Systematic Theology: Scripture
1. Introduction
a. Evangelical Theological Society affirmation: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written.”
b. “But do we ponder the implications of this stupendous affirmation? We are saying that throughout the entire history of the world, and throughout all written documents of all civilizations, the eternal, omnipotent Creator of the universe, the God who will one day judge every human being who has ever lived—this God who is over all has given the human race just one collection of his written words: This book. The Bible.” --Wayne Grudem (1999 presidential address to ETS)[1]
2. Jesus’ view of Scripture
a. John 10.35 “the Scripture cannot be broken”[2]
b. Matthew 5.17-19
i. Tetragrammaton YHWH
ii. The yod is the “smallest stroke” Matthew5.18
c. Matthew 19.4-5
i. “…he who created them…and said…”
1. The quotation is from Genesis 2:24, where the statement is not attributed directly to God but is simply a comment introduced in the course of the narrative by the writer of Genesis. The expected form of Jesus’ citation, therefore, would be, “Scripture says, ‘For this reason…’” Yet God is so completely regarded as the author of Scripture that in these contexts “God” and “scripture” are interchangeable. What Scripture says is the Word of God.[3]
d. Matthew 22.23-32
i. “…have you not read what was spoken to you by God…” Exodus 3.6
ii. Though the words they’d read had been penned more than a thousand years earlier, still God spoke in the reading of those words. Jesus held them accountable for the words of Scripture as if God Himself had spoken those words directly to them!... Only the very highest view of Scripture could possibly stand behind these words, which is exactly what we find when we consider His reverence for and use of Scripture.[4]
e. Matthew 4.4 (cf. Deuteronomy 8.3)
i. “But I think Jesus’ response to the devil is suggestive for our response to calls to lighten up on our high view of the Bible… Jesus regarded Scripture as words from God’s mouth. That should be understood analogically, of course, and not crudely literally, but the integral link between God and enscripturated speech remains.
“I am optimistic that Jesus’ approach to the Tanach, already revered as holy in his day, retains value for Jesus’ followers as they approach the whole canon of writings acknowledged in the Bible of the church. Let me put that more strongly: in light of Jesus’ dogged recourse to written Scripture from his temptation to his scriptural words from the cross, how is something like inerrancy not an entailment of discipleship? Kevin Vanhoozer poses the question this way: ‘how can we follow Jesus if we cannot follow with the utmost trust the words that oriented his own life?’”[5]
3. What is the Bible?
· Word of God given through men to mankind
· Two crucial pieces
o Word of God
o Through men
· Word of God 2 Timothy 3.14-17
o “All scripture” primarily a reference to OT scriptures
§ “graphe” writings
§ NT participates in this as well
· 2 Peter 3.15-16 Paul’s word = scripture
· 1 Timothy 5.18 Scripture = Dt 25.4 & Luke 10.7
o “inspired” “theophneustos” breathed out by God
“It does not mean, as the English word ‘inspire’ might imply, that God breathed in the word but rather that they very words were breathed out…”
Geisler and Nix p.35
o cf. Matthew 4.4 (Jesus speaking) “every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God”
o “by God”
§ Authoritative
“Because the Bible points beyond itself to God, it has a conferred authority. Yet the Bible has a real authority in itself as the authentic embodiment of God’s self-disclosure.”[6]
§ True Titus 1.2 “God, who cannot lie”
· Character of God guarantees the truthfulness
o 2 Samuel 7.28
o Psalm 18.30 & Proverbs 30.5-6
o Psalm 119.60
o Matthew 5.18
o John 17.17
o Hebrews 6.13-18 (esp. vv. 13, 18)
§ Inerrancy and Infallibility
· Inerrant without errors
· Infallible incapable of error
· Through men 2 Peter 1.16-21
o Not “cleverly devised tales” not myths
o “eyewitnesses” when was this? v. 18 (Mt. of Transfiguration)
o v. 21
§ not by an act of human will
§ Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God
· Not dictation
· God used the authors:
o Personalities
o Backgrounds
o Education
o Thought forms
o Historical situation
4. Theological implications flowing from Jesus’ and Apostle’s view of Scripture:
a. Scripture has ultimate authority and comprehensive authority
i. Ultimate: highest authority
ii. Comprehensive: speaks to everything; touches upon everything
1. Not merely “spiritual” aspects of life
2. “The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that is speaks of everything either directly or by implication.”[7]
iii. Liberal theological conception of Scripture
