The faith will totter if the authority of the Holy Scripture loses its hold on men. We must surrender ourselves to the authority of Holy Scripture, for it can neither mislead nor be misled.
-St. Augustine
Introduction
As American culture continues down a path of increasing secularization, attacks on the authority of the Bible will increase.[1] These attacks stem from the development of biblical criticism over the last 200 years and caused the bifurcation of the Word of God and the Bible, removing any ultimate authority from Scripture. Additionally, they have denigrated theology derived from the Bible as it could no longer be seen as the sole governor of doctrine. In response to these attacks, this paper will assess two theologies of revelation and their responses to biblical criticism. First, each theory will be explicated and critiqued for its philosophical and biblical soundness. Second, each model will be exposed to one of the primary attacks of biblical criticism to determine if it can reinstate Scripture as a viable ground for doctrinal statements. This paper will demonstrate that Carl Henry’s prophetic-apostolic commission theory of Scriptural authority is superior to Wolfhart Pannenberg’s theory of historical authority as the basis for grounding authority in Scripture.
Pannenberg’s theory of authority starts with the premise that all authority is rooted in “the historical revelation of God.”[2] However, individual pieces of historical revelation do not operate on their own. Rather, Pannenberg asserts that revelation’s “original locus [of authority] is to be sought in the mythicity of religious awareness.”[3] Thus, his presupposition is that the entire history of the universe, from creation to eschaton, is the historical-universal revelation of God. All of the combined experiences of mankind from the creation of the world, to the worldwide flood and the calling of Abraham and so on were events through which God communicated His relationship with mankind and His plan of salvation.[4] In Pannenberg’s view these initial events formed the basic idea of God that became modified as new events occurred.
Pannenberg’s historical-universal bedrock, like all revelation under his paradigm, does not obtain veridicality as an inherent property. He holds that all event revelations, including the bedrock, are promissory in nature. In order for revelation to become true, the revelation event must be confirmed by “the future self-demonstration of the truth of God.”[5] Thus, revelation history is a tightly connected web of events that act as promises and fulfillments. Pannenberg’s theory follows the coherence theory of truth in which the entire web of events becomes justification for each individual event. At other points in his works, Pannenberg also holds that the entire web of human experience serves as justification for revelation events.[6]
Pannenberg’s theory dramatically re-centers the content of revelation around the God’s relationship with mankind and in revealing God’s plan for the universe rather than direct revelation about Himself. By placing authority in historical events and the historical bedrock, Pannenberg is forced to affirm that “the prophetic word of God relates only indirectly to God himself.”[7] For example, Pannenberg sees an event like God parting the Jordan River as revealing God’s divine providence in saving and securing a people for Himself. Indirectly, God’s dominance over the river reveals “knowledge of His power and deity.”[8] Thus, historical revelatory events cannot serve as authoritative sources of doctrinal content. They must all be interpreted first.
