HS 2290: HISTORICAL THEOLOGY

THE DOCTRINE OF THE WORD OF GOD

CANON & AUTHORITY
© Nathan Kidder, 2017

Introduction
In our last class session, we discussed the definition of historical theology in addition to many
benefits resulting from its study. We noted that there must always be a great deal of humility in
approaching theological study because our understanding will always be limited and incomplete.
This is a point worth remembering as we approach this course and study historical examples of
great theologians who taught with relentless passion, who reformed church doctrine and practice
with great zeal, who died for the faith with inspirational courage, and who sought truth and
rejected heresy with utmost concern for the purity of the Church. As we engage in the study of
historical theology, we will examine the lives of various historical figures – some of them in
significant detail. We may well come to admire these figures. But regardless of their theological
formulations and ministerial service in the Kingdom of God, we must recognize that their
knowledge of truth was also limited and incomplete. We must guard against the subtle
temptation to revere these men and women. We must resist the desire to place them on a
pedestal or to elevate them to god-like status. In other words, our focus must always remain not
on the gift, but on the Divine Giver. For the Apostle Paul says,
Men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God.
Do not go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive?1
We notice here that gifted theologians from antiquity are no more than servants of Christ. Their
giftedness is bestowed upon them by the gracious hand of God. And their powerful work is the
result of the Holy Spirit and the wisdom that comes from the Lord. Therefore, we ought not to
regard any man more highly than is reasonable. In this way, we will safeguard ourselves against
the undue glorification of human wisdom. When we recognize divine wisdom in the words of
historical theologians, we must remember that God has supplied it for the sake of his glory. Let
us then undertake this course of study with the glory of God and the magnification of his wisdom
firmly entrenched in our minds.
One more word about the structure of each set of lecture notes must be said. Each set of lecture
notes will highlight a specific doctrine (or set of doctrines) that will focus on its development in
the Early Church Period, the Medieval Period, the Reformation Period (including the post-
Reformation period), and the Modern Period. These four time periods are general in nature and
will serve as our structural outline as we examine the development of doctrine within each
period. We will attempt to isolate the essential core of Christian theology by identifying the
doctrinal continuity recognized across these time periods. And finally, we will seek to apply the
doctrine to the approval or chastening of Scripture by giving passages for further consideration.
These passages will hopefully stimulate classroom discussion while also confirming and
affirming the essential Christian doctrines developed as a result of each study.

1
1 Corinthians 4:1, 6-7 (NIV).

1
The Canon of Scripture (Early Church Period)
The first development that we must trace is the formation of the canon of Scripture. How did the
final form of the Bible that we hold in our hands come to be? What were the major perspectives
that helped shape the canon? And who are the important historical figures that held such beliefs
and engaged in dialogue over this matter? Our textbook begins in antiquity by showing that the
Jewish Scriptures – the Old Testament – were fixed in final form many centuries before the
coming of Christ. The well-known Jewish historian, Josephus (37-100 AD) affirmed that, from
the middle of the 5th Century BC, the complete history of the Jewish people had been written.2
He recognized that the closing of the Old Testament Canon at the time of the writing of Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Esther (435 BC), which means that, even though other written materials were
circulating throughout the Jewish community after that time, they were not considered as
authoritative. Thus, they were not included in the Jewish Scriptures because the time of the
inspired prophets of God had passed.3 The Old Testament and its fixed canon, as seen below,
contained twenty-four books. It was the “Bible of the early church.”4
The Hebrew Canon5
The Law The Prophets The Writings
Genesis Joshua Ruth
Exodus Judges Psalms
Leviticus Samuel Job
Numbers Kings Proverbs
Deuteronomy Jeremiah Ecclesiastes
(Pentateuch) Ezekiel Song of Songs
Isaiah Lamentations
Book of the Twelve Daniel
(Minor Prophets) Esther
Ezra-Nehemiah
Chronicles
We recognize that the canon of the Old Testament is far less debated throughout history than its
partner, the New Testament. In the coming of Christ and his death, burial, resurrection,
ascension and ultimate glorification, after which followed the Day of Pentecost and the initiation
of the last days by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit,6 a new day of biblical revelation had
dawned. The new truth of Christ and his followers had emerged alongside the Jewish Scriptures
and challenged the early church to recognize divine inspiration accordingly. Several important
developments were made:
1. The Ultimate Source of Truth is God Himself. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) decided, “I
choose to follow not men or men’s doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by
him.”7 This conclusion came in light of the philosophical atmosphere in which the

2
Josephus, Against Apion, 1.41
3
Our textbook indicates that such writings included 1 & 2 Maccabees, for example, and goes beyond the fact that
they were not canonized, saying that they could not have been canonized (Allison 2011, 38).
4
Allison 2011, 38.
5
According to the Talmud. Note that the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are not divided as in our Old
Testament, but are one book each. Note also that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are joined as one work.
6
The interpretation of Joel 2:28-32 by the Apostle Peter (Acts 2:14-39).
7
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 80.3 in Allison 2011, 39.

