The first business of our religion is to provide us with an authority–an authority which shall be at once as intimate to active life as Mysticism is to the life contemplative, and more objective than the most Roman Church.
P. T. Forsyth, The Principle of Authority

Not the authoritarian state, not the infallible Church, not the inerrant Book, not the subjective preference of the individual, not the weight of social custom and tradition, but truth is the only sovereign, kingly authority known to man.   
                     Bernard Ramm, The Pattern of Authority

 Inspiration is, therefore, usually defined as a supernatural influence exerted on the sacred writers by the Spirit of God, by virtue of which their writings are given Divine trustworthiness.
                    B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible

The sola Scriptura principle does not mean that, whenever there is a claim to revelation, the Christian must judge it by the criteria of revelation presented in Scripture itself. Man, we believe, apart from the Scriptural revelation, does not have a criteria to judge revelation. This is why Wesley desired to be a "man of one book."   
                    William Hordern, The Case for a New Reformation Theology


There are two issues, among others, that may account for a good deal of the division in the mainstream of Christianity. The problem of authority is one, and the matter of church polity is the other. The problem of authority is another way of asking, "Who can tell me about God?" This question in one form or another is quite old and is reflected in the encounter of the religious people of Judaism and Jesus. "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave

you this authority?” (Matt. 21 : 23 ) . One might apply this question to many areas in the religious life. Why does one believe God to be merciful? Why does one receive baptism? Why does one condemn adultery as evil? Why bear testimony of your faith in Christ? Why not some other belief, action, religious ceremony, and testimony? The answers given to these questions arise out of an appeal to some source for them.

Ideally speaking, an authority should be as stable as the polar star and should speak to every man in the same way1.l But a brief survey of denominational structures shows that this is not the case. Before setting forth what seems the better solution, we must sketch the types of authority to which men have appealed.

Types of Authority
The Inner Light, or the Light Within

The term "Inner Light" can refer to anything from the light of the Logos (Joh_1:9), who is shining in all the world to prepare the hearts of men for the preaching of the gospel, to the direct immediate voice of the Holy Spirit. It can refer to: ( 1 ) personal apprehension as opposed to belief on the basis of authority; (2) perception of moral truth in which one discerns right from wrong; ( 3 ) the individual's duty in a particular matter-for instance, in choosing what is God's will for one's life; (4) the knowledge of God and of life in relation to him, which is experienced immediately.2
The divergent meanings attached to the term "inner light" make it difficult to criticize it in general. If one were to equate the Inner Light with the Holy Spirit, one might criticize the results arising out of the equation. For instance, some highly immoral things have been perpetrated on the claim that the Spirit has given the inner command to certain courses of action. More meaningful is the question, How do we know there is a Holy Spirit? Where do we learn this? Inasmuch as we learn of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures, this pushes us back to another authority. There is authority for the Spirit in the Scriptures, but without the Scriptures, one might argue that all one might speak about remains nothing but inward feelings without a corresponding Being who exists externally. The Society of Friends has emphasized the Inner Light the most. Yet it has recognized the problems associated with this type of authority and has been forced to make modifications in its emphasis on it. Two limitations came about: (1) closer orientation toward the Scriptures, and (2) the "sense of meaning" which arose out of a group agreeing on the "message of the Spirit." The last limitation was designed to thwart the possibility of fanatical individualism which occasionally arose in Quakerism.
If one is to equate the Inner Light with a type of intuitionism, another type of problem arises. Intuition means to see things as a whole, or synoptically. It has been called a shortcut to knowledge, as in the case of Archimedes who saw the solution to his problem "at once" without reaching it in a slow rational way.
However, if intuition is defined in this way it loses its authority, for it becomes internal rather than external. For some intuitions, people are put in hospitals; and other intuitions lack "public character" that is, they cannot be reproduced in other people's lives. Intuition involves a certain amount of relativism, which is not a sufficient authority in religion.
While we criticize intuition as a religious authority, there is a sense in which it is very important. After one has surveyed the material in any realm, there comes a point in which one responds as though saying, "I see the truth of it." The truth of this can be seen against the background of a person who refuses to accept a well-reasoned, highly logical argument. In essence, he is saying, "I see your reasoning, but in spite of my inability to refute your argument, I `see' that it is wrong." There comes the point in which the "eye of the soul" says yes or no to something confronting it.
As an authority, intuition is not as stable as the polar star. Intuition perceives; it does not produce the content of faith.

