The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God’s written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.
The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God’s own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstanding of this doctrine in the world at large.
This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition*. It has been prepared in the course of a three- day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life, and mission.
We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God’s grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.
We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God’s Word we shall be grateful.
A Short Statement
God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.
Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.
The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
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, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.
The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
Articles of Affirmation and Denial
Article I
We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.
We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.
Article II
We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.
We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.
Article III
We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.
We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.
Article IV
We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.
We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God’s work of inspiration.
Article V
We affirm that God’ s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.
We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.
Article VI
We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.
Article VII
We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.
Article VIII
We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.
Article IX
We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.
Article X
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
Article XI
We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.
Article XII
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Article XIII
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of
grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
Article XIV
We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.
We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.
Article XV
We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.
We deny that Jesus’ teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.
Article XVI
We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history.
We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.
Article XVII
We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God’s written Word.
We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.
Article XVIII
We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historicaI exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.
Article XIX
We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.
We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church.
The following are chapter notes from the book, “Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy.” The book is a compilation of essays from R. Albert Mohler Jr., Peter Enns, Michael F. Bird, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and John R. Franke. The general editors are J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett. The textbook is in the Counterpoints of Bible & Theology Series. It was published in 2013 by Zondervan.
Chapter One: When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy
The editors of the book “Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy” have put together a conversation in written form between academics who discuss the doctrine of inerrancy. The discussion is structured in a counterpoint format where four contributors frame the narrative with an opening statement to challenge thought and debate. Participants of the discussion include four prominent individuals within an academic context who bring together multiple perspectives about what inerrancy is. And if it is a valid way to understand and accept Scripture, its merits or flaws. Participants include Albert Mohler Jr (President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), Michael F. Bird (Anglican Priest, Theologian, and NT Scholar), Peter Enns (Author, Biblical Studies Professor), John R. Franke (Theologian, Professor of Religious Studies), and Kevin Vanhoozer (Theologian, Systematic Theology Professor).
As anyone would understand the term inerrancy, a common definition is generally accepted as follows: “The idea that Scripture is completely free from error. It is generally agreed by all theologians who use the term that inerrancy at least refers to the trustworthy and authoritative nature of Scripture as God’s Word, which informs humankind of the need for and the way to salvation. Some theologians, however, affirm that the Bible is also completely accurate in whatever it teaches about other subjects, such as science and history.”1 In comparison, the Second Vatican Council defines it as: “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings2 for the sake of salvation.” 3 To further recognize Protestant or Evangelical attestation of inerrancy, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) is widely understood as informative to clarify what is meant and accepted as Scripture inerrant of facts and truth.
Mohler offered the prescriptive “When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy” to open the first of a five-part series of declarations. He makes a case for inerrancy as Scripture is a testimony to itself while serving the faith and needs of the Church. To anchor the testimony of God’s Word as trustworthy, Mohler makes a further compelling and persuasive point that Scripture corresponds to God’s personal nature as his own self-revelation (44).
According to Mohler, our comprehension and understanding of God’s Word to support formulaic doctrines are not freestanding. A theology stems from God’s Word as it produces a realism to “affirm the irreducible ontological reality of the God of the Bible.” As “God wrote a book” (45), Mohler affirms that human authors were guided into truth and protected from all error by the Holy Spirit. The absence of error, as a result, explains the propositional value of inerrancy. As such, the terms infallible and inerrant reject the claims the Word of God is theologically incorrect or without truthfulness in its intent to bring salvific, theological, and historiological messaging to its readers.
Therefore, it is affirmed by the CSBI that the Word of God constitutes plenary inspiration for faith and practice. It is helpful as it is authoritative for belief and instruction.
Chapter Two: Inerrancy, However Defined, Does Not Describe What the Bible Does
As ideological fencing was placed by Pharisees who set up regulations around the Mosaic law, they did so to provide insulative barriers at some distance to prevent people from breaking the Old Testament covenant after their return from Babylonian exile. By comparison, it intuitively seems like evangelicals set up theological fencing around the doctrine of inerrancy to prevent people from corrupting the closed Biblical canon and the interpretive meaning of Scripture for valid soteriological purposes. As Enns referred to John Frame’s view about inerrancy as a theologically propositional idea, he wrote that he would rather do away with the term but could not do so because of certain corruptions to follow from theologians (scholars).4
Before Enns began to deconstruct each of the three test cases of Biblical inerrancy initiated by Mohler in chapter one, he spent considerable effort on the disharmony of evangelicals over inerrancy (i.e., socially liberal objections to Scriptural authority) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI). He grieves over the disconnect between academics and inerrantist evangelicals over the doctrine of inerrancy, and he makes clear that it sells the Bible short. Enns also declares that inerrancy sells God short as it is merely a theory of inferior purpose. In his view, it’s a doctrine that needs to be scrapped as it preempts discussion about scholarly conclusions about Scripture’s accuracy, facts, and truths (or at least evangelical interpretation of it). Through Enns’ perspective, it is clear that some academic scholars are certain inerrantists are intellectually dishonest (84) and a disservice to culture as ineffectual spiritual witnesses.5
To add further detail to Enns’ objections to the CSBI, he walks through each of its four assertions point-by-point. All four assertions pertain to the authority of Scripture, its witness of Christ and the Holy Spirit, its commitments to faith, life, and mission, and discontinuity between lifestyle and faith claims of inerrantists. Stemming from each, as there is his distinction made between authority and inerrancy, this is deconstruction. As God’s testimony of himself is true, His Word is undoubtedly accurate without error by extension. Conversely, Enns supposes that as inerrantists view the inseparable linkage between authority and inerrancy, that is a perspective should require a defense. The type of authority recognized by inerrantists is questioned in a further effort to dilute the purpose and intent of the CSBI as merely an affirmation document. The CSBI carries no creedal weight, but it is simply a point of reference or a marker to ascertain what someone concludes or supposes about the nature of Scripture, its truth claims, self-witness, and testimony. Enns and like-minded evangelicals prefer to eliminate the doctrine to render it subject to open-ended critical interaction.
While Enns wants to see “a valid definition of the word truth” (87), he wants Scripture held up to critical review without immunity to our interpretive cultural assumptions. It appears he wants the plain truth and meaning of Scripture and its message rendered impotent to guide and protect believers. Consider the interchange between Jesus and the religious leaders of John 8:12-58 as it concerns how He defines Truth of Himself and that of the Father. By His verbal expression of meaning, it is absolute and without error.
Finally, in so many words, Enns says he genuinely wants to introduce a way to make Scripture compatible with scholars’ research concerning ANE facts, archeological discoveries, and literary analysis of ancient civilizations. So Enns wrote what he thought about an “incarnation model” as an alternative in opposition to the doctrine of inerrancy. An “incarnation model” was set up as a counterpoint to an “inerrancy model” to frame the discussion with a new category of false or foreign meaning. As if generations of the doctrine of inerrancy had no bearing, it was set up as an objective comparison or alternative to inerrancy overall to include the CSBI statement. Contributors Bird, Franke, and Vanhoozer’s views about what Enns wrote weren’t comprehensive or well developed, but they revealed a tension between the doctrine of inerrancy and the incarnation model as if there was something to explore further according to Enns’ perspective.
To consider what the incarnation model implies, Bird’s restatement of John Webster’s view is an eye-opening refutation: “this incarnational model is, as John Webster calls it, ‘Christologically disastrous.’ It’s disastrous because it threatens the uniqueness of the Christ event, since it assumes that hypostatic union is a general characteristic of divine self-disclosure in, through, or by a creaturely agent. Furthermore, it results in a divinizing of the Bible by claiming that divine ontological equality exists between God’s being and his communicative action.”6 Moreover, Irenaeus of Lyons (130-230 A.D.), a disciple of Polycarp, separated incarnation between the Word and Christ within his work Against Heresies. He wrote of the incarnation of Jesus but not of the Word itself to exclude incarnational participation. To quote Irenaeus, “For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma.” 7
Chapter Three: Inerrancy Is Not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA
The book’s third part, Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, entitled “Inerrancy is Not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA,” concerns Michael F. Bird’s views on American understanding of inerrancy concerning the CSBI. Without much interaction with inerrancy in general as a contribution to the work of the book about Biblical Inerrancy, there is an absence of the distinction. The work of chapter 3 in the text is primarily a discourse on affirmations, objections, and concerns about the CSBI. As Bird narrows his thoughts around the particulars of the CSBI, he goes well beyond the purpose and intent of the Chicago Statement’s purpose of upholding the doctrine of inerrancy. Bird takes exception to various points of CSBI inerrancy verbiage around the Biblical creation account in Genesis. He would presumably agree that the truth and principles of inerrancy refer to the trustworthiness and authoritative nature of God’s word as authoritative.
