I believe the Holy Scriptures to be the sole source of written divine revelation as God’s self disclosure to man . I believe that the word of God is wholly inspired by God and was not sent or delivered by the will of man, but that men spoke from God as the Holy Spirit carried them along to write the scriptures . I believe that the Holy Scriptures, as the inspired Word of God, are inerrant as are those parts which treat of historical, geographical, and other secular matters as recorded in the original autographs . I believe that The Bible alone, as found in the canonical books , teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.Endnotes
God desires to make known to man His truth and His purposes (Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, p.48). Ryrie defines revelation as a disclosure to others of what was previously not known to them. It is to be noted that God has not limited his self-disclosure only to the Scriptures. Divine revelation also occurs through nature (Gen 3:18, 19; Psalm 19:6; Rom 1: 19-23; Rom 8:19 – 21), through his providence (Deut 30:1-10; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; 9:24-27; Hosea 3:4,5; Matt 23:37-25:46; Acts 15:1-18; Rom 11:13-29; 2 Thess 2:1-12; Rev 2:1-12), through his preservation of all things in general, and His people in particular (Col 1:16-17; Acts 17:28; Phil 4:19), through miracles (Matt 11:2-6), through direct communication (Num 12: 8; 24:3-9; Deut 34:10; Gen 14:18-20; 24:50), and through the incarnation (John 1:14; Rom 9:4; Col 2:9; Heb 1:1,2). Again, Ryrie pointedly states that, "General revelation is sufficient to alert a man to his need of God and to condemn him if he rejects what he can learn through nature but only faith in Christ is sufficient to save (Acts 4:12)
In historic writings, confessions, and creeds, the Church has continually affirmed the means by which God is made known to man. For instance, Article 2 of the Belgic Confession (1561) states: ‘We know Him by two means: first, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe (Psalm 19:2; Eph 4:6); which is before our eyes as a most elegant book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to contemplate the invisible things of God, namely, His eternal power and divinity, as the apostle Paul saith (Rom 1:20). All which things are sufficient to convince men, and leave them without excuse. Secondly, He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by His holy and divine Word (Psalm 19:8; 1 Cor 12:6) that is to say, as far as is necessary for us to know in this life, to His glory and our salvation (Beeke & Ferguson).’
By inspired it is to be understood that God is the source of the Holy Scriptures, and that the Holy Spirit of God is the agent for the giving of scripture to man. Upon careful study and patient observation, one should come to an orthodox view of Biblical inspiration such as is found in Articles V and VI of the The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Holding an orthodox position on inspiration will inherently lead one to necessarily refute contradictory theories of biblical inspiration. For example, post Enlightenment rationalist and idealist thinking which negates divine revelation, emphasizing the rational and experiential self-illumination of man. Claims that scripture is uninspired but the concepts are. Modern proposals of inspiration would include Bart’s verbal-dynamic theory of inspiration, where the Holy Spirit uses uninspired text in the life of the believer, or the classical orthodoxy theory of mechanical dictation which views man as a non-participating stenographer.
It should be noted that the issue of inspiration was not a concern of the early church Fathers. To this assertion, Robert Preus writes, ‘that the Bible is the word of God, inerrant and of supreme divine authority, was a conviction held by all Christians and Christian teachers through the first 1,700 years of church history.’ One need not arrive at this point by mere supposition, but from the patristic writings themselves as is evident in Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians where he writes, ‘You have studied Holy Scripture, which contains the truth and is inspired by the Holy Spirit. You realize that there is nothing wrong or misleading written in it.’