2
 question of truth was debated. But the apologetics of Justin Martyr and some of his
contemporaries8 declared the ultimate source of truth to be God himself, which had been
revealed in the Son of God – Jesus Christ – to the apostles, the eyewitnesses of Christ and
“the architects of the church itself.”9
2. The Revelation Entrusted to the Apostles could not be Separated from Old
Testament Revelation. The early church recognized the same Spirit of God active in the
revelation of truth in the Old Testament and the inspired writings that eventually formed
the New Testament. Polycarp (died c. 155 AD) connected the truth of Old and New
Testaments by saying, “just as [Christ] himself has commanded us, as did the apostles
who preached the gospel to us, and the prophets, who announced in advance the coming
of our Lord.”10
3. In the 2nd Century, Heretics Began to Emphasize a Conflict between the Old
Testament and New Christian Truth. One of the leading teachers of this false doctrine
was Marcion11 (85-160 AD), who denied the God of the Old Testament and rejected any
New Testament reference to God. Irenaeus (c.130-c.200 AD) and Tertullian (160-220
AD) vehemently rejected the teaching of Marcion, going so far as to call him the “author
of the breach of peace between the gospel and the law”12 while finding continuity
between the prophetic word of the Old Testament and the teaching of Christ in the New
Testament.
4. The Oral Tradition and Written Records were the Doctrinal Foundation of the
Church. For the first several centuries, the church was dependent upon the oral tradition
of apostolic teaching that was passed down to worthy successors. The tradition was
agreed upon and became standard teaching throughout all congregations of the early
church.13 Our textbook defines this oral tradition as being “public knowledge in
conformity with Scripture”14 so as to refute certain heresies that claimed a private and
secret knowledge only divulged to a few elite members of the church. As well, during
the first several centuries of the church, it was recognized that the oral tradition (or
apostolic tradition) was the source of faith and truth that had been received by the church
from the apostles who had, in turn, received it from Christ, who received it first from
God.15 So the apostolic tradition and the written records of biblical truth were considered
of equal weight and value to the early church. It was not until later, as we will come to
see, that the distinction was made and a tension developed. Irenaeus advocated the
“preaching of the apostles, the authoritative teaching of the Lord, the announcements of
the prophets, the dictated utterances of the apostles, and the administration of the law.”16

8
Most notably, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) and Origen (185-254 AD) who argued, following Justin Martyr,
that any truth found in Greek Philosophy belonged ultimately to God.
9
Allison 2011, 39.
10
Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 6.3 in Allison 2011, 39.
11
Refer to the Historical Theology Reader article entitled “Marcionism: Can Christians Dispense with the God of the
Old Testament?” for more details.
12
Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1.19 in Allison 2011, 39.
13
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1
14
Allison 2011, 40.
15
Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics.
16
Irenaeus, Against Heresies.

3
 5. The Canon of Scripture was Defined by Two Determinations. First, the early church
asked whether or not the writing was associated with an apostle of Christ (either directly,
as in John’s Gospel or Paul’s Epistles, or indirectly, as in Mark’s Gospel, which is Peter’s
account). And second, the church was concerned with antiquity, asking whether or not
the writing had been recognized as God’s wisdom communicated to His people
throughout the history of church. These two determinations became the standard for
inclusion within the New Testament canon; they were a “measuring rod” or “rule,”
serving also as the main set of criteria. Several developments led to the canon of
Scripture reflected in our modern evangelical Bibles17:
The Muratorian Canon (AD 170)
Canonical Writings Missing from this list Rejected Writings
Four Gospels Hebrews Paul to the Laodiceans
Acts of the Apostles James Paul to the Alexandrians
13 Letters of Paul 1 & 2 Peter Shepherd of Hermas
Jude 3 John (Other Gnostic Writings)
1 & 2 John
Revelation of John
Wisdom of Solomon
Revelation of Peter
The Canon of Origen (Middle 3rd Century)
Canonical Writings Disputed Writings
Four Gospels Hebrews
Acts of the Apostles 2 Peter
13 Letters of Paul 2 & 3 John
James
Jude
1 Peter
1 John
Jude (?)
Revelation of John
The Canon of Eusabius (Early 4th Century)
Accepted Books Disputed Books Spurious Works Absurd Works
Four Gospels James Acts of Paul Gospel of Peter
Acts of the Apostles 2 Peter Shepherd of Hermas Gospel of Thomas
13 Letters of Paul 2 & 3 John Didache Gospel of Matthias
1 John Jude Letter of Barnabas Acts of Andrew
1 Peter Revelation of Peter Acts of John
Revelation of John Gospel according to Acts of Others
the Hebrews

We pause to note that several books were considered questionable by the early church even
though they appear in our canon of Scripture today.

17
The following charts are found in Allison 2011, 42-48.

4
 James: determination of authorship was difficult (James the Apostle, James the brother of
Christ, some other James of the early church?), and the address to the Jewish Diaspora
was more difficult to accept among largely Gentile churches.
2 Peter: again the question of authorship was challenging despite the claim that it was
authored by the apostle (noting however, that other writings also bore that claim:
Revelation of Peter, Acts of Peter and were rightly rejected on the basis of content).
2 & 3 John: the brevity of the letters made them easy to overlook while the authorship
was also called into question. The writer calls himself “the elder” and apostolic authority
was difficult to confirm on that basis.
Jude: the book quotes from sources outside the Old Testament Canon: from The
Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch.
Hebrews: where it was included, it was believed to have been authored by the Apostle
Paul and likewise, where it was not included, it was believed to have been authored by
another.18
The Canon of Athanasius (367 AD)
Canonical Writings (continued) Non-Canonical Writings
Matthew 14 Letters of Paul (as follows) Wisdom of Solomon
Mark Romans Wisdom of Sirach
Luke 1 & 2 Corinthians Esther
John Galatians Judith
Acts of the Apostles Ephesians Tobit
(General Letters) Philippians Didache
James Colossians Shepherd of Hermas
1 & 2 Peter 1 & 2 Thessalonians
1, 2, & 3 John Hebrews
Jude 1 & 2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Revelation of John
Before moving on to the developments of the canon in the Middle Ages, we must briefly
mention the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (known as the Septuagint, or by
abbreviation as the LXX). The translators of the LXX added the writings now known as the
Apocrypha (meaning, “hidden writings”) to the standardized canon of Hebrew Scriptures. The
apostles of the 1st Century who authored New Testament works were aware of the LXX and
“used it as the source for a number of their citations of the Old Testament, [but] at no point did
they quote from the apocryphal writings.”19 So it would stand to reason that the authoritative
nature of the Apocrypha would be called into question. Saint Jerome (345-420 AD), who is most
known for his 4th Century translation of the Bible – called the Latin Vulgate (382 AD) – refused
to translate from the LXX and instead translated only from the Hebrew Old Testament. One of
his contemporaries, Saint Augustine (354-430 AD) followed the example of the New Testament
authors and quoted from the LXX and viewed it as authoritative Scripture. He believed that the

18
Clement of Alexandria believed Hebrews to be the work of Paul in the Hebrew language and the translation of
Luke into the Greek language. This accounts for the similar patterns of thought within Pauline literature and also
the stylistic differences in phraseology. See Allison 2011, 45 for more detail.
19
Allison 2011, 48.

