"...in the midst of the profession of Christian religion, there is no greater controversy than whether the Scriptures are the word of God or not."1 John Owen could just as well have written these words in the present century as in the seventeenth. With the introduction of liberalism, neo-orthodoxy and neo-evangelicalism since the time of Owen, there still appears to be great controversy over the nature of Scripture, particularly in the area of its authority. Though Owen was reacting to Romanism, rationalism and the Quakers2, his arguments for the absolute authority of Scripture are as relevant to modern day critics as they were to those of the seventeenth century.
In seeking to set forth and evaluate Owen's teaching on Scripture, we will focus our attention on one particular aspect of his insistence on Scripture's authority, that being the self-attestation (autopistia) of Scripture. The reasons for choosing this aspect of Owen's argument are two, one general, one more specific.
Generally, Owen's arguments on the self-attestation of Scripture are of great benefit to the church, particularly in the area of Christian or Reformed apologetics. Owen has wrestled with some of the issues that can provide immense help to those in the church who seek to take seriously the mandate to be ready for an apology of the hope within (I Peter 3:15). The questions that Owen answers are questions that are still being asked today by those in the church who seek a solid basis for their faith.
More specifically, however, it will be interesting and enlightening to see how Owen handles the self-attestation of Scripture amidst charges of circular reasoning, autonomy, authority, etc. Such charges are still being levelled today, even from those within the Reformed camp who claim to be "classical" apologists. Owen's handling of such matters will, at the very least, give us some hint at the the "classical" position itself.3
In seeking to set forth Owen's view we will briefly look at his understanding of authority which will then set the stage for our discussion on the self-attestation of Scripture. the latter will then be explicated from the context of rationalism as its antithesis, the Holy Spirit as Witness, and the "problem" of circular argumentation, all of which remains relevant today both in discussions both of systematic theology generally and of Reformed apologetics specifically.
AUTHORITY
The fundamental problem with which Owen is dealing is the problem of authority. In responding to the Romanists, he is attempting to show that the ultimate authority can never be the church,
...the truth we maintain will be more confirmed by what I am in the next place to say against the Papists' assertion.
III. That, therefore, the testimony of the church is not the only sufficient ground (nor indeed a sufficient one at all) of our believing the divinity of the Scripture, I shall prove by several arguments.4
In responding to the rationalists, Owen argues that our assurance of the Bible as God's Word can never rest in reason alone. In speaking of rational arguments, Owen asserts,
Our assent can be of no other nature than the arguments and motives whereon it is built, or by which it is wrought in us, as in degree it cannot exceed their evidence. Now, these arguments are all human and fallible. Exalt them unto the greatest esteem possible, yet because they are not demonstrations, nor do necessarily beget a certain knowledge in us (which, indeed, if they did, there were no room left for faith or our obedience therein), they produce an opinion only...5
In response to the Quakers, Owen contends that our assurance that Scripture is God's Word can never come solely from "private testimony" or from our own subjective experience.
Those who would take away the use of our reason in spiritual things would deal with us, as we said before, as the Philistines did with Samson, - first put out our eyes, and then make us grind in their mill.6
In Owen's defense of Scripture's self-attesting authority, he has wrestled with and answered not only the attacks that came to him from his own century, but the attacks that continue to come from ours. For Owen, the only alternative to God's absolute authority in Scripture is man's autonomy.7
In volume IV of his Works, Owen begins by setting forth what he calls, "The Reason of Faith; or the grounds whereon Scripture is believed to be the Word of God with Faith divine and supernatural." He wants first of all to establish the grounds for our belief in Scripture as God's Word, then further to set forth the means by which we come to understand the mind of God. In the beginning of this section, Owen makes an interesting comment that seems to affirm the self-attestation, not only of Scripture, but of all of God's revelation. Though he is speaking primarily of the time between Noah and Abraham, he seems to affirm that all of God's revelation attests to its own authority.9 Because God's revelation , in all of its forms, requires faith and obedience, it must have within itself its own evidence that it is from God.10 Such evidence is not, says Owen, like that which the sun gives of its light but is rather like that which the universe gives of its createdness, thus showing the being and power of God.11 It is evidence "unto faith, and not to sense."12 What Owen means by this distinction is that God's revelation is abundantly clear in itself, that it comes from God and reveals His character. Yet there are those who see the evidence and, because of their unbelief, reject it as such. The clear evidence of God in His revelation, therefore, requires not the eye of sense but the eye of faith in order properly to see it for what it really is, God's revelation.13 All revelation carries its own evidence that it is from God and that He requires obedience from his creatures.14
But what about the Scriptures, specifically, as the written revelation of God? How can we defend our belief that the Bible is God's Word?15 On what basis should all men accept it as such?16 Owen's answer to these question is that the Bible carries its own authority, thus its own attestation and evidence, within itself. It is to be defended as God's authoritative Word because of what it is, not because of what we think or decide it is.17 We will look now at Owen's argument.