Conscience

 Conscience as an authority in the religious life has been a popular guide. "Let your conscience be your guide" is an expression approved by many.    What is the conscience? The word occurs some thirty-one times in the New Testament and means "joint knowledge" or "seeing with:" Conscience as a concept receives one of its greatest expositions in the New Testament. In the New Testament it is that "faculty which reminds us, by stimulating feelings of guilt and shame, when we are doing wrong."3 It seems quite obvious that this faculty needs educating and re-educating. Conscience is capable of being elevated, and the emphasis of Christian faith on living one's life in the fellowship of the church and the hearing of God's Word underlies the insufficient nature of conscience. Conscience must not be isolated from the Christian view of man in sin. Conscience can be repressed and perverted. Its sense of fairness can be warped by greed, its sense of purity can be tainted by lust, and its sense of holiness can be blackened by pride. It is, therefore, usually argued that conscience is quite relative and undependable. While recognizing some of the truth of this "it is significant . . . that no group custom enjoins lying, stealing, or murder indiscriminately, since such a law would lead to complete chaos within the group. There is thus a limit to the relativity of law in the conscience of man." 4 Another factor in the relativity argument is overlooked. Because diverse peoples do such diverse deeds and regard these actions as "right," it is concluded that the conscience is fully relative. However, this is to assume that if people know what is right, they will do it. Such an assumption overlooks the insights into human nature and man's basic selfishness.
A modern development concerning conscience is to regard it as a "faculty of reason by means of which we recognize, as rational beings, what conduct is befitting our true human nature and calling."5   Joseph Butler ( 1692-1752 ) spoke of it as a "superior principle of reflection" which passes on all courses of action without being consulted or advised. James Martineau described it as the estimating power that chooses between two competing instincts. However, Martineau went further in evaluating conscience. Because man has something of the divine nature breathed into him and "our knowledge of God is regarded as his dwelling in us," Martineau sums up the strivings of human thought in the past, " `the word of conscience is the voice of God.' " 6
Not only must conscience come in for criticism as a single authority  in religion, but it is unable to answer the question: Can it give us information about God? Conscience may take the biblical standard of ethics and function in one's life, but it cannot take the initiative to secure a knowledge of God. It may respond to a knowledge of God, but this very fact points conscience to some other way of knowing. If we are to know God, we must seek this information elsewhere.

Conscience as an authority is not fully adequate. The criticisms of conscience parallel those of intuition above. Conscience does stand in need of education. If it is equated with the voice of God, then on what authority is this done? This raises again the relation to the Bible. Certainly no such equation is made there. Conscience cannot point to an objective standard to which all people may appeal. It is granted that a well-trained conscience is a vital part in the spiritual life, but the question arises: Where does it receive its training? The answer to this question points to something else. Conscience, moreover, may accuse or acquit, but what does it do when it stands in need of forgiveness? Conscience has an appropriate place in faith, but we cannot grant it first or even second.

Religious Experience

The term "religious experience" has been used in so many different ways with varying degrees of objective reference. It can mean the feeling of dependence, peace of conscience, contrition, the test of truth by its workability, the God-consciousness of Jesus, conscience, Christian consciousness, and intuition. It can also refer to the testimonium spiritus sancti internum, or the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, of Calvin.7
Before we consider an example of religious experience as the authority in religion, we must not imply that religious experience is not important. Even where objective authorities such as the Bible are held, religious experience has been important. John Wesley, for example, preached for a "warm heart" long before Friedrich Schleiermacher was born. But Schleiermacher was one who tended to place religious experience in a preeminent place. The logic of Schleiermacher is the conclusion that one might write one's own Bible out of religious experience.
For a short exposition of the role of experience as the authority in  religion, we shall use Auguste Sabatier.8 When the gospel of Jesus Christ is preached, "there is awakened in the heart of the seeker a religious consciousness identified with that of Jesus; it gives a consciousness of inward reconciliation with God and divine sonship."9  Thus, this gospel, though proclaimed by the most imperfect preaching, brings about the repetition of the "religious and moral consciousness of Jesus."10  The divine verities revealed in the consciousness of Jesus impose themselves by their own virtue on the seeker 11 What is this consciousness of Christ or the divine verities? It is a threefold experience-"the experience of our deliverance from evil, of our filial union with God, and of our entrance into eternal life."12  In this and in this alone is Christ's authority supreme. To the person who would protest that one could not have a subjective criterion, Sabatier would reply that one could have no other.
The influence of Schleiermacher via Sabatier and others has been great on modern religious liberalism. As meaningful as religious experience may be, certain questions make us aware that it, too, is secondary. From what source do we receive information about the Christ that is preached? Is not the religious experience the outgrowth of something else, namely, the declaration of a fact, a gospel, a doctrine concerning a person. How does one grow beyond this particular experience? Can there be any certainty in religious life when it is based purely on experience? Any reasonable answer to any of these questions seems to lead to something more objective as the cause of religious experience.