Relating Israel’s history to revelation
Pannenberg’s theory immediately raises the question of whether or not he has introduced subjectivity into the core of authority by seating it within the totality of human experience. He anticipates this criticism and addresses it by asserting the existence of the “changeless mythical primal reality which is reflected in the circular course of earthly history.” He argues that this background revelation, common to all peoples, serves to justify God’s existence even though little can be said about Him. Thus, in order to stem the tide of subjectivism, Pannenberg is forced to assert the following presupposition and methodology: Theology can only be conducted properly by taking into account God’s interaction with humanity in real history which is “moving toward a future still hidden from the world but already revealed in Jesus Christ.”[9] This method a priori invalidates all religions without concrete historical claims and all religions that do not follow in the Judeo-Christian historical narrative. Pannenberg affirms that God’s primary focus in history has been the selection and care for Israel with the ultimate purpose of bringing about the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus which leads to an eschatological future.[10]
Under this view, God uses revelation and history to demonstrate that He is a “living God” bringing about a promised future.[11] Rather than the typical Christological focus, Pannenberg sees Scripture and revelatory historical events in light of the full plan of God. Thus, he has an explicitly eschatological focus in his interpretation of those events. This theological bent is necessary to maintain consistency in his theory since if he takes Christ to be the focus, historical events become either forward-looking to Christ or retrograde proclamations of the Christ event. Accordingly, Pannenberg sees the Christ event in light of Israel and the promise of a future kingdom of God. Thus, the disclosure of God Himself is not the primary focus of the incarnation; rather, it serves as a combination of promise and fulfillment related to the eschaton.[12]
Biblical defense of the authority of events
Pannenberg defends the two major points of his theory by utilizing his interpretation of the Old Testament teachings on revelation and reinterpreting verses that lend themselves to divine disclosure. First, he examines the messages of the prophets. Second, he reinterprets the meaning of God’s self-declared name: “I Am Who I Am.”[13]
The prophets in the Bible. Pannenberg argues that the primary subject of prophetic content is “God’s future action regarding his people, individuals, or the nations.”[14] In every case, he argues that the knowledge of the God who is speaking is actually coming from another source: the universal historical background.[15] As examples, he cites how the calling of the prophets often involved some form of either standing “in the counsel of God” or even at the very “throne of Yahweh himself.”[16] These interactions set the prophets up as messengers of divine judgment, not as people who expound on the nature of God. Similarly, Pannenberg argues that the experiences of theophanies to the patriarchs also revolve around God’s interactions with mankind and only indirectly reveale things about Himself. In all of these cases, Pannenberg argues that God is already known by the visionary before the initial interaction, thus revelation about Himself is not necessary.
Defining “I AM” in terms of future events. In order to preserve his theory that the primary content of revelation is not the self-disclosure of God, Pannenberg redirects the purpose of Exodus 3:14 away from self-identity and toward future action. He argues that the divine name “I will be who I will be” marks God’s resistance to allowing his true name to be fully known.[17] Instead, Pannenberg posits that this revelation actually refers to the fact that God “will show himself in his historical acts.”[18] Thus, this revelation confirms the idea that God is continually acting in history through promise and fulfillment. Rather than saying anything ontological, Pannenberg asserts that Exodus 3:14 affirms his views on historical revelation. He cites R. Bartelmus’ “linguistic analysis” as the basis for his interpretation.
Pannenberg defines revelation as events in history, thus Scripture can only ever be a witness to historical revelation. The sum of human experience becomes the ultimate standard by which theological statements are judged. Under this view, the Bible is not nor cannot be authoritative and is only useful for crafting theology in so far as it is part of the entire historical-universal web. As Pannenberg asserts, “the biblical witnesses and the events attested by them [cannot be used] in isolation by themselves.”[19]
Rather than using the Bible to construct absolute theological statements, Pannenberg argues that revelation history is constantly correcting the Judeo-Christian “representation of God.”[20] Thus later witnesses in Scripture are refining and correcting earlier witnesses. This process continues into the church age, as God continues to reveal Himself in history. Pannenberg neither holds to nor needs an infallible, inerrant source of written testimony about God, because historical revelation is pure action and is not bogged down by propositional content. In this way, Pannenberg argues for a construction of theology proper that is “from below” and always in the process of being reformed.[21] For Pannenberg, Scripture is more of a guide to the history of God’s interactions with mankind than an authoritative source of truth about God.