SCRIPTURE'S SELF-ATTESTATION
Owen contends that the Bible is to be believed "with faith divine and supernatural."18 The faith that is both divine and supernatural is also "infallible with respect unto the formal reason of it, which is divine revelation."19 He maintains that our faith is supernatural because it is produced in our minds by the Holy Spirit, it is divine by virtue of the fact that it is both produced in us by the Spirit and because its formal reason is divine revelation.20 This emphasis of Owen's is an important aspect of his view of Scripture. He is dealing in this section with both the subjective and the objective sides of our belief in Scripture as God's Word. He maintains that our infallible faith is not such because of who we are, but because of who God is (objective) and what He does within us (subjective).21 There must indeed be a willing assent (which is, of course, an essential part of biblical faith from a Reformed perspective) of the subject to Scripture and its Lord, but such an assent, to be infallible, must have its source in God alone.22 In other words, Owen is convinced that we must indeed assent to the truth of Scripture before we can believe supernaturally and infallibly that it is God's Word. At this point, contrary to one modern day analysis, Owen agrees with Augustine who counts faith as prior to true understanding.23 He affirms the necessity of true saving faith in order to recognize Scripture for what it is (subjective), yet he affirms Scripture's inherent authority whether men recognize it or not (objective). Scripture, then, could never be dependent for its authority on some external means, be it reason, the church or even the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, all of which will be discussed below.24
But what is this objective authority to which Owen appeals?25 Authority is "a power of commanding or persuading, ...'convincing', arising from some excellency in the thing or person vested with such authority."26 Owen here is clarifying what he means when he talks of the self-attesting Scripture. When we ask as to its authority, we are asking as to the source of its power to persuade, convince or command us to believe it for what it is.27 Is its convincing power there by its very nature or must it come from somewhere outside of itself? Owen is "convinced" that Scripture's authority is intrinsic to itself.28 The Bible is not dependent on any other authority outside of
itself to affirm its authority. It has the power in and of
itself to persuade convince, and command men. Up to this point,
it sounds as if Owen's circular reasoning29is closed tight.
Is Owen here simply bowing to the irrationality of fideism? On the contrary, Owen's circle, though it never stretches out to a line, (indeed it could not), broadens at some very significant places. It is at these significant places that Owen makes his best contribution to the self-attestation of Scripture and its place in Christian apologetics.
Owen was educated, at least to some degree, in the context of Aristotelianism.30 Because of this, he writes often times using the categories of Aristotle, e.g., causality, efficiency, etc. He uses the categories of means and ends in the working out of his theology.31 Though such language and categories are, to some extent, foreign to us, they introduce a helpful and thoughtful way of approaching the problem of Scripture's self-attestation.
In speaking of the reason why men must believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, Owen introduces us to what he calls the formal object of Scripture.32 For Owen, there is a distinction between the formal object and the material object of our faith. Whereas the formal object of our faith deals with the reason why we believe, the material object deals with what we believe, i.e., the actual things which are revealed to us.33 In dealing, therefore, with the reason for faith, Owen concentrates on the formal object. The sole reason why, the ground whereon we are to believe the things revealed in Scripture (which, remember, is the material object) is by the evidence of Scripture alone.34 Owen is never afraid to give a reason for this most basic belief. He is quick to show that there is indeed evidence for the authority of Scripture, and such evidence is in the Scripture itself. But Owen makes a further distinction under the rubric of the formal object of faith. He does not simply state that Scripture is what it is because of what it is, but he goes on to affirm that Scripture is what it is because of who God is! Herein he begins to broaden his circle. Owen says that the reason we must believe the Bible to be the Word of God is because of the authority and veracity of God Himself.35 It would seem then that Owen has at least two formal reasons for believing Scripture to be God's Word, which of course would confuse his categories. At this point, as one might expect, Owen introduces another distinction that, whether taken directly from Calvin, is at least reminiscent of him in his argument against Pighius. He makes the distinction of the remote and proximate, though he uses the terminology of immediate and ultimate. Owen speaks of the authority and veracity of God as the ultimate reason or the ultimate formal object of our faith, whereas the Scripture itself is the first, immediate formal object of our faith.36 God is then the remote formal object of our faith and Scripture is the proximate formal object of our faith.