From Bird’s various perspectives, he would not entirely affirm what the Bible infers about other subjects such as science and history. In fact, Bird’s views about inerrancy are better stated as a better categorization of veracity. From the inner witness of the Church by the Holy Spirit, Scripture’s “divine truthfulness” (158) is a way to set aside the claims or proclamations of negative statements in defense of “inerrancy.” Whether on its own merits or as an apologetic expression of the CSBI by American evangelicalism concerning the doctrine inerrancy or inspiration of Scripture.
What the Bible says about itself pertains to its use and inspiration (2 Tim 3:16). Among the various genres of Scripture, the Old and New Testaments are attestations of divine truth whether in narrative, poetic, prophetic, apocalyptic, epistolary form. Scripture best interprets Scripture and reservations about exceptions concerning inerrancy as it does so, whether supported by the CSBI or not, isn’t productive on the grounds of harmonization, literary discrepancies, nation of origination, or supposed contradictions without historiographical refutation. Particularly when so much antipathy exists around the meaning and purpose of God’s Word as it is intended by define revelation for God’s glory and for salvific outcomes. The doctrine of inerrancy doesn’t claim for itself authority over matters concerning self-contradictory postmodern assertions (i.e., opposition to absolute truth and authority). The CSBI and the doctrine of inerrancy are assembled to support a high view of Scripture toward confidence for its intended purpose.
Some objections to inerrancy appear to stem from the term itself. As the Word of God is without error and reliable as God is Truth, Bird calls attention to its comparative infallibility and inspiration. Bird doesn’t indicate that the Word of God is with error or without truth, nor does he suggest that it is uninspired. His reservations are around what interpreters understand about the idea of inerrancy and how that pertains to conclusions involving life and practice. Particularly across cultures of different nationalities that do not hold to the doctrine of inerrancy, especially as it is defined and understood in the West or America more narrowly.
The difference between inerrancy and infallibility is essential and necessary to recognize and understand. To put it clearly, inerrancy, at a minimum, refers to the trustworthy and authoritative nature of God’s word for salvific purposes. By comparison, infallibility refers to Scripture’s inability to fail in its ultimate purpose of revealing God and the way to salvation. It is counterproductive to conflate the two terms or to use them interchangeably. The doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy are not for a social utility or to shape social justice initiatives for society or the State. While Catholicism shares the same definition of inerrancy as Protestantism, it differs in defining infallibility. Infallibility within Catholicism includes the church (i.e., the magisterium and its dogma) under the pope’s authority.
Bird’s assessment and criticism about tirades against God’s Word is exactly the correct posture against those who stand in opposition to its truth, authority, reliability, and inspiration of Scripture. However, it isn’t so much secular culture or atheists who so much pose a harmful threat to the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility as does Christian academics or scholars, well-meaning or not. It is for internal reasons of mishandling God’s Word that it is served by assertive statements of inerrancy to prevent its surrender to a multitude of professing Christians who have a large range of worldviews (including liberalism, or socialism) and would rather see God’s Word rendered insufficient and irrelevant to a postmodern society. Professing Christians, especially progressive Christians, are just as readily inclined to make God’s Word into its own image as secular society.
Unrelated Note: In support of feminist egalitarianism, Bird makes an inflammatory assertion that complementarians enable abuse: Article
Chapter Four: Augustinian Inerrancy: Literary Meaning, Literal Truth, and Literate Interpretation in the Economy of Biblical Discourse
As affirmed by Vanhoozer, the doctrine of inerrancy has an important presupposition. That most important presupposition is: God speaks. Or, more specifically, God the Creator communicates through human language and literature as a means of communicative action to people. Vanhoozer also points out that the works of the Trinity are undivided (opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt) as triune discourse indicative of communicative action involving subjects, objects, and purpose. He makes the case that language is functional and cognitive in nature to support the intent of divine revelation. Therefore, it is recognized that Scripture is a corpus of written communicative work consisting of historical assertions, commands, and explanations. According to Carl Henry (20th-century theologian), Scripture is propositional, but it is also trustworthy as true as it is a correspondence of Christ’s witness to what and who God is.
Inerrancy is a claim that the Bible is true and trustworthy through critical testing and cross-examination. Just as Augustine speaks of the incarnation as humans give tangibility of thoughts as words, Christ is the exact imprint of God’s being (Heb 1:3). Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15) and what Christ speaks is Truth because He originates as God from the Father who is Truth and communicates truth. Whether verbally while with us in Creation or in Scripture by the testimonies of eye-witness accounts of his verbal speech acts. Within the old or new covenants, by God’s presence or His Spirit among people, He cannot lie in Scripture as His personal veracity is made clear through the inspiration of the Canon.
As made evident through divine revelation, truth is a correspondence of covenantal and redemptive meaning. The modes of its conveyance have a bearing on the methods of truth messaging by which it is delivered and understood. Allegory, metaphors, poetic expressions, and narrative discourses together establish the means of language utilized to accomplish its desired intent. Therefore, as Vanhoozer proved, it isn’t helpful when critics of inerrancy confuse matters by suggesting that inerrantists believe every word of the Bible as literal truth. Vanhoozer distinguishes between “sentence meaning” and “speaker, or writer meaning” when readers seek to understand what the author is doing or saying within Scriptural messaging. Analogies defy critical assertions about literalist interpretations of meaning.
Literalism, irrespective of context, can produce contradictions in meaning. Or it can confuse the intent of messaging through various linguistic methods, especially as prophecies and parables were verbally uttered and recorded in Scripture to convey imagery or parallel thoughts and ideas to achieve Spiritual understanding among listeners or readers. The communication method and its content are intentional, just as the assembly, formation, and preservation of God’s Word are true, sure, and lasting for those of faith to believe.
Inerrancy doesn’t claim to affirm or validate scientific or philosophical observations and constructs precisely. Observations of physical behaviors and explanations of metaphysical reality originating from beings in natural order don’t have reach to ascertain spiritual truth and meaning as propositioned and asserted from God’s Word. Supposed contradictions in Scripture that serve as proof-text “gotchas” do not subvert the inerrant truth and meaning of intended spiritual messaging, and theological truth held out as spiritually factual from different authorial perspectives. Even with elaborate and effective explanations to reconcile apparent differences, there isn’t much acceptance to recover veracity among many who object to the doctrine of inerrancy.
Whether believers or unbelievers interpret Scripture according to cognitive reason and comprehension for rational thought and conclusion, gathered facts can become assembled incorrectly to arrive at false notions of belief or disbelief. To quote Vanhoozer, “God’s words are wholly reliable; their human interpretation, not so much” (224). To further explain, biblical inerrancy requires biblical literacy. It is a yoke of burden that people of postmodern culture view Scriptural literality by its terms and expectations of meaning. People within modern society expect a reality of the time of the Old and New Covenants to conform to how things are expected today. The claims of inerrancy do not imply there is only one way to map the reality of the world correctly, either then or now. Proper hermeneutical stands separate from inerrancy as necessary to understand and accept Truth from Scripture.
Chapter Five: Recasting Inerrancy: The Bible As Witness to Missional Plurality
John R. Franke’s contribution to the evangelical conversation around inerrancy is driven by his aspirations around what he calls a plurality of truth toward God’s missional objectives. By missional theology in keeping with the mission of God, Franke means humanitarian relief and advancement as chief of concerns. When Franke speaks of missional imperatives that involve the gospel and discipleship, it is always within a social and cultural context to improve the human condition. To Franke, the meaning of Scripture as inerrant is not so much about its salvific relevance as humanity is lost in sin and stands condemned without redemption. The authority of Scripture as a witness to the mission of God comes from the truth claims of Christ and the veracity of His words as He is the incarnate expression of God.
Franke’s sympathy toward postmodern theology explains his objections to static biblicism. The Spirit continues to speak through Scripture as he puts it but doesn’t offer thoughts about the meaning and purpose of Holy Spirit inspired Scripture for the actual gospel purpose of salvation and restoration of people to God. Franke’s contribution rests very much on the here and now for people in terms of missional objectives, not the already but not yet. The concern isn’t so much that people are perishing and headed toward hell, as it is their earthly well-being. The concern should rather be primary-secondary prioritization from a missional perspective. The truth of the Old and New Covenant’s meaning entirely revolves around how humanity would return to God. The confidence believers have about what Christ does to reconcile people to God comes from truth spoken and written without error and infallibly. With authority, believers can meet people’s spiritual and physical needs by missional endeavor rooted in sound theology and a commitment to the truth claims of Christ and God’s Word at work.
As Franke writes, “I believe that inerrancy challenges this notion and serves to deconstruct the idea of a single normative system of theology” (277), he is revealing his thoughts about what postmodern progressives do to reject conformity to the text of Scripture “for the sake of systematic unity.” The assertion illegitimate interpretive assumptions make clear postmodern thought, as there is no acceptance of universal truth. According to Franke, truth must be plural to accomplish contextual missional objectives relative to individual interpretation from Scripture. As conventionally defined by Protestants and Catholics, the doctrine of inerrancy is recast by Franke as an open and flexible tradition for pluralistic perspectives, practices, and experiences. It is unacceptable to Franke that the whole Bible is interpretive as an inerrant description of the gospel and Christ’s commands to love God and neighbor. Essentially, it is his call to redefine inerrancy such that the Bible is what we make of it and not what the authors intended.
