Introduction

          The word authority refers in one sense to the source from which citations are drawn; a conclusive statement or set of statements; or a decision taken as a precedent; or even a permission granted. In the world of biblical theology, so to speak, authority holds a similar sense in that the Bible is the source of all matters regarding life and faith. It is the norm from which other norms regarding spiritual matters are drawn. It is the authority in all matters of doctrines of faith and spirituality. For much of the time since the Reformation, this has been the view from not only Lutheranism, but for other Reformation movements and even the theology of the Middle Ages. Thus Lutherans through out the ages have confessed the belief that, "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged and evaluated" (Book of Concord, 1959, 504). Taken from the Book of Concord, the compilation of confessional writings that came out of the Reformation, the statement represents the completed form of Reformation thinking and confessional thought for Lutherans. Churches that have adopted the Book of Concord as their foundational statements of faith have historically held the same view of the Bible. Lutheranism holds a very high view of Scripture and its authority over the doctrines and life of the church. Again, the Book of Concords states the historical Lutheran position, "We believe, teach, and confess that the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments are the only rule and norm according to which all doctrines and teachers alike must be appraised and judged" (Book of Concord 1959, 464). In modern times, however, in both society and church, the matter of the authority of Scripture is at issue, and the question at hand for many in the Lutheran church is whether we can still grasp a concept of the authority of Scripture.
          The authority of Scripture has been a hotly debated topic at times in Lutheran academia. This debate, however, has only served to weaken the faith of many on the sidelines in the church and cause a polarization within Lutheranism. The adoption of a skeptical hermeneutic by many Lutheran seminaries has turned out generations of pastors uncommitted to anything Scriptural. Rather than helping the Lutheran Church, modernism’s scholarship of skepticism has only served to strip away trust in the authority of Scripture, and has subsequently led to many a lukewarm or dead Lutheran churches. It is then of no surprise that many Lutheran churches across the country are consolidating or closing their doors due to disinterest by its members, declining attendance, and lack of available pastors. Without the authority of Scripture, the churches are too weak to transform lives, edify the body, or maintain a witness for Christ in its own community. Without the authority of Scripture, humankind is left to his own authority, to be its own judge, and the church is left holding to a form of the gospel that is so transparent, that only ecumenical mergers and consolidations can hide the tremendous losses in attendance year after year. Lutheran churches are looking more and more like the condition John the Revelator writes about in Revelation 3:14, "I know you deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm - neither hot nor cold – I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked." Without the authority of Scripture the church is not serving her Lord and yet she is not ready to die.
          This paper is written to Lutheran readers who may doubt the authority of Holy Scripture and the claim it has over their lives. Many ask, however, is the Bible lost to the Lutheran Church? Is it possible to regain a sense of Biblical authority that is real and trustworthy for today’s use? This paper will examine the nature biblical authority and its source, Lutheran understanding of biblical authority, the sources of mistrust and skepticism, and finally, towards building a hermeneutic of trust in the Scriptures. This paper provides a defense for the authority of Scripture for Lutherans who have given up on the Bible as the norm and source of authority over their lives, their church, and their faith.

The Apostolic word written to us made God’s revelation of his doctrine to his church entirely complete. The Apostles themselves pass on to us what they have heard and learned from Christ himself. So from God’s oral word to the prophets pen, to Christ’s lips to the Apostles manuscript, all show a remarkable succession spanning thousands of years, but yet the same Spirit is discerned throughout. It is yet unexplained how this remarkable succession could have just "happened" in Israel and nowhere else. But in either case, within this context, Scripture has the authority to speak to us today with the very words of God himself through the Prophets, and Apostles, through their written word, because it is the same Spirit throughout. These same written words speak to us even today to create faith.

