrine of in­spiration. The 66 books of the Old and New Testament are inspired—literally, “God-breathed.” Only the original manuscripts were inspired, but subsequent manuscripts and translations are inspired in a derivative sense to the degree that they accurately reflect the words and truth of the original autographs. Human authors were “carried along” miraculously through the work of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21) such that the authors’ styles and personalities were maintained. Every word was equally inspired.

Because God inspired the Bible, it is, therefore, both inerrant (without error) and infallible (incapable of error) (Matt. 5:18; John 10:35). Understanding these truths leads inevitably to the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture as the authority for the Christian. Mack summarizes this point well:

The inerrancy of Scripture and the authority of Scripture are like Siamese twins—they are inseparably joined to each other. Holy Scripture, being God’s law and testimony, is true and should therefore serve as our standard for all matters of faith and practice (Isa. 8:19-20). God’s Word, being both truth­ful (John 17:17) and authoritative, calls us to humble and faithful obedience in every area of which it speaks. There is no authority that is higher than that in Scripture. Wherever and on whatever subject the Scriptures speak, one must re­gard them as both inerrant and authoritative.²

The key text that teaches this important doctrine is 2 Timo­thy 3:16–17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruc­tion in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

The Reformers were among the first to articulate a formulat­ed definition of Sola Scriptura. They rejected the Roman Catho­lic notion that the church held equal authority with the Bible over doctrine and practice. As Montgomery notes,

The Reformation irrevocably stated its theological claims upon a totally reliable, perspicuous Bible; it explicitly denied the notion of a living Magisterium as interpreter of Scrip­ture. Indeed, the Reformers categorically refused to allow any human writing or teacher to stand above Holy Writ; they recognized fully well that if God’s Word were not entirely trustworthy, then man would be forever incapable of distin­guishing its truth from its non-truth and even the salvatory Gospel would be imperiled.³

Instead, Reformers like Martin Luther insisted that the Bi­ble alone serves as the Christian’s rule. He stated, “There was no higher authority in the church than God’s Word, specifically on doctrines and teaching.”⁴

An issue that rises naturally out of belief in Sola Scriptura is how believers are to formulate biblical ethics; that is, how to live in accordance with the moral will of God. For example, while Protestants have traditionally affirmed the sole authority of the Scriptures over both doctrine and practice, many have limited its authority only to those issues to which it directly speaks. Everything else that the Bible does not explicitly address is considered adiophora (Greek, “things indifferent”). Music, in particular, is one of these matters that many believers consider indifferent. But, does this fit with the biblical model?

Positions on Biblical Application

Generally, approaches to the Bible’s applicability to life fall into two categories. Some deny that the Bible can be applied to contemporary moral situations with any real authority, and yet others insist that as long as the Bible is interpreted and applied correctly, authoritative ethical standards may be for­mulated even for issues not explicitly addressed in Scripture.

Position One: An Encyclopedic View of Scripture

Some argue that if the Bible does not address a particu­lar moral issue, believers have complete liberty to do as they please. In other words, absence of biblical directive implies moral neutrality. If God had an opinion on a particular is­sue, they argue, He would have given His people instructions. Rather, morally neutral actions matter only with regard to the subjective motive or conscience of the individual.

Proponents of this view often appeal to Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10 and insist that anything not explicitly ad­dressed in Scripture falls under the principles of Christian liberty set forth in these passages. For instance, Murray argues that those who develop authoritative moral standards in ap­parent adiaphora “confuse and perplex the whole question of ethics and jeopardize the cause of truth and righteousness.” He insists that unless we have the “authority of divine institution,” upon a particular contemporary issue, we must not make any value judgments about it.⁵ Robinson agrees when he asserts, “More heresy is preached in application than in Bible exegesis.”⁶

Perhaps the most popular articulation of this view can be found in Charles Swindoll’s The Grace Awakening, where he writes, “Any specified list in Scripture is to be obeyed without hesitation or question. That’s an inspired list for all of us to follow, not someone’s personal list… . But when question­able things aren’t specified in Scripture, it then becomes a matter of one’s personal preference or convictions.”⁷

Such individuals argue that this position is a correct and consistent application of Sola Scriptura. Belief that the Bible is sufficient for faith and practice implies that God has given His people instructions in every area He considers morally important. Childs insists that believers “recognize that at no point within the Bible is there ever spelled out a system or a technique by which one could move from the general impera­tives of the law of God … to the specific application within the concrete situation.”⁸ Since believers are not given explicit instruction in certain areas, and since they are not supplied with an explicit process for applying the Bible to contempo­rary situations, such issues must be morally neutral.

Position Two: An Encompassing View of Scripture

Others argue that the Bible applies to all contemporary ethical situations, and authoritative standards may be formu­lated with issues not found in the Bible. Such standards may be derived from proper application to equivalent situations. Grudem summarizes this general approach well:

When there is no exact modern equivalent to some aspect of a command (such as, “honor the emperor” in 1 Peter 2:17), then we are still obligated to obey the command, but we do so by applying it to situations that are essentially similar to the one found in the NT. Therefore, “honor the emperor” is applied to honoring the president or the prime minister. In fact, in several such cases the immediate context contains pointers to broader applications (such as 1 Peter 2:13-14, which mentions being subject to “every human institution” including the “emperor” and “governors” as specific examples).⁹

Indeed, some would go so far as to say that proper Bible study is not finished until there is a “transferring [of] what has been learned from the text over to the waiting Church,” resulting in “dynamic application of the text to one’s current needs.”¹⁰

In this view, the Bible applies to everything, even those issues not explicitly addressed in the Bible. Furthermore, those who apply the Bible correctly may authoritatively assert the moral will of God in contemporary situations. As Estes notes, “It is possible to claim with confidence, ‘This is what the Bi­ble says to today’s situation.’” Christians today “can articulate what the passage means today”¹¹ (emphasis original).

Notes

¹ Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 127.
²Wayne A. Mack, “The Sufficiency of Scripture in Counseling,” Master’s Seminary Journal 9, 1 (Spring 1998), 63-64.
³John Warwick Montgomery, “The Approach of New Shape Roman Catholicism to Scriptural Inerrancy: A Case Study for Evangelicals,”: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 10, 4 (Fall 1967), 222.
⁴ Eugene F. Klug, “Word and Scripture in Luther Studies Since World War II,” Trinity Journal 5, 1 (Spring 1984), 3.
⁵ John Murray, “The Weak and the Strong,” Westminster Theological Journal 12, 2 (May 1950), 136.
⁶ Haddon Robinson, “The Heresy of Application,” Leadership Journal 18 (Fall 1997), 21.
⁷ Charles R. Swindoll, The Grace Awakening (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1990), 132.
⁸ B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 128.
⁹ Wayne Grudem, “Review Article: Should We Move Beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47, 2 (June 2004), 302-303.
¹⁰ Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 2nd Ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 410; Walter C. Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 149.
¹¹ Daniel J. Estes, “Audience Analysis and Validity in Application,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150, 598 (April 1993), 229.

Scott Aniol received a bachelor’s degree in Church Music at Bob Jones University and a master’s degree in Musicology at Northern Illinois University. He has taken seminary classes at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and did graduate work in choral conducting and church music history at Concordia University in River Forest, Illinois. As the executive director of Religious Affections Ministries, Scott speaks on the subjects of music and worship at various churches and conferences. His most recent speaking engagements include the Great Lakes Conference on Theology, Central Seminary’s Foundations Conference, International Baptist College, and Bob Jones Seminary. Scott’s book, Worship in Song, was recently released by BMH Books. Check out his Web site at Religious Affections Ministries.