Franke’s final thoughts about the cultural relevance of the gospel bring further alarm as he calls on his readers to surrender universal and timeless theology. He attempts to message a desire to redefine inerrancy to accomplish a culturally relativistic notion of God’s Word. That is, to rewrite Scripture to shape truth suitable for cultural conditions toward various human interests aside from salvific reconciliation. Where truth as concrete or abstract meaning carries less utility to accomplish objectives and instructions explicitly set forth by the Creator. Objectives and instructions delivered through human language expressed in truth as God is truth that must be accepted and theologically contextualized without compromise. It is crucial to ensure there is no loss or corruption of meaning. It is necessary to further God’s kingdom and bring people together in redemption toward their salvation and physical well-being without surrendering absolute truth and our acceptance of Scriptural authority.
Citations
__________________________ 1 Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 66. 2 cf. St. Augustine, “Gen. ad Litt.” 2, 9, 20: PL 34, 270–271; Epistle 82, 3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34, 2, p. 354. St. Thomas, “On Truth,” Q. 12, A. 2, C.Council of Trent, session IV, Scriptural Canons: Denzinger 783 (1501). Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus:” EB 121, 124, 126–127. Pius XII, encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu:” EB 539. 3 Catholic Church, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Dei Verbum,” in Vatican II Documents (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011). 4 John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 598. 5 Cited by Enns: “For a focused critique of the CSBI (and its later sister document the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics 1982), see Iain Provan, ” ‘How Can I Understand, Unless Someone Explains It to Me?’ (Acts 8:30–31): Evangelicals and Biblical Hermeneutics,” BBR 17.1 (2007): 1–36. See also Carlos Bovell, Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a Culture of Fear (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 44–65; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Lost in Interpretation? Truth, Scripture, and Hermeneutics,” JETS 48, no. 1 (March 2005): 89–114. For an appeal for a more prominent role the Chicago statements should play in evangelicalism today, see Jason Sexton, “How Far beyond Chicago? Assessing Recent Attempts to Reframe the Inerrancy Debate,” Themelios 34 (2009): 26–49.” 6 Peter Enns, “Inerrancy, However Defined, Does Not Describe What the Bible Does,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. J. Merrick, Stephen M. Garrett, and Stanley N. Gundry, Zondervan Counterpoints Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 125. 7 Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 427.
This work seeks to cover a range of topics concerning the canon of Scripture. From historical to contemporary perspectives to get an in-depth look at both the Old and New Testament formation, which together as a whole constitute the whole canon of God’s eternal word. During the research for this project, a significant number of factors were examined at length to grasp the weight and concentration of activity and inspiration that went into the assembly of the Bible down through the centuries. The origination, delivery, and assembly of the Bible are placed into our hands today by providence from our all-merciful Lord and King. We have a debt of eternal gratitude for its place in our lives.
Outline
A.) Introduction B.) Old Testament Canon – 1.) Historical Development – 2.) Genre & Formation – 3.) Criticisms, Responses, & Implications C.) New Testament Canon – 1.) Historical Development – 2.) Genre & Formation – 3.) Criticisms, Responses, & Implications D.) Conclusions E.) Bibliography
A.) Introduction
Today, the Holy Bible is reportedly the best-selling book in the world.1 With its deep and lasting influence upon individuals, society, governments, and institutions; it reaches deep into our common realm of existence to have an everlasting impact upon conduct, policy, culture, law, lifestyles, art, sciences, and everyday living. The word of God is venerable and represents a class of literary work of its own. Extending back for thousands of years, with the events of mankind upon the Earth, it has recorded the activity of creation and humanity to such an extent that it shapes the thinking and worldview of billions among both the living and the dead.
The weight and substance of Scripture’s authority are somewhat supported by its canonization. Through sovereign orchestration and ordained use of God’s word read publicly and privately, the selection of communicated texts was produced and distributed for the development and well-being of the Church throughout Christendom. As written, collected, and meticulously reproduced over thousands of years, a formative process to codify recognition, understanding, and acceptance of divinely inspired writings came about to shape what is today defined as the canon of Scripture. More specifically, the canon is the “list of all the books that belong in the Bible.”2 Etymologically speaking, the term canon originates from the Greek word “kanōn” (κανών), which is translated as “rule” or “measuring stick” among other common terms as a way to size, quantify, or gauge dimensions of truth. This word is likely a derivative of the Hebrew term “kaneh” which means “reed’. To also mean from the Latin, the canon is the source of absolute divine authority in the lives of both Jew and Gentiles or peoples of the Earth for all time.
When God breathed out His word over a period of time, they were recorded through a series of events concerning His plan to restore creation throughout redemptive history. Both literally and theologically, the canon of Scripture gains acceptance in meaning through the recognition of root-word definitions over time and canonical discovery among Church fathers. Ultimately, God determines canonicity.3 Whereas canonization refers to the method by which sacred texts are brought together by their usage and authority.
The process of canonization involves recognizing what was always canonical. Where there is a canonical consciousness in Scripture, ecumenical fathers and councils come to recognize its authority and divine inspiration while in use among church gatherings. Scripture itself correlates to what is true from among its various separate authors. At a macro level, the entire body of Scripture is systematic and fixed as a single entity. It is not to be tampered with, appended, or redacted. From Deuteronomy to Malachi in the Old Testament, there is an expectation about a forthcoming prophet woven together in the text across various genres.
For example, the Pentateuch of Scripture is together sealed as a cohesive unit prior to covenants becoming the redemptive backstory of history. Long before the new covenant was developed and communicated in the New Testament, the formation of the Old Testament canon was recognized by the prophets and people throughout the centuries as having authority. It was self-declarative then as God’s word with support extending throughout the remaining Old Testament over time and all the way through the New Testament to communicate the new covenant and the work of Jesus, His apostles, and the early church. From beginning to end, the revelation of God was recorded throughout the New Testament, just as it was in the Old Testament.
God spoke through Scripture from Revelation all the way back to Genesis. As the prophetic activity began in Deuteronomy and extended throughout the Old Testament among major and minor prophets, the fulfillment of those prophesies come about with new prophetic meaning is formed through revelation as articulated in the book of the Apocalypse, or the book of Revelation. This range of revelation communicates God’s intent through His prophets and apostles to demonstrate the interwoven nature of Scriptural messaging. Where together they are spiritually and canonically synchronous and guided by providence to reach us today.
The interconnected nature of the Old and New Testaments are an eternal witness to the canonicity of Scripture. As God spoke to through the apostles and prophets, they wrote and spoke what was revealed to them, the early church, and to us today. The cascading effect of reference among both Old and New Testament writers gives extraordinary weight to the authenticity of God’s word. There is the credibility of appointed and ordained people sequentially building upon one another to thread together coherent spiritual and supernatural meaning for generations. It is without uncertainty that Scripture consists of these canonical seams4 to further reinforce its total authority as intended.
The canon of Scripture is not a passive expression of interconnected texts. It is a binding testimony recognized by Church history concerning the revelation of God through the prophets and writings of the apostles. While the canonization process throughout history was messy, it has a formative background across large geographical distances, across large spans of time, and across human languages. The authority of Scripture, as supported by its canonical status, transcends scrutiny to withstand social and cultural pressures across the same stretches of time, geography, and language. The Bible itself declares its canonicity, and as a living entity, without being sentient, it is self-aware.
B.) Old Testament Canon
There are three Old Testament categories that are contained in the Bible that have a bearing on their formation and thereafter recognition within the Church. Within the Bible, the first books of the law include Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Known as the Torah, or Pentateuch these are the beginning books of the Bible. Following the books of the law, there are thirteen total historical books of the Bible to include Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. There are additional apocryphal non-canonical books of history, including 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, and Judith. Continuing through the Bible after the books of the law, and historical writings, there are five books of wisdom and poetry. Namely, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. Finally, the books of the Bible are separated in notoriety, and substantive impact as Major and Minor prophets are a total of seven and twelve, respectively. The seven books of the Minor Prophets are Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The five books of the Major Prophets are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Lamentations, and Daniel. All of these books of the Bible listed here are their English language renderings by name or title.
The historical development of the Old Testament canon involved three operative principles as a matter of process. They are inspiration, recognition, and preservation. Together these principles concern the three steps of placement and delivery of the total canon of Scripture. Among all 39 books of the Old Testament, they were first introduced by God so as to exclude other writings that were not inspired. These are the closed canon of the Old Testament as progressively revealed and inspired truth originating from God. The recognition of revealed and inspired truth that became transmitted and circulated were thereafter preserved as a collection of interconnected writings on ancient media originating from the oral tradition and copied from texts produced by Old Testament authors.