5
same Holy Spirit who had spoken through the prophets had also inspired the translation into the
Greek language, saying, “I also… have thought that both [the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint]
should be used as authoritative, since both are one and divine.”20 Even though he rejected its
canonical authority, Jerome did, however, translate the Apocrypha and included it within the
Latin Vulgate. As a result, the Old Testament, Apocrypha, and New Testament became the
Bible of the church for more than 1,000 years.

The Canon of Scripture (Medieval Period)

Only two major developments need to be mentioned in regard to the Middle Ages.
1. The Authority of the Roman Catholic Church. During the Middle Ages, the rise of
the Roman Catholic Church was reflected in the notion that she possessed supreme
authority, even over Scripture itself. In the course, Survey of Church History, we
examined the historical factors behind this elevation of authority – including the
development of feudalism, the rise of the papacy in the Western Roman Empire
(particularly reflected in the Papacy of Pope Gregory VII), and the relationship between
the church and state. The argument for such authority stated that the church councils,
under the authority of the church, had given such authority to Scripture as it possesses.
Our textbook summarizes, “because the Catholic Church had defined the canon of
Scripture, its determination of the canon had to be embraced by all Christians.”21
2. The Movement called “Humanism.” We must understand the humanism of the Middle
Ages as being distinct from the more recent definition of humanism (in the 20th-21st
Centuries). The earlier form embraced the doctrines of the church and was itself
embraced by many leading scholars of its day. The latter form rejects the notion of
Christianity (and religion, in general) while embracing and promoting a secular form of
humanism that elevates the rational capacity of man and places him firmly at the center
of the universe. During the Middle Ages, however, the battle cry of humanism was “ad
fontes” (or, “back to the sources”).22 A return to the Hebrew and Greek translations of
the Old and New Testaments, respectively, meant a reopening of the question of
canonicity. The essential question about basing doctrine and practice on the Apocrypha
arose and many turned back to the use of canonical Scripture as the only source of both.
In keeping with Jerome’s initial desire, they read the Apocrypha for personal edification
but used only canonical Scripture as the authoritative basis for developing doctrine. Our
textbook also indicates:
A comparison of the Latin translation with the Greek New Testament revealed that the
Vulgate was a poor rendering of the original in certain places. This discovery was
particularly important for several passages, because certain church beliefs and practices
were based on the Latin version. For example, the Vulgate version of Jesus’ evangelistic
preaching (Matthew 4:17) had “do penance.” This command of the Lord was used as the
biblical foundation of the church’s sacrament of penance, a means of receiving God’s
grace after sinning by praying, giving to the poor, forgoing certain physical pleasures,
and so forth. Erasmus, a leading humanist scholar, insisted that the Greek should be
translated “repent,” a strong call to an inner change of heart rather than an external,
20
Augustine, City of God, in Allison 2011, 49.
21
Allison 2011, 50.
22
Ibid.

6
 church-imposed practice. The question arose: Should the church base its beliefs and
practices form the New Testament on the poorly translated Latin Vulgate, or should it
appeal to the original Greek text?23

The Canon of Scripture (Reformation Period)

The Reformers were also influenced by this 14th, 15th, and 16th Century humanism and responded
in various ways. Almost unanimously, they agreed that the church should base its Old
Testament canon on the Hebrew Bible without the Apocrypha. They followed that the disciples
(even Jesus himself) had used the Hebrew Bible and therefore set a pattern that ought to be
followed. They returned to the consideration of the early church, which had found errors
throughout the Apocrypha and rejected it as a result. The Reformers also rejected it. Further,
they appealed to Jerome’s argument that only canonized Scripture should be used in the
formulation of authoritative doctrine. Where the Roman Catholic Church had based its doctrines
– such as purgatory, penance, and praying for the dead – from Apocryphal writings, such
doctrines were dismissed. For example, Martin Luther said that Judith was “a fine, good, holy,
useful book, well worth reading by us Christians.”24 But he maintained the distinction between
the use of apocryphal writings for personal edification and the use of Scripture for doctrinal
formulation. Thus, in his famous 95 Theses, Luther began with the first two points:
When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life
of believers to be one of repentance.
This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is,
confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.25
Another foundational tenet of the Protestant Reformation concerned the authority of Scripture
(expressed in the phrase Sola Scriptura), which was used to denounce the elevation of the Roman
Catholic Church and to elevate Scripture above it. Our textbook rightly deduces, “The Bible
does not require the church to confer authority on it. For the issue of canonicity, this meant the
church did not establish the canon of Scripture. Indeed, John Calvin offered a biting critique of
this position,26 challenging the Roman Catholic hierarchy to demonstrate that the church was the
one that had fixed the canon of Scripture. Quoting Paul, Calvin affirmed that the church is “built
on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 2:20); thus, Scripture preceded the
church, and it cannot owe its existence to church authority. The church recognized and affirmed
the divinely inspired writings that God intended for placement in the canon, but it did not create
or determine the canon of Scripture.”27
Thus, the Reformed Movement rejected the authority of the church over Scripture and rejected
the Apocrypha in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Protestant Church recognized sixty-
six books of the Old Testament and New Testament and continues to reject the apocryphal
writings. In the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church attempted to correct the errors of the

23
Allison 2011, 51.
24
Luther, Prefaces to the Apocrypha in Allison 2011, 52.
25
Luther, The 95 Theses, 1517.
26
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.9.14.
27
Allison 2011, 52-53.