3 The theologian would do well to derive and substantiate a doctrine of inspiration from scripture itself. The Bible gives evidence of its divine inspiration and authority. The authoritative voice of the Bible is the Bible. The most important verse, according to B.B. Warfield, is found in 2 Tim. 3:16: “All scripture is breathed out by God.’ (2 Tim 2:16a, ESV) One would accurately translate this as “God breathed,” the product of the creative breath of God. The very breath of God is the source of the Biblical text. Again, Warfield articulates this idea when he writes, ‘God’s breath is the irresistible outflow of his power. When Paul declares, then, that “every scripture” or “all scripture” is the product of the divine breath, “is
God-breathed,” he asserts that Scripture is the product of a specifically divine operation.’Clarity must also be given to man’s role in the formation of the scriptures. ‘And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention to, as a light shining in the darkness, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture comes from man’s interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-21, ESV).’ Again, an appeal to the text will be made. First, we note that the Apostle affirms the authority and reliability of the prophetic word (scripture) when he states that ‘we have something more sure, the prophetic word…’ Next, he correctly attributes the inspiration, or source of the word to God, for ‘no prophecy of scripture comes from man’s interpretation’ nor was it ‘ever produced by the will of man’. Verse 21 decrees that ‘men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit,’ clearly showing the role of man and affirming the correct teaching of a dual authorship of scripture with the primary significance being given to the Divine. The result is that all scripture is from God, written by human beings, under the control of the Holy Spirit.
A natural corollary to the doctrine of inspiration is the inherent authority of the Bible. By the term authoritative it is implied that the Bible in all its parts is the voice of God speaking to men (Chafer). A brief overview of how Christ attested to the authority of scripture will be helpful towards establishing a divine basis of Biblical authority. ‘It was from the divine side of His being that He attested the Word of God; on the human side he was subject to it. As corroborating Authenticator of the Scriptures, Christ was not merely one among many who spoke well of the Oracles of God. Likewise, He was not offering the opinion of a human prophet, priest, or king, though He was and is forever all of these. His attestation of the Sacred Writings was no less than that of Deity- the second person in the blessed Trinity (Chafer).’ Christ was fully obedient to the scriptures (Matt. 4:1–11; 5:17–18; Heb. 10:5–7). In the four Gospels, there are thirty-five direct references to, and quotations from the scriptures relating to the Son of God. Jesus defended his theological positions with scripture (Matt. 22:29–46; 12:1–8; 23:1–4, 23; 4:1–11) and continually exhorted others to a knowledge of and obedience to the Holy Scriptures (John 5:39–47; Matt. 19:16–19; 23:1–2; Luke 16:19–31).
4 Inerrancy is a natural corollary of inspiration and is often addressed under the topics of scriptural authority and inspiration. Also, the terms inerrancy and infallibility are often interchanged. For instance, B.B. Warfield did not construe a difference between infallibility and inerrancy. ‘The substance of the one term is the substance of the other.’ In addition, the inerrant claims regarding the scriptures are indirectly asserted in evangelical definitions of inspiration. From Henry, ‘inspiration is that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit whereby the sacred writers were divinely supervised in their production of Scripture, being restrained from error and guided in the choice of words they used, consistently with their disparate personalities and stylistic peculiarities.’ The same inerrant inferences are also found in the historic creeds of the Reformers. From the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), ‘We believe and confess the Canonical Scriptures of the Holy Prophets and apostles of both Testaments to be the true Word of God, and to have sufficient authority of themselves, not of men. For God Himself spake to the fathers, prophets, apostles, and still speaks to us through the Holy Scriptures (Beeke & Ferguson).’ Although there are distinctions between authority, inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy, it is important to view inerrancy as an indispensable component of scriptural authority. Within this context, we must consider the importance to utilize the word ‘inerrant’ within an evangelical doctrinal statement of scripture (see above, On Scripture: A Doctrinal Statement on Holy Scripture) and to elucidate it’s meaning.
The following definitions will help better delineate inerrancy from both inspiration and authority and will give a fuller understanding of the term. From Feinberg, ‘inerrancy means that when all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social physical or life sciences (Geisler).” From E.J. Young, “The Scriptures possess the quality of freedom from error. They are exempt from the liability to mistake, incapable of error. In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth (Young, Thy Word is Truth, p. 113). From the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, “Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, that in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives From Grudem, “the inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.” It is important to distinguish that inerrancy focuses on ‘the question of truthfulness and falsehood in the language (emphasis added) of scripture (Grudem).’ It should not go unnoticed that Grudem’s point about language is of particular importance when we consider our prior discussion of scriptures increasing irrelevance within a literary deconstructionist context. An inerrant Biblical record in its simplest terms means that ‘the Bible always tells the truth, and that it always tells the truth concerning everything it talks about (Grudem).’