What Owen is arguing for in this section bears some careful thought. He is attempting to show that Scripture can never be an end in itself, that its power to persuade and convince lies not in itself as some sort of independent document, but in itself as coming from the very mouth of God. Immediately and proximately, Scripture must be believed with faith divine and supernatural because of what it is. Ultimately and mediately, it is to be believed because of Whose it is.37 When asked how Owen is certain of the authority and veracity of God, he would no doubt turn to God's revelation, both in word and works.38 But the point is that he is not content merely to let Scripture rest on its own laurels, but rather to point to the One to whom Scripture itself points, God!
This has significant ramifications for Christian apologetics. Often times the method of apologetics has been to first prove the existence of a god, then to prove the deity of Christ and only then to prove the authority and veracity of Scripture. Owen, in one sense, begins with the truth of Scripture's authority and defends it on the basis of the character of Scripture's God. Interestingly, he ties the deity of Christ in with the entire discussion on Scripture's and God's authority.39 A defense of Scripture's authority, for Owen, goes hand in hand with a defense of the existence of God as well as the deity of Christ. The three questions are so interwoven as to be almost inseparable. To defend Scripture's authority is to defend God's authority and His claim on men. As a matter of fact, it would seem that Owen views the matter of the authority of Scripture as the first problem that must be resolved and that the problem of God's authority and Christ's divinity will follow from that. He is not willing to prove first the divinity of Christ and His doctrine and then to seek to prove the authority of the Scriptures.40 For Owen, the Christian should never admit to autonomy prior to an assent to authority as the some modern day rationalistic apologetics would want to affirm. Though to a rationalist, this approach is manifestly irrational. To Owen, it is magnificently rational, which brings us to our next question.
RATIONALISM
If the Scriptures are to be believed solely on their own evidence, what part, if any does man's reason play in the assent to such authority? Owen, because of his sensitivity to the prevailing rationalism of his day, was aware of such an objection. Generally speaking, Owen's view of reason was determined by his view of man's relationship to God. Though he seems at times to speak of reason in general,41 it seems clear that Owen kept in the forefront of his mind the condition of man's reason both before and/or after conversion. For example, in speaking of the Trinity, Owen affirms that its teaching is contrary to reason. But then he puts his affirmation into perspective, "But first, I ask, what reason is it that they intend? It is their own, the carnal reason of men."42 The depravity of unregenerate reason is, it seems, the predominant idea in Owen's own discussions. He is insistent that we must "establish the use of reason through the necessity of spiritual illumination."43 Owen will not allow for an assumed autonomous reason to be the judge of Scripture's inherent authority. To assume that man's reason is capable of passing judgement on Scripture's authority is to assume that there is an authority which is above Scripture itself. Herein Owen makes another helpful distinction, specifically, with regard to the church's authority, though it would certainly apply to any supposed authority of reason. He distinguishes between an "interposition of any authority between the things to be believed and our souls" and "the interposition of any other means whereby we should believe."44 Owen is certainly not opposed to the use of reason. As a matter of fact, to him any denial of the use of reason is tantamount to atheism.45 The problem seems to come when some think that reason is a master rather than servant, when men use reason to determine the nature of Scripture rather than the other way round.
Reason in the abstract, or the just measure of the answering of one thing unto another, is of great moment: but reason - that is, what is pretended to be so, or appears to be so unto this or that man, especially in and about things of divine revelation - is of very small importance (of none at all) where it riseth up against the express testimonies of Scripture...46
Owen is aware of and quick to defend the limitedness of reason. In this same treatise on the Trinity he answers the charge that the same being cannot be three and one, "All these reasonings are built upon this supposition, that that which is finite can perfectly comprehend that which is infinite - an assertion absurd, foolish, and contradictory unto itself."47
The relevance of Owen's view of reason to our discussion of Scripture's authority has to do with the so-called "rational arguments". Such arguments are those which would come from more indirect evidence that attests to Scripture's authority. In a footnote to the "Greater Catechism", Owen calls the rational arguments "unanswerable".48 As was said above (see n.45) Owen insists on the use of reason and never depreciates it as a means. He is, however, convinced that reason itself is an insufficient base from which to establish the authority of Scripture and that reason used apart from the base of Scripture's authority is insufficient proof. There is, therefore, no "bare" rational argument that is able in and of itself to convince men of the Bible's self-attestation. In order to summarize Owen's position as to the rational arguments, we quote him here at length,