7
Protestants and placed a curse on all who rejected ecclesial authority in determining matters of
faith and practice.28

The Canon of Scripture (Modern Period)

The distinctions made between the Protestants and Roman Catholics are still evident today. But
the common ground is found in the fact that both Old and New Testaments are accepted as
canonical and are the doctrinal core of each church. Our textbook notes a few developments in
the Modern Period. First, we notice the distinction made by Friedrich Schleiermacher that
attempts to relegate the Old Testament to a status of secondary importance in regard to the New
Testament. He says, “The Old Testament Scriptures do not… share the normative dignity or the
inspiration of the New” and clearly advocates a “gradual retirement” of the Old Testament, even
considering it as a mere “appendix” to the New Testament.29
Another noteworthy development is in the area of scholarly criticism, which questioned the
integrity of the Bible in terms of theological content (as in textual criticism) and the authorship
of the Bible (as in historical criticism). For our purposes, we simply recognize the modern
period as one in which the Bible was seen as another human book. Thus, it was asserted that
human decision led to canonization and that divine guidance was absent from the process. The
work of Johann Gottfried Eichhorn contends that the collection of biblical writings was a
historical process resulting of a “merely human effort.”30 A Christian counter-argument comes
from the helpful instruction of Brevard Childs, whose “canon consciousness” led to the “focus
and justification” for the interpretive science called biblical theology.31 Our textbook highlights
the work of John Sailhamer, who followed the work of Childs in seeing three important
developments leading to the final shape of the Old Testament:32
1. Composition. The notion of authorship represents a decisive moment in the history of a
text. Composition is viewed neither in terms of a dynamic process nor a rigid status quo.
Thus, it represents a creative and decisive moment in the history of the text.
2. Canonization. This looks at the point where a book becomes part of a larger collection
and contributes to its overall shape. Not only do the books of the Hebrew Bible have
authors, but also the Hebrew Bible as a whole and as a canon is the product of
composition and authorship.
3. Consolidation. This notion means that once texts become part of a community, they take
on essential characteristics of that community.
One last development must be noted. An attempt to distinguish between the Word of God
(canonized writings) and Holy Scripture (non-canonical writings) was set forth by Johann
Salomo Semler, who said that not all holy books were contained within the Word of God.33 It
was a veiled attempt to legitimize those non-canonical writings and elevate them to the same
level of importance as the recognized canon of Scripture.

28 th
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 4 Session (1546).
29
Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, 1928 (610-611) in Allison 2011, 55.
30
Eichhorn, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1803 in Allison 2011, 55.
31
Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 1979 in Allison 2011, 56-57.
32
The following is taken from Allison 2011, 57.
33
Semler, Treatise on the Free Investigation of the Canon, in Allison 2011, 55.

8
The Essential Core of Christian Theology: Canon of Scripture
The Christian Church has historically believed that a specific set of writings – called the canon of
Scripture – composes the Old and New Testaments. This list of divinely inspired and
authoritative narratives, prophecies, gospels, letters, and other writings that make up the Word of
God developed in the early church. The canon of the Protestant church is composed of sixty-six
books, while the Catholic canon… includes the Apocrypha, as well as extra books in the Old
Testament with additional content found within certain books.34

The Authority of Scripture (Early Church Period)

Walking hand-in-hand without discussion on the canon of Scripture is the authority of Scripture.
Much of the historical debate over the inclusion of writings within the canon was the recognition
of authority. Was the voice of God heard by his people in the oral tradition and the subsequent
literature that was passed down over several generations? Thus, we open the discussion on
biblical authority by affirming the authority of the Bible because of its divine origins, just as the
early church had done. They essentially believed, “Divine Author = God / Divine Author(ity) =
God’s Word, Scripture.”35 The Bible itself declares a unique authority.36 And from the earliest
centuries following the completed New Testament, various scholars continued to write about the
authority of Scripture. Justin Martyr wrote on the foundational authority of the Bible because of
its divine source, saying that Scripture was to “be believed for its own nobility and for the
confidence due to him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God… being sent with
authority… [and] it should [not] be required to produce proof of what is said, since neither is
there any proof beyond itself, which is God.”37 Clement of Alexandria agreed saying, “The
Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority” and continued “he who
believes the Scripture and the voice of the Lord… is rightly regarded [as] faithful. Certainly we
use it as a criterion in the discovery of things… we are by the voice of the Lord trained up to the
knowledge of the truth.”38 Thus, the Bible determined what the church ought to believe.
Irenaeus said Scripture is the “ground and pillar of our faith.”39 Tertullian defined heresy – any
belief that is to be rejected by the church – as being in error because it “lacks the authority of
Scripture.”40
However, it must be noted that the heretical doctrines we encounter throughout church history
are also defended on the ground of Scriptural interpretation. From where could those defenders
of the faith derive their interpretive authority? Church tradition and authority played an integral
part in confronting heresy and determining the truth. Tradition was that which the church had
always believed and the doctrines it had always embraced. Thus, church authority, which was

34
Allison 2011, 37.
35
Allison 2011, 80.
36
See the OT prophetic formula “Thus says the Lord,” as well as the NT witness in John 10:35, Matthew 5:18, John
14:26, 16:13, 1 Thessalonians 4:1-2, and 1 Corinthians 14:36-38 as well as others.
37
Justin Martyr, Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection, in Allison 2011, 80.
38
Clement, Elucidations and Stromata, in Allison 2011, 80.
39
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1 in Allison 2011, 80.
40
Tertullian, On Fasting, in Allison 2011, 81.

9
always subjected to its roots in Scripture, was used to support orthodox doctrines in defense of
the faith. The authority of the church (in both tradition and interpretation of Scripture) was not
intended to rob the Bible of its inherent authority, but played a supportive role in confronting
heresy. Saint Augustine reduced the argument by linking the inspiration, canonicity, and the
authority of Scripture, saying, “God produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has
paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be
ignorant, and yet cannot know ourselves.”41 Our textbook summarizes by saying, “Because of
its divine authorship, inspired canonical Scripture was considered completely authoritative
by the early church. Although in fighting against heresy, the church often appealed to its
own authority and tradition, these were never regarded as supplements to or opponents of
Scripture.”42

The Authority of Scripture (Medieval Period)