1.) Historical Developments
There is separate historicity to each area of Scripture. Specifically, concerning the books of the law, the prophets, and other writings. While it is recognized that the Antilegomena5 pertains to disputed New Testament books, there were contested books of the Old Testament also. Historical attestation of the Hebrew canon extends back to numerous influential people involved in church leadership, translation, textual analysis, and ecumenical policy. Also known as the Masoretic canon, the Hebrew bible was largely compartmentalized as separate books that were recognized as having informational validity, but it was necessary to recognize those which were divinely inspired. Through a lineage of lists, authors, and historians, Jewish people of long ago held a tripartite view of canonical Scripture as a total homogenous effort. The Masoretic Text canon was unquestionably accepted and used as the early Bible or the Holy Scriptures among the ancient Hebrew people. The books of the law, the books of the prophets, and “the writings” together were a composite of inspired Scripture as cataloged throughout the ages. “The Writings” classified in the Masoretic Text as the Kethûbîm (or Ketuvim) were also referred to as the “Hagiographa.”6 This is termed to represent all books of the Hebrew Scriptures after the Torah along with the major and minor Prophets comparatively interspersed chronologically. They were historically brought into the final third of the Old Testament who were among those, who followed the steps of the prophets. All three major divisions became widely set adjacent from Genesis to Malachi among influential people to include Josephus, Melito of Sardis, Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian, and Jerome.
It was Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian who concluded that after the closure of Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament, there were no further prophetic books from about 424 B.C. that communicated revelation from God to the Jewish people. Therefore, while there was yet chronological prophetic activity, there was no further way to substantiate or safely conclude other writings outside the Masoretic canon to confirm they were authentic or even divinely inspired. The books listed by Bishop Melito of Sardis in A.D. 170 account for the earliest listing of all Old Testament books except for a few that were later recognized, among others. Nearly one hundred years later, Origen in the third century A.D. recognized the same 22 canonical books as Josephus. Even Hilary of Poitiers and Jerome recognized the 22 canonical books, whereas for hundreds of years after about 425 B.C., the Old Testament remained understood as divinely inspired and the revealed word of Truth. Aside from the remaining books to follow within the tripartite of the modern Old Testament, it was Athanasius who confirmed that the Old Testament count was 22. These were the same as those in the Masoretic Text and were in roughly the same order of the Protestant Bible at the time. Athanasius died in A.D. 365.
From among the remaining books of today’s Old Testament, there were historical books named and collated differently. For example, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel were 3, and 4 Kings or Jeremiah is thought to have included Lamentation. Of the total 39 books currently in the Old Testament, they are found among the 22 recognized by how they were kept in ancient times.7 With other writings and texts combined and later separated, few other books were recognizing other books of Wisdom and the writings aside from the minor prophets. The sequence of historical recognition included the law, the major and minor prophets, and finally, the Writings (Hagiographa). Not in chronological order within the Masoretic Text, or Hebrew Bible, then and from what we have today, but by a sequence of assembly and later recognition. By the time the first century Christians arrived, Hebrew canon was set as canonical and authoritative, and no one dared, or have been so bold to take, add, or change anything to them.8
2.) Genre & Formation
As elaborated earlier, each of the three areas of the Old Testament has its own formative background. The law, the prophets, and the writings have their origins from divine inspiration and share commonality among the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian, and Syriac traditions. All categorical types of faith use the same Protestant Old Testament, but their order is somewhat different than what is found in the Hebrew Bible. The story about their collection and formation originates from the idea that the listed books of the Old Testament are a catalog of sacred texts. Such that the modes of communication were of a large literary range. From a study of hermeneutics, a student of Scripture immediately sees this wide range to express meaning in a way that goes beyond type designations as “the law,” the prophets,” and “the writings.” Genre pertains to a style of communication presented within Scripture to include explicit instruction, poetry, apocalyptical, wisdom, narration, and revelatory, among others.
These types within the Old Testament are partitioned by book but can also be found at a passage level as well. Interwoven among stories, proverbs, prophecies, hymns, songs, poems, genealogies, and historical references, are separate types that interface with one another as spoken or written by the patriarchal fathers and prophets from within the Biblical text. As one Biblical author writes within an area of Scripture and refers to these explicit types of genre. Even further, the substance of meaning by specific stories involving people, places, and events is often brought into view by the reader or listener of Scripture. From one passage, and one book to another, a continuous interface is progressively formed at an increasingly granular level. The propagation of historical and spiritual meaning as guided by God gives Old Testament writers a foundation and certainty by which truth unfolds for delivery to people of the relevant time period and even people today.
With continued conviction among historical figures in the Bible, readers of Scripture observe the divinely authoritative status of the written word as the Old Testament. From Josiah in 2 Kings 22 to the readings of Nehemiah, we see the preeminent attention placed upon God’s word as it was in use for the safety and well-being of the Lord’s people. In fact, during the time in which early Old Testament texts were collected, the Jews recognized the importance of Scriptural adherence in this regard. As written in 2 Kings 17:13, the Lord warned His people through every prophet and every seer that must “Turn from your evil ways and keep My commandments and My statutes, in accordance with all the Law that I commanded your fathers, and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets.” Their acknowledgment, comprehension, and compliance were necessary and made certain through oral tradition, but also by what was read and circulated from the prophets. Simply to illustrate and reinforce the authoritative nature of what was communicated to hold an enormous weight of meaning.
Along with the inspired canon of Scripture, there were various extra-biblical, or non-canonical writings read alongside the full canon. They were among peoples who inhabited Israel, Greece, Italy, the Middle East, and Ancient Mesopotamia. In addition to the authors of Scripture, there were numerous historical, philosophical, and deuterocanonical authors of a similar genre that gained the attention of many among the Jewish people and Gentile nations beyond. Ingrained into religious and pagan cultures from about 400 B.C. to the second and third centuries A.D., the pseudepigrapha writings occupied the thoughts and activity of those who were also subject to the full counsel of God’s word. The works of the Apocrypha,9 were also well-known and popular then as they are today. Recognized and accepted as ancient books of cultural and religious value, they were a substantial source of historical reference to deeper understand Biblical backgrounds.
While some within the Roman Catholic and Ethiopic Church systems accept the noncanonical apocryphal books alongside the canon, Protestant Christendom does not view them as carrying nearly the same weight. At least in terms of authority or inspiration as given to us by the Lord Most High in His revealed words through Scripture. To further elaborate on what the books of the Apocrypha were and where they were included, there is a virtual matrix to understand their noncanonical and widespread use. Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus, to include the Peshitta, Vulgate, Roman Catholic Canon, Greek Orthodox Canon, and the Authorized King James Version (1611) all have a mix of different apocryphal books. However, generally, the inclusion of Apocryphal books is numerous across all texts.10 There are approximately 20 books of the Apocrypha to include Tobit, Judith, additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, Letter to Jeremiah, additions to Daniel, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and Odes.
3.) Criticisms, Responses, & Implications
Liberal scholars of theology and the doctrine of Scripture advocate positions of authorial dating, origination, and content contrary to Scripture itself. In an effort to deconstruct the Biblical accounts of direct and indirect communication from Yahweh to His chosen people, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, David, and others, new dates of authorship are set, with authors other than what was written about in Scripture. For example, it is recorded in Joshua 1:8 that “this book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it in order to do all that is written in it.” If in context Joshua really could not have instructed the people of Israel to understand and know the Torah, or the first 5-books of the Bible, the books of the law because the text did not exist at the time, then deconstructionists are propagating error at best or a harmful lie. The contentious perspectives from those working against God’s word span across all three major divisions of the Old Testament.11 It appears in every area of Scripture, it is dissected and with attempts to thereafter “prove” forgery, or unsubstantiated social contributions to the origination, recognition, and assembly of Scripture. Where the attack is not on the message of Scripture itself per se, but its inspiration and ultimate source.
The specific criticisms of the books of the Law of Moses, the books of the Prophets and the Kethûbîm, or Writings, concern anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions that attempt to cast doubt on the authority and inspiration of Scripture. Therefore, to reduce or adversely affect the validity and effect upon its adherents. Particularly to damage its power to reveal the truth of God’s redemptive history and plan. By divine authority, the canon of Scripture is self-attested to demonstrate the valid substance of the Biblical authors at the time they wrote. The recognition and acceptance of intended readers were immediate down through the centuries, and contradictions otherwise are deceptive and likely nefarious to some extent. Speculative theories founded upon critical thought reveal a disconnect about dated times of authorship as compared to when actual events occurred, or when activity took place to give Scripture its content and meaning.