A post-enlightenment reassessment of the Bible’s role within the Church has relegated scriptures voice to a faint whisper. One might anticipate and even expect the declination of scripture within a post-modern, deconstructionist culture, but the continued silence of the Bible within the Church itself is a matter of grave concern. ‘The Bible no longer exercises anything like the authority it once did in many Christian communities. And in those communities where the Bible continues to exercise its traditional role there is little or no serious engagement with the problems of the twentieth century (Stroup).’ The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals state that ‘scripture alone is the inerrant rule of the church’s life, but the evangelical church today has separated Scripture from its authoritative function. In practice, the church is guided, far too often, by the culture.’ An in depth discussion as to why the scriptures are becoming silent within the church will not be addressed here. However, assertions of blame could be made against both the liberal and conservative reactions to post-enlightenment theologizing. In either case, one might come to the same conclusion as Grenz and Franke where ‘the chief culprit in the undermining of the Bible’s status in the church has been modern theology itself.’ The stark reality of scriptures eroding authority within the church and culture gives rise to the importance of undergirding a Post-Modern evangelical doctrine on scripture by specifically making the claim of inerrancy.
Evidence supporting Biblical inerrancy as a corollary to inspiration and authority, mainly citing what the Bible says about itself and from Christ’s authoritative use of Scripture, has been addressed (see Endnotes 2 and 3). However, it is important to hold to the assertion that the language of the Bible is absolute truth even though (1) the Bible can speak in the ordinary language of everyday speech, (2) contain loose or free quotations, (3) contains unusual or uncommon grammatical constructs. These are common objections to the inerrancy of Biblical language. Regarding the use of ordinary language, this is commonly typified by ‘scientific’ or ‘historical’ descriptions of facts or events. Grudem provides an illustration, ‘the Bible can speak of the sun rising and the rain falling because from the perspective of the speaker this is exactly what happens. From the standpoint of an observer standing on the sun (were that possible) or on some hypothetical “fixed” point in space, the earth rotates and brings the sun into view, and rain does not fall downward but upward or sideways or whatever direction necessary for it to be drawn by gravity toward the surface of the earth. But such explanations are hopelessly pedantic and would make ordinary communication impossible. From the standpoint of the speaker, the sun does rise and the rain does fall, and there are perfectly true descriptions of the natural phenomena the speaker observes.” Inerrancy is more concerned with truthfulness and less concerned with exactitude. Next, the Bible does not require verbal exactness when citing the Old Testament in the New Testament. In fact, the use of quotations was not part of the Hebrew and Greek of biblical times and the idea of exactly quoting another was foreign in those times. To quote Grudem, “an accurate citation of another person needed to include only a correct representation of the content of what the person said (rather like our indirect quotations): it was not expected to cite each word exactly. Truthfulness of content was the expectation and the goal of the author. Therefore, loose or free quotations are in keeping with inerrancy and in no way tarnish or discredit the truth of the Bible. Finally, to the question of incorrect grammar found in the Biblical text precluding an inerrant Bible, the answer is simply, no. As Feinberg clearly states, ‘the rules of grammar are merely statements of normal usage of the language. Every day skilled writers break them in the interest of superior communication. Why should the writers of Scripture be denied this privilege? Yes there are a few ungrammatical statements in the original languages, but they are inerrant because they are completely true.
Lastly, a claim to inerrancy is relegated to the original autographa, or manuscripts. God says that, “I, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right” (Isa 45:19). The evangelical would confess that the inerrant truths of God given to the prophets and apostles are to be found in the autographic text, not the codex. In addition, copies of the Bible are fully authoritative and revelatory because they are tied to the original, accurately reflecting all of the truths found in the autogpraha. Errors found in manuscript variations or in transmission do not contradict inerrancy.
