The Bible: Whose Book Is It?

As you may know, Modern Reformation magazine is dedicating its 2010 issues to the topic of Scripture, and the March/April edition was just delivered to my door yesterday (and by the way, hats off to my pal and fellow Upper Crust Theological Society founding member, Ryan Glomsrud, who is the new executive editor).

The lead article, as always, is by Michael Horton and is called “God’s Word in Human Words: The Inspiration of Scripture.” As is to be expected, the piece was very helpful and informative, but my point here is not to recap the whole thing. Rather, I want to open up for discussion a couple paragraphs from the article which I found interesting and provocative. Horton writes:

Reacting against the practical anarchy of Protestant individualism in our day, the pendulum is swinging in the direction of the assimilation of Scripture to the church (or the "faith community"). Yet, as Calvin noted long ago, in spite of their obvious differences, radical Protestant enthusiasm and Roman Catholic theories of the church as the mother of Scripture share surprising similarities. They are simply two ways of reducing God's speech to human speech, whether that of the pious believer or the holy church. "The description of the canon as a creation of the church is not in the least a uniquely Roman Catholic one," John Webster has noted.

Despite its association with Counter-Reformation polemics, Grenz and Franke repeat the increasingly fashionable refrain among Protestants that the Bible is the church's book. "The [faith] community precedes the production of the scriptural texts and is responsible for their content and for the identification of particular texts for inclusion in an authoritative canon to which it has chosen to make itself accountable" (emphasis added). At least the way this is stated, the impression could be given that the church is sovereign in this matter: Scripture is authoritative canon because the church has decided to treat it as such. They admit that this "leads to a broader concept of inspiration." On one hand, Scripture constitutes the church. "On the other hand, it is itself derived from that community and its authority."

In addition to the (familiar-but-never-gets-old) connection made between fundamentalism and Catholicism, what I found especially striking was Horton’s apparent denial of what has become one of Keith Mathison’s primary talking points when addressing the topic of Scripture and its authority, namely, that “the Bible is the Church’s Book.” According to Mathison, Scripture is the Church’s Book and is to be interpreted in and by the Church according to the regula fidei (the rule of faith, which Mathison says is primarily the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds). What’s particularly interesting is that Modern Reformation often calls on Mathison to contribute articles on the topic of Scripture, and his book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, is advertised prominently in this issue of MR.

Now, I think Horton and Mathison would see eye-to-eye on most issues relating to Scripture, and the point Horton is making in this article is simply that, ultimately, the Bible is God’s Book, and that any attempt to subordinate it, its contents, its canonical status, or its authority to the sovereign individual or a sovereign Church is to undermine that other Reformation slogan, Sola Gratia.

Anyway, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on Horton’s points. For my part, I find the line he draws connecting Sola Scriptura and Sola Gratia very insightful, not to mention challenging to those who would deny one or the other.