Canonical criticism concerning Old Testament canonicity was pioneered by Brevard S. Childs and James A. Sanders.12 The term canonical criticism was coined by Sanders as it introduced challenges to traditional studies in Biblical Theology and as new perspectives on interpretive developments were occurring in the 1970s. There was disagreement between Childs and Sanders concerning critical methods of Biblical analysis because Sanders held the view that biblical authority is outside the province of historical study. Furthermore, canonical criticism, from Childs’ view, is that the community and final form of the Bible largely shape canon and the authority of Scripture. A corresponding response from Sanders articulated a dispute to detail a valid method of interpretation itself from a historical and theological framework. A framework involving a process of prophetic hermeneutic of the writers of Scripture.13
Objections to Childs’ view of the community shaped canon began to form in defense of proper recognition of Biblical authority and historical accuracy. Christopher R. Seitz, in his work, “The Character of Christian Scripture: The Significance of a Two-Testament Bible, argues for an approach to canonical interpretation that takes into serious account the facts of history and its stages of development. In the context of original inspiration, an unbalanced and low view of Scripture must not rest too much on one testament at the expense of another.14 Others have argued a canonical approach to interpretation where through hermeneutics theological tension is somewhat relieved in favor of clarity and application. For example, any perceived tension between Paul and James in the biblical record is eased as suggested. Such that the epistle of James is written in support of the canonical timeline of the gospels to balance what some may view as an opposition of later Pauline epistles (see Robert W. Wall on James 4:13-5:6).
The debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics about the canon appears around the doctrine of Christ’s Incarnation. Where during the Reformation, the doctrine of “solus Christus,” which means “in Jesus Christ and in Him alone the Divine has become man, in him alone the revelation of God appears to us, in him alone God speaks to us,”15 we see a position of unmediated interpretation through the fallibility of people who were involved in the gathering and recognition of the canon. As everyone stands in a direct personal relationship with Christ, the doctrine of sola Scriptura then comes into view with its expression “for through the word of Scripture alone can man meet Jesus Christ directly.”From the Roman Catholic perspective articulated by Nicolas Appel, the intermingling of the human condition bears a problem and somewhat accounts for the struggle in canonical acceptance and recognition. This somewhat explains why some books of the Apocrypha appear within the Catholic Bible. Specifically, about how the interjection of the human condition affects the testimony of the Holy Spirit about the Word of God. Some would argue that this position remains unresolved.
Differences between a theological and historical process in canonical recognition stem from the doctrine of Incarnation specifically through Christ (Solus Christus; Protestant) as compared to Christ and the Church (Christus Totus; Catholic) as Christ inhabits His body by the Holy Spirit within the Church. Christus Totus in Latin means, “The Whole of Christ.” The incarnation of Christ in bodily form through Himself as Jesus the Messiah and the incarnation of the Holy Spirit through His body the Church. It is concluded that since the Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth concerning canonical Scripture, its pertinent recognition and acceptance comes from the Catholic Church. Not exclusively through canonical consciousness by the Holy Spirit’s work in Scripture alone (sola Scriptura). This view about the incarnation of Christ throughout Protestant and Catholic Christendom, therefore, has significant implications about the recognition, acceptance, and authority of Scripture which would affect worship and practice.
C.) New Testament Canon
The canon of the New Testament parallels that of the Old Testament. In the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., the New Testament was closed, and the consciousness of the canon was made clear through exegetical interpretation and sound hermeneutical practices. The work of the Holy Spirit began in the Scriptures to communicate the inspired word of the Lord. As the Old Testament was already canonized and in use among first-century Jewish peoples, it continued to gain acceptance and wider use among the Gentiles throughout the Greco-Roman world. As the writings, teachings, and oral traditions of the Apostles were making their way through the early church; there is little doubt that fledgling believers and followers of Christ were presented with the Old Testament subject matter as well. Details about the old and new covenants that concern the revelation and witness of the Gospel completed the full counsel of God’s word.
1.) Historical Developments
The underlying strength and authority of Scripture is supported by its canonicity. From the interconnected relationships within itself and throughout the Old and New Testaments, Scripture affirms its meaning across books or writings by genre. Historically, the Lord chose to use numerous authors over time to communicate revealed meaning about Himself, His plan, and what He has done through Creation. His activity to originate, configure, and maintain Creation in perfect order is accomplished through His word. Just as His word brings together all of Creation to accomplish His purposes, by God’s sovereign and perfect will, He is able to originate and inspire His written word where it is brought into existence and formed to accomplish His objectives. To demonstrate how our Lord accomplishes this, He uses means among fallible and sinful yet redeemed people through the work of the Holy Spirit (Luke 12:12, Luke 24:49).
Notice in Paul’s letter to Timothy that he refers to the Gospel of Luke as Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18). Incredibly, the work of Luke that records the words of Jesus “The laborer deserves his wages” is referred to by Paul as Scripture. Outside the Old Testament, the biblical text itself within the New Testament begins to form a historical perspective. Modeled for immediate church fathers to follow with the help of the Spirit of grace, no doubt (Zechariah 12:10). So down through time, over the course of history, we see the beginning of Scriptural meaning communicate in an interconnected way to stitch together both ancient codices and modern texts that serve as Holy documents that bring hope, wisdom, virtue, but most of all the revelatory intent of Yahweh.
We further see Paul’s letters referenced as “Scripture” by the apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:16). Paul was endowed “according to the wisdom given him” to demonstrate that just as our God spoke through the prophets, He did so through Paul, and here we have the apostle Peter in acknowledgment of that in truth and love. So first, we have Paul to Jesus, the second person of the Lord God incarnate referenced in Scripture as recorded in the book of Luke. Now we have Peter referring to Paul. As the communicative changes continue, we have Polycarp (125 A.D.), a disciple of John,16 as corroborated by Irenaeus and Tertullian, quoting Ephesians, 2 Timothy, and 1 John as Scriptures destined to the New Testament canon.17 Further along in time, Justin Martyr (150 A.D.), refers to the gospels as “Memoirs of the Apostles” in his First Apology discourse.18 Irenaeus (180 A.D.) refers to the fourfold form of the written gospels to indicate that there was a quantity of four written accounts of Jesus’ ancient biography and record as Scripture.19
Given there was a cascading sequence of Scriptural use occurrences in public life, and in personal study among the early church fathers, there were lists that began to form in forthcoming centuries that gave birth to the canon that the Church has today. From papyri to manuscripts, scrolls, and codices, the inspired content of the canon selected itself by various intertestamental references, and what belongs in the New Testament books were not originated from a human source. As various Gnostic and Montanist writings were rejected as formative lists were assembled, a clearer view of what the full counsel of God should look like in the form of the Holy Bible in the world today. To further elaborate on the genres and formation of the canon, various additional historical perspectives appear in antiquity. This was to demonstrate that there was a selection process concerning books of the whole Bible involving recognition, council review, affirmation, and acceptance. Not selection per se according to some vetting criteria, but by simple recognition of how Scripture held inherent value due to its subject matter as written by the inspiration of God and the Holy Spirit at work in the church at the time.
2.) Genre & Formation
Alexandrian Fathers, Clement and Origen, were largely responsible for establishing a canonical view of Scripture within the early church. As recounted by Eusebius of Caesarea (260 – 340 A.D.), there was again a tripartite grouping of Scripture as outlined and written about. All three categories constituted a body of writings that were produced after the revelation of Christ through His apostles by their witness, testimonies, oral traditions, and written work. Within these categories were the two separate second and third-hand series of recorded events within the first and second centuries. Standing among them in the first category were the homologoumena, later recognized as the four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline letters, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Apocalypse (Revelation) of John. The second category was that of the Antilegomena, recognized as the questionable books of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. Finally, the books that were not authentic, or accepted were The Acts of Paul, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Teachings of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse (Revelation) of John. One would notice that the book of Revelation was both in the homologoumena camp and the Antilegomena camp at the same time. Eusebius was, at times, uncertain about the canonical status of the book of Revelation, but he eventually recognized its acceptance and valid use within the Church as inspired Scripture.
The genres of the New Testament are varied as they are for the Old Testament. While there are no books of the law, wisdom, or poetry, produced within the New Testament, it consists of the Gospels of Christ, historical narratives, letters from apostolic fathers, and prophetic writings. As the term gospel translates from the Greek term euangelion,20its definition corresponds to “good news.” Prior to the use of the term in the New Testament, it was a word applied in another era concerning a victory of military conquest or political achievement. The gospels in the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are narrative stories loaded with deep theological meaning and significance. They are ancient biographical stories of good news for people during the time of apostolic ministry. “To the ends of the Earth,” they are good news to everyone today.
The book of Acts is a narrative story, like the gospels. It is a story of theological history with deep and meaningful significance. It traces events and activities of the apostles throughout geographical regions in the Middle East and Asia Minor. Canonically, the book of Luke interfaces with the book of Acts as described within their content between Luke 24:49 and Acts 1 – 2. Specifically, instructions to remain in the city for power to follow from the Lord as written in Luke and then with the follow-up fulfillment of the promise. To include Christ’s ascension and the arrival of the Holy Spirit at the occurrence of Pentecost. The growth of the church, its persecution, Paul’s missionary journeys, and his encounters with culture to include political and legal systems provide a clear and natural transition from the gospels. Peter to share the gospel and build the church within Jerusalem while Paul also obeyed Christ’s commission to bring the same good news to Gentiles outside of Israel.
