*The following is drawn from Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1 along with my own paraphrase and reflections.
Ultimate Authority
Question: From what source does the divine authority of the Scriptures become known to us?
This question of ultimate authority is a major point of division between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Does the divine authority of the Scriptures depend upon the testimony of the church, or upon something else? The Westminster Confession of Faith answers the question this way:
The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
(WCF 1.4)
Put another way: The divine authority of the Scriptures depends completely upon God.
Now some might counter that this is a circular argument and thus invalid. How might a Protestant respond to this charge? The Westminster Confession of Faith continues in the next section by saying:
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
(WCF 1.5)
Put another way: Although there are many internal and external arguments for the divine authority of the Scriptures, the full persuasion of this divine authority comes from the Holy Spirit bearing witness by the Word and with the Word in our hearts.
Circular Reasoning
Francis Turretin explains how this appeal is not circular (begging the question):
Since the circle (according to philosophers) is a sophistical argument (by which the same thing is proved by itself) and is occupied about the same kind of cause in a circuit coming back without end into itself, the circle cannot be charged upon us when we prove the Scriptures by the Spirit, and in turn the Spirit from the Scriptures. For here the question is diverse and the means or kind of cause is different. We prove the Scriptures by the Spirit as the efficient cause by which we believe. But we prove the Spirit from the Scriptures as the object and argument on account of which we believe. In the first, the answer is to the question: “Whence or by what power do you believe the Scriptures to be inspired?” We say: by the Spirit. But in the second, the answer is to the question: “Why or on account of what do you believe that the Spirit in you is the Holy Spirit?” We say: on account of the marks of the Holy Spirit which are in the Scriptures.
(Turretin, Institutes Vol. 1, The Holy Scriptures, Q. VI, pg. 92)
In other words, there are two different questions at play that must be distinguished:
Q1. Why do you believe the Scriptures are inspired and possess divine authority?
A1. Because the Holy Spirit bears witness that they are.
Notice the appeal is not to say, “because the Bible tells me so,” which would be a circular argument, but rather the appeal is to God the Holy Spirit who causes us to believe the Word and to receive it as authoritative.
Q2. How do you know that it is the Holy Spirit who is bearing witness in you, and not just your gut, or a demon, or wishful thinking?
A2. Because the Scriptures describe the work of the Spirit as bearing witness in those who believe (John 16:13-14, 1 John 2:20, 27, 1 John 5:6-8, John 20:31, 1 Cor. 2:10-12, Is. 59:21, Rom. 8:16).
Notice here that the appeal and explanation is to the Scriptures, and not to our own subjective experience of the Spirit (which would be circular). This is very different from the “burning in the bosom” that the Mormons describe.
Conclusion
When we are asked to give an account for the divine authority of the Scriptures, we must remember that we are being asked to give an account of one of our First Principles. Since principium are by definition self-evident, self-authenticating, and a priori, we should confess up front that we take the existence of God and the divine authority of the Scriptures as foundational to everything else. We receive these foundational truths by faith, and then reason from them.
In our explanation of our First Principles, we need not be circular, since our appeal is from one First Principle (Holy Scripture) to another (God), and vice versa. We believe Scripture is authoritative because the Holy Spirit bears witness, and we believe the Holy Spirit bears witness because Scripture tells us. Our First Principles mutually reinforce one another while at the same time being able to stand on their own.
This is in contrast to the actual circular argument of the papists. Turretin describes their position stating, “The papists evidently run into it themselves in this question, when they prove the Scriptures by the church, and the church by the Scriptures; for this is done by the same means and by the same kind of cause. If we ask why or on account of what they believe the Scriptures to be divine, they answer “because the church says so.” If we ask again, why they believe the church, they reply, “because the Scriptures ascribe infallibility to the church when they call her the pillar and ground of the truth.” If we press upon them whence they know this testimony of Scripture to be credible (autopiston), they add because the church assures us of it. Thus they are rolled back again to the commencement of the dispute and go on to infinity, never stopping in any first credible thing. Nor is the question here diverse. In both instances, the question concerns the reason and argument on account of which I believe; not the faculty or principle by which I believe.”
(Turretin, Institutes Vol. 1, The Holy Scriptures, Q. VI, pg. 93)
So how would a papist respond to the same question:
Q1. Why do you believe the Scriptures are inspired and possess divine authority?
A1. Because the church says so.
Notice that the papist substitutes the church for God the Holy Spirit. Since the church is composed of fallible men, this is hardly a firm foundation for grounding the authority of Scripture, which forces the follow up question…
Q2. Why do you believe the church?
A2. Because the Scriptures say so (see 1 Tim. 3:15).
This is a circular argument wherein the papist attempts to turn the church into a sort of First Principle. But First Principles must be self-authenticating, and the appeal the papists give is back to the Scriptures, and thus the circle goes round and round. This is the epistemic chasm between Turretin and the papists. Turretin remains consistent with his self-authenticating First Principles (God and Holy Scripture), whereas the papists attempt to ground their ultimate authority in an ever-vacillating circle of church authority and Scripture’s authority, a position that ultimately fails.