Now, seeing it is expected from us, and required of us, by God himself, and that on the penalty of his eternal displeasure if we fail in our duty, (2 Thess.i.7-10,) that we receive the Scripture not as we do other books-in relation to their authors-with a firm opinion, built on prevailing probable arguments, prevalent against any actual conclusions to the contrary-but with divine and supernatural faith-omitting all such inductions as serve only to ingenerate a persuasion not to be cast out of the mind by contrary reasonings or objections-it is especially inquired, What is the foundation and formal reason of our doing so, if we so do? Whatever that be, it returns an answer to this important question, "Why, or on what account, do you believe the Scriptures, or books of the Old and New Testament, to be the word of God?" Now the formal reason of things being but one-whatever consideration may be had of other inducements or arguments to beget in us a persuasion that the Scripture is the word of God, yet they have no influence on that divine faith wherewith we are bound to believe them. They may, indeed, be of some use to repel the objections that are, or may be, raised against the truth we believe-and so indirectly cherish and further faith itself-but as to a concurrence unto the foundation, or formal reason, of our believing, is not capable of it.49
There is a sense in which, Owen is saying, other arguments may persuade us. But such persuasion has nothing to do with the faith that we must have in order properly to believe the Scriptures to be the word of God. Such a persuasion is, at best, says Owen, a "moral certainty".50 These arguments are helpful for strengthening the faith that is already ours against temptations, oppositions and objections. They are so helpful, in fact, that Owen says they should be used and insisted upon.51 But they have their place. They are not to be relied upon to convince and persuade unto faith. These arguments can give to "unprejudiced reason" (assuming there is such) a better grounding than that which is built solely on the authority of the church.52 But they are human and faith is divine. They are fallible and faith is infallible. They are natural and faith is supernatural.
Owen's argument for the limited usefulness of rational arguments is based not only on reason's limitedness but on biblical revelation's sufficiency. To need something further than Scripture itself to prove its authority is as much as admitting Scripture's inability to convince the minds of men. The sufficiency of faith to believe depends on the sufficiency of Scripture to reveal, "...if that revelation needs something else, which is not revelation, to give credit to it, or if that which is the first revelation yet needs another to make it manifest to us it is not itself the first;-which is a palpable contradiction."53 It is the nature of Scripture as well as the nature of reason that causes Owen to argue for the self-attestation of the Scripture. Owen sees it as dishonorable to God if the authority of His Word depends on the arguments of men.54 It is
a dishonor to his wisdom, if he could not otherwise assure men of the divine original of the Scripture, than by having men bear witness to it; if he knew no other way of certifying us of his will, and making known his laws to us, but by the help of our fellow-creatures, who, as well as we, are subject to those laws.55
Again, the sufficiency of Scripture has its terminus as does the authority of Scripture, in the character of the God of Scripture! Because of that fact, Scripture could never have its terminus in man's reason or in anything but itself.
Rationalistic apologetics seems, at times, to have a twofold agenda with which Owen's emphasis here can help us. It seems to want to say both that man's reason must be the final arbiter of Scripture's authority and that man's decision must be the final reason. While Owen is not dealing directly with man's will in his discussion of reason, he is dealing directly with the problem of a supposed autonomy. As we have seen, Owen unashamedly affirms that there must be reasons for Scripture's authority, but he affirms also that reason, as well as decisions, must have an "Archimedean point", a place on which to stand, a context from which to come. All reasons relate directly to God and His character.56 All decisions come by virtue of the persuasive power, not of man's intellect, but of God's inherent authority. Thus, Owen has as his first priority tohe glory and character of God by insisting on Scripture's authority as that beyond which we cannot appeal.
SCRIPTURE AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
It is interesting in some versions of Christian apologetics that there is an embarrasment in appealing to the testimony of the Holy Spirit as one reason why Scripture must be believed. Owen recognizes that the testimony of the Holy Spirit must play an integral part in the discussion of Scripture's authority. But he is unwilling to treat the matter superficially. We will look now at Owen's careful analysis of the Spirit's testimony as it relates to Scripture's authority. We will see again how Owen's circle begins to broaden as he looks at the Spirit's ministry through the Word.
It seems that Owen, in dealing with the testimony of the Holy Spirit and its relation to Scripture's authority, is reacting both to Romanism and to subjectivism, e.g., in Quakerism.57
It has already been noted that Owen argues for the necessity of divine illumination through the Holy Spirit in order for reason to function properly.58 As a Reformed theologian, he realizes that reason must be renewed if man is going to accept the things of God as such. But as far as I can tell, Owen never speaks of the Spirit's illuminating ministry or His testifying ministry apart from the self-evidencing authority of God's Word. The Word and the Spirit must never be separated. As we saw above, when Owen speaks of "faith divine, infallible and supernatural" he speaks of such attributes of faith because of its direct connection to both the Spirit and the Word. Faith is divine with respect to the Spirit and the Word, infallible with respect to the Word and supernatural with respect to the Spirit.59 Typically, those who think in these terms think of God's Word as objective testimony, God's Spirit as subjective testimony and both together as certain testimony. While Owen affirms that there is indeed the subjective testimony of the Holy Spirit within His people, he is quick to show that there is much more to it than that. It will be helpful to look at both aspects.