Inability to overcome subjectivity
Though Pannenberg argues that “the exclusive claim of the God of Israel to be the only true God” is realized in the reality of God’s intervention in Israel’s history, he fails to ground his understanding of Israel’s history as authoritative in any meaningful way. His presupposition that God interacts with real history and that Jesus Christ is Himself a revelation of God raises several immediate questions. First, if historical critical analysis is necessary for understanding the original view of God that all other revelation will amend, how does one justify the historical method complete with its rationalistic and empirical underpinnings? Are human faculties automatically given infallible interpretive capabilities? For Pannenberg, the answer is that “the final demonstration of the truth of God occurs at the end of history – at the eschaton.”[22]
Second, Pannenberg seems to assert that this history is self-evident or easily attainable as long as one holds that Israel’s history is of preeminent importance, but is that claim justifiable? There are many liberal scholars that avidly deny the historicity of the Patriarchs, Moses, the Exodus, and even all Israelite history until the time of Josiah.[23] Even using the best biblical archaeology has to offer will not garner the support Pannenberg needs to justify his presupposition. Thus, he would have to either demonstrate that all the world religions and early people groups promoted a consistent view of God or that the Bible is a reliable and authoritative source on the history of Early Israel. However, Pannenberg would never make either of these moves as his presupposition allows him to ignore the first and his regard for biblical criticism causes him to deny the possibility of the second.
Third, because historical revelation is non-verbal, it requires verbal interpretation to be intelligible. This introduces a necessary level of subjectivism into the understanding of every historical event. Having rejected verbal revelation, Pannenberg opens his entire theological project up to near infinite speculation regarding what exactly is being “communicated” through historical events. This is the point at which his method breaks down. Throughout Systematic Theology and Basic Questions in Theology, Pannenberg constantly refers to the Bible in a near authoritative way. Though his interpretations are often different than traditional ones, he believes that they are not only right, but that they convey propositional truth which he then uses to justify his points. Thus, he does not truly rely on the historical revelation; rather he uses historical-critical research to color the Biblical texts which he holds pragmatically as primary.
Inadequate defense of revelation events against scriptural revelation
Though Pannenberg is correct in his assertion that one of the major purposes of the prophetic message was to deliver the judgment of God over individuals and nations, his theory tends to guide his hermeneutics. For example, Pannenberg argues that God did not want to reveal His name because in ancient thinking, if a person knew the name of a god it gave that person power over the god.[24] However, Pannenberg does not consider that by revealing His name(s) to mankind, God is actually asking mankind to “call” on his name regularly and for every need.[25] Unlike the heathens who fashioned their own gods to fit their own needs, YHWH revealed His name so that people could know exactly what He was providing for them and what He promised to accomplish on their behalf if they called on His name. These were not simply promises of historical acts; by tying the promise to His name, God was rooting His promises in His attributes.[26] Thus, far from being indirect references to His nature, the revelations of His name tie His promises to His nature directly.
Faulty hermeneutical analysis of Exodus 3:14
In order to maintain that revelation comes through historical events rather than through spoken words, Pannenberg has to deal with passages of Scripture where God seemingly reveals something about Himself through an elaboration or revelation of His name. He does this by striking out against Exodus 3:14, arguing that “I will be who I will be” refers not to His nature and character, but to the idea that God will continually be revealing His plan to Israel through His ongoing interaction in their history. Contrary to Pannenberg’s assertion, God’s declaration of His name as YHWH and “I Am Who I Am” is not merely a reference to His future action. It is a “re-revelation of his actual proper name.”[27] The issue of YHWH being used prior to the Exodus account is rooted in the fact there is a substantial disjunction between worship by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the worshippers of YHWH during the time of the Exodus. This lapse in proper worship necessitated a re-presentation of the proper understanding of the divine name YHWH.[28] The grammar and surrounding context of this verse all point God’s name being “understood as referring to Yahweh’s being the creator and sustainer of all that exists and thus the Lord of both creation and history, all that is and all that is happening—a God active and present in historical affairs.”[29] Thus, Pannenberg only captures half of the purpose of this revelation and provides no reason for ignoring the ontological aspect of name revelation.
In conclusion, Pannenberg’s historical revelation does not serve as an adequate ground for the development of doctrine from Scripture. His theology denies a verbal understanding of revelation, does not adequately account for the Biblical data about revelation, nor does it provide and object ground for revelation in general. Though Pannenberg is to be commended for attempting to generate a new theory of revelation in the midst of the biblical criticism movement, it only captures part of the story. Next, this paper will examine Carl Henry’s view to see if it presents a stronger case for objective biblical authority.