Reason

What can reason do in giving me knowledge of God? We boast our reasonableness, but in actuality much of our reasonableness is based on a set of personal prejudices from which we start. If  God is hidden, then reason in itself remains helpless. Reason may produce conclusions about God's existence drawn from various phenomena as evidenced in the first chapter. We have seen also something of the gap between the reasonable conclusion and the actual experience of God.
Reason often suffers under the limitations placed on it. The eighteenth century, the so-called age of reason, accepted a religion within the bounds of human reason. It claimed the right of reason to question all areas of theological inquiry and developed a religion based on what reason could accept. Religion with these limitations amounted to little more than a belief in God, who deserves to be obeyed. This meant that man should live ethically, and God would bring about justice and equity in the future life. A modern religious movement that combines many of these features of reason as authority in religious matters is Unitarianism and certain types of liberalism.
Deism as a meaningful religious movement is dead. A religion based solely on reason is little better off than atheism. The god who is removed from the world of man is hardly worth worshipping. Certainly his distance from the affairs of man leaves us with scant knowledge of him. Granting that he exists, it would be impossible to declare whether God loves or hates man. More generally, reason exalts itself against the idea of God and makes man in his reason the measure of all things. Reason alone cannot get us to God, but God can come to our reason which is far more thrilling.

The Church

The church is vitally concerned with the question: How may I know God? The church professes to have an answer, but it is not an answer that she has found, but one that has been given, thereby becoming the reason for her existence. The church is not like an electronic instrument, making advances into the unknown and coming up with God. Instead, the church is receptive. God has come to it. If the church knows anything it depends on the self-revelation of God. The church professes that God has done this.
When the question of authority enters the discussion, Roman Catholic theory must receive special treatment, for it is the most extreme and highly developed view. The Roman Church claims authority in three areas: (1) interpretation of the Scriptures, (2) preservation and teaching of tradition, and ( 3 ) the infallibility of the pope.
The authority of the Church in interpretation of the Scriptures   implies the claim of the Church to the sole right to interpret the Scriptures. But she also claims that the "most important part of the Bible (the New Testament) is born from the heart of the church."13   Which came first, the church or the Bible? The Roman answer is the Church.14
The second area in the Roman claim is the preservation and teaching of tradition. The Council of Trent ( 1545-63 ), in sessions four through eight, declared tradition to be of equal status with canonical Scriptures. Tradition is the oral teaching of the early Church Fathers. "They did not write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but their testimony is of great importance with regard to the general conceptions existing in the early Church."15 But the guarantee of the Spirit in the teaching office of the church is said to be such that the church, in its continuing function as teacher, will not be led astray.
The third area in the claim relates to the infallibility of the pope. Papal infallibility is a narrow doctrine relating only to de fide statements, or matters of faith and morals. A de fide statement is made when the pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, from the chair of Peter.16  "Infallibility is only assured when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra . . . when he is speaking officially as the head of the Church, and has the definite intention of making a statement which shall be accepted by the Church as infallible." 17
Recent developments in Roman Catholicism raise the question in the Protestant mind whether the traditional stance of the Roman Church has been changed. Basically, the answer seems to be no. The  attitude of the Roman Church is more irenic in many areas, but little is changed in terms of the doctrine on the authority of the Church.
In Vatican II, the decree on ecumenism, it is admitted that the Church stands in need of "continual reformation," and it is declared that "deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of doctrine (which must be carefully distinguished from the deposit itself of faith) . . should be appropriately rectified at the proper moment."18 The real question basic to ecumenism concerns what has been deposited in the "deposit of faith."
Concerning the three areas as related above, Vatican II reaffirms the traditional opinions. Some of the new phrasing of statements may lead non-Romanists to disappointment.
The authority of the teaching Church is reaffirmed in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. It states that "God's people accept not the word of men but the very Word of God . . . (but) all this it does under the  lead of a sacred teaching authority to which it loyally defers."19
The preservation and teaching of tradition receives a new emphasis in Vatican II. The Council of Trent in the sixteenth century had declared the Scriptures and tradition to be equally authoritative in light of the Reformation principle of the Scriptures only. Vatican II speaks of the "one deposit of the Word of God, which is committed to the Church" but which can be divided into two elements: "sacred tradition and sacred Scripture."20  Revelation when written down becomes tradition. Vatican II implies that tradition has been handed down reliably through the centuries by the teachings of the bishops-unchanged, uncorrupted, and without error creeping in.