In Volume XVI of his Works, Owen writes about the testimony of the Holy Spirit especially as it relates to Scripture's authority.60 He begins by speaking of the Spirit's testimony to the mind of man. Such a testimony is not a vocal testimony concerning the Word. Some in Romanism apparently had attributed to Protestantism such a teaching, i.e., that the Spirit speaks to men vocally. Owen wants to affirm first of all that the internal testimony of the Spirit is not of the Word but by the Word.61 The Spirit does not speak to men about the Word of God and its authority but He speaks through God's authoritative Word. In this sense, there are two witnesses to Scripture's authority. The very Word of God itself is a witness because it is God's own Word, and the Spirit of God testifies that God's Word is what it says it is. It is important to note that this internal aspect to the Spirit's ministry is to the mind of man, not to his feelings or impressions. There is an implicit denial of subjectivism in this insistence because that which testifies to the mind must come through that which is objective, i.e., the Word of God. the Holy Spirit's testimony does not reside in the impression of an "inner light" but in the Word communicating to the mind.
But Owen wants to affirm that there is a "twofold efficacy of the Spirit" required if the Scriptures are to be received as God's Word.62 The first, we have just seen, is the testimony given by the Spirit to the mind of man. Such testimony has regard for the subject, though, as we have seen, it is not subjectivistic. The second testimony, however, regards the object and is another significant area where Owen broadens and expands his circle. Says Owen,
When, then we resolve our faith into the testimony of the Holy Ghost, it is not any private whisper, word, or voice, given to individual persons; it is not the secret and effectual persuasion of the truth of the Scriptures that falls upon the minds of some men, from various involved considerations of education, tradition, and the like, whereof they can give no particular account; it is not the effectual work of the Holy Ghost upon the minds and wills of men, enabling them savingly to believe, that is intended; (the Papist, for the most part, pleading about these things, do but show their ignorance and malice;) but it is the public testimony of the Holy Ghost given unto all, of the Word, by and in the Word, and its own divine light, efficacy, and power.63
This insistence on the public testimony of the Spirit gives to us another of Owen's sure evidences that Scripture is in fact the Word of God. Owen is not attempting to appeal to that which is outside of Scripture for evidence of Scripture's authority. He is appealing again to the testimony given to Scripture by Scripture's own Author, the Spirit of God. This analysis moves away both from a subjectivistic approach to Scripture's authority and a rationalistic approach. It finds the ground of Scripture's authority in that which is not the Word of God itself yet cannot be divorced from the Word of God written.
...whereas there are but two heads whereunto all grounds of assent do belong-viz., authority of testimony and the self-evidence of truth- they do here both concur in one. In the same Word, we have both the authority of the testimony of the Spirit and the self-evidence of the truth spoken by him; yea, so that these are materially one and the same, though distinguished in their formal conceptions.64
In order to understand this last statement of Owen's, we refer back again to his distinction between the material object and the formal object of faith. He is affirming in the quote above that the Spirit's public testimony and the self-evidence of Scripture are materially one, that is, that in terms of the "matter" or the substance of what we believe, the Word of God and the Spirit of God are one. We believe the Word to be the Word of the Spirit in Scripture. But in terms of the formal object of our faith, the reasons why we believe Scripture to be the Word of God, we must make the distinction between the Word itself as carrying its own authority in itself, and the Spirit who is not the Word as providing, through the Word, public testimony of Scripture's authority. It is this twofold testimony65 of the Scripture's authority that is given to all and thus shows to all its own authority.
Why then do men not submit to Scripture's authority? Owen's answer can be easily anticipated at this point but he answers an argument against his position that, because of its relevance to our discussion, we will need to see.