The theological reflections of Thomas Aquinas show that the prevailing thought of the early
church carried over into the early part of the Middle Ages. He went one step further than the
early church by considering Scripture as superior to the writings of the early church fathers. In
terms of formulating correct theology, he said, “Theology properly uses the authority of the
canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the church
as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation
made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if
any such are there) made to other doctors.”43 Anselm added to the high view of Scripture that
existed in the early Middle Ages saying, “If I say anything that is not confirmed by a greater
authority – even if I may seem to be proving it logically – it is not to be accepted as having any
validity [and] if I say anything which is undoubtedly contradictory to Holy Scripture, it is
wrong.”44 He went on to argue that any theological assertion must have the support of Scripture
in order to be considered valid. But the emerging emphasis on philosophical study and human
reason challenged such beliefs. It was commonly thought that one needed only to consider the
existence of God in apprehending the truth of it. It was thought that man, being the center of the
universe, could decipher the mysterious codes of the created order relying only on his mental
capacities.
Toward the end of the Middle Ages, the rise of the papacy in perceived power and also corrupted
practices and theology led some to argue for the supremacy of the pope over other created
powers, even arguing that “the pope resembles God.”45 The implication of this belief was that
papal interpretation of Scripture superseded all other interpretation, thus claiming that papal
authority was the highest in the church. Some during this time said that papal interpretation was
a “decision [that] binds all.”46 The challenge was met by the Czech Reformer, John Hus, who
argued for the supremacy of Scripture over the pope saying, “A man is not bound to believe the
sayings of the saints that are far from Scripture; nor should he believe papal bulls except insofar

41
Augustine, City of God, in Allison 2011, 82.
42
Allison 2011, 82.
43
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, in Allison 2011, 82.
44
Anselm, Why God Became Man, 1.18 in Allison 2011, 83.
45
William of Amidanis, Medieval Papalism, in Allison 2011, 83.
46
John of Turrecremata, De Ecclesia, 2.107, in Allison 2011, 83.

10
as what they say is founded on Scripture.”47 But the opponents of those following Hus’
convictions argued for the equality of tradition and Scripture.48 In terms of the apostolic oral
tradition that was found outside the written Scriptures, some argued that much of what had not
been recorded was revelation nonetheless. Others added the scholars of the Catholic Church to
the lineage of apostolic succession in determining sound doctrine.49 Their argument was
founded on the notion that those receiving the apostolic writings and oral traditions – the bishops
and churches to whom the apostles addressed their correspondence – held higher authority that
was then transferred. Waldensis claimed that the “guardian of the Roman see [the Church of
Rome] rightly claims for himself the highest authority and the most fruitful faith. Thus, there
came to be an elevated status for the oral tradition passed down by the church. It was even
believed that the oral tradition was Scriptural and would have been contained within the Bible
had it been written. The Pope became the guardian of such oral tradition, which was given equal
status with that which was found in Scripture.
What began as an attempt to give oral tradition equal weight with written Scripture in
determining matters of faith and practice quickly turned the tables in favor of tradition over
Scripture. One scholar claimed, “From the church’s authority the canonical books derive their
power of authority. Through the church, the books of the Bible were accepted as authoritative.
On her [the church’s] authority, the faithful firmly believe that they [the canonical Scriptures]
infallibly contain the truth. That we must firmly believe in them can be proved only on the basis
of the church’s authority.”50 Those who rejected this conviction were to be treated as heretics.
Thus, a helpful summary of what truth the church must believe emerged:
1. Catholic truth is consistent with “what is said in Holy Scripture, or what can be inferred
therefrom through necessary reasoning;
2. With the truths that have come from the apostles by word of mouth or in the writings of
the faithful, even though they may not be found in the Sacred Scriptures and may not be
concluded with certainty from the Scriptures alone;
3. With the contents of trustful chronicles and histories;
4. With what may be manifestly concluded from truths of the first and second kind only, or
from one of them combined with a truth of the third category;
5. With the truths that God, besides the truths revealed to the apostles, has revealed or even
inspired to others, or which he would again reveal or even inspire, once that revelation or
inspiration has or would have reached, without possibility of doubt, the universal
church.51
Later Catholic scholars affirmed an innumerable collection of doctrines, many of which were
found outside biblical revelation, and believed that tradition and customs were authoritative,

47
Hus, De Ecclesia, in Allison 2011, 84. Note: a “papal bull” is an official declaration by the Pope.
48
Note here the views of Henry of Ghent, who said, “Concerning the things of faith, the church and holy Scripture
agree in everything” and “It is reasonable to believe both.” He went further to say, “For the first birth and
reception of faith, the authority of the church is more important than that of Scripture. It is therefore reasonable
for a man who approaches faith for the first time to believe first and more in the church than in Scripture and to
believe in Christ and his Scripture on account of the church.” In Commentary on the Sentences.
49
Thomas Netter Waldensis introduced the concept of “apostolic succession” which showed “the apostles… their
successors, and… men of sound doctrine and catholic doctors” as a guarantee of sound doctrine (Allison 2011, 85).
50
Guido Terreni, Questio de Magisterio Infallibili, in Allison 2011, 86.
51
William of Ockham, Dialogue against Heretics, in Allison 2011, 87.

11
requiring personal belief and adherence equal to that which Scripture demands. We can see in
this discussion some of the doctrinal issues that ignited the Protestant Reformation. From the
foundational views on the authority of Scripture and the inclusion of church tradition, we can
anticipate the next historical period and the objections that arose as a result. But even before the
more well-known period of the Reformation, there were noted exceptions within the evangelical
community. We have already noted John Hus and can include his English contemporary, John
Wycliffe, who together denied the authority of oral tradition and papal authority, placing the
Scriptures prominently and necessarily above each.