The New Testament canon includes the apostle’s letters that were produced from the early church. These were all of a correspondence genre that was read and circulated throughout the church at the time. Even today, the spiritual and theological development of this subject matter was regarded as Scripture as it is today (2 Pet 3:16, 2 Tim 3:16). Between Acts and the apostolic letters written to the churches in Asia Minor and to the Hebrews and Romans, there were disputes about their validity up through the centuries and still remain today with objections that surrounding authenticity, dating, and historical validity.
The book of Revelation as its own New Testament genre consists of three different literary types combined into one. It is a letter from John to seven churches in Asia Minor concerning prophecy and apocalyptic events to come. The three literary types of correspondence, prophecy, and apocalypse concern the revelation of Jesus involving judgment and events to come during the last days prior to His return.
Recognition of what books belonged in the New Testament canon was not obvious to the early church. There were numerous early lists that cataloged the written work of the apostles and authors to gather a full view of the inspired word of God as authoritative Scripture. Traditional dating from about 160 – 200 A.D., the earliest list was the Muratorian Fragment or the Muratorian Canon.21 While written in Latin, it was probably translated from an original Greek copy, and it still resides today in Milan, Italy. It consists of all the books of our New Testament today except Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and 3 John. This canon identified forgeries excluded from Scripture, and it accepted the Apocalypse of Peter for private reading.22
All the way from the first and second centuries, there were additional listings that formed up to the fourth and fifth centuries. Namely, formations from Origen of Alexandria (215 – 250 A.D.), Eusebius of Caesarea (311 A.D.), Cyril of Jerusalem (350 A.D.), Cheltenham canon (359 A.D.), Athanasius of Alexandria (367 A.D.), Amphilochius of Iconium (375 – 394 A.D.), and the Third Synod of Carthage (393 A.D.). The pattern of recognition among all of these formative canons was by iteration and successive approximation among different individuals to get to a final and closed New Testament canon. With all of these lists, the final recognized canon at the Third Synod of Carthage was that of Athanasius. The twenty-seven books of the New Testament were then formed, recognized, and accepted. From the Synod of Carthage, the canon of Athanasius was locked in place.
As these lists were produced separately and independently, a number of observations and suggestions are offered about what revealed the canon’s selected books of Scripture.23 Specifically, among the canonical lists and later all books in the New Testament, a pattern or criteria emerges to discount any idea that selection was arbitrary, incoherent, or without a sensible human rationale. Together the criteria or selectivity pattern included apostolicity, orthodoxy, relevance, widespread, and longstanding use.
3.) Criticisms, Responses, & Implications
Defending the canon from critics entailed quite a bit of effort against liberal scholars’ objections to the process of recognition and affirmation from councils long ago on ideological grounds. Namely, Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code is founded upon philosophies originating back to the emerging Gnostic era during the time of early church fathers. Bart D. Ehrman’s written work of “Jesus Interrupted” claims that the canon was the arbitrary selection of people among councils that did not put written works of the apostolic era up to vote.24 Where others were left out of the selection or recognition process of the canon. Others who produced lists of writings from among early Christians and church leaders were left out as they objected to the transpired formation of the canon to recognize and affirm God’s revealed word. Additional modern critics that object to the formation of the canon, inerrancy, authority, or tradition of Scripture include John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong.
Each critic that presents objections to the validity of Scripture, or the value and necessity of redemption, worship, service, and a life of faith generally come from a storied period of time in academic work who have had life experiences or hardships in their faith that caused a departure of orthodox critical thought. Their work in finding other books outside the canon, or to champion socially liberal worldviews more palatable to the culture of scholars inevitably make detailed, thorough, and self-justifiable efforts to work against Scripture and not with it to validate its meaning and truth. To apply a standard of humanistic rationale from presuppositions somewhat rooted in naturalism or unreconciled contradictions without explanation, assertions are concluded about errors in Scripture that remain unaccounted for to their satisfaction. Whether or not there are satisfactory explanations, or that there are no explanations whatsoever, in the view of the critical liberal scholar, there must be valid explanations answerable to human thought and reason as necessary to justify confidence or belief in Christ with or without the help of the Holy Spirit through the inspired Word of God as provided within the canon. There can be no justifiable or viable rationale about variances or errors among manuscripts found within the formation of the canon. Aside from the self-affirming nature of the canonical books of the Bible, there is an inferred insistence that all facts and details about revelatory writings line up according to the standards of scholars or liberal academic leaders that must abide by the requirements and social, behavioral, philosophical, and economical preferences of social pressures and personal inclinations even if they run contrary to the truth of Scripture.
Naturally, as false teachers, liberal academics, secular scholars, or apostates who learn about Scripture have an influence among the formative minds of people who seek the truth of God’s revealed word, critical observations, hasty conclusions, and obfuscation can have a deep and lasting negative effect on morality and the salvific status of individuals. Reminiscent of Bildad, Eliphaz, Zophar, and Elihu in the book of Job, even objective efforts among critics to understand and recognize the truth of Scripture can surface erroneous or deceptive conclusions. Propagated by lectures, written work, and social interaction that have implications of serious personal and social consequences. Unfavorable outcomes that break down social, government, family, and spiritual order inevitably bring about the demise of people at an unimaginable scale. Not due to an inability to recognize and understand Truth, but to accept and abide by it without causing harm to others. The absence of a commitment to Truth according to Scripture as revealed through the Holy Spirit by the work of the apostles and prophets lead to enslavement and misery in one form or another.
D.) Conclusions
Throughout this project, a substantial effort was made to research and communicate background, formation, development, and criticism details concerning the canon of God’s Word as revealed to the world throughout Scripture. Involving a wide-spread set of resources to get a topical yet comprehensive view of what occurred over the centuries to bring us the teachings and theological principles of the prophets, apostles, and God Most-High through our Lord Jesus. The Old and New Testaments together represent the full counsel of God’s Word. Just as the words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and genres convey substantial and everlasting meaning, the stitching together of books by various authors adds a progressive and revelatory way of recognizing what is necessary for the explicit will of God in Creation to include His redemptive work for humanity.
The fundamentals of the canon are necessary to understand across all eras from throughout the Middle East from the far reaches of Mesopotamia through Asia Minor and into modern Europe. With the earliest writings conveyed through the Pentateuch or the Mosaic Law, we see the beginning of what it is to recognize God’s written word from His own hand (Exodus 31:18). His message beginning with the people of Israel initiated a process or revelatory instruction that extends through a series of covenants across a timeline that reaches us today. From promises made to promises kept, we see the writings of numerous people of the Lord bring to humanity the stories, psalms, and songs of meaning from the mind of God. Book by book, authenticated by the inspiration by the Spirit of God, we have confidence that people can find Him by their time and effort spent engaged in His word.
The composite nature of Scripture is developed such that its modularity is coherent with overlapping, interlinking, and interwoven messages by narration and various types of suitable expression. It is a self-authenticating work of the Spirit of God, through His people to not only originate its substance as a recording of texts but also of their assembly. Beneath what was written about in historical activity and events of the Bible that testify to what occurred as prophesied and fulfilled. All the way from the garden to the ascension, we have an end-to-end view of what Truth is providentially given to us through the canon of God’s Word.
E.) Bibliography
1. Guinness World Records. Guinness World Records. 2020. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/best-selling-book-of-non-fiction (accessed March 10, 2020). 2. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology, Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 54. 3. Norman Geisler, William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago Moody Press, 1986), 221. Van Pelt, Blomberg & Schreiner, Lecture 7: Seams in the Canonical and 4. Covenantal Structure, (2020) accessed March 11, 2020, https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/seams-canonical-covenantal-structure/biblical-theology/van-pelt-blomberg-schreiner. 5. Dictionary.com, Antilegomena, 2020, accessed March 12th, 2020, www.dictionary.com/browse/antilegomena. 6. Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 2007), 64. 7. Sumner, Tracy Macron. How Did We Get the Bible (Uhrichsville: Barbour Publishing, 2009), 65. 8. Josephus, The Works of Josephus – Against Apion 1.8 (Whiston. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988), 776. 9. Easton, M.G. Easton’s Bible Dictionary, 1893, (Logos Systems, Inc.). 10. Estes, The Lexham Bible Dictionary, Apocrypha (Logos Systems, Lexham Press, Bellingham, 2016). 11. Meeks, “Overview of the Canon,” Lexham Bible Dictionary / Encyclopedia, Canonical Criticism. 12. Ibid., Central Concepts and Practitioners. 13. Ibid., Critics and Criticisms. 14. Carson, Woodbridge, “Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon,” Four Approaches to Canon History. 15. Ibid. Carson, Woodbridge. 16. Pierce, The Lexham Bible Dictionary, Polycarp, Life. (Logos Systems, Lexham Press, Bellingham), 2016. 17. Ibid. Pierce. Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians. 18. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1996), Volume 2, 222-223. 19. Wood, Marshal, The New Bible Dictionary, 430. 20. Duvall, Hays, Grasping God’s Word, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2012), 270. 21. Strong, Systematic Theology, (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1970), 146. 22. Powell, The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, (New York: Harper, 2011). 23. Licona, How the Canon of the Bible Was Formed – (YouTube, March 31, 2016), accessed March 08, 2020, https://youtu.be/s0BCm2cRx9w?t=317. 24. Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, (New York, HarperOne), 190.