          Historical Lutheranism, founded in the principles of the Reformation, holds that the absolute authority, the final referee for all matters of faith and life is none other than God. Still further, it can be clearly and uniquely seen that God is manifest and knowable in Jesus Christ, "eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father" (Nicene Creed 325 AD). For us today, as well as in the sixteenth century, Jesus Christ can be known through faith in Him created by the Holy Spirit through the word, "for faith comes from hearing the word" (Romans 10:17). This is the sixteenth century Reformation principle of sola scriptura. Through the preached word of Scripture the Holy Spirit works God’s means of grace into our lives creating faith in Jesus Christ and we come to know him as our Lord and Savior. It is through the preached word of Scripture alone this happens, for faith does come from hearing the word. Therefore the word of Scripture alone (sola scriptura) is to be believed and accepted as finally valid with respect to the concerns of faith and salvation. As the Epitome of the Formula of Concord tells us, "Holy Scripture remains the only judge, rule, and norm according to which as the only touchstone all doctrines should and must be understood and judged as good or evil, right or wrong" (Book of Concord 503-504). This made the Bible, in the Lutheran Reformer’s view, the chief document of life, faith, and the doctrines of the church.
          Martin Luther, in his quest for a gracious God, came to understand Scripture this way through intellect and experience. In his search for grace, Luther found God within his encounter with the pages of Scripture and came to know the Savior. However, in his quest, he made a fundamental discovery, which he later called his christological canon of interpretation: none other than the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone. He believed this was the true apostolic standard. This is the true test by which to judge all else to see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3:21; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, 1 Corinthians 2:2. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic. On this point Luther and his fellow reformers accepted the authority of Scripture, as did the general consensus of sixteenth century theologians on both sides of the Reformation.
          As where many affirmed the authority of Scripture and its full inspiration on both sides of the Reformation debate, what set the Lutheran Reformers apart was their derivation of the authority of Scripture from its gospel content, namely, the witness, testimony, and gospel message of Jesus Christ himself, rather than from the form of a book. The heart of Scripture is Jesus Christ and his proclamation of the gospel. The word that created faith was preached for many years alone until it became necessary to provide a written account to combat error and preserve the testimony of the disciples. "The fact that it became necessary to write books reveals that great damage and injury had already been done to the Spirit. Books were thus written out of necessity and not because this is the nature of the New Testament" (Althaus 1966, 73). Thus the principle of sola scriptura, by Scripture alone, is the life-giving Word of salvation in Christ given to those who accept it through faith. To historical Lutheranism then, authority stands upon the gospel of Scripture, and scripture alone, and not from creeds and councils of the Church or on the hierarchical offices, papacy and episcopacy. The word of Scripture alone is to be believed and accepted as authoritative for all matters of life, faith and salvation, because it derives its authority to speak to us from its witness to Christ.

