Speaking of the doctrine of Scripture, N.T. Wright says, “But such a doctrine usually has to be inferred. It may well be possible to infer it, but it is not (for instance) what Isaiah or Paul are talking about. Nor is it, for the most part, what Jesus is talking about in the gospels. He isn’t constantly saying, ‘What about scripture? What about scripture?’ It is there sometimes, but it is not the central thing that we have sometimes made it” (“How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?” p. 3).
This appears to be another instance of a category mistake. Authority does not work in the way Wright seems to be describing. What Jesus is talking about, and what Jesus is assuming, need not be the same thing. The real issue does not have to be the propositional content of the conversation.
When God told Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the only thing He referred to, the only thing He was talking about, was the tree, and the not eating, and the potential consequences of eating. He was not talking about a “doctrine of authority” at all. That was not the topic. The topic was a certain tree, and the forbidden fruit. But, nevertheless, certain assumptions about authority pervaded every aspect of God’s relationship to Adam, and there was no portion of His command to Adam that was not entirely and completely “about authority” in a non-topical sense. And that is why, when the serpent came into the picture, he singled out this doctrine of the Word as the real issue. “Hath God said?”
If I were to tell one of my children to “shut the door, please” the only thing “stated” involves doors, shutting, and courtesy. But a certain authoritative relationship is assumed. Now if a neighbor kid is standing there, and says, “Don’t let him tell you what to do!” the topic of conversation will rapidly turn to the doctrine of authority. And as long as the rebellious kid is there, the topic will remain on the question of authority.
So when the question arises, “why you do you conservative evangelicals talk about the authority of Scripture all the time?” the answer is plain. It is because the serpent is there, constantly denying it all the time. In an age of faith, it would be perverse to be constantly affirming what no one denies. But we do not live in an age of faith. In Christendom, taking the broad view, numerous unbelieving theologians and preachers have a view of Scripture that is weak and watered down. Some have watered it down to the point where we might even describe their hermeneutic as homeopathic.
So to return to Wright’s point. It is not conservative evangelicals who have “made” the authority of Scripture a “central thing” that it is not in Scripture itself. It is the unbelievers who have done this. We have not made affirming the doctrine of Scripture the central thing. But in the presence of those who deny it, it is the central thing.