How then, should one refute the assertion that the absence of the original autographs renders any doctrine of inerrancy useless? First, critical scholarly reviews of the available Hebrew and Greek texts have been repeatedly found to be without significant error and are worthy of our careful review and study. In addition, there are countless uses of biblical writers employing the use of existing scriptural copies with the assumption of their authority being tied to the original manuscripts. Bahnsen provides the following illustrations, pointing out that ‘David spoke to the apostles through copies of the Book of Psalms (Matt 22:34; Mark 12:24-26). Similarly, when one reads the copy of Scripture he will see that which was spoken by Daniel the prophet himself (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14).’ Thus we affirm and apply the authoritative view and use of the codex by the apostles and Christ himself to the existing scriptural copies today. In summary, ‘the evangelical restriction of inerrancy to the original autographa is warranted, important, and defensible. Further, it does not jeopardize the adequacy and authority of our present Bibles. Accordingly the doctrine of original inerrancy can be commended to all believers who are sensitive to the authority of the Bible as the very word of God and who wish to propagate it as such today (Bahnsen).’
5 The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) provides us with an understanding of what is to be considered an orthodox, protestant definition of the cannon. ‘Under the name of the Holy Scripture, or the word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:
Of the Old Testament:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.
Of the New Testament:
The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians 1, Corinthians 2, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians 1, Thessalonians 2, To Timothy 1, To Timothy 2, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle to James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation to John.
Although the Westminster Confession of 1647 affirms what is accepted today as 66 canonical books, it is important to note that the same 66 books were widely mentioned and recognized by the 4th century, and were progressively revealed and formulated over a period of 250 years. In regards to the acceptance of the Old Testament scriptures, their acceptability by the early church was based upon Jesus’ and the apostle’s authoritative use. Furthermore, distinct criteria was utilized to determine the canonicity of scripture, mainly (1) Apostolic authority, (2) Antiquity, meaning that the writings must be attributable to the Apostolic age, (3) Adherence to Apostolic orthodoxy, (4) The universal recognition or catholicity of scripture, (5) Inspiration meaning that New Testament writers did not typically base their authority on divine inspiration, but because of their trustworthiness as witnesses to the actual events. By the third century, the Alexandrian school viewed inspiration as ‘no longer a criterion of canonicity; it is a corollary of canonicity.’ Ultimately, the relevance of understanding and recognizing the Bible as canonized in the 66 books is a necessary exercise which leads to an acknowledgement biblical authority and of this truth: that the Bible is the breath of God, consummated in the transmission of that message to chosen prophets and in recognizing the sacred canon by those to whom it first came (Chafer).
6 The Bible, the written word of God, contains all that is necessary for the salvation of men. The Westminster Large Catechism (1648) affirms that ‘the very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God; but His Word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal Him unto men for their salvation.’ In addition, ‘The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (Westminster Confession, 1647).’
Furthermore, the Word of God is the agency by which faith is generated (Chafer). It is inherently understood that the Bible contains the element of Life that the Word of God is life itself just as God is a living God. The Bible says that “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17).” Peter states that we are “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever (1 Peter 1:23).” Whether read or heard (preached), the Bible is necessary for ones salvation (Grudem).
7 The Bible includes all necessary and essential statements on how a Christian is to live out his or her faith in any given dispensation of God. We affirm that there is no other authority or source for practical instruction outside of the Biblical text. (Mark 12:26, 36; 13:11; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Acts 1:16; 17:2–3; 18:28; 26:22–23; 28:23; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 2:13; 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21)
Works Cited
The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, The Cambridge Declaration, April 20, 1996.
Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1948, 1976).
Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. (Michigan: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994).
J. Beeke and S. Ferguson, Reformed Confessions Harmonized. (Michigan: Baker Books, 2002), 4th edition.
Clement of Rome. “Epistle to the Corinthians.” Available from http://www.ccel.org/ccelschaff/anf01.toc.html.
R. D. Preus, “The View of the Bible Held by the Church: The Early Church Through Luther,” in Inerrancy, p. 357 – 382.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed.1988, s.v. “Inspiration”.
S. Grenz and J. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism. (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001).
P. D. Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Inerrancy. (Michigan: Zondervan, 1980), p. 267 – 304.
G. L. Bahnsen, “The Inerrancy of the Autographa,” in Inerrancy. (Michigan: Zondervan, 1980), p. 151 – 193.
B.B. Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, p. 173.
“The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” in Inerrancy. (Michigan: Zondervan, 1980), p. 494.
The General Assemblies of God, “The Inerrancy of Scripture”, a positional paper, May 1970.
No comments:
Post a Comment