We are entrusted with the legacy of truth. To reclaim our position and function as Christian thinkers and pastor-theologians. To defend the faith. To encourge us and challenge us. To proclaim the unique and exclusive God of the Word.
The apathy of scriptural truth leads to a crisis among the youth and churchgoers. Truth and thinking is not important or relevant among churches. Sunday school teachers do not place much importance on this. Consequently, there is immense biblical illiteracy. We are in a crisis of truth.
Inerrancy is a thinking man’s doctrine. It claims that whatever the Bible asserts is true, so we must find the truth in terms of thought and its consequences. Such as its sufficiency, purpose, application, etc.
The Church refuses to think, and they do not want to think. Their preferences are elsewhere, so they reject inerrancy. We are in a crisis of truth. Society at one time respected Christianity, but now it has changed. Because it no longer recognizes the supernatural, but only the natural. Only science and their own thinking redefine the values we have. They are on a campaign to change every single value that the Bible upholds. Society has chosen to upend the truth.
Society views those who value truth by the inerrancy of Scripture as crazy, wrong, and evil. They want to remove us from society, and people in the Church want the same. Especially young people in Church and among those who leave. In general, people of the Church do not believe that the Bible is the exclusive truth. They doubt the sufficiency of Scripture. They are skeptical. They do not believe that truth matters. They don’t care, and it is irrelevant to them. This is the crisis of truth.
It is necessary to take a stand now. Otherwise, the Church is relegated to nothing with catastrophic results for the American churches and everywhere. So we must show our devotion to truth and thinking by declaring sophisticated answers on the whole counsel of God and defending against error.
We must live up to what inerrancy demands to help people recover the doctrine of inerrancy. To help our people value the necessity and beauty of the doctrine of inerrancy.
The Three Demands Scriptural Inerrancy
If we affirm the Bible is truth, we need to be devoted to truth and thinking.
If we affirm the Bible is truth, we need to declare answers from the whole counsel of God’s word.
If we affirm the Bible is truth, we must defend against inerrancy.
1.) If we affirm the Bible is truth, we need to be devoted to truth and thinking.
We need to be equipped to have answers and make the case where others will have conviction. To study it and develop a passion for it. Necessary to regain the compelling importance of inerrancy.
Two important questions we must answer:
a.) Is the truth powerful? Is the Bible authoritative?
It is necessary to debunk the idea that truth is merely information. Truth goes far beyond that as it acts upon a person’s life, will, and intentions. Truth includes information, but it is more than that. Scripture itself proclaims that Jesus is truth, and the truth shall set us free. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). The truth through His word is the extension of Christ, His activity, power, and effectiveness.
John 1:14, Jesus is declared full of grace and truth. He speaks a message of truth in John 8:40 & 45, “because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.” Truth causes people to walk in the truth (3 John 1:4), worship in spirit and truth (John 4:23), and have life (John 14:6). Truth sanctifies (John 17:17), and it sets people free (John 8:32).
Toward the end of Jesus’s ministry, He appears before Pilate to testify to the truth. This is what He said before His sacrifice. Everything made right by His redemptive plan of the gospel is linked with truth. Truth is powerful, dynamic, it saves, and it gives life. Moreover, truth is liked to God’s definitional authority (Genesis 1 -3). In that knowledge, wisdom, and truth is an issue. There God established in the garden “the knowledge of good and evil.” God alone has the right to define what is right and wrong.
As depicted by Solomon, truth is linked with the culmination of God’s plan as people sought his wisdom. In Isaiah 11:6-9, Eden is regained when truth prevails.
We need to remind people about the origin of truth and its reality. If you want to make a difference and have an impact on people’s lives, then preach the word and proclaim the truth. Truth is not just information.
Truth is exclusively found in Scripture alone.
Contradictions from the culture that proclaims otherwise about social issues are not valid. Culture does not know better than the truth of Scripture. We need to remind our people of this and make a case for it. In Job 28, God Himself argues for the supremacy and exclusivity of His word. As Job was written as the first book written of the Bible, the design and purpose of Scripture is recorded to introduce the need for His word.
Suffering provides a window into greater questions. It destroys your sense of understanding this life and that you can handle it.
Truth is a matter of life or death, heaven or hell. Key verses of Job 28:12-13 articulates this meaning, “But where can wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding? Man does not know its value, nor is it found in the land of the living.” It is impossible for humanity to know the full picture or answers of truth and wisdom in life. Wealth and riches cannot manage life adequately enough to assuage suffering. Nor can skill, or competencies as further proven in Job 28. –Man doesn’t have the capability of originating or deriving wisdom.
God says in Job 28:23, He alone understands its way, and He knows its place. God is the only source of wisdom. When Solomon said, “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” he was referring back to Job. Where this phrase is found in Psalm 111:10 and Proverbs 9:10, so to remind people that they don’t know better is necessary in light of Scripture. It is impossible. It needs to be repeatedly paraded before the Lord’s people, that they do not know better than what is given in Scripture, or the wisdom of God by His word.
The first written book of the Bible in Job establishes the wisdom of God by His word and how the world works because He has seen and defined it all.
b.) Is truth what we do? To think about the truth?
Thinking about truth is what drives the Church. It is a sacred task sent by God throughout redemptive history. As given by examples of the prophets, who were adept at God’s word as Scripture, they were immersed in the meaning of what God’ revealed throughout history.
Various books of the Old Testament are interconnected where there is an understanding of God’s word and His revealed wisdom. It reveals that God cares, and we anchor our soul in that for significant shepherding applications. Theologically speaking, we have highlights of examples given by an illustration of a vine over the course of millennia. Whereas the vine represents the Lord’s people, Israel.
Walking back from the parable of the vine that illustrates and assesses the state of Israel’s spiritual state of existence:
Psalm 80: Strong Vine Isaiah 5: Vine Produces Bad Fruit Jeremiah 2: Vine that is Degenerate Ezekiel 15: Vine that is Useless Except as Fuel for the Fire
Whereas thereafter in John 15:1, Jesus says, “I am the true vine.” Do not lose hope, but rely upon trust in Him. So the prophets were theologians who saw the truth of Scripture. What’s more, Jesus Himself was far more advanced in His use and understanding of Scripture. For example, after example, He makes the point about the truth of Scripture to condemn, teach, and enlighten.
Thinking drives the Church forward. That’s what we do. Just as we see from Paul, the Apostle in the Epistles is proclaiming the word of truth. For the entire Church everywhere and for all time (2 Tim 4:19-22). Grace be with you as written in 2 Timothy 4:22 is stated in Greek as plural. Paul’s prayer was for us. He prayed that we would communicate the truth as He did and just as our Lord Jesus did.
So our objective is to share and drive a conviction about the truth of God’s word and what it does. About what it is for and its power, that by doing so, we erode and eliminate Biblical illiteracy. From cover to cover, we all understand and have convictions about the word of God.
As theologians, we are not marketeers, therapists, or CEOs. We need to remain deeply engaged in Scripture. We need to know the original languages, find exegetical insights, and become adept at intertextuality. Furthermore, our reach should extend to systematics and issues. Aggressive reading beyond practical ministry (while important) is necessary in the areas of deeper theology. That results in greater breadth and depth surrounding Scripture. By doing so, we become a major theological resource to people (i.e., truth, wisdom, scriptural points of interest). This is the nature of being a Christian thinker and theologian.
Practical Implications:
If you aren’t shepherding people to love truth, you’ll never be a pastor-theologian. Because your people will not understand what you’re doing. They must develop and have an appreciation of Scripture.
Reach for and attain a deep engagement with the Scriptures. Necessary to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. Otherwise, without this engagement and devotion, our inerrancy is meaningless.
Paul in 1 Timothy 3:15 says that the Church is the pillar and support of the truth. So it is hypercritical that the Church has substantive engagement and thinking about the word of God. This is our role.
If the Church doesn’t do its job, it loses its testimony. So when people see and not just hear our devotion and dedication to Scripture, they will conclude there is nothing like the Bible. It is the exclusive repository of the truth. It is powerful and produces history.
2.) If we affirm the Bible is truth, we need to declare answers from the whole counsel of God’s word
The Bible is consistent and interconnective. There is a compounding depth to it. So we should have answers that reflect this reality.
If, in our answers or use of Scripture, we say, “Because the Bible says so,” that is not good enough. If we do not show the depth of Scripture, we do not demonstrate the whole counsel of God’s word. Where if there is a crisis of truth, life results are harmful and deadly. So as without providing depth, we confirm skepticism among people who already struggle to believe if at all.