Carl Henry starts his discussion on the authority of the Bible by refusing to engage in the conversation from an anthropocentric framework that relies on reliability, historical investigation, and rational inquiry. Instead he points out that it is extremely difficult if not impossible “to justify any human authority.”[30] Reflection on Scripture leads him to view authority in terms of the creator-creation distinction.[31] The Creator is the only being that possesses authority in Himself. At the outset of his theory, Henry leaves no room for the development of an understanding of primary authority within human faculties. At all points, God remains the seat of authority.
To define authority, he pulls on the New Testament usage of the word for authority, exousia, to demonstrate that authority includes both the right to do something as well as the power to accomplish the act. This understanding is exemplified by 1 Chronicles 29:12 which states “You are the ruler of everything… Power and might are in Your hand, and it is in Your hand to make great and to give strength to all.”[32] Henry then defines exousia within the context of revelation as the “authority and power that the living God alone can wield underivedly and unrestrictedly.”[33] This then is the authority that the Father grants to Jesus Christ and that Christ then grants provisionally to his disciples. Henry also examines the ways in which Jesus wields this authority, including acts of speech, teaching capacity, spiritual power, and miraculous deeds.[34] Thus divine exousia encompasses both historical events such as exorcisms as well as authoritative verbal teachings.
Henry argues that God the Father is the ultimate sending agent in existence, who, in terms of the Trinity, has sent Jesus Christ as the foremost “Apostle of God.”[35] This means that Jesus has the full expression of divine exousia in power, deed, and word, with the caveat that “the Son is not able to do anything on His own, but only what He sees the Father doing.”[36] Due to the Son’s ontological existence as God and the Son’s Trinitarian relationship to the Father, the authority given to the Son is the primary authority of God, not a derivative form. When Christ gives authority to humanity, it must remain derivative as humans are not God, nor are they ontologically linked with the Trinity.
The authority that is granted to humanity is in the context of the prophet-apostle.[37] Henry defines prophets as those who announce divine promises and apostles as those who announce divine fulfillments.[38] The Biblical understanding of apostle includes the selection and authorization of a specific individual person for the purpose of delivering an absolute, divine message.[39] Additionally, as part of exousia, the apostles were also the recipients of divine power and saw themselves as “bondslaves” whose “entire being” was committed to “the Lord’s claim and commission.”[40] Thus, apostles were not only communicating God’s message, they were communicating through God’s power.
Apostles had to be commissioned by the Word of God itself. In the Old Testament, this was accomplished by “the Word of the Lord” coming to a person directly.[41] However, New Testament apostles received their commission from Jesus Christ as the Word of God incarnate. This commission was given to the apostles personally through Jesus in His resurrected state; to be an apostle one had to be an eyewitness to the resurrection.[42] Thus, the initial apostles are the only people after the resurrection who have walked with the apostolic level of divine exousia.
The exousia granted to the apostles allowed them to speak the very Word of God as recipients of divine revelation.[43] This included both proclamation of the Good News as well as providing the church with God’s divine mission.[44] The absoluteness with which the apostles spoke is seen in their ability to declare their message as transcendentally authoritative while at the same time authoritatively denouncing any and all contrary messages. One clear example of this is in 1 John 2:22 which states that anyone who “denies that Jesus is the Messiah” is “the liar.”[45]
Henry notes that the apostles grounded their ability to know something with absolute certainty on the “basis of God’s authoritatively revealed Word.”[46] This occurred in 1 John 2:3 which states, “this is how we are sure that we have come to know Him: by keeping His commands.”[47] This verse delineates both the path to knowledge and the limits of humanity with regard to Cartesian certainty. One can only know with certainty based on whether the content is the Word of God. Additionally, knowledge of God Himself comes from obedience to His Word. Henry also points out that the commands of Jesus, and therefore God’s Word, have been entrusted to the apostles to teach authoritatively.