Some would counter Owen's analysis by affirming indeed that Scripture has its authority in itself and from itself, but that such an authority is not quoad nos, "in respect of us."66 The argument, then, against Owen would be that Scripture's authority may be affirmed in itself but that it does not in fact pertain immediately to man.67 In order for Scripture to reach us, in order that we may submit to its authority, it must be testified unto aliunde, "from some other person or thing."68 He is anticipating here an objection that would be brought by the church of Rome to his insistence on Scripture's authority as sufficient in itself, as itself to reach us. His answer to the above objection is this: (1) If such an objection is raised against Scripture, must not the same objection be raised against God Himself? Either God can reveal Himself to men or He cannot. If God needs69 means in order for His revelation to get through, such means being the only way God's revelation can get through, then God cannot reveal Himself. Someone or something else must do it for Him.70 God is capable, apart from the church or its testimonials, of getting His revelation through to men. (2) Owen also makes the point that authority cannot be had by itself. It is by definition authority that is in relation to others. Authority, says Owen, is always in relation to someone and cannot be, by its nature, in and of itself. Obedience and disobedience can only have meaning within the context of God's absolute authority over men. It is because God had authority over His creatures that He can require obedience from them. Were His authority simply in itself, He could require no obedience unless men first submit to Him.
It is in answering the above objection in this way that Owen seems to let his polemics overshadow his reasoning, though only in a minimal way. Herein is where his insistence elsewhere on the testimony of the Holy Spirit would relate to the objection above. It would appear that in the name of consistency, Owen should have affirmed the self-evidencing authority of Scripture, as he does in his answer, but that he should have also affirmed that the Scriptures are indeed testified unto "aliunde"! They are testified unto through and by the Spirit of God bearing witness publicly to the authority of His Word and privately to the minds, hearts and consciences of the people of God. Though Owen gives full weight to this later on in the same work,71 and because of that answers the objection fully, it seems that at this particular juncture in the discussion he loses sight of that which he so strongly affirms elsewhere. If this analysis is correct (and it certainly may not be), this is the only weakness in Owen's discussion on Scripture's authority.
In his Pneumatologia, Owen treats again of the Spirit's testimony in relation to the Scripture's authority. He does so in the context of a refutation of the ability of rational arguments to persuade us. He again insists that our submission must, by definition, be of the same nature as that which produced the submission. If our assent to Scripture's authority has as its basis rational arguments, then it is an assent of mere human opinion and not of faith.72 At this point, Owen insists that faith itself is distinguished from any other knowledge of assent of the mind because it alone is "built on and resolved into testimony."73 He then begins to discuss the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
He is aware of the fact that an appeal to the Spirit's testimony may appear to be irrational.74 His response, it seems, must again be taken in the context of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit as distinguished from the public testimony. Owen affirms that the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the minds of men cannot be the reason why we believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, but is rather the power by which we believe.75 In saying this Owen is again marking a clear distinction between the Spirit's testimony internally and the Spirit's testimony publicly. This, of course, has relevance to rationalistic apologetics. Given Owen's argumentation in this area, it may be that those who claim to be "traditional" in their approach to apologetics may in fact be "traditional" only in the Romanist (arminian) approach to the same. Perhaps those whose basis is man rather than God will find themselves arguing in a circle from which they could never remove themselves!
CIRCULAR ARGUMENTATION
As we have discussed Owen's position on authority, there has been at least an implicit problem which Owen addresses and with which we will now conclude. It is the problem, as mentioned above, of circular argumentation. It is interesting to note that, as was said above, Owen was influenced by the categories of Aristotelianism. At the point of circular argumentation, however, Owen unashamedly leaves the logic of Aristotle and embraces the logic of Scripture. Yet at the same time, he is quick to show that it is those who hold the position of Rome who truly "reason in a round". It is not the authority of Scripture, but the supposition of the absolute authority of the church to decide which authority is absolute that causes problems in reasoning.
The circular argument to which Owen appeals is not, as was said above, a narrow circle. It is , by its nature, both broad and loose enough to include within it different perspectives on authority. Owen wants his readers to understand, however, that he will not base his argument on the authority of Scripture strictly on the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. The internal testimony of the Spirit must be there if we are to believe the absolute authority of Scripture. With this all would agree. But, says Owen of the internal testimony, "...it cannot be admitted as the formal object of our faith, because it would divert us from that which is public, proper, every way certain and infallible."76 It will not do, therefore simply to attribute to Owen or to those who hold to the "self-credibility" of Scripture a type of vicious reasoning that is without foundation or evidence. The internal testimony of the Spirit is indeed necessary yet it is not the testimony to which we need appeal first of all. Owen's response to the "vicious circle" charge of Rome is ingenious,
"We cannot," say the Papists again, "know the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit. For either it is public testimony, which is that of the church" (and if this be granted they have enough); "or it is private testimony. But then," they say, "it will follow,-1.that our faith in the Scripture is enthusiasm. 2.That if the private testimony of the Spirit be questioned; it cannot be proved but by the Scripture; and so the Scripture being proved by the Spirit, and the Spirit again by the Scripture, we shall run in a round, which is no lawful way of arguing."77
Owen answers the charges of Rome by insisting, first of all, that the Scriptures are testified to publicly and not just internally. Such a public testimony is given, not by the church, however, but by the Holy Spirit.78 Recall what was discussed previously concerning both the private and the public testimony of the Spirit. Owen will readily admit that men will only concede the authority of Scripture when the Holy Spirit applies that which is public testimony to the hearts of men. But such application is not enthusiasm because God uses ordinary, rather than extraordinary measures.79 Owen then makes another distinction that, though it is reminiscent of the categories of Aristotle, it is, nevertheless, helpful and biblical in its inference.