The Authority of Scripture (Reformation Period)

One of the foundational beliefs of the Protestant Reformation was based on the all-sufficiency of
the Bible’s authority. Martin Luther set forth the principle of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) in
challenging the Roman Catholic notions developed in the Medieval Period. For Luther, this
meant two things. First, it meant that the Scripture, authored by the Holy Spirit, was the final
authority in determining Christian faith and practice. It was to be regarded above all other
authorities (church tradition, papal authority). To this end, Luther said, “Our endeavor must,
therefore, not be to put aside Scripture and to direct our attention to the merely human writings
of the fathers. On the contrary, putting aside all human writings, we should spend all the more
persistent labor on Holy Scriptures alone.”52 To this he added that Scriptures must be the
bedrock of all Christian doctrine, saying, “Nothing except the divine words are to be the first
principles for Christians. All human words are conclusions drawn from them and must be
brought back to them and approved by them.”53 We notice one of the foundational tenets upon
which this course is built. Luther established the notion that all historical theology – including
the writings of the church fathers – must be approved or chastened by Scripture. In regard to
faith, Luther wrote, “In all articles, the foundation of our faith must be God’s Word alone, and
without God’s Word, there can be no article of faith.”54
Second, since the Scripture alone was to be the final authority, Luther argued that anything not
expressly taught in the Bible was not to be binding for the believer. On this point, we pause to
note that reformers such as Ulrich Zwingli took a slightly divergent path. He said that anything
not forbidden by Scripture was allowed in the Christian’s life. His view highlighted the freedom
of the believer, while Luther’s view was likely influenced by his childhood and his latter days as
a monk, expressing the need to closely adhere to biblical structure. Luther said of tradition that
“we are under no obligation to accept anything not asserted in it” and applied this concept to the
corrupted doctrines of the Catholic Church:55
Since, then, God wants no one to feel obligated to hold to anything not offered by Scripture, we
should likewise reject all non-Scriptural doctrine. This injunction can be used against the
sacrilege of the pope and the papists who… shamelessly declare that we must accept more than
the Scripture contains… beware of this, and be certain that all you need to accept is in Scripture.
But concerning anything not found in Scripture, you should say… ‘When did God ever make that
statement?’

52
Luther, What Luther Says (WLS), 1.87 in Allison 2011, 88.
53
Ibid.
54
Ibid. 1.405.
55
Ibid. 1.85.

12
He was convinced that the Pope and the Church below his authority were in grave danger,
calling the misguided practices a “search for auxiliary light besides such lucid and clear passages
of Scripture” and further, as a “great punishment brought upon us by the wrath of God.” The
only hope for the Christian was to “flee for refuge to the solid rock of divine Scripture and… not
to believe anything, no matter what it may be, that speaks, ordains, or does anything without this
authority.”56 In following their founder, the Lutheran church has traditionally subjugated all
human writings beneath the ultimate authority of the Bible. But they did not, however, reject the
wisdom of the previous centuries and instead asserted that “other writings, whether of the fathers
or of the moderns… are in no way to be equaled to the Holy Scriptures, but are all to be
esteemed inferior to them.”57 They clarified their stance on the confessions and creeds, saying,
“We publicly profess that we embrace them, and reject all heresies and all dogmas that have ever
been brought into the church of God contrary to their decision.”58 Our textbook notes that this is
similar in essence to the beliefs of the early church, placing the authority of Scripture on a level
that it alone possessed, but also “embracing a harmonious relationship between authoritative
Scripture and the historic creeds of the church.”59
John Calvin followed those before him in proclaiming the supreme authority of Scripture based
on the divine Author. In God, he believed, we find the source of the biblical authority and thus,
“we ought to seek our conviction in a higher place than human reason, judgments, or conjectures
– that is – in the secret testimony of the Spirit [which is] more excellent than all reason. For God
alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s
hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who
has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that
hey faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded.”60 In other words, we need to be
transformed by the Holy Spirit in order to understand – but more than that, to even accept the
authority of – the Scriptures. Thus, he denounced the notion that mere human reason could
ascertain the mystery of biblical truth without the illumination of the Spirit. Calvin continued,
“Illumined by his [the Spirit’s] power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s
judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty…
that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men.”61
In regard to the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church, Calvin wrote against the elevation of
tradition and its perceived authority over Scriptures, saying, “A most pernicious error widely
prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church.
As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men!”62 He argued
for the self-authenticating nature of Scripture, established as the foundation of the church before
the existence of the church. Thus, he reasoned logically that the church was to submit to the
truth of God’s Word rather than place herself in authority over it. Calvin disagreed with the
infallibility of the church under papal leadership, the authority of the councils, and the claims of
the church to confer authority on the Scriptures.

56
Ibid. 1.85-86 in Allison 2011, 88.
57
Formula of Concord, Epitome 1, in Allison 2011, 89.
58
Ibid.
59
Allison 2011, 89.
60
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.7.4
61
Ibid.
62
Ibid., 1.7.1

13
During this time, the Catholic Church was involved in a counter-reformation in attempt to defend
various beliefs and practices while explaining the doctrines of the church in light of the
challenges issued by the reformers. Among the more recognized defenders of the Catholic
Church was John Eck, who is famous for his debates against Martin Luther in 1518-1519. He
stated that the authority to interpret Scriptures lies within the church. For the layman to attempt
interpretation without proper knowledge of tradition would lead the church into chaos. And, to a
certain extent, he was right. The Anabaptist Movement shows the dangers of an overly
individualized interpretation of Scripture and personal journey with God. Some of this same
chaos is recognized in the Ethiopian context as well, with various self-proclaimed “apostles” and
“prophets” declaring a false gospel that is contrary to the Word of God even though it is believed
to be based on the Word of God. Eck believed that “true understanding of Scripture” is found in
the church, which both precedes and is “superior to Scripture”; indeed, “Scripture is not
authentic without the authority of the Church, since canonical writers are her members.”63
Others claimed that no truth would have been received if not for the church, for it was the Spirit
working in and through the church that led to the writing and formulation of canonical
Scriptures. Eck continued, “For although the Word of God is beyond judgment, the grace of the
Holy Spirit has given the Church the power to discern which books have the Word of God and
which do not.”64 His contemporaries claimed that the Holy Spirit was not to be limited to the
written word of the Scriptures, but could work freely within tradition, the church, and papal
authority to establish his commands and doctrines.
{Note: what do you think about this statement? How would evangelicals respond to such a
challenge, that the Spirit’s freedom assures his movement beyond the text of Scripture in the lives
of believers?}
The official Roman Catholic position was cemented in the work of the Council of Trent, which
in terms of Scriptural authority announced that “saving truth and moral discipline [instruction]
are contained in the written books and the unwritten traditions which, received by the apostles
from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles themselves as the Holy Spirit dictated,
have come down even to us.”65 The textbook summarizes, “Thus, according to the Roman
Catholic Church, authoritative divine revelation comes from both Scripture and tradition, and
only the church’s interpretation of Scripture is to be considered authoritative. Protestant and
Roman Catholic sentiments on the authority of Scripture could not be farther apart.”66

The Authority of Scripture (Modern Period)

The Roman Catholic position on the authority of the church expounded during the Catholic
Reformation was advanced in the first Vatican Council in the late 19th Century. The council
affirmed the doctrine of papal infallibility. It said,
It is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is,
when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme
apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal
church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility

63
Eck, Enchiridion Locorum Communium, 1525, in Allison 2011, 91.
64
Ibid.
65 th
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 4 Session (08 April 1546) in Allison 2011, 92.
66
Allison 2011, 92.