With reference to the matter of interpretation, the Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation says,

“The task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutedly, guarding it scrupulously, and explaining it faithfully by divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.”21

The last element of our interest, papal infallibility, was reaffirmed. In the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Vatican II asserts "All this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the force and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible teaching authority, this Sacred Synod again proposed to be firmly believed by all the faithful."22    It also asserts that even when the pontiff is not speaking  ex cathedra, but does speak in matters of faith and morals, the faithful are to submissive in mind and will.23  
With the reaffirmation of these elements in Roman theory of religious authority, how are we to evaluate them?
The first question is: What authority is used to support this three-fold authority? The answer to this can be seen in the documents of Vatican II, where numerous references are made to the Scriptures. This looks good; however, two concerns are raised in appealing to the Scriptures to support papal theory.
First, the appeal to the Scriptures gives the illusion of biblical evidence. But no exegesis or interpretation of these Scripture passages is set forth. They are quoted on the assumption--a priori--that the passages "prove" the statements referred to in the doctrinal statements. The passages are known to prove the doctrinal statements because the teaching office of the Church declares it so. How do we know there is a teaching office of the Church? The appeal is made to the Scriptures which must be interpreted by the infallible teacher before it can be known. Obviously, one would not arrive at papal infallibility merely from reading the Scriptures without the teaching office of the Church. This circular type of support is fundamental to Roman theology.
The second concern is that the appeal to the Scriptures in the documents of Vatican II is generally meaningless. The teaching authority of the Church attempts to secure a foundation for itself in the Scriptures, but it requires the teaching authority to give certainty that this is what a given passage supports. The central issue becomes: Do the Scriptures without external inference support the infallible teaching role of the Church in its chief teacher, the pope? Most non-Romans would answer no!
Thus the question needs to be raised anew: What did Jesus promise his disciples? The fact that Christ promised to be with believers unto the ends of the earth does not guarantee infallibility any more than his presence in the believer guarantees that a Christian will not sin. The Church has erred as well as sinned. This is why there must be a continuing reformation in doctrine as well as practice. The infallibility of the pope is a presumptuous doctrine. An infallible council is said to have declared the pope infallible and immediately ceased being infallible itself. Infallibility is also suspect in light of certain pontiffs who were charged with teaching heresy.24  Another issue concerns the teaching authority of the Church in relation to the Holy Spirit. Roman theory connects the Holy Spirit to the Church, whereby the Church is taught directly concerning certain matters.25  On this matter, the Scriptures describe the role of the Spirit with reference to Christ and the Scriptures. Justification of a doctrine can-not be made on the grounds that the Church is led by the Spirit,26 especially when the doctrine cannot be founded by fundamental exegesis of the Scriptures and appears contrary to its whole tenor.
With reference to tradition and the Church's role in preserving and interpreting it, the whole idea is connected with a developmental principle.
Rome does seem to acknowledge that development in doctrine is good. But it is a more fitting generalization to say that in religion, development goes in the direction of degeneration.
Degeneration in doctrine can be seen with reference to the traditional teachings about Mary. The New Testament speaks of Mary as a woman of faith, human in the full sense of the word with reference to sin, a real marriage, and death. With the development of analogies between Eve and Mary by certain Church Fathers and inferences made on Scripture passages having no connection at all to Mary, slowly an ideology about Mary has developed. Thus Vatican II could  speak of her as  "Queen of all" (p. 90), "Advocate, Auxiliatrix,  Adjutrix, and Mediatrix" (p. 91 ) .
The Council continues to say concerning the titles accorded to Mary, "These, however, are to be so understood that they neither take away from nor add anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator" (pp. 91-92).
But how can this be? By all rules of language and logic it does take away. By the concept of development, Rome has slowly painted itself into a theological corner that it cannot get out of, without denying infallibility, nor defend by the Scriptures. At the same time it cannot defend its teaching authority without appealing to the Scriptures. But the Scriptures will not support it on any fair exegesis. The danger of development as a theological principle is that logically it is quite conceivable that Rome may "develop" in doctrine to preaching faith in Mary rather than faith in Christ, perhaps on some analogy that the mother is worthy of more honor than the Son.
This issue is emphasized by Berkouwer who wrote, "Whenever another source of knowledge is placed alongside Scripture as being of equal value, we observe that eventually Scripture becomes relegated to the background. . . . Since the Council of Trent tradition has advanced further and further into the foreground27
In conclusion, our point is that there is a prior authority to the church as infallible teacher in matters of religion. It is this prior authority to which we now turn.

