Doctrine of Scripture

Imagine you are cleaning out your grandmother’s attic and you open a box. Inside is a square board and 32 small wooden pieces. The board has a pattern of 64 squares alternating dark and light. The pieces are also dark and light, 8 small identical pieces in each color and 16 larger pieces, most of which have a pair in each color and two that are unique. Of course, if you are familiar with the game of chess the board, the pieces, and the rules all come to your mind. Yet, go back in time to when this was an unfamiliar game to you. How did you learn to play and how to move each piece? Did someone teach you the rules? 

No one who stumbled upon such a game would assume that the dust in the attic box had shifted to sculpt these pieces of wood into the form in which they were found. The existence of the board and pieces point back to a creator and indicates a purpose and design. At some point the creator(s) of the game developed the rules and objectives and taught it to others. 

We find ourselves in a world that witnesses to a creator (Ps. 19). However, without revelation of its meaning we are simply taking our best guesses at how to play the game of life. Knowledge of God is only possible because the creator has revealed himself. In both general and special ways, God has condescended to reveal the truths of his infinite nature to a finite people. While the general revelation of God’s invisible attributes is given to all people everywhere (Rom 1:18-32), special revelation is the communication of specific truths from God directly to certain people. The Bible is a written record of the ways God has revealed himself in history, through messengers, and personally in the incarnation. 

Here I seek to explain the issues regarding the doctrine of scripture as the inspired and inerrant word of God and the implications of such a belief. In so doing we will consider the Biblical teaching on the subject including how to avoid circular reasoning in relying on scripture to defend itself. We will look briefly at the way scripture has been viewed across history to see the bigger picture of the context and understand the doctrine from multiple angles. From there I will describe some of the contemporary issues facing the doctrine of scripture, my own personal views on scripture, how it interacts with my key idea and impacts my ministry.

The divine inspiration of scripture is where we must begin our study of this doctrine. Knowing that God has revealed himself to the world, we must have convincing evidence that the Bible contains a record of this special revelation and should be considered the Word of God. The doctrine of scripture is unique in the way it relates to ascertaining the relevant Biblical teaching, for if we assume it as the starting point because of its inspiration and authority, how are we to use the scriptures to prove their worth without being guilty of circular reasoning? If we begin with the premise that the Bible is a historical document, we can allow the writers to defend its inspiration (Erickson 170). The New Testament authors did just that when they spoke of the Hebrew Bible (2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Timothy 3:16). Several apostles confirm the Holy Spirit’s action of speaking through people and prophets (Acts 1:16, 3:18, 21, 4:25). Indeed, the prophets of old were themselves aware of God speaking through them declaring over and over, “Thus says the Lord” (Mic 4:4, Jer 30:4, Is.8:11). Hebrews 1:1-2 attests that God has revealed himself through prophets and now he has revealed himself through the son. Jesus confirmed this when he stated he was the revelation of the Father (John 14:9). Realizing that God has revealed himself specifically through prophets and most fully through his son we must look at Christ’s view of the Hebrew scriptures. He never challenged their authority or divine nature. Though he disagreed with the way the Pharisees interpretated the law, he affirmed its importance and amplified the deeper truths of the commands (Matt 5:17-48). 

In speaking of the Bible or Scripture, I have in view the books of the Old and New Testaments that are widely recognized as the cannon. The process of canonization was not in determining which books would be authoritative but rather in recognizing those that were set apart as having an authoritative status. For the Old Testament I align myself with the Jews of the early church in recognizing the 24 books of the Tanakh (39 in our modern English translations) as divinely inspired. Though other books were referenced at that time, only those were given the honor and authority designating them as the Word of God. For the New Testament cannon, I hold the 27 books commonly acknowledged by the Church’s criteria of apostolicity, continued widespread use over time, and conforming to the “Rule of Faith.” The original manuscripts of these 66 books comprise the written revelation of God to humanity. While God has unveiled himself in general ways, the Bible is the specific revelation we need to understand God and the primary source through which other revelation can be understood. Establishing the divine inspiration of scripture inherently establishes its authority and truthfulness. There are debates as to the process of exactly how the writers of scripture were inspired. These theories of inspiration range from a full dictation view, where God gives the exact words to the writer, all the way to a general intuition view, where the writers just generally had a gift of insight. I hold to dynamic and verbal theories of inspiration wherein the Holy Spirit worked by directing each writer to varying degrees of precision, yet the person writing still exhibited their unique personality in the way the words were expressed.