The whole of Scripture entails the entire counsel of God’s word. All the way down to single individual words or terms. As examples, to reveal and affirm terms such as deity, resurrection, rest, hope, theology, and shepherd — every word matters.
The apostles and prophets quote from a wide expanse of Scripture to demonstrate that they knew God’s word. Every passage is connected in Scripture. We use it to demonstrate that ordinary faithfulness is profound.
Why should we go to church? Why should we serve in the church? For fellowship and to exercise our gifts in support of the church. In that, we are the new humanity after the fall, according to the full counsel of God’s word. The extent of social issues is spoken to about marriage, incest, sexuality, at full depth, and breadth to reflect God, His love, and the identity of Christ.
So to engage and share the word of God, we are to articulate and demonstrate its truth as it pertains to the gospel, God’s covenants, His love, and the status of people according to their life circumstances. We need to give profound answers from the enormous facility of the text. So in that the Bible is sourced to do that, we teach others that the Scripture is truth. This is what inerrancy demands.
3.) If we affirm the Bible is truth, we must defend against inerrancy
This is what Scripture asserts as the difference between error and truth (1 John 4:6). The Scripture often attacks error, and as such, we use what it reveals to do the same. To walk through the errors that surface, we recognize that evangelicals have become post-modern (i.e., it’s all relative, pluralistic, & unclear). To accompany platitudes of “we just need to tolerate and love each other.” The descent goes further from among leaders such as “well, there are a lot of views,” or “there are a lot of interpretations,” and “the Bible is not clear, or that’s just not essential.” So with post-modernism comes confusion through the proliferation of subjective views. As Christian thinkers and theologians, we need to cut through all of that and provide clarity with reasons arising from the depth and breadth of Scripture.
As recovery goes from a post-modern attitude to a Biblical attitude, we remind people that truth is not relative. God’s word is the exclusive repository of truth. The Bible defines truth and error, and it is clear. God’s revelation is something that was hidden but has now been made accessible. It is literal, historical, and grammatical. The Bible is clear. We don’t advocate tolerance, but forbearance with gentleness and enduring harm (2 Tim 2:22-26). This is what we do with other people. Tolerance is a lie as we are called to forbearance. It is the gospel that is at stake.
Now it is our turn where we think about the truth and pass that legacy on. We devote our time to the truth to defend against error.
Inerrancy in Light of the New Testament Writers’ Use of the Old Testament
Too often, while professors, scholars, and students claim inerrancy of Scripture, they will advocate that it says something else other than Biblical authors intended. Where there is a denial to recognize what Scripture says, they can claim or say anything they want and yet hold on to an inerrantist view or conviction. Scholars and others will deny the historicity of certain events, and the authorship of certain books with excuses always the same. The thought process runs like this: “Inerrancy deals with what the Bible claims” and “I” am saying it claims something else. So whatever you bring up, another person could reject whatever you want because they choose to believe the Bible says something else.
Consequently, through the denial of authorial intent, skeptics can assert that inerrancy becomes meaningless. People begin to claim that the Bible is in contradiction with itself and history while still insisting they are inerrantists. Scholars and skeptics proclaim that inerrancy is dead, and hermeneutics has killed it.
By comparison to this type of thought, the Bible itself informs us about how another Scripture is used to communicate and reinforce meaning. Biblical authors used this intertextuality to apply a hermeneutic to faithful communicate the truth of God’s word. The way biblical writers read Scripture is how they wrote according to a high hermeneutical standard. This is to serve as an example for us today. How prophets and apostles read under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, shows us how we are to rightly divide the Word of Truth. The Bible comes with its hermeneutic included.
The biblical writers are the first inerrantists. To codify the fact that inerrancy is not a recently developed doctrine.
There are three main points about the New Testament’s use of the Old. They are literal, grammatical, and historical. These are points of observation traditionally associated with both inerrancy and hermeneutics. We received these points to identify and describe what is involved in both inerrancy and hermeneutics because that is what the apostles and prophets believed.
The Apostle’s Literal Hermeneutic
A literal hermeneutic is about the interpretation of meaning from an author’s original intent, context, and purpose. In this sense, there is a direct correlation to the issue of truth. Where we can conclude if there is error or mishandling among the apostle’s use of the Old Testament, what they had to say is less than truthful, consistent, or authoritative.
As an example of scholars that dispute the apostle’s literal hermeneutic, consider common assumptions made by Matthew among other New Testament authors. That there is the authoritative weight with Scripture to assure confidence and truth in what is written. With Jesus’s use of “have you not read” in Mt 12:5 and Mt 19:4, He appeals to the use of Scripture as authoritative. He believed Scripture settled issues relevant to readers.
In the New Testament, from Matthew’s (Mt 2:15) use of Hosea (Hos 11:1) in the Old Testament, we see from close examination “what was spoken by the Lord” (NASB). The first exodus referenced in Matthew from our deliverer Christ Jesus is a correlation to the second exodus of Israel written about in Hosea. Whereas we can understand and accept an introductory statement from Matthew that the reference concerns God’s word as authoritative. To support and build context among New Testament writers, biblical writers used the Old Testament to demonstrate meaning and authority and show their confidence in its inerrancy. This occurs numerous times throughout Scripture in various books, chapters, contexts, across genres and authors. Everything is connected.
How the New Testament uses the Old can be illustrated as a chain of reasoning where the prophetic hermeneutic is drawn out and applied by the apostolic hermeneutic. The literal hermeneutic Matthew chose from the book of Hosea factually illustrates a chain of extended authority. As Hosea references the book of Exodus and thereafter, Mathew references Hosea. Whereas, by comparison, Matthew could have appealed to Exodus directly. Scripture interprets Scripture, it is consistent with itself, and it is not contradictory over the centuries. This is a corollary to the doctrine of inerrancy.
The Apostle’s Grammatical Hermeneutic
The apostles knew that Scripture is truth word by word in structure and syntax. Disputes among Scholars attempt to show that this is not so as proof texted by Galatians 3:16. Where there is a seemingly errant contradiction between the plural and singular use of seed (NASB) or offspring (ESV). However, with further examination elsewhere in Genesis 22 and Psalm 72, both Abraham and David respectively recognize that there is one promised seed (singular) as again reference in the Galatians 3:16 verse.
Apostle Paul picks up what David references in Psalm 72 to concentrate on the word and grammar of “seed.” Whereas by comparison, modern scholars too often get it wrong. Making use of Galatians 3:16 in isolation without the application of a biblical hermeneutic to grasp a coherent and reliable meaning confirmed as truth.
What Paul refers to in Galatians 3:16 is exceptional evidence of the rule concerning effective sequential linkages in Scripture that correspond compellingly.
The Apostle’s Historical Hermeneutic
Scholars allege that in certain historical narratives, details might never have happened. That certain stories are entirely fictional. Objections to surface with reason about whether or not the apostles viewed historical events within Scripture as truthful and accurate. As evidence, Galatians chapter 4 is relied upon by scholars to make a case of allegory by Paul to show that not even the apostle accepted Scriptural truth within its historical detail.
Since it is demonstrated in Scripture elsewhere and overall that Paul is saturated in historical facts pertaining to numerous events, stories, and covenants across time, we are confident about his use and attention to detail as he writes his letter to the Galatians and even to us today. So Paul’s idea and purpose of allegory are not as we recognize and apply it today. We make sketchy allegorical use of spiritual symbology or principles drawn from Scripture while downplaying history. Paul uses history to make theological points. He argues theology from historical fact to demonstrate it is actualized by it. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul does the same thing concerning the historical resurrection of Jesus. To say, if you don’t have a historical resurrection, you don’t have a gospel. History is the foundation of theology. In Romans 4:25, the resurrection is necessary for our justification to make again the point that history actualizes theology.
How Paul uses the principle of allegory is demonstrated by what is written in 1 Corinthians 10. Just as Israel was blessed and tempted, we are blessed and tempted. There are these two separate categories from a historical perspective, blessed and tempted. Israel blessed and tempted, the church blessed and tempted as they are categorically the same between both, but allegorical in contrast. Two items grouped and compared in contrast have different categories. So as other authors refer to events or circumstances in Scripture using different categories, by allegory, Paul does the same to connect corresponding theology to historical facts. Not to draw symbolic, vague, or spiritual inferences.
While there is an overall biblical hermeneutic standard, as demonstrated in Scripture, we do not always hit that standard. There is a difference in wrestling with the text as compared to wrestling against the text. We must apply the standard the apostles set for us as much as we can. The Prophetic hermeneutic is the Apostolic hermeneutic, and they, in turn, are the Christian hermeneutic. Inerrancy demands a hermeneutic of surrender as Scripture is the inspired, infallible, and all-sufficient word of God.
Consider the words of the Lord set to gentle music. Dwell on what He says through His Spirit. Find peace in what is written in the Lord’s eternal words. His blessings come from the time your heart dwells on what His words mean and how they apply.