The Scriptures

The Scriptures have a relationship to the church which calls for clarification. The Scriptures give authority for the existence of the church. However, the church has no message except as it declares the content of the Scriptures.
The key to the question, how may I know God? is bound up with the Scriptures. The line of reasoning is this: If God is in any sense personal, which the Bible affirms, then it is impossible to genuinely know a person unless he reveals himself. One may know the physical description of another person-height, weight, color of hair, eyes, and other features but until that person begins to speak forth from  the depths of his being, real knowledge of the person is impossible. However, once the person begins to speak, we then perceive what kind of person that "hidden person" is.
Using this analogy, we may speak concerning the "hidden God." We have no visual features to begin with. If we are to know God he must speak to us. This is the only sure way of knowledge of him. One may question it as legitimate, but it is surely true that we will not learn of God unless he so wills. Christian faith affirms that God has revealed himself. The Old Testament is received as a story of preliminary self-revelation in a number of ways.
God's self-revealing took place in a decisive unique way in the Incarnation. The story of this and its meaning is recorded in the New Testament. This is why the New Testament assumes such a large role in the life of the church. Christian faith proclaims the appearance of God in human history in the person of Jesus Christ.This is known as the Incarnation,  or  God embodied in human form. In him we have a true knowledge of the nature of God. In him we have a knowledge that conscience, reason, or intuition could not give. Jesus Christ is the authority for religious experience, as well as the basis of the church. But all of these things are meaningless without the self-revelation of God in Christ.
 Having introduced the Bible as the record of God's self-revelation we must proceed to speak of the authority or the importance  of the Bible. Almost all Christians accept the Bible in some sense. The degree to which it is accepted or modified by secondary authorities, such as the church, reason, and the Spirit, and the belief concerning the Bible make it a unique source.
There are, however, certain movements within and across denominational boundaries that accept the Bible in a unique sense. From the standpoint of the modern religious situation in Protestantism in general there are two opposing concepts regarding the Bible as the authority of religious life.
First, there is a view that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, verbally inspired Word of God. The most definitive expression of this position in modern times has come from the old Princeton professors: Patton, Hodge, Warfield, and Machen. J. Gresham Machen (d. 1937) declared that the Bible is the only source of information about God that man can trust.28 The unchanging is the Bible. Its unchangableness comes from being the Word of God. Machen repudiated the use of relativistic terms such as the Bible contains the word of God. "No, we say, in the Christian fashion, that the Bible is the Word of God." 29Concerning its inerrancy, he wrote:

“I hold that the Biblical writers, after having been prepared for their task by the Providential ordering of their entire lives, received, in addition to all that, a blessed and wonderful and supernatural guidance and impulsion by the Spirit of God, so that they were preserved from the errors in other books and thus the resulting book, the Bible, is in all its parts the very Word of God, completely true in what it says regarding matters of fact and completely authoritative in its commands.” 30

This is not a mechanical theory of inspiration in which the penmen wrote without involvement of personality.31 The writers used sources, questioned eyewitnesses, referred to documents, and labored in research.32   This theory is expressed about the autograph manuscripts only; that is, those manuscripts coming directly from the writers, and not the King James Version or any translation or any of the thousands of extant manuscripts in the original languages. "What we believe is that the writers of the Biblical books, as distinguished from scribes who later copied the books, were inspired. Only the autographs of the Biblical books, in other words, the books as they came from the pen of the sacred writers, and not any one of the copies of those autographs which we now possess, were produced with that supernatural impulsion and guidance of the Holy Spirit which we call inspiration" 33

The most crucial issue in the position of Machen and others comes not in the question of the autograph manuscripts. The crucial question is: If God gave an inerrant, infallible, autograph manuscript, why did he not preserve it from error in the matter of transmission? Machen dodged this issue. He declared, "God has given us a marvelously accurate, though not a supernaturally accurate, transmission, from generation to generation, of what those inspired writers wrote." 34 If the autographs were important then, an adequate reason for their loss must be given. There seem to be no valid ones.
 Second, there is the view that the Bible is the infallible guide to lead us to salvation in Christ Jesus. There is possibility of great latitude here. A more liberal view is that the Bible that we have does contain errors. "The Bible itself is by no means infallible. In it are to be found the erring words of men as well as the authoritative word of God. The contrary accounts of chronology, numbers of soldiers, and other details show that the writers are prone to mistakes:' 35
This position can be pushed to its most extreme point to make the Bible merely an account of the discovery of God by men. On the other hand, in neoorthodoxy,36 the Bible contains the word of God. The emphasis is on revelation whereby the Bible is a record of the true Revelation, Christ the incarnate Word. The record is still a marred record because of the human element of writing down, transmission, and preservation. But it is the instrument of revelation. 37  The true Word or Logos is revealed in the written Word.
The great division seems to be between conservatives of all stripes over against neoorthodoxy and more liberal trends. What is the way out? First, it must be recognized that the division is not as great as it seems. The conservatives are arguing in support of a Bible that does not exist, and the neoorthodox are supporting the Bible that exists. The problem is often posed in an either/or framework. Either declare for inerrancy or settle for an unreliable Bible. This is not the issue at all.
The autograph manuscripts will probably never be discovered, and even if they should be turned up, they will only confirm what has been known all along--namely, the present manuscripts are reliable, authentic, and certain. The science of textual criticism has provided a remarkably trustworthy text as a result of working with thousands of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that are extant. The real issue is, therefore, to recognize the text that we have, and live with it.
In criticism of the Bible as a single authority, the following observations can be made. First, the authority of the Bible rests not in itself but in the person declared in it. Jesus Christ is the subject and authority behind the Bible. Second, the Bible is not simply a "paper pope." The Bible alone would be a dead book apart from the living Spirit of God who uses it as his instrument.
In spite of these observations the Bible has a central role in answering the question: How may I know God? It is central in a way that the previously discussed authorities are not. We shall return to this matter, in part, in presenting the next type of authority.