With regards to its authority and truthfulness, it is helpful to also consider the view early church theologians had toward the Bible. The writing of the time affirms the value of scripture and seems to carry the assumption that it is true and authoritative. Whereas theologians of later time periods heavily debate the place of scripture, the early church theologians seem to take its unique status for granted. In this simple act of acknowledgement of the Bible’s trustworthiness, their lives reflected their belief of its importance by their submission to it (Fairbairn pg. 2). I also align myself with them in my belief that the Word of God is fully trustworthy and authoritative in all it teaches.

A contemporary issue impacting the doctrine of scripture is the debate surrounding inerrancy. Inerrancy is the doctrine that the scriptures are fully truthful in everything they teach. If we believe God is truth and the scriptures are his inspired words, then we must conclude that scripture speaks truth without error. The words of the scriptures reflect his truthful character. It stands to reason that if God has spoken and revealed himself in the scriptures then the truth expressed in them is the ultimate authority by which our lives should be governed. God is truth and cannot lie (Num 23:19; Heb 6:8) so his word is fully true because it is a revelation and reflection of his character (John 3:33, Ps 119:160). If the Bible is God’s inspired, breathed out word, it possesses inherent authority just as the creator of a board game is the source for the rules and how to play. The doctrine of inerrancy is foundational to the study of theology for if God’s Word is prone to error, how are we to conclude it is trustworthy. I find it telling that doubt of the trustworthiness of God’s word is the same seed that the serpent planted in Eve’s mind saying, “Did God really say…?” When we doubt the trustworthiness of his word everything is thrown into doubt and we are left on a foundation of shifting sand. As such, I have a strong commitment to the doctrine of inerrancy. The word inerrant has diverse conceptions ranging from absolute in all matters to a general inerrancy of purpose rather than in totality. I hold to a full inerrancy that the Bible is completely true, but it does not make its aim to teach on scientific or historical data, rather it makes references in terms of the phenomena it describes rather than give precise or exact descriptions (Erickson 191). 

The term inerrancy has taken on additional meanings in the spaces of US evangelicalism. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy sought to clarify and defend the need to support inerrancy. However, in recent years some have taken challenges to traditional interpretations as threats to the doctrine of inerrancy itself. While I hold a strong commitment to inerrancy, I disagree with writers who expand the view of inerrancy to assert that certain interpretations cannot be questioned. It is the scripture that is inerrant, not our interpretations of it. 

This debate underscores the need for my key idea statement: Only God is Certain, We Live by Faith. Inerrancy does not mean we will all come to the same conclusions on interpretation. For example, consider the debate on creation. Some hold to a young earth theory and believe it was created in seven literal 24-hour days. Others view those passages less as an orderly historical account and more of a poetic description of how God created and filled the earth. Some in the first camp would accuse the latter of not trusting in the inerrancy of scripture because they interpret the account in a different manner. Could God have created the earth in a literal week? Certainly! If someone denied God’s omnipotence as the reason for their interpretive disagreement, then I would take issue and conclude faulty hermeneutics. However, it is possible to believe the text is inerrant without taking it literally. One can conclude the heart behind the text is to introduce these newly freed slaves to their God, one who used his own breath and words to speak creation into existence rather than teaching on the exact science of how the world came to be. When we hold so tightly to a particular interpretation of a text, we put ourselves in God’s place as the determiner of the correct interpretation. We must approach the scriptures with humility and in diverse community if we hope to arrive at greater degrees of certainty in our interpretation. Some theologians confidently espouse their view as the ‘biblical’ one because to admit they do not have complete certainty would require humility and faith. In so doing, they may say they are defending inerrancy but what they really are defending is the power to determine what is correct hermeneutics and what is unorthodox. They are crying out against perceived potholes in the road in lanes where believers could travel successfully in the faith. This type of dogmatic approach has led the church into sin in the past and is a worrisome trend in current evangelical culture. Like the Pharisees, modern day Christians who hold to interpretations so tightly may miss a deeper truth the Lord is trying to teach them. There is a fear of being wrong and many warn of a slippery slope toward heresy if one does not hold tightly enough. This contributes to anti-intellectualism as they scare tactics to shoot down perceived threats to their preferred interpretation. Instead, we can live in faith trusting the Lord will guide us. In humility, while may see our view as the most probable and convincing, we can be open to the possibility God may shift our thinking and clarify our understanding based on the Spirit’s work in the minds of other believers. We must interpret scripture within diverse community for the best possibility to arrive at conclusions with the highest degrees of certitude.

This is not to say that every interpretation is equally good or valid for consideration. Nor should we allow texts to be interpreted subjectively. Where the implications of and demands for particular obedience to the scriptures is foundational to Christian belief we must endeavor towards a greater degree of certainty in our interpretations. When the stakes are high and a narrow interpretation is necessary, we must strive to understand as much as possible and come to conclusions that we can defend logically and compellingly. However, there may be passages that are very straight forward yet hard to obey. In those circumstances we must not use a generous interpretation as an excuse to find a way around obedience or stepping out in faith. Eve was deceived because she doubted God’s command, we must likewise be convinced in our own minds what is sin and commit to a faithful obedience. As finite creatures the only way we can know absolute truths is if the infinite God is gracious to reveal them to us. As we walk in faith and come to interpretations, we need to be less concerned with getting the ‘right answer’ and more concerned with honoring God in our process. If we are just looking to pin him down, we lose the beauty and complexity, assuming we can come to correct conclusions without his help. Another issue is that of reconciling perceived problems. Some who hold to absolute inerrancy rush to reconcile these challenges and end up with contrived solutions. In faith we can admit we are not certain why these difficulties appear in the text and propose several different possibilities. Or we can leave the difficulty unresolved with confidence knowing that while the scripture is inerrant, our understanding of it is not.

Returning to the analogy of the chess game, how does this apply to our understanding of scripture? Do we have the original manuscripts of the rules for chess? As a game that has been played for over 1500 years, we are relying on oral tradition and written instructions along the way. Similarly, we do not have the original manuscripts of scripture, yet we can be confident the care undertaken to preserve and translate them resulted in copies we have today representing reliable and accurate translations. Archeological records are continually being uncovered and reveal an extraordinarily high degree of accuracy far beyond what is common for other ancient manuscripts. There may be small differences between what we have today and the originals, but that should not deter us from holding to inerrancy and claiming it can be reasonably applied to our modern Bibles. Particularly when one considers the role the Holy Spirit had in the inspiration of the texts, we can trust that the process of translation and passing down the copies was also guided by the Lord’s hand.

As a teacher of the Bible the doctrine of scripture has tremendous impacts in the way I go about ministry. I am compelled by the authority of scripture to endeavor to seriously study the word with persistence and humility. I come to the word of God in faith, seeking his revelation and illumination in my mind and heart so I may pass on the truths he imparts to me to others as a faithful minister of the gospel. He has given me the ministry of reconciliation and a call to disciple others. I cannot be faithful to those callings if my study of scripture is anemic. I must first put myself under the authority of scripture before I can make any attempt to teach others. Trusting the Holy Spirit will reveal the truths within God’s Word, I hold my interpretations with an open hand in areas that are not primary. In areas more foundational to the Christian life or in places God has confirmed to me over time through humble study I have a greater degree of certainty while still walking in faith. I listen to how God is teaching others because I understand that my own views can be clouded and limited by my personal experience and bias, so learning in diverse community is a vital part of my practice. Holding to inerrancy, I can arrive at conclusions that are authoritative with high degrees of certainty, while still being open to a different interpretation should God bring new facts to light. 

In summary, I believe that God has revealed himself to the world both in general and specific ways. The cannon of scripture contains his inspired words written by human authors. It is without error in the original writings, is his complete revelation for his will for salvation, and the ultimate authority by which all things are measured. Because of these things, the Word of God is to be believed, obeyed, and trusted in all that it teaches (EFCA, art. 2)

Bibliography

Erickson, Millard J. 2013. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

Evangelical Convictions: A Theological Exposition of the Statement of Faith of the Evangelical Free Church of America. 2011. Minneapolis, MN: Free Church Publications.

Fairbairn, Donald. 2009. Life in the Trinity : An Introduction to Theology with the Help of the Church Fathers. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic.

McGrath, Alister E. 2017. Christian Theology : An Introduction. 6th ed. Newark: Wiley.