Knowing that the apostles have been divinely commissioned and that they themselves understood their message to be absolute and of divine origin, the question of where the written books of Scripture fit into this model can be addressed. Henry argues that the authority that guided the apostles’ oral proclamation is the same authority that ruled over their written works.[48] For example, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 states that believers were to “stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, either by our message or by our letter.” This indicated that apostolic teaching was authoritative and the Word of God no matter whether it was spoken orally or written.[49] Additionally, the apostles and the early church already had an understanding of the Old Testament writings as Scripture which were often cited as being “the direct utterance of God.”[50] Thus, the attribution of the Old Testament doctrine of Scripture to the New Testament is validated through verses like 2: Peter 3:16 which state that both documents are indeed Scripture.
Henry ends his discussion on the authority of Scripture by pointing out the necessity of preserving the apostolic tradition in written form. He argues that while individuals can be commissioned to speak the Word of God authoritatively, this commission does not pass on generationally. Rather, the message of the apostle must be written down for posterity so that there might be a definitive authority that would hold sway over the church despite the fallenness of humanity.[51] Thus, in the same way that the Old Testament Prophets referenced the Torah and the New Testament Apostles referenced the Old Testament, so can members of the Christian church reference all of Scripture, knowing that it holds “the divine exousia, God’s authority and power, [that] authorizes God’s people to withstand any derivative and conditional authority that contravenes what God requires.”[52]
Henry’s theory of authority is rooted firmly in the presupposition that the Triune God of Christianity exists and that He is a God who speaks. By holding this presupposition, Henry avoids the problems other theories have with rooting metaphysics and epistemology in the human faculties of reason or sensation. Additionally, he avoids circularity because he affirms the presupposition without reference to anything else. This is not a case of “I believe the Bible because the Bible says it is trustworthy.” Rather, Henry is making a bold assertion and letting the cards fall where they may. However, this does not stop his presupposition from being defended (though not proven) through reason and experience. For example, the existence of a personal, speaking God is a better explanation for humanity’s ability to communicate than the alternative of speech and personality evolving from non-speech and non-personality. Though his presupposition could be attacked, it holds its ground better than any presupposition that requires the unexplained existence of subjective human faculties.
Second, Henry’s theory does justice to the Biblical data concerning God’s revelation, His ability to speak and reveal definitive information about Himself, and His ability to codify His Word in written form. Henry provides a cogent and biblically defended view of authority, how it is conferred upon others, and how it translates into authoritatively written documents. One argument that critics may be able to raise is the possibility that Scripture contains the infallible speech-act or communication of God even though the sentences themselves may contain factual error. Henry rightly denies this possibility, arguing that there is no difference between divine truth and historical truth.[53] It is all truth and God’s speaking through the Apostles by way of divine exousia guarantees that their words are true.
Third, Henry may be criticized, by critics and supporters alike, for disregarding modern biblical criticism in his theory of divine authority. Some may argue that there are real demonstrable errors in the biblical manuscripts and thus those portions are not authoritative. Others may state that we can never know for certain what the originals said in every case and thus those verses cannot be authoritative. Still others may argue that archaeology and textual criticism have definitively demonstrated that the Bible is contradictory with regard to itself and reality and thus cannot be trusted. Though these are valid questions, they are approaching the issue from the wrong direction. By developing a theocentric view of authority, Henry is well within his rights to declare those statements invalid because they rely on data and interpretations garnered by fallible human faculties and the fact that the Bible, which speaks with divine exousia, disagrees with them. Though that answer may not satisfy the critics, it is valid philosophically.
In conclusion, Henry’s theology of revelation serves as a firm foundation for the authority of Scripture in the formation of doctrine. Henry roots authority in the being of the Christian God and thus avoids any subjectivity stemming from an anthropocentric view. Additionally, his view accounts for a variety of biblical data and follows directly from the Bible’s own statements about Scripture. Next Pannenberg’s and Henry’s theology will be assessed for its ability to stand up to a major critique of biblical criticism.