A Pattern of Authority

In the survey of various authorities that have been proposed as a guide for the religious life, we have seen some basic problems when each has been singled out to stand alone. In the final analysis, we have to turn to a pattern of authority 38 or a discrimen, a word "designating a configuration of criteria that are in some way organically related to one another as reciprocal coefficients." 39
This category covers a variety of views and combinations. Bishop Charles Gore presented the following order: The church is the authority, but the Spirit and the Scriptures have their own roles to play. The church teaches, the Spirit converts, the Bible edifies.40   In seeking to answer the question as to "the source, seat and organ of authority in the Church of Christ," Edward G. Selwyn spoke of its source as the Spirit of God. Its seat is in the common mind of the church; its organ of expression is in the Scriptures, creeds, dogmatic formulations, its liturgical forms and phrases-"whatever in short has nourished and borne fruit in the lives of the saints." 41
Although the above combination of authorities gives an illustration of a pattern, it must be rejected for the simple reason that we do not know that there should even be a church, Spirit, or even tradition without the use of the Bible to support these ideas.
If we are to have an adequate pattern of authority, or a discrimen, in which we do justice to order as well as the materials used, it must assume the following reciprocal relation: Christ-Bible-Spirit. Although we must discuss these separately in some chronological order, the reciprocal relationship must not be forgotten.

The authority of Christ-Bible-Spirit:

 The primary fact of Christian faith is Christ. He is the authority for religious experience. He must be the beginning point, for only a person can be an authority. Religious authority cannot be either a doctrine, book, creed, or church, for the simple reason that these are nonpersonal as they stand in isolation. When they are examined more closely, each is reduced to something else--persons. What kind of persons stand behind each item? A doctrine has been drawn up by theologians; the Bible was recorded by men who heard God speak, or observed historical events; a creed grows out of theological conflict between persons of different thought; and the teaching authority of the church functions through persons. If all of these persons are honest in them-selves, they will confess that their ostensible purpose was to bear witness to the living Christ.
If the role of Christ is diminished, it is questionable whether any authority is worth defending. For it is not just any person that we are speaking of, but Christ who is said to be the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. Thus he is a "communing person." 42 Our final authority "is our new Creator, the choosing, saving God Himself in action."43  Religious authority is intimately connected to commitment, for it is in obedience that regeneration takes place.
If we are to speak of Jesus Christ as authority, how do we know about him? How much would we know of him without the Bible? The Bible preserves for us the untarnished picture of Jesus, the Christ. If this is so, is not the Bible the prior authority? No, because the Bible has no purpose or authority apart from Jesus Christ. Consequently, the Bible must be defined in reciprocal terms to Christ.
The Bible supports the picture of Christ and the authority of the person of Christ supports the Bible. Without the Bible, our knowledge of Christ might be that of an emaciated figure or a stern judge as dictated in medieval times. The Bible is the recorded message that always stands in judgment over the perverted pictures of Christ that do arise. But behind the Bible stands the authority of Christ, and the two must not be isolated from each other. This is evident in the words of Jesus concerning the Holy Spirit, or the Comforter who comes from him and who witnesses of him in the Scriptures.
The Bible becomes the unchanging medium through which the authority of Christ is expressed. The Bible serves as the medium of his confrontation to men. It is the written Word through which the incarnate Word speaks. Thus, the Bible is not an obstacle, moving the revelation one step away from us, but a means "ordained by the Revealer between the Revelation and us."44
The third co-authority then is the Spirit. Without the testimony of the Spirit to the message of the living Christ in the Bible, we are helpless in establishing a sense of religious certainty. John Calvin spoke of this problem in his Institutes. The Scriptures are dependent upon the testimony of the Spirit, who is given by Christ the prior authority. Calvin wrote:

“If, then, we would consult most effectually for our consciences, and save them from being driven about in a whirl of uncertainty, from wavering, and even stumbling at the smallest obstacle, our conviction of the truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher source than human conjectures, judgments, or reasons; namely, the secret testimony of the Spirit. . . . The testimony of the Spirit is superior to reason. For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the spirit”.45

Thus, in the same breath that we talk of the authority of the Bible we must also speak of the authority of the Spirit, for they cannot be separated either. The Spirit is linked with the Word, and we know of his action because of what is written in the Word. Fanaticism with reference to the Spirit does not become a danger when the words of Scripture concerning the Spirit are heeded.

