Abstract: This essay explores whether the Westminster
Confession I, IV is an adequate understanding of the authority of the Scriptures
in today’s pluralistic world. Firstly, I examined the definition of the
Confession. Then, from examining the different sources of authorities in
matters of faith, I agree that the Scriptures is our ‘supreme legislative authority’. Finally, in examining the evidences of divine authorship of the
Scriptures I found enough supporting evidence. Therefore, I am in agreement
with the Confession in that the Scriptures is our ‘supreme
legislative authority’ authored by God. However, it is
important to note that the Confession is a derivative and fallible document,
and these simple statements alone do not give us an adequate understanding of
the authority of the Scriptures in today’s pluralistic world. Other sources of authority are complementary rather than
competitive. Furthermore, there is a diverse range of views and definitions to
the concepts of inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy. I believe we should simply accept a high view of the Scriptures by faith and
trust that what it teaches is for our good.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF)
I, IV says, “The authority of the Holy Scriptures, for which it ought to be
believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but
wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof, and therefore it is
to be received, because it is the work of God.” This essay explores whether this
an adequate understanding of the authority of the Scriptures in today’s
pluralistic world. I will first define the confessional statement. I will then
explore whether the authority of the Scriptures is from God or somewhere else
by examining beliefs regarding sources of authority. Finally, I will explore
whether God is the author by looking at the formation of the canon and the
doctrine of Scripture, which includes concepts such as inspiration, infallibility,
and inerrancy.
The WCF is one of the most important
Protestant confessions, for it gave substantial definition to reformed theology
in the seventeenth century. They were concerned about two principles: Firstly,
the concept of divine revelation. Christianity is a revealed religion,
constructed not on the basis of speculative philosophy, but in response to what
God himself has made manifest. Secondly, the principle of sola Scriptural, established by the Reformers. It acknowledges that
the final authority in all matters of theology and all controversies of faith
and life is not the decrees or traditions of the church, but the sacred
Scriptures itself.[1] According
to church historian and WCF scholar A.F.Mitchell, if any chapter of the WCF was
framed with more elaborate care than another, it was chapter1, the Scriptures.[2]
Chapter1 Section4 is asserting that the Bible’s authority is so strong, so
supreme, that it imposes on us a moral obligation to believe it. If we do not
believe it, we have sinned. If God opens his mouth, there is no room for debate
and no excuse for unbelief. It is the word of God, and everyone is duty bound
to submit to its authority.[3]
Does final authority reside in the church
or in the Scriptures? It is important to note that the confession use the word ‘received’
purposely. The church fathers were humbly recognising the authority of these
books, not presuming to give them authority, when they stated, “We received
these apostolic writings as the sacred Scriptures, as the authoritative word of
God.” The Scriptures should be received, not so that it can become the Word of
God, but because it already is the Word of God.[4]
However, it is important to note that the WCF takes its cue from the Scriptures;
embedded in the confession is the theology of the Scriptures itself, so it is
not authoritative because of what it is in itself, but because of its origin.
Therefore, the confession is a derivative and fallible document.[5]
Over the centuries, Christians have appealed to a variety of sources as the
source of final authority in matters of faith. The Reformed tradition places the
Scriptures as the first locus in theology, after the pattern of the WCF.[6]
The traditional Roman Catholic position sees the church as ultimate authority, as
it was present before the Bible and gave us the Bible, and supplies us with the
correct interpretation of the Bible.[7]
Milne and Macquarie gives examples of a few
other sources. Firstly, the creeds and confessions. However, although the
Apostle’s Creed has a strong claim to authority, is too general and does not
provide full enough statement of the doctrines in question. The 39Articles and the
WCF reflect views of one branch of the universal church and therefore contain
elements which cannot command the support of other branches.[8]
Secondly, the main trend of Christian opinion.[9]
However, the ‘Christian consensus’ is extraordinarily difficult to nail. Whom
do we listen to? The theologians, clergy, lay opinion? And if there is any
conflict of opinions there is no authority beyond it. Thirdly, the actual human
experience of God. However, this means we somehow have to distinguish between
the objective truth about God and our own subjective opinions.[10]
Fourthly, using human reasoning to formulate the Christian truth.[11]
This is useful but cannot be the ultimate authority because the fallen
humanity’s perception of truth has been distorted. Fourthly, this ‘inner voice’
that is frequently interpreted as the prompting of the Holy Spirit.[12]
However, such claims should be treated with scepticism if it makes no reference
to the written word of God or receives no confirmation through the experience
of one’s own church.
Milne[13]
believes none of the above is adequate to bring us to God’s mind and hence be
the authoritative source of Christian truth, but each makes a contribution, and
that the ultimate source of authority is the triune God himself, as he is made
known to us through the words of the Scriptures. Macquarie[14] believes the Scriptures is not itself
revelation, because our personal experience of faith precedes theology[15],
and that different sources of authority, for example tradition and Scripture,
are no rivals but necessary complements[16].
Erickson[17]
speaks of the Wesleyan quadrilateral: reason, experience, tradition, and Scripture,
when he talked about biblical authority. Using the relationship between
biblical authority and reason as an example, he states that ostensibly
authority is the Scriptures, but interpretation elicit its meaning. So one may
ask if reason is the means of interpretation, is it not reason, rather than the
Scriptures, the real authority? He then uses the example of the distinction
between legislative authority and judicial authority as the way to think about
the relationship between the Scriptures and reason, with the Scriptures being
our ‘supreme legislative authority’. I agree with Milne that God is the
ultimate source of authority. The Scriptures, being the written revelation of
God[18], is of equivalent authority to God speaking to us
himself[19]. I agree with Macquarie and Erickson
that different sources of authority are complementary rather than competitive,
and that the Scriptures is our ‘supreme legislative authority’, because it
gives us the content of our belief and of our code of behaviour and practice.
The
next question is whether there is evidence within the Scriptures itself of its
divine origins: another words, is the authority of the Scriptures
self-authenticating?[20] Firstly,
the Scriptures itself claim to be the word of God. 2Timothy
3:16 says, “all Scripture is inspired of God”, literally meaning “God breathed/God
spirited” or theopneustos. The theory of inspiration is that, though the
documents of the sacred Scriptures were written by human authors, they were not
merely recording their own opinions or recollections. They were performing
their task as agents of revelation under the superintendence of the Holy
Spirit, who inspired them.[21]
It is important to take note that modern
English usage, ‘inspiration’ can mean a remarkable heightening of a person’s
natural powers, eg. when a musician was ‘inspired’, which is not the meaning of
theopneustos.[22] 2Peter
1:20 emphasises the work of the Holy Spirit in this process.[23] Justin
Martyr describes inspiration is the process whereby the Holy Spirit worked on
biblical writers much as a musician plays a harp. Augustine believes the
apostles had active minds but wrote as if they were Christ’s own hands, and
Calvin said “the Bible has come down to us from the mouth of God”.[24]
There are various theories of how this process occurred,
the most commonly accepted theories are the dynamic theory and the verbal
theory,[25] The
dynamic theory emphasises the combination of divine and human elements in the
process, whereby the Spirit of God directs the thoughts or concepts, but the
writer’s own distinctive personality come to play in the choice of words and
expressions.[26]
The verbal theory goes a bit further than the dynamic theory in that while the
writer’s own personality still come to play, the Holy Spirit’s influence
extends beyond the direction of thoughts to the selection of words.[27] Those
who hold either theory are usually agreed that the Scriptures is properly
called the word of God and is to be regarded as the supreme rule of faith and
practice.[28]
Watson[29]
states that the biblical writers would not have claimed divine origin for a
book they knew to be purely their own. Furthermore, the Scriptures has to be
self-authenticating because there is no higher authority than God, so God has
to swear by himself.[30] Thus,
what the Scriptures say, God says.[31]
Secondly, we see unity in
diversity: The Scriptures is composed of sixty-six parts, written over a period
of fifteen hundred years, by over forty different people coming from diverse
backgrounds. Yet there is unity in its doctrine, historical viewpoints, ethics
and expectations. It is a single story of divine redemption begun in Israel,
centred in Christ, and culminating at the end of history.[32],[33] Thirdly is the power of the Scriptures to affect us as we read it: its
demonstrated ability to transform even the worst men and women, making them a
blessing to their families, friends and community.[34]
Many have said, “when you read the book, it feels like it is reading you!”[35] What
produces such results if the Scriptures is not divine?[36] Fourthly,
the extraordinary preservation of the Scriptures through the centuries, because
until the time of the Reformation the biblical text was preserved by the
laborious and time-consuming process of copying it over and over again. It had
been an object of such hatred by many in authority that they tried to stamp it
out. If the Scriptures had been only the thoughts and work of human beings, it
would have been eliminated long ago in the face of such opposition.[37]
Another argument for the self-authenticating authority of
the Scriptures is its uncommon accuracy. Boice[38]
points out that if the accuracy of the Scriptures extends to the point of
inerrancy, it would be a direct proof of its divinity. The accuracy of the Scriptures
may be tested externally, as in the historical portions of the New Testament
(NT). For instance, Luke never gets the Roman titles wrong. Archaeology also
substantiated an extraordinary reliability for the writings of the biblical
documents. For example, a plaque has been found in Delphi identifying Gallio as
the proconsul in Corinth at the precise time of Paul’s visit to the city.[39]
Ancient documents such as the Dead Sea scrolls have thrown light on biblical
reliability. However, when it comes to the examining the internal evidence
within the Scriptures, this is where the controversy starts, where theologians
differ in their views of Scriptural infallibility and inerrancy.
It is important to begin by examining the formation of the
canon. Biblical scholars usually agree that the Law of
Moses was recognised as Authoritative Scripture in the days of Josiah
(640-609BC) at the latest. The Prophets were beginning to be recognised as
authoritative Scriptures by around 400BC and by 200BC their acceptance were
widespread. The ‘Writings’ were recognised for the first known time as a
distinct collection of Jewish Scriptures in the middle to late second century
by some rabbinic Jews. This three-part biblical canon probably did not become
accepted until shortly before the time of Jesus since there are no known
references to it before the second century AD.[40]
The NT
is the primary document for Christians.[41]
There was a ‘core’ canon of NT books by the middle of the second century.[42]
The final shape of the twenty-seven-book collection was reached in the fourth
and fifth centuries, with general agreement among both the Greek-speaking
leaders of the eastern church and the Latin-speaking leaders of the western
church.[43]
The Catholics view the canon as an
infallible collection of infallible books[44], because the authority of the canon
is dependent upon the authority of the church[45] since
“the church existed before the Bible”, and that the church was responsible for
“forming our NT canon.”[46] So either we conclude that the church is infallible, or we
conclude that the canon is more of a human product than we might think.[47] Protestants view the canon as a fallible collection of infallible
books.[48] Gaffin[49] examines
the criteria of canonicity, such as apostolic authorship,
antiquity, and public lection, and found these fallible. Some books such as
Mark, Luke-Acts were not written by apostles[50], and
many epistles were written pseudonymously[51]. If
we look at antiquity as the criteria, the “previous” letter of 1Corinthians 5:9
is not included in the canon. Documents such as Shepherd of Hermas were used in
public worship and this is not included in the canon.[52] Instead,
Gaffin asserts we must recognise we must recognise the NT canon as a
self-establishing, self-validating entity.[53] Protestants believe that God gave
special providential care to ensure that the proper books be included, but the
church is not infallible.[54]
Luther’s doctrine of sola Scriptura
during the Protestant Reformation held the Scriptures as the supreme authority in
all matters of doctrine and practice.[55]
The liberals view the Canon as
a fallible collection of fallible books.[56]
The
development of liberal theology out of its roots in the Enlightenment led to an
entirely new doctrine of Scripture, in which the Scriptures became human
reflection on religious experience, rather than documents created by a divine
speaking.[57]
At the heart of the Enlightenment were two key elements, an affirmation of
human autonomy and an affirmation of the final authority of reason.[58]
Barth became the leading opponent of liberal theology because although he
trained in it, he found himself with little or no message to preach on Sunday
because the Scriptures had been so emptied of content by the higher-critical
scholarship that was a key element of liberal theology.[59]
Barth developed his doctrine of Scripture, speaking about the threefold aspect
of the Word of God with Jesus as the living Word of God, the Bible as the
written Word of God and preaching or witnessing as the third form of the Word
of God.[60]
One of the most heavily debated topics among theologians
regarding the internal accuracy of the Scriptures is on Scriptural
infallibility and inerrancy. Pinnock and Callen[61] observes
that the Scripture principle overthrown should the Scriptures
turn out to be self-contradictory and fallacious. For Geisler[62],
infallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and inerrant
signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake. Theologians
cannot even agree on the definition of the term “inerrancy” and argued over the level to which the Scriptures
is inerrant.[63]
Some make it a strict category while others find a great deal of room to move
under this rubric.[64] Absolute
inerrancy holds that the Scriptures is fully true on both scientific and
historical matters. Thus, apparent discrepancies can and must be explained.
Full inerrancy also holds that the Scriptures is completely true. There is no
difference between this position and absolute inerrancy in terms of the
religious/theological/spiritual message. However, the understanding of the
scientific and historical references is different: they are popular
descriptions and not necessarily exactly.[65] Limited
inerrancy regards the Scriptures as inerrant and infallible in its salvific
doctrinal references, but the scientific and historical references reflect the
understanding current at the time it was written whereby the Scriptures were
subject to the limitations of their time.[66]
Inerrancy of purpose holds that the Scriptures faithfully accomplishes its
purpose and it is improper to relate inerrancy with factuality, because truth
is thought of not as a quality of propositions, but as a means to accomplish an
end.[67]
Most Christians in most churches since the
founding of Christianity have believed in the inerrancy of the Scriptures,
although the term inerrancy was not common until the nineteenth century.[68]
Bloesch[69]
observes there is a long tradition in the church that represents the teaching
of Scripture as being without error. References to the Scriptures as inerrabilis are found in Augustine,
Aquinas and Duns Scotus. Infallibis is
applied to the Scriptures by John Wycliffe and Jean de Gerson. Luther and
Calvin describes the Scriptures as being infallible and without error. B.B.Warfield
and A.A.Hodge gave expression to the doctrine of inerrancy in their article
published in 1881, although without using that word. They used the terms
errorless and without error repeatedly, and the whole intent of the article is
to make it clear that the superintendence of God in Scripture guarantees the
errorless infallibility of all scriptural affirmations.[70]
‘Fundamentalist’ was a term coined in 1920,
which was a title some evangelical Christians took for themselves as a positive
identification with the ‘fundamentals’ of the faith.[71]
The fundamentalists took their stand on the doctrine of inerrancy.[72]
As time went on, fundamentalism began to develop certain characteristics that
distinguished it from the mainstream of the evangelical movement and there was
an increasing anti-intellectual thrust to the movement, with the complete
rejection of any form of biblical or textual criticism.[73]
This caused many problems in developing a doctrine of Scripture as there is
confusion about which text of Scripture to use. The fundamentalists resolved
this question by arguing that the King James Version is the only one that
should be used.[74] Disagreements
within the group led to a new outbranching who call themselves the
‘neo-evangelicals’, including people like Billy Graham and Carl F.H. Henry, who
sought to develop an evangelicalism that was more intellectually respectable.
Ultimately this group simply became known as ‘evangelicals’. They did not
abandon the use of the word ‘inerrancy’.[75]
In the 1970s Rogers and McKim attacked the
doctrine of inerrancy and believed the Scriptures is to be accepted by faith
and not by rational proofs; it is not to be regarded as authoritative in
matters or science or on other subjects, but rather as a means of salvation.[76]
Their views were challenged by evangelicals who are committed to the doctrine
of inerrancy. Woodbridge critiques that Rogers and McKim’s proposal had several
methodological problems.[77]
It was precisely to answer the Rogers and McKim’s proposal that the
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy was set up in 1978, where 300
theologians and church leaders met at Chicago to affirm their position,
producing The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy[78],
with the aim was that “the church and the world will know exactly what we mean
by the term ‘Biblical Inerrancy’. It soon became apparent that this expectation
was premature. With passage of time, the multifaceted nature of the definition
of inerrancy and the hermeneutical issues defy attempts toward precision.[79]
Some theologians[80],[81]
believe that the bible is not an infallible record and have divergences and
discrepancies, such as those found in the parallel passages in the Gospels
about the resurrection of Jesus[82] and the story of Jairus[83].
Inerrantists will typically reply that this is only an apparent but not real
contradiction[84],[85],
eg. the resurrection account involves the women making more than one visit to
the tomb but each Gospel only talks about part of the account[86],[87]. Another argument is that since God has nowhere promised an
inerrant transmission of Scripture, only the autographic text of the original
document was inspired[88],
and no translation can be perfect[89],
so if we had the original manuscript we would see that the problem does not
exist there[90]. The
counter argument is, ‘What was the point of God acting supernaturally to
provide an inerrant text providentially if it ceased to be inerrant as soon as
the first or second copy was made?’[91]
N.T.Wright[92]
wants to avoid emphasising general questions about the Bible’s nature, its
authority, infallibility, and inerrancy, so that he can focus on the content of
the Scriptures. Furthermore, a number of scholars who hold to inerrancy
recognised that some of the biblical phenomena cannot be harmonised without
employing strained or forced methods.[93]
Harrison[94]
suggests harmonising where possible but await further data rather than force a
solution now. Erickson[95]
further defines inerrancy by incorporating Carnell’s suggestion that the Scriptures
reports false statements made by ungodly persons and the presence of these
statements does not mean they are true; it only guarantees that they are
correctly reported. The same judgement can be made about statements of godly
men who were not speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, one must judge the truthfulness of the Scriptures in terms of its
meaning in the cultural setting in which its statements were expressed.[96]
McGowan[97]
notes that inerrancy is not a biblical doctrine and believes that an older and
better way to defence a ‘high’ view of Scripture is the ‘infallibilist’ view.[98]
The term ‘infallibility’ has in recent years been used as an alternative to ‘inerrancy’,
meaning in some usages that the Scriptures is not necessarily accurate in all
of its factual references, but that it accomplished the divine purpose.[99]
McGowan believes that having freely chosen to use human beings, God knew what
he was doing. Rather than an inerrant autographical text, he gave us a text
that reflects the humanity of its authors, but that, at the same time, clearly
evidences its origin in the divine speaking.[100]
Billy Graham once said, “O God! There are many things in this book I do not
understand… I can’t answer some of the philosophical and psychological
questions Chuck and others are raising…. I am going to accept this as Thy Word
– by faith!”[101]
In conclusion, my view is in agreement with
the Westminster Confession in that the Scriptures is our ‘supreme
legislative authority’, because it gives us the content of our belief and of
our code of behaviour and practice. I also agree that
there is sufficient evidence supporting the divine authorship of the Scriptures
as: Firstly, the Scriptures