1. “To summarize my view, the Bible is not the criterion of truth. That criterion is fallibly developed in the always difficult, always tentative process of reflection as it is conducted in conversation with our contemporaries. Judgments about truth in theology are made in the same kinds of discussions, employing the same open rules of evaluation, that are used in making judgments about claims of history, science, philosophy, and common sense. To realize this is the contribution of liberalism to Christianity in our time. I believe it is an enduring contribution, one that conservatives ought to affirm.”[8] –Delwin Brown
2. The self-conscious liberal conception of theology flows from differing starting points about the nature of God. The conception of God within liberalism makes it impossible for there to be an authoritative, inspired revelation from God.[9]
b. Scripture’s self-attestation
i. There is no other standard outside or beyond God himself to which he must appeal to validate his authority
c. Unity of Scripture
i. Acts 17.11
ii. Liberalism “multiple voices” none of which are ultimately authoritative[10]
d. Inerrancy of Scripture
i. “Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with social, physical, or life sciences.”[11]
ii. International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”[12]
iii. Phenomena of Scripture alleged errors/problem passages
1. “The debate over inerrancy frequently comes down to choosing whether to tolerate such problems as “unanswered questions” or to transfer them to the category of “demonstrated errors.” Often that decision reflects one’s initial attitude toward Scripture and toward critical methods. If Scripture is accepted as the inspired Word of God, as “the standard that sets the standard,” one will be reluctant to charge it with error—since to do so one must have some other, perhaps higher, norm by which to evaluate Scripture.”[13]
2. See sheet: “Dealing with Alleged Bible Contradictions”
iv. Primary doctrine? No. Functions as a sub-set of “authority”
1. Tends to become central in the midst of battle and argumentation
“When focusing on any doctrine in debate, it can inadvertently become primary though it seems preferable to speak of inerrancy as a distinguishing aspect of an evangelical Scripture principle rather than the primary one.”[14]
2. Importance of inerrancy
“One good reason for this might be that inerrancy was deemed most conducive to the gospel’s advancement as the message that truly saves sinners, who are located in real-time-space present and are looking to a real-time-space Savior whose work in both creation and redemption is not subject to any passing cultural or ideological whims since he stands outside of them.”[15]
“Being forged in the fires of American evangelicalism, the doctrine of inerrancy provides the platform for a gospel-advancing movement and a defensive strategy to ward off invaders.”[16]
[1] Wayne Grudem, “Do We Act As If We Really Believe That ‘The Bible Alone, and the Bible in its Entirety, is the Word of God Written’?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43 (2000), 5.
[2] “The reference is doubly significant because is also discredits the modern bias against identifying Scripture as the word of God, on the ground that this assertedly dishonors the supreme revelation of God in the incarnate Christ.” Carl F. H. Henry, “Bible, Inspiration of,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1984), 146.
[3] John W. Wenham, “Christ’s View of Scripture,” Inerrancy, Norman Geisler, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 21.
[5] Robert W. Yarbrough, “The Future of Cognitive Reverence for the Bible” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57 (2014), 17—bold-face added.
[6] H. D. McDonald, “Bible, Authority of,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1984), 139.
[8] Clark H. Pinnock and Delwin Brown, Theological Crossfire: An Evangelical/Liberal Dialogue (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 28-29.
[9] See my brief essays: “Liberal Theology and Its Pantheizing Tendency.” Available online: http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2013/12/liberal-theology-and-its-pantheizing.html. “Liberal Theology and Its Naturalizing Tendency.” Available online: http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2014/01/liberal-theology-and-its-naturalizing.html.
[10] Clark H. Pinnock and Delwin Brown, Theological Crossfire: An Evangelical/Liberal Dialogue (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 91.
[11] Paul Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy” in Norman Geisler (ed.), Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 293-294.
[12] Available online: http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
[13] Harold O. J. Brown, “The Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible” in Phillip Comfort (ed.), The Origin of the Bible (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1992), 44-45.