The relation between the Spirit and the Scriptures was expressed in the Second London Confession, written in 1677. It is worth noting: 

“The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience. . . . All which [referring to the canonical books of the Bible] are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of Faith and Life. . . . The Authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God . . . the Author thereof; . . . our full persuasion, and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our Hearts. . . . Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God, to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word.”46
Without the Spirit’s working in a reciprocal relationship to the Scriptures, man would not ordinarily conclude that the Bible is God’s word to him. With the power of God’s Spirit in convicting the sinful heart of man, man sees himself in the pages of the Scriptures and comes to Christ who died for him.
The authority of the church:
The church has authority only as it preaches the gospel of Christ. Its authority is derived from his Commission, but He does not give up his governing authority over the believer. Like the believer, the church as a whole must stand under the judgment of the Head and his authority role for the church. We believe “in the Church because of Christ and not in Christ because of the Church.47
What is the role of the church then as an authority? The history of the church is not to be cast out as though only meaningful thought has come about in the twentieth century. The great Christian men of the past have contributed much good in the way of interpretation of the Scriptures and pastoral insight into its meaning for human life. We can profit by instructing ourselves with their help as long as all thought in the religious sphere is subjected to the mind of Christ Jesus as reflected in the Scriptures.
Great minds in the history of Christian faith have contributed to the formation of creedal statements. These formulations have been useful as long as they were true to the real constitution of the church, the Scriptures. The church today has the delegated authority to teach and preach the gospel of Christ. Yet its message must not be founded upon anything but the Scriptures, which speak of Christ as witnessed to by the Spirit of God. In all things the church is subordinate to this threefold reciprocal authority.

Reason, conscience, and experience

These three have their place and role but it is a humble one. Reason stands unable to find meaningful knowledge of God until it is enlightened by Him. Once God has spoken concerning himself and once he enlightens man's heart, man the sinner can assimilate such knowledge. The conscience remains in a secondary position to the Scriptures. Conscience cannot inform man of God, but conscience can be informed of God and thereby become enlightened and helpful in living. The conscience can only condemn, it cannot forgive; it cannot provide in itself material for an ethic, and it certainly cannot redeem.48 When conscience is taught by Christ through his Word, it may become quite sensitive to God's Spirit. But even then it is only a secondary authority for religious guidance.
Experience is also important in its proper place. The authority is not in the experience, but the experienced; that is, religious experience is the outgrowth of meeting Jesus Christ. Experience is thus the product of the gospel's declaration and response. Consequently, experience must always refer back to its norm and origin. In religious experience, the Spirit of God encounters man in the present age on the basis of the historic gospel which declares what Christ has done for man.49 Arising out of this encounter is the experience that we know and are known by God. To be known by God is to experience redemptive hope.
The conclusion is that we need a structure of authorities with Christ as the prior authority for all. If the Bible alone is set forth as the sole authority, one may tend toward bibliolatry. If the Spirit alone is the authority, one tends toward mysticism or fanaticism. If the church alone is the authority, it tends to authoritarianism. If reason is the sole authority, one tends toward humanism or deism. These tendencies are offset when "Christ is the authority who speaks through the Bible and makes its authority meaningful and alive. His Spirit conforms to the image of his written Word which becomes the life and authority of the church." 50