For if I be asked, how I know the Scripture to be the Word of God; this question may have a double sense: for either it is meant of the power and virtue whereby I believe; and then I answer, By the power and efficiency of the Spirit of God, opening the eyes of my understanding, and enabling me to believe;-or it is meant of the medium or argument made use of, and by which, as a motive, I am drawn to believe; and then I answer, Those impressions of divinity the Spirit hath left on the word, and by which he witnesseth it to be of God, are the argument or motive persuading me to believe.80
Here Owen makes a distinction between that which enables the Christian to believe, the "efficient" of belief, and that which is the objective cause or argument causing the Christian to believe.81 It is the latter, according to Owen, the motive of belief, that cannot be attributed to the internal work of God the Holy Spirit. The motive of our faith must be, not the Spirit's internal testimony as the Romanists assume, but the "evidences of divinity" that we see in Scripture itself, through the Spirit's enlightening us.82 The Scriptures move us to believe objectively, while the Spirit moves us to believe effectively. "So that here is no danger of a circle in our discourse, or proving idem per idem."83 It seems at this point Owen is wanting to shy away from an affirmation of circular argumentation. In other places, Owen is well aware of his circularity and realizes that it is his only way of arguing.84 The explanation to Owen's aversion to circularity in the text cited above is that Owen believes his argument to be more reasonable and "evidential" than the argument of the Papists, whom he charges with what we call a vicious circularity. Owen shows that the Papists' circle is in fact a noose!85 Owen assigns to the church of Rome, not one efficient of belief and one motive of belief, rather, he says, Rome is caught between two different motives of faith, neither of which can prove the other without at the same time contradicting itself as the motive of faith.
And, indeed, they do plainly run into a circle, in their proving the Scripture by the authority of the church and the authority of the church again by the Scripture; for with them the authority of the church is the motive or argument, whereby they prove the divine authority of the Scripture, and that again is the motive or argument, by which they prove the authority of the church. And so both the church and the Scripture are more known than each other, and yet less, too: more known, because they prove each other; and less known, because they are proved by each other.86
Owen is showing that Rome can allow for no efficient of belief because it has claimed for itself two absolute authorities that they suppose will exist side by side. The papists then are in a "deadly" circle because neither of the two authorities is self-authenticating nor is there an affirmation of the power by which one believes. The circle is closed with the papists and argumentation will be self-defeating. Then, in a rare show of sarcasm (at least when dealing with this topic), Owen concludes with these biting remarks concerning the papists' circle,
But it is no matter; the pope's omnipotency can easily break it [the circle], or the church's authority make her logic canonical, though all the Aristotles in the world should make it Apocryphal!87
Owen, apparently, by implication, considers his own argument for Scripture's authority to be both biblical and, as compared to Rome, logical.
In conclusion, Owen's arguments for the self-authenticating authority of Scripture have been both insightful and penetrating. He has biblically, consistently and logically shown that men may have no other recourse than to turn to Scripture and to believe it based on its own authority. As was stated in the beginning, the question of authority is central to all biblical argumentation and apologetics. Owen saw it clearly. Those who claim to follow in the same tradition would do well to look more closely.88
OWEN NOTES
1. The Works of John Owen, ed. W.H. Goold, XXIV vols., Edinburgh, 1850-53 (reprinted, Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1965-68), IV.65. I would like to make clear at the outset the I will be making no clear distinction between Scripture's "authority", "self-attestation" or "self-evidence". I think that Owen thought of these terms generally as interchangeable.
2. S.B. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, (Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1987), 185.
3. See R.C. Sproul, J.H. Gerstner, A. Lindsley, Classical Apologetics, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1984), 236-238. It is in this hypothetical dialogue with Van Til that the rationalist apologists most obviously misunderstand Van Til's (and, as will be seen, Owen's) view of Scripture's self-attestation. They contend that Van Til is against giving any reason for his belief. Anyone who has read Van Til can see the absurdity of such a statement.