          While the Reformers were agreeing with each other on the authority of Scripture, the Enlightenment of the 17^th and 18^th centuries, however, released such a flood of critical thought, applying reason and nature to Biblical interpretation, that the authority issue of Scripture came into serious question. The result of years of placing critical reasoning over Scripture is that the Bible "no longer functions as an unquestioned presupposition, as it did in the theology of the reformers, but is treated precisely as that which has to be established" (Braaten and Jensen 1984, 69). The issue of the authority of Scripture has thus become a matter of individual interpretation, in other words, it boils down to one of being a hermeneutical question, i.e. how one reads the Bible.
          Again, going back to the Reformers, Luther’s principle of interpretation of Scripture was a remarkable break from the overused allegorical method in use since the time of Origen (185-254 AD). The allegorical method held that there were many differing levels of meaning in the passages of Scripture. These roughly corresponded to a physical, moral, spiritual, and mystical sense of interpretation. The problem, Luther saw, with the Allegorical Method, was that one could prove just about anything they wanted from Scripture. Luther’s principle of interpretation was the insistence on the literal-historical and philological exposition of the Scriptures. If Scripture is to maintain its authority within the Church, then it must be bound to the original sense as that which appears in the Hebrew and Greek texts. "The Holy Spirit is the plainest writer and speaker in heaven and earth, and therefore His words cannot have more than one, and that the very simplest, sense, which we call the literal, ordinary, natural sense" (Luther 1961, v39, p 178).
          The biblical interpreter, according to Luther, must search out the literal sense of Scripture because every passage has only one authentic meaning. In this sense, the interpreter is not the master or judge of Scripture, but seeks to only bring to expression Scripture’s own witness to itself. This finds further clarity in the Lutheran principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture," i.e. Scripture authenticates itself. The standard of interpretation cannot come from outside of Scripture. "Scripture is therefore its own light. It is a grand thing when Scripture interprets itself" (Althaus 1966, 76). To Luther, the Holy Spirit is quit capable of enabling the right interpretation of Scripture, but the Spirit does not operate apart from the scriptural word. This insures no authority is erected alongside Scripture or above it whether it is the Church or our own intellect of reasoning. The authority of Scripture, then, also comes from the testimony of Scripture about itself, of which it makes abundantly clear, i.e. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
          Such was the position of Lutheranism even against the full weight of biblical criticism in the age of the Enlightenment. With the full emergence of Enlightenment and its method of scientific inquiry and criticism, its followers developed what is known as the historical-critical method of investigation. The methods of historical-critical investigation did not seek to apply a canon of criticism from within Scripture itself, but developed an autonomous scientific criticism used on all documents from antiquity. This means that the same criticism, which was applied to all other ancient writings, was now applied to the biblical writings without hesitation. In this methodology, the doctrine of divine inspiration has no heuristic validity in the investigation. In fact, its investigation of the Bible must be examined as all other literary remains from antiquity. This method, firmly seated in a hermeneutic of suspicion, requires the investigator to be unprejudiced concerning the special authority of the book. In this methodology, every claim of Scripture is suspect until proven otherwise by rational scientific inquiry.
          Unfortunately, the application of this method of investigation, approaching the Bible as merely a laboratory specimen, has led to virulent conflict with traditional modes of understanding. The resulting suspicion has led to the belief by scholars that the literal historicity of things recorded by Scripture is impossible to assume as correct. "What the biblical authors report is not accepted as a literal transcript of the factual course of events" (Braaten and Jensen 1984, 76). A real history therefore needs to be constructed behind the recorded events of the Bible, which has only spurned endless debates concerning such things as the relationship between the historical Jesus and the Christ of apostolic faith and preaching. Meanwhile, the world sits on the sidelines, watching the debates on television, growing evermore distrustful of the Bible and its gospel message.
          This has not served the mission of the Church very well and in these discussions, many fail to realize the underlying problem with a hermeneutic of suspicion, i.e. the historical-critical method. The underlying problem is that "if we used the same critical standards on other ancient literature that modernists use on the Bible, we would doubt every single fact we know today about every single writer and event before the Middle Ages" (Kreeft & Tacelli 1994, 205). In fact, under true investigation, the Bible fares quite well against historical and scientific scrutiny. If the same standards historians and textual scholars apply to ancient secular literature were applied to the Bible, the biblical accounts would be accepted as some of the most reliable of all ancient documents. Still, it is amazing how quickly destructive critics have nothing but scorn for unexplained discrepancies in the biblical accounts, i.e. the Jesus Seminar, but it is even more amazing how quickly the scorn is forgotten when archeological discovery vindicates the biblical statements time and time again. "All the merciless attacks which through the ages have been made on the Bible, and despite all of the fierce light of criticism which so long has been beating upon its open pages, not so much as one single error has been definitely proved to exist anywhere in the Bible" (Boettner 1940, 50).

          One definition of the word trust is an assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something. In this sense, then, the reliability of Scripture, rather than an argument on literal historicity, as the historical-critical method claims, needs to be affirmed before the question of authority can be finally affirmed. Therefore the case for reliability needs to be made in order to again establish authority. It is this sense of reliability that is at stake in these modern times. The Enlightenment apparatus of the historical-critical approach has driven hard into the heart of reliability, but the Scriptures still stand on their own, as their own testament. Reliability builds trust, which is what the traditional hermeneutics of Luther’s day was built upon - a hermeneutic of trust, if you will. The Reformation theologians and biblical scholars approached Scripture on the basis of trust, but this trust wasn’t just blind trust and obedience as some scholars suggest. This was a proven trust they came to rely upon as true and trustworthy enough to stake their lives upon. To them, the Scriptures were a completely reliable source for not only life and faith, and doctrines of the Church, but for the historical account they provided.
          In building a hermeneutic of trust, it would need to be shown that the Scriptures are first a reliable historical record of the events. Notice that accuracy is not the main issue because historical accounts are never completely accurate. In any multiple eyewitness accounts in a court of law, there are variations to the reports, but reliability is established if they all tell the same story without irrefutable evidence to the contrary. There will always be minor variations to the details of any story, because each person witnesses the account from their own unique perspective, but the story recounted is still true. This is true with the biblical witness as well. There isn’t one variance in the New Testament that changes one point of doctrine. In fact, variances and differences in the biblical account more readily testify to its authenticity. If they all agreed perfectly with each other, it would seem stilted and staged. It is the humanness within the witness of the New Testament that lends the authenticity. There are, of course, and as expected, many minor variations in the recorded account, but not one changes the story or the important point of who Jesus claimed himself to be and the events of his life, including the resurrection.
          To its own detriment, the historical-critical method draws too fine of a distinction between history and theology. One argument against the historical-critical method is that the New Testament does not teach history, but faith – a better argument more true to Scripture’s testimony of itself is how is the account faithful to the one who is at the center of history and faith - sovereign over history. What needs to be seen is that the historical-critic’s argument for historicity is a radical departure from how classical Judaism, and subsequently Christianity, sees itself in its classical contextual understanding of history. History is understood in the context of God acting in history. We can’t take God out of history because Judaism is hopelessly bound to history. For example, many of the Psalms recount God’s mighty acts in history. The example of Abraham’s faith is taught through his history. In fact, so many spiritual truths are taught through history that Judaism can only understand itself within the context of history. The primary precept is that God acts in history. This must be true for Christianity as well.
          Theology therefore, can not be divorced from history because the two are inseparably married through out time. "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" places God in history, time, and gives a certain theology and truth. The theology of the statement is understood in its historicity and thus comes to us as a completely reliable account. This means both history and theology are more readily understood within the context of each other, as St. Luke writes at the beginning of his gospel account,

From the outset of his account, Luke intends to provide historical information – carefully investigated – to support the theology that has been taught to Theophilis. Luke does this so Theophilus could with assurance, place his trust in the reliability of the account. Ultimately, what Luke writes is the goal and purpose of the entire account of the Bible.

          God has graciously given his word so that we can come to know him and believe with certainty what we have heard and learned, and come to believe. God called his church into existence and preserved it by his oral word. Through Moses, God chose to transmit his word in writing and bind his church to the written word of God as the thread of history moved forward to the day of Christ. Jesus again preached the oral word of God for he was the word made flesh and again bound his church to the Apostle’s word as the basis of faith for the entire New Testament era. The Apostles themselves pass on to us what they have heard and learned from Christ, and in this context, Scripture has the authority to speak to us today with the very words of God himself through the Prophets and Apostles.
          Historical Lutheranism holds to this authority because it recognizes the source of that authority. The final referee for all matters of faith and life is none other than God. Still further, it can be clearly and uniquely seen that God is manifest and knowable in Jesus Christ, to which the Scriptures bear witness. This witness to Jesus Christ and the proclamation of his gospel is its heart and soul. The writers of Scripture were not merely inspired secretaries like puppets on a string taking heavenly shorthand. In communicating matters of faith, the doctrines of salvation and God’s divine plan for mankind and creation, the Scriptures, in their communication of faith to us, do not err. They are a complete, authoritative, and trustworthy communication of faith. Thus, for the Christian, the authority of the Bible is the authority of none other than God Himself.
          But even still further, the question of authority has to be answered on the individual level, and in such, we can either approach the Scriptures from a hermeneutic of suspicion or a hermeneutic of trust. Approaching from a hermeneutic of trust is to see with the eyes of faith – seeing God working through the thread of human history. This is the trust Scripture builds and demands of anyone who approaches it for investigation. Approaching from a hermeneutic of suspicion, using the historical-critical method, however, one quickly finds that it is a book that defies rational comprehension. It is indifferent to social standing, educational level, or faculty status. It merely says to anyone, whoever you are, if you do not repent and believe the testimony laid down in this book concerning God and his Christ, you are condemned already. But the good news of the gospel is that this need not be the end. It requires the eyes of faith, without them, one can only shake their head and wonder at it. "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). So whether through the eyes of trust or through the eyes of suspicion, Scripture refuses to be understood solely as an ancient relic or laboratory specimen. It is the very word of God, and it is a living document that will have a person’s heart and soul.