Biblical criticism has threatened to destroy the Christian’s connection to the past by disconnecting biblical history from actual history. Pannenberg thought that by demonstrating the existence of a universal background knowledge of God modified by historical criticism of real events he could reconnect people with actual history. However, by removing direct spoken or written communication from God as a means of revelation, Pannenberg’s theory removes any objective connection Christians might have with historical knowledge. He admits that one of the most difficult aspects of Christianity is the fact that “the Christian faith lives from a real past.”[54] Thus, he argues that “the object of faith” can be modified by “the results of historical-critical research.”
He tries to cover up the subjectivity of historical criticism by saying that objective certainty can be obtained when the knowledge in question agrees with all known facts.[55] He does admit that this type of certainty does not require nor guarantee infallibility. According to Pannenberg, one can be objectively certain and objectively wrong at the same time. This is clearly a faulty use of the idea of “certainty.” His understanding reflects a pragmatic understanding of certainty. His level of certainty amounts to what is useful for historical study and what is valid to base further analysis on, not what is historically true.
His framework causes issues on two fronts. First, his definition of certainty is not actual certainty; it is limited by human discovery and reflective of scholarly consensus at best. The claim that a historical interpretation fits all of the historical data is also erroneous as no interpretation fits the data perfectly. Rather, interpretations either fit the data better or worse than other interpretations.[56] Thus, no historical interpretation is ever an objective representation of history, though it may come close. Second, Pannenberg has not overcome the subjectivity and fallibility of rationalism and empiricism. As long as he roots his theory in knowledge “from below,” he will always have to admit that his view of the ultimate background understanding of God may be wrong as well as his interpretation of history.[57] Thus, he has not overcome biblical criticism’s attack that prevents Christians from accessing true history.
Issues of authorship and divine commission
One of the most sustainable critiques that biblical criticism raises against Henry’s theory is the idea that that the authors of the majority of the New Testament texts are either unknown or forged in the Apostles name.[58] If it is indeed truth that the Apostles did not write the books of the New Testament, or minimally that it is their testimony that is contained within the books, then Henry’s theory of Apostolic Commission will fail as it relies on connecting the divine commission to the actual writing of the books of the Bible. While a full treatment refuting the issues of apostolic authorship is beyond the scope of this paper, a few things may be said regarding how Henry’s theory addresses this issue and how this issue does not pose a threat to biblical authority via apostolic commission.
First, there are substantial arguments against those who affirm that the New Testament documents are forgeries. For example, Ben Witherington affirms that “we have documents authored by those so named, we have documents written by scribes on behalf of those so named, we have anonymous documents later mistakenly ascribed to Paul (e.g. Hebrews) or John son of Zebedee (e.g. Gospel of John, Revelation of John), we have composite documents that list the first or most important contributing source,” yet none of these documents can be considered forgeries.[59] Additionally, in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham presents a thorough case for apostolic testimony being the primary source for the data found in the Gospels. He states that in the Gospel records we have an account of the “Jesus of testimony,” not a fictitious or made up version of Jesus.[60]
Second, Henry would be well within his rights to argue that authorship does not need to be demonstrated from a modern anthropocentric perspective in order to be affirmed as part of his theory. If the presupposition that the Trinitarian God exists and speaks is true and if it is true that God commissioned specific humans to speak authoritatively to the church on His behalf, then the enshrinement of that communication to the church becomes a necessary corollary. If God speaks His Word and by the power of His Word brings things like salvation to pass, then to deny the enscripturated existence of His Word simultaneously denies His Word the power that exousia demands. Looked at another way, if God saves humanity through Jesus’ death on the cross but fails to tell future generations, God fundamentally lacks the power to accomplish His plan, thus He lacks true exousia. So, if Henry holds to his presuppositions, he can assert that biblical criticism is simply wrong on the point of authorship.
Literal sense of Scripture versus subjective historical interpretation
Another major argument that biblical criticism raises is the possibility that the biblical accounts do not agree what actually happened in history. This argument comes from a variety of sources including attempts to find errors or contradictions in the biblical texts, contradictions between archeological finds and the Bible, and historical reconstructions using other ancient literature that disagrees with the Biblical record. Again, this paper will not focus on direct refutations to these claims as they are out of scope; rather, a few references will be made followed by how Henry’s theory addresses the problem.