4. VIII.506; Cf. IV.71; XVI.333ff. For more on Owen's view of the authority of Scripture see the article, "John Owen on Authority and Scripture" by Stanley N. Gundry in the book Innerrancy and the Church, John D. Hannah, ed., (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.
5. IV.50; Cf. XVI.306; VIII.533; IV.20f.
6. IV.153.
7. It is just this autonomy that the Reformed apologists in Classical Apologetics were trying to prove!
8. IV.7
9. IV.9. Notice that Owen cites Ps.19:1,2 and Rom. 1:19-21 for his proof.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. VIII.504; Cf. IV.60f.
14. IV.9. Here Owen is appealing to the proper response of both believer and unbeliever.
15. As far as I can tell, Owen never asks the question in quite this way. Because my own interests in this paper are apologetical, I am simply rephrasing Owen in order to place him in the context of a Reformed approach to apologetics.
16. It was difficult for me to discern whether Owen was providing certainty for God's people (so-called "in-house" arguments), or challenging those who live in unbelief. I have concluded, on the particular subject of the authority of Scripture, that he saw himself as doing both at the same time.
17. In the traditionalist dialogue above, one's personal decision is thought to be tantamount to autonomy and authority. Owen makes the authority of God's Word objective not subjective.
18. IV.18
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. IV.17
22. Ibid.
23. In their book, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, (Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, Harper and Row, San Francisco, 1979), 222, the authors attribute to Owen a "Protestant scholasticism" due to his supposed reversal of the Augustinian order "faith seeking understanding". I can find no justification for such an analysis. To the contrary, Owen seems insistent on Augustine's maxim.
24. See for (1) reason, XVI.306; (2) church, IV.17; and (3) Holy Spirit, VIII.525.
25. Owen does not make the subject/object distinction in the way that I am doing. I place it in this context because of its relevance to modern day apologetics.
26. VIII.500.
27. Ibid.
28. Cf. VIII.506,519; IV.12; XVI.329.
29. Owen is aware of and deals with the charge of circularity, about which later.
30. See Rogers and McKim cited above and Peter Toon, God's Statesman, (The Attic Press, Inc., Greenwood, S.C., 1971), 5-6.
31. See Ferguson, 184.
32. See, e.g., IV.16-17.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid., 20.
35. Ibid., 18.
36. Ibid., 19.
37. XVI.311.
38. Ibid.
39. IV.17.
40. Ibid., 102.
41. See, e.g., IV.21.
42. II.411.
43. IV.161-162.
44. Ibid., 19.
45. Ibid., 9, "Yet it is required hereunto that men do use and exercise the best of rational abilities in the consideration and contemplation of [God's revelations of himself]. Where this is rejected...men degenerate into atheism.
46. II.412, emphasis mine.
47. Ibid.
48. I.470,n.7.
49. XVI.306-307.
50. See IV.47ff.
51. Ibid., 21.
52. Ibid.
53. VIII.506.
54. Ibid., 533.
55. Ibid.
56. Recall what was said earlier about the remote and proximate objects of faith.
57. See, e.g., VIII.524ff. Because the Romanists would charge Protestantism with subjectivism, Owen takes the opportunity to argue against both.
58. IV.14.
59. IV.18.
60. XVI.325ff.; See also IV.18ff.
61. XVI.326.
62. Ibid., 325.
63. Ibid., 328, emphasis mine.
64. Ibid.
65. Speaking here, not of the twofold efficacy mentioned earlier, but of the two ways Scripture testifies publicly of its own authority.
66. Ibid., 308.
67. Using the word immediately here in its classical sense of "without means".
68. Ibid.
69. I think this is the intent of Owen's answer given the fact that he affirms God's use of means.
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid., 329ff.
72. IV.50.
73. Ibid., 53.
74. Ibid., 55.
75. Ibid., 56.
76. Ibid., 64.
77. VIII.524.
78. Ibid., 525.
79. Ibid. By "Ordinary" Owen seems to mean that God uses means to accomplish His purposes. That which is extraordinary is immediate.
80. Ibid., 526.
81. Ibid., 527.
82. Ibid., 526.
83. Ibid.
84. See Ferguson, 194 and Owen IV.55ff.; XVI.427.
85. VIII.527.
86. Ibid.
87. Ibid.
88. It could be easily argued that those who hold to a rationalism in apologetics are within Rome's "tradition", though far removed from the tradition of the Reformation. See Ferguson, 194,n.3 where he cites Calvin's Institutes, I.vii.5 in conjunction with Owen.