14
 with which the divine Redeemer will that his church should be endowed for defining doctrine
regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are
irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the church.67
This declaration was meant to solidify the conclusions of the Council of Trent concerning the
divine nature of church tradition and to ensure that such tradition endured. Since the Pope of
each generation would speak with divine authority, the traditions of the church would continue –
such as the immaculate conception of Mary (1854) and the bodily assumption of Mary (1950) –
and would demand belief on the part of all Catholics worldwide. Evangelical scholars, such as
Charles Hodge and others, argued against the two-fold source of divine revelation. The basis for
such arguments was found in statements like “Man and his authority take the place of God” and
“our faith [rests not] on the testimony of God as recorded in his Word, [but] on what poor,
fallible, prejudiced men tell us is the meaning of that Word.”68 Others noted that preference was
given to one of the divine sources of revelation or the other, noting that the Catholic Church
preferred tradition, thus causing it to be the final authority.69
In the next lecture, we will see the historical connection between the authority of the Bible and
the various beliefs on the inspiration of the Scriptures. Indeed, the two doctrines have been
closely linked throughout history. But in the Modern Period – a time defined by challenging the
nature of biblical inspiration – no such link exists. The necessary link between inspiration and
authority shows that both views are essential for each distinct doctrine to endure. For example,
one cannot convincingly argue for the authority of Scripture if he concedes that it is not divinely
inspired. Nor can he reasonably argue for the inspiration of Scripture if he thinks it to be less
than perfectly authoritative. Examples from the Modern Period of such a conundrum include
Schleiermacher, who believed that inspiration and authority were unnecessary doctrines “in order
to attain faith” for “the authority of Holy Scripture cannot be the foundation of faith in Christ”
and continuing to say that faith must be established before any “authority can be granted to Holy
Scripture.”70
{Note: what is the logical outcome of this perspective? Can we not see the connection to the
humanism of modernity here that elevates the human experience above divine revelation? It is
the reversal of the historical order of Scriptural authority before personal faith.}
Our textbook notes that the “trajectory was set for the future disregard for biblical authority, with
subjective experience enthroned as supremely authoritative.”71 An attempt has been made to
replace the authority of Scripture with the authority of Jesus Christ, a position that essentially
states that faith in Christ does not arise from the Bible; rather, belief in the Scriptures comes
about because in them we are introduced to Christ. Our textbook calls this an “instrumentalist
approach” to biblical authority and cites Emil Brunner and Karl Barth as its leading
proponents.72 This approach denies the foundational beliefs of Protestantism by setting forth a
“completely new conception of the authority of Scripture” and saying, “We are not required to
believe the Scriptures because they are the Scriptures; but because Christ, whom I am convinced
67 th
Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council Concerning the Catholic Faith and the Church of Christ, 4 Session (18
July 1870) in Allison 2011, 93.
68
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:128 in Allison 2011, 93.
69
See here John Warwick Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology, 281.
70
Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, 593 in Allison 2011, 94.
71
Allison 2011, 94.
72
See footnote 106 in Allison 2011, 95.

15
in my conscience is the Truth, meets me in the Scriptures – therefore, I believe. Scripture… is
an instrumental authority, in so far as it contains that element before which I must bow in the
truth, which also itself awakens in me the certainty of truth.”73 Karl Barth introduces the same
instrumental approach in referring to Scripture “as a witness to divine revelation” and concludes
that “a witness is not absolutely identical with that to which it witnesses [and] is not itself
revelation, but only – and this is the limitation – the witness to it.”74 This subtle distinction
denies that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God and instead affirms that it becomes the
Word of God as the Father, Son, and Spirit use it to promote their divine purposes. Thus,
authority rests not in the divine origin of the Bible, but in the modern function of the Bible. The
Bible is only a witness to the authority of God.
Our textbook summarizes by quoting Paul Achtemeier:
If the Bible does not have its origins in some unique way in the will of God, if it is a book like
any other book, then no more authority can be claimed for it than for any other book. The nature
and locus of inspiration, in short, will determine the authority that we may claim for Scripture.
Whatever authority Scripture will have, therefore, will depend on its relationship to God. Some
have sought to define that relationship in terms of the use God makes of its message. The Bible’s
authority will then lie not so much in the accuracy of its historical reporting or on its ability to
anticipate discoveries of modern sciences. Rather, its authority will lie in the way in which it
brings to bean in the contemporary world the significance of events and people about which it
speaks. It will be authoritative as an instrument in accomplishing God’s plan of salvation,
bearing witness to God’s will and to the way he has accomplished his purposes in the past.”75
But the historic understanding of the authority of Scripture would still be defended, even as the
relativism of the modern era spread. We are indebted to three particular scholars. The first is J.I.
Packer, who called Barth and Brunner “subjectivists in the matter of authority,” states in defense
of the evangelical doctrine:
Their position is based on an acceptance of the presuppositions and conclusions of critical biblical
study [namely, the historical-critical approach to biblical interpretation], which are radically at
variance with the Bible’s own claims for itself. On this basis, they think it necessary to say –
indeed, to insist – that some scriptural assertions are erroneous. They say we must use our
Christian wits to discern beneath the fallible words of fallible men the eternal truth of God. But
this makes it impossible to regard Scripture as authoritative without qualification; what is now
authoritative is not Scripture as it now stands, but Scripture as pruned by a certain type of
scholarship – in other words, human opinions about Scripture.76
Another scholar whose defense of Scriptural authority demands attention is Abraham Kuyper,
who argued that the belief in Jesus as Lord requires Christians to accept Jesus’ own view of
Scripture. He writes,
When the Christ, whose Spirit witnessed beforehand in the prophets, attributes such authority to
the Scripture of the Old Covenant, and by his apostles indicates the ground for that authority in
the [inspiration], there is no power that can prevent the recognition of that authority by him who

73
Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God: Dogmatics, 1934 in Allison 2011, 95.
74
Barth, CD, I/2, 457 in Allison 2011, 95.
75
Allison 2011, 95.
76
Packer 1958, 72.