First, scholars are not united in the negative assessments of Scripture when compared with itself, archaeology, and other ancient documents. Biblical archaeologist David Graves argues that “the Bible does not need proving true” by archaeology even though there are many finds that “shed light on the text.”[61] Additionally, in a recent survey of archaeological data, Randall Price affirms that current finds support “an historical and literal interpretation of the biblical events and are expected to continue to do so with future excavations.”[62] Concerning Bible contradictions, the understanding of the Gospels as ancient bioi provides an excellent framework from which to resolve apparent discrepancies.[63] With regard to the comparison to Ancient Near East histories, the issue is one of primacy. Is there any reason to take the histories of other cultures over Scripture? Ultimately, this is a methodological concern and is solved by presuppositional bias.
Second, Henry’s theory handles this issue on the theoretical level. Through his presuppositions, he can make the claim that Scripture is the only true objective record of history that exists because it is the only book that has a connection to divine exousia and thus to divine knowledge. All of the reconstructions of history by historians are subjective and therefore accountable to Scripture which is the only objective divine revelation. As all archaeological data requires interpretations, all archeological reconstructions would have to be subservient to Scripture as well. Regarding biblical contradictions, Henry’s theory ensures that all interpretations of the biblical data that demonstrate error are actually erroneous themselves. Finally, concerning the histories of other texts, Henry’s theory asserts that those histories are not written by men who were divinely commissioned, thus they do not hold any authority over the scriptural texts and are again subservient to them. In conclusion, if Henry’s presuppositions are taken to be true, his theory adequately links the Bible to history.
Carl Henry’s theory of Scriptural authority is superior to Wolfhart Pannenberg’s theory of historical authority in terms of asserting the Bible’s authority to determine doctrine in light of biblical criticism. First, Henry’s theory requires less ad hoc claims to authority. Henry stands firm on God’s authority while Pannenberg has to assert some form of ultimate human authority without justification. Second, Henry’s theory does better justice to the biblical text as it maintains the biblical definition of exousia and the method by which God grants it to men. On the other hand, Pannenberg continually artificially limits Scripture and revelation to a historical context in order to keep his theory intact. Finally, Henry’s theory is able to withstand the biblical critics’ attack that the Bible is not connected to history by resorting to an authority that is above human historical examination. Pannenberg is unable to make this same claim without redefining certainty in subjective terms. In conclusion, Henry’s theory of divine authority will serve the church well in defending the Bible as the Word of God in the face of future critical attacks.
Bibliography
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Public Domain, 1949.
Davies, Philip. In Search of “Ancient Israel”: A Study in Biblical Origins. 2nd ed. New York City, NY: Bloomsbury, 2006.
Ehrman, Bart D. Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the BIble’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. New York City, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2011.
Graves, David. Biblical Archaeology: An Introduction with Recent Discoveries That Support the Reliability of the Bible. Toronto, Ontario: Electronic Christian Media, 2017.
Grenz, Stanley. Reason for Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.
Henry, Carl F. H. God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 4: God Who Speaks and Shows: Fifteen Theses, Part 3. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999.
Licona, Michael. Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Moreland, J. P. Forward to Questioning the Bible: 11 Major Challenges to the Bible’s Authority. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Basic Questions in Theology: Collected Essays. Translated by George Kehm. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1970.
———. Systematic Theology. Translated by Geoffrey Bromiley. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.
Price, Randall, and Wayne House. Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.
Stuart, Douglas. Exodus. Vol. 2. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006.
Whitelam, Keith. The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History. New York City, NY: Routledge, 1996.
Witherington III, Ben. “Forged—Chapter One: A World of Deception and Forgeries.” The Bible and Culture: A One-Stop Shop for All Things Biblical and Christian, April 4, 2011. Accessed June 7, 2019. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/04/04/forged-chapter-one-a-world-of-deception-and-forgeries/.