Definitions

Because the Bible plays an important role in the pattern of authority there are certain concepts that need definition concerning it. It is common to speak of the Bible in terms of inspiration, as containing a revelation, and the reader's needing illumination. What does this mean?
      1. Inspiration.-Almost all Christians speak of the Bible as inspired. The difference is over the extent of inspiration. Very early in the history of the church there was a tendency to speak of verbal inspiration. Perhaps the first writer to express such a viewpoint was Clement of Alexandria. A hundred years after Clement, Gregory Nazianzus wrote that "every slightest line and stroke of Scripture is due to the minute care of the Spirit and that even the slenderest nuance of the writers is not in vain or displayed to us in vain." 51 The term verbal inspiration has endured in the history of Christian thought, although with different meanings in different contexts. The old Princeton school accepted the definition of Francis L. Patton who wrote that "The books of the Bible . . . were composed by men who acted under the influence of the Holy Ghost to such an extent that they were preserved from every error of fact, of doctrine, of judgment; and these so influenced in their choice of language that the words they used were the words of God. This is the doctrine which is known as that of PLENARY VERBAL INSPIRATION."52
Among some conservative writers there is a confusion of terms. Some have equated plenary verbal inspiration with another theory called "dictation." The dictation theory implies that the Scriptures were dictated by God to the writers in much the same fashion as an executive dictates a letter to his secretary. If the Scriptures were dictated it would rule out any meaning for passages like Luke 1:1-4, in which the writer declares his dependence upon other sources. It is thus a mistake to identify these two theories together as some do.53
A second type of inspiration is that defined by Karl Barth. Barth tries to make use of the term verbal inspiration. "If God speaks to man, He really speaks the language of this concrete human word of man. That is the right and necessary truth in the concept of verbal inspiration."54 Barth proceeds to say that although God has spoken to man in man's terms and although human words are not the final, ultimate symbol concerning the truth of God, yet these human forms of expression have the value of a "commission" in his service and they, for all practical purposes, speak with authority to us. We have no other vehicle but human words.
2. Revelation.--The word "revelation" is really a very narrow term. Sometimes the entire Bible is said to be a revelation from God. This is incorrect. Much of the Bible stands under the term "inspiration" with a lesser amount of it under the term "revelation." Much of the history of the Old Testament, as well as that of the New Testament, is the result of research. Inspiration merely means that the writers were directed by the Spirit of God in order to provide a sufficiently reliable account. Revelation strictly refers to an unveiling to man of something he could not know by ordinary investigation. For instance, the story of creation, the virgin birth of Jesus, the deity of Christ, foretelling of prophecy, and the coming of Christ: all of these could not be known without a direct declaration from God. Jesus Christ himself is the revelation of the nature of God to man. "The real content of revelation in the Bible is not `something' but God Himself. Revelation is the self-manifestation of God. . . . Revelation everywhere includes within itself a negative presupposition: without it man is always in some way or other in a kind of darkness or bondage."55 
3. Illumination: The term "illumination" refers to the work of God's Spirit in teaching the individual concerning Christ, usually in relationship to the Scriptures. It does not imply a new revelation of any sort. It is comparable to a personal grasping of God's revelation. Illumination may be regarded as the existential moment in which one perceives that God's work is concerned with oneself. Augustus H. Strong gave the following examples to help distinguish these terms from one another.

( 1 ) Inspiration without revelation, as in Luke or Acts, Luk_1:1-3.
(2) Inspiration including revelation, as in the Apocalypse, Rev_1:1.
(3) Inspiration without illumination, as in the prophets, 1Pe_1:11.
(4) Inspiration including illumination, as in the case of Paul, 1Co_2:12.
(5) Revelation without inspiration, as in God’s words from Sinai, Exo_20:22.
(6) Illumination without inspiration, as in modern preachers, Eph_2:20. 56

Conclusion

One of the implications of the problem of authority, or the question of how may I know about God, is what I am going to do about it. It is inconceivable from the standpoint of the New Testament to think of a Christian apart from a relationship to the fellowship of the church. The issue is no less pressing in modern times, but it is more complicated.
In bewilderment, many view the denominations with a shake of the head without any proper assessment of the real truth in the matter. Inasmuch as there are differences, many conclude they cannot all be true churches. But the matter is not like deciding between Buddhism and Islam. The issue is not an either/or situation. Within denominations there is far more that is held in common than that which divides. This is not to conclude either that there is not an issue of truth involved.
A quick checkup on creedal statements in many denominations reveals that there is greater unity in Protestantism than there is division. The name "Christian" is bigger than any one denomination. It is quite possible to be at one with many other denominations in essentials and have charity at the point of nonessentials. But many people expect the church to agree absolutely on everything, whereas this is not expected of anybody in any subject area or any organization elsewhere.
Where does one begin in a discussion of differences? The answer revolves around the issue of authority.
At the foundation of every corporation there is a charter of incorporation. The charter lays down the guidelines for the development of the corporation. Without pushing the analogy too far in the direction of organizational spirit, something similar is the case in Christian faith. At the foundation of Christian faith is Christ, speaking through the Bible. Therefore any judgment concerning a denomination or church must be made from the standpoint of adherence to the charter, or the Bible. Thus we have the problem of approximation to the biblical standard. The closer the church is to the New Testament, the closer it is to being near the true pattern of the charter.
In light of the preceding statement, two comments are needed. Approximation as a principle does not involve minutiae such as whether one calls his Bible school a Sunday school; or whether musical instruments are rejected in the worship service; or whether one does or does not wear lipstick. It does involve important matters such as personal commitment to Christ as Saviour, meaningful but not magical ordinances, carrying on the work of the Great Commission in teaching and discipling all nations, and the growth of a fellowship of committed men and women.
The other comment relates to the gap between what is acknowledged as the biblical truth and the captivity to tradition that has grown up through many generations. As increased materials become available, showing the New Testament message in its simplicity and purity, the man of Christian faith must be ready to acknowledge its meaning for his religious life. Because tradition stands under the judgment of Christ in the Scriptures, we must be prepared to dump it over where necessary. The man of faith feels in his heart the common conviction with the apostles, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). This truth has application to the churches as well as in the realm of obedience.