16
 believes in Jesus. No to recognize it would avenge itself in the representation that in the very
holiest things Christ has wholly mistaken himself. This would imply the loss of his Savior.77
But some among modern scholars – indeed, those either on the fringes of evangelical society or
completely outside – believe that Jesus was, in fact, mistaken about his identity. An example of
this is Bart Ehrman, who says that the Spirit of God went into Jesus at his baptism and departed
from Jesus at the crucifixion. The question of Jesus from the cross, “My God, My God, why
have you forsaken me?” is rendered by Ehrman, “My God, My God, why have you left me
behind (Mark 15:34)?” He then argues in defense of Gnostic Christology that the “Christ” left
the man Jesus as he died on the cross alone. It was there that he was separated, according to the
rejected Gospel of Philip. Thus, for Ehrman and others, Jesus was confused and ultimately
mistaken about his divinity. It was only the temporary gift of the Spirit that made him the
Christ.78 Against this point of view and in reference to Scripture (John 5:24; 12:49; 14:10),
Carnell argues, “Since Christ was so intimately united with the Father, we cannot impugn the
judgment of Christ without impugning the judgment of the Father. Jesus and the Father were
one in teaching as well as essence.”79 Thus, if Jesus Christ were mistaken about his identity and
his view of Scripture, then it would necessarily follow that God the Father was also mistaken.
Very few, if any, throughout church history would dare make such a claim; and certainly none
within the framework of evangelicalism have done so.
The third and final scholar whose work calls for our careful attention is Martin Lloyd-Jones, who
calls for belief in the authority of the Scriptures based upon the authority of the Holy Spirit. He
writes, “The Bible suggests, therefore, that the Holy Spirit normally speaks to us through the
Word. He takes his own Word, he illumines it, and takes our minds and enlightens them, and we
are thus made receptive to the Word. It is not right, therefore, to speak of the Spirit or the Word,
but rather of the Spirit and the Word, and especially the Spirit through the Word.”80 This serves
the modern Ethiopian context well and is a word to clarify much confusion within charismatic
communities of believers. The communication of the Spirit is to be understood in light of the
revelation found within Scripture. Many dangers arise from the belief that the Spirit enlightens
some with a special new revelation. We will come to see in the Anabaptist movement these
dangers played out on the stage of history. Their eschatological interpretation of historical
events led many to their death and many others to a false understanding of biblical prophecy.
The same perils are witnessed today, as churches full of individuals are led astray into false
gospels of “health, wealth, and prosperity” that are based largely on an over-realized eschatology
and mystical interaction between the Spirit and the individual that ranges beyond the bounds of
Scriptural revelation.

The Essential Core of Christian Theology: Authority of Scripture

Our textbook refines the preceding historical developments of theology in terms of the authority
of Scripture by offering a statement of belief. Allison writes, “The church has historically
acknowledged that all the words in Scripture are God’s words in such a way that to believe and
obey the Bible is to believe and obey God himself. For its first millennium and more, the church
affirmed and practiced the supreme authority of Scripture. Even church tradition and its own
77
Kuyper 1954, 551.
78
See Ehrman 2003, 224.
79
Edward J. Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Faith, 1959 in Allison 2011, 97.
80
Lloyd-Jones, Authority, 1958 in Allison 2011, 97.

17
authority played a ministerial role, being a servant to Scripture itself to weed out heresies and to
maintain the unity of the church. But a change took place in the latter part of the Middle Ages.
As the Roman Catholic Church permitted other sources to lay claim to the title of authoritative
truth, a multiple-source notion arose, consisting of written Scripture, church tradition, and the
teaching office of the church. Against this trend, the Protestant motto sola Scriptura was
sounded. More than a motto, however, this formal principle of Protestantism became a decisive
point of division between Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church. Although this
division persists today, a new attack against the very concept of biblical authority itself
developed in the modern period. The idea of authority as an inherent property or attribute of
Scripture itself was challenged, and in its place, critics championed and instrumental or
functional notion of authority: Scripture is authoritative because of the way it functions. Because
the Word of God reveals God and his acts, because Scripture places demands on its readers,
because the Bible bears witness to revelation and becomes the Word of God – for this reason it is
authoritative. Evangelicals, for the most part, still cling to the traditional doctrine of the
authority of Scripture, but some have parted company and moved to an instrumental concept of
biblical authority (Allison 2011, 79).

Bibliography

Allison, Gregg R. Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan, 2011.

Cameron, Euan. Interpreting Christian History: the Challenge of the Churches’ Past. Malden,
MA: Blackwell, 2005.

Ehrman, Bart. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Kantzer, Kenneth S. “Systematic Biblical Dogmatics.” In Doing Theology in Today’s World,

eds. John D. Woodbridge & Thomas E. McComiskey. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1991.

Kuyper, Abraham. Principles of Sacred Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954.

McGrath, Alister E. “The Importance of Tradition for Modern Evangelicalism.” In Doing

Theology in Today’s World, eds. John D. Woodbridge & Thomas E. McComiskey.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991.

Montgomery, John Warwick. The Suicide of Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Bethany, 1970.

Muller, Richard. “The Role of Church History in the Study of Systematic Theology.” In Doing
Theology in Today’s World, eds. John D. Woodbridge & Thomas E. McComiskey.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 1991.

Packer, J.I. “The Comfort of Conservativism.” In Power Religion. ed. Michael Horton. Chicago,
IL: Moody Press, 1992.

Packer, J.I. Fundamentalism and the Word of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1958.

18