[1] J. P. Moreland, Forward to Questioning the Bible: 11 Major Challenges to the Bible’s Authority (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014).
[2] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley, vol. 1, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 196.
[3] Ibid, 199.
[4] Stanley Grenz, Reason for Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 8.
[5] Ibid, 213.
[6] Ibid, 191.
[7] Ibid, 202.
[8] Ibid, 206.
[9] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Basic Questions in Theology: Collected Essays, trans. George Kehm, vol. 1, 3 vols. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1970), 15.
[10] Ibid, 17.
[11] Ibid, 18.
[12] Grenz, Reason for Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, 33.
[13] Exodus 3:14 (HCSB).
[14] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 202.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid, 203.
[17] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 204-205; Exodus 3:14, footnote [a].
[18] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 205.
[19] Pannenberg, Basic Questions in Theology: Collected Essays, 40.
[20] Ibid, 53.
[21] Ibid, 52.
[22] Grenz, Reason for Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, 7.
[23] Keith Whitelam, The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History (New York City, NY: Routledge, 1996); Philip Davies, In Search of “Ancient Israel”: A Study in Biblical Origins, 2nd ed. (New York City, NY: Bloomsbury, 2006).
[24] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 205.
[25] Genesis 12:8; Genesis 26:25; 2 Kings 5:11; Psalm 99:6; Jeremiah 10:25; Acts 22:16.
[26] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Public Domain, 1949), 703, Kindle.
[27] Douglas Stuart, Exodus, vol. 2, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 120-122.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 4: God Who Speaks and Shows: Fifteen Theses, Part 3 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), 41414, Kindle.
[31] Ibid, 41805, Kindle.
[32] 1 Chronicles 29:12.
[33] Henry, God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 4: God Who Speaks and Shows: Fifteen Theses, Part 3, 41856, Kindle.
[34] Mark 2:10; Luke 4:30; Luke 4:36; Mark 3:15-19; Matthew 7:29; Luke 4:32; and Luke 24:19.
[35] Henry, God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 4: God Who Speaks and Shows: Fifteen Theses, Part 3,41885, Kindle.
[36] John 5:19.
[37] Hereafter prophet-apostle will be shorthanded to “apostle.”
[38] Henry, God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 4: God Who Speaks and Shows: Fifteen Theses, Part 3, 41885, Kindle.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Jeremiah 1:4.
[42] Henry, God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 4: God Who Speaks and Shows: Fifteen Theses, Part 3, 14918, Kindle.
[43] Ibid, 41935, Kindle.
[44] Ibid, 41951, Kindle.
[45] 1 John 2:22.
[46] Henry, God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 4: God Who Speaks and Shows: Fifteen Theses, Part 3, 41969, Kindle.
[47] 1 John 2:3.
[48] Henry, God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 4: God Who Speaks and Shows: Fifteen Theses, Part 3, 42004.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Ibid, 42020, Kindle.
[51] Ibid, 42173, Kindle.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Ibid, 44255, Kindle.
[54] Pannenberg, Basic Questions in Theology: Collected Essays, 53.
[55] Ibid, 54.
[56] Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic/Intervarsity Press, 2010), 894, Kindle.
[57] Pannenberg, Basic Questions in Theology: Collected Essays, 53.
[58] Bart D. Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the BIble’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (New York City, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2011), 9.
[59] Ben Witherington III, “Forged—Chapter One: A World of Deception and Forgeries,” The Bible and Culture: A One-Stop Shop for All Things Biblical and Christian, April 4, 2011, accessed June 7, 2019, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/04/04/forged-chapter-one-a-world-of-deception-and-forgeries/.
[60] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 508.
[61] David Graves, Biblical Archaeology: An Introduction with Recent Discoveries That Support the Reliability of the Bible (Toronto, Ontario: Electronic Christian Media, 2017), 58.
[62] Randall Price and Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 15.
[63] Michael Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography (New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017).
Comments