Continuing our Bibliology Primer and specifically Turretin’s treatment of how a Christian comes to know the authority and divinity of Scripture we now turn to the self-attesting and self-authenticating character of Scripture. Turretin writes,

“That the Scripture makes itself known to us is proved: (1) by the nature of Scripture itself.”

Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

And how is it that Scripture makes itself known itself? Turretin gives a familiar example from his time. Again, he writes,

“For as a law does not derive its authority from the subordinate judges who interpret it or from the heralds who promulgate it, but from its author alone.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

In other words, the Scriptures make themselves known by themselves because God’s words can only be known by God’s words. There is no authority or grounding prior to or more potent than God’s words. Therefore only God’s words can prove God’s words to be God’s words.

Turretin takes this point a step or two further by identifying the Scriptures as a first principle.

“(2) By nature of the highest genera and of first principles; for those things are known by themselves and are not susceptible to proof which cannot be demonstrated by any other, otherwise the thing would go on into infinity.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

If there were a more basic, more grounding authoritative principle than God’s words, call it X, then where did that more basic, more grounding authoritative principle derive its basicality, grounding, and authority? And if such a thing did exist, call it Y, then where did Y get its properties of more basic, more grounding, and more authority? Let’s say such a thing did exist and let’s call it Z. Where did Z get said properties? As you can see the list goes on and on into infinity.

This is what is known as an infinite regression of contingent particulars. Such a thing does not and cannot exist because it is infinitely contingent and is therefore infinitely potential and potential things have not yet come into existence, and in this case, infinitely so. Thus there must be a first grounding that is most basic and most authoritative and that grounding is God’s words. Nothing is more basic, more authoritative, and more grounding than God’s words. Therefore God’s words, the Scriptures, are a first principle. Thus Turretin concludes,

“Thus Scripture, which is the first principle in the supernatural order, is known by itself and has not need of arguments derived from without to prove and make itself known to us.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

And…

“If God has stamped such marks upon all first principles that they can be known at once by all men, we cannot doubt that he has placed them upon this sacred first principle (in the highest degree necessary to our salvation).”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

Turretin’s third proof as to how Scripture is proved by itself is as follows:

“By comparison, as objects of the sense presented to faculties well disposed are immediately distinguished and known without any other external argument, on account of a secret adaptation and propensity of the faculty to the object.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

For example?

“Light is immediately most certainly known to us by its own brightness; food by its particular sweetness; an odor by its particular fragrance without any additional testimony.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

In like manner…

“the Scripture, which is set for to us in respect to the new man and spiritual sense, now under the symbol of a clear light (Ps. 119:105), then of the most sweetest food (Ps. 19:10; Is. 55:1-2; Heb. 5:14) and again of the sweetest smelling savor (Cant. 1:3), may easily be distinguished of itself by the sense of the new man as soon as it is presented to them and makes itself known by its own light, sweetness and fragrance.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec. 11.

This idea of self-attesting and self-authenticating will be developed further as we continue our way through our Primer and particularly through this sixth question. But for now, suffice it to sum up in the following way. The Scripture’s attestation to iteslf is shown in three ways: (1) God as author of God’s words is the only fit witness to God’s words because they are His words, (2) Scripture is the most basic and most authoritative grounding principle and is therefore in the genera of first principle. As such, it cannot be proven by something more more basic or more authoritative than itself, and (3) the Scripture is known in a basic sort of way. Just as we know we taste baklava at the moment we taste baklava or smell our wife’s perfume at the moment we smell her perfume, so also we known the “light, sweetness, and fragrance” of God’s words when we by faith see, taste, and smell the words of God.

We do not however know our wife’s perfume by snatching 5,700+ molecules from the air, testing them, comparing them, seeing which are older, pass it through the coherence based fragrance method coupled with the “art” of fragrance criticism and finally conclude that the fragrance we are smelling is probably either our wife’s perfume or in the air apparatus.

Beginning again with Turretin,

“But although we do not deny that the testimony of the church has its own weight (as will afterwards be seen), yet we maintain that primarily and principally the Bible is believed by us to be divine on account of itself.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1 Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 4.

Here Turretin plainly states that it the Scriptures itself which is the source of our knowing that the Scriptures are authoritative. But before you charge this eminent Reformation scholar of circular reasoning or begging the question, remember that the Scriptures are a first principle. Indeed, the first principle of theological knowledge and as such are not demonstrated or proven by some prior more basic authority. Put simply, God’s words cannot be demonstrated, substantiated, or proven by some greater authority than God’s words. In this case it is all too natural that the Scriptures authoritatively testify of themselves. That said, Turretin divides our believing the authority of Scripture on account of the testimony of Scripture into three parts. He writes,

“As a threefold cause can be granted for the manifestation of anything (an objective, efficient and instrumental or organic), so a threefold question can arise about the divinity of the Bible.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

The three questions regarding belief in the authority and divinity of Scripture are these:

“the first, concerning the argument on account of which I believe; the second, concerning the principle or efficient cause from which I am lead to believe; the third, concerning the means and instrument through which I believe.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

For the first – the argument on account of which I believe – Turretin writes,

“For the Bible with its own marks is the argument on account of which I believe.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

For the second – concerning the principle or efficient cause from which I am lead to believe – he writes,

“The Holy Spirit is the efficient cause and principle from which I am induced to believe.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

For the third – concerning the means and instrument through which I believe – he writes,

“But the church is the instrument and means through which I believe.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

Finally, Turretin summarizes these three answers in the following way,

“Hence if the question is why, or on account of what, do I believe the Bible to be divine, I will answer that I do so on account of the Scripture itself which by its marks proves itself to be such. If it is asked whence or from what I believe, I will answer from the Holy Spirit who produces that belief in me. Finally, if I am asked by what means or instrument I believe it, I will answer through the church which God uses in delivering the Scriptures to me.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

We here at StandardSacredText.com hold these answer as the paradigmatic answers for how we know the Scripture is authoritative and divine. The interrelation of the word of God, the Spirit of God, and the people God is the primary means whereby the people of God come to know Scripture, to know what is Scripture, and to know its authority and divinity. It is very much the invisible work of the Holy Spirit through His words to His people through faith. And why should this be surprising? This is the same work the Holy Spirit through the word of God does in the life of the believer in sanctification. It is the same invisible work performed by the Spirit through the word in a soul unto salvation.

“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”

John 3:8

One final observation, Turretin does not place scholarship or textual criticism within the paradigm when answering the question, How does the saint primarily come to know the authority and divinity of Scripture? Does this mean that the academy has no place in the Christian theological and apologetic enterprise? Certainly not. But what it does mean is that the academy and it fruits are not the primary means whereby the Christian comes to know the authority and divinity of this or that passage of Scripture. The Christian comes to know the authority and divinity of this or that passage by the Spirit of God speaking in the word of God to the people of God received by faith. Such a paradigm include the long ending in Mark and I John 5:7 among others.

We are now into the sixth question of Francis Turretin’s treatment of Bibliology. In a more everyday kind of way he asks, what source enables the Christian to know the divine authority of Scripture? The question may also be posed as, what source enables the Christian to know the divine authority of one book of Scripture, or one verse, or one word? Turretin, quoting Irenaeus, obesrves,

“Thus what Irenaeus says concerning the heretics of his day is appropriate to them, ‘When they are convicted from Scripture, they turn round and accuse the Scripture, as being corrupt, and having no authority.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 6, Sec. I.

Note in the example that the heretic is convicted from Scripture. Some verse or passage or series of passages is used to convince the heretic of his wayward theology to which the heretic accuses the Scripture in those places of being corrupt or having no authority. So by what source do we come to know of the divine authority of Scripture in the twenty-first century?

In Turretin’s time it was the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authorities which served as such a source. He goes on to quote several who testify to that effect. But what is that source today? What source tells the Church that these words are the true words of the New Testament and these words are not? I propose the answer in the twenty-first century is academia’s evaluation and interpretation of the manuscript evidence – a.k.a. textual criticism. Assuming this to be the case let us now commandeer Turretin’s examples but make one relevant change. Where the example reads “church” I will insert “textual criticism”. Turretin writes,

“Eck says that ‘the Scriptures are not authentic, except by authority of [textual criticism].'”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 6, Sec. I.

“Baile says that ‘without the authority of [textual criticism] we should no more believe Matthew than Titus Livy.'”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 6, Sec. I.

“Andradius says, ‘…the power and dignity of [textual criticism] are so great that no one without greatest impiety can resist it.'”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 6, Sec. I.

Have you not heard these words before? Are they not familiar? What counts as the authentic reading? Why, oldest, shortest, and best of course. The Scriptures are not authentic generally speaking except by authority of these text critical rules. How many times have you heard that the work of textual criticism must be done while excluding theological presuppositions? The NT must be treated like any other text, like Hesiod or Sophocles.

One of the staple evangelical text critical arguments is to tell you that we have an “embarrassment of riches” in the NT textual tradition when compared to other ancient Greek writings. Without the authority of textual criticism we should no more believe Matthew than Hesiod. Have you ever tried to question the power and dignity of evangelical textual criticism? The masters of the craft have explicitly stated in print that such people are intellectually dishonest, dubious, “fundamentalist,” and even cultic. In a word, these are people of greatest impiety.

In sum, these arguments are first old and then boring. What is more, these arguments are funny in a sad kind of way because the very lines used to assault Protestant belief in the Scriptures are now used by Protestants to assault Protestants on the same topic. My how the tables have turned. Or something more like,

Lastly, if you disagree with my comparison in the above quotes, point me to the modern argument defending the words of the NT that does not use textual critical structures, interpretation, and conclusions as its cornerstone. I eagerly await your reply. In short, it seems as Protestants that we have traded the magisterium of the Roman Catholic church for the musings of academia and maybe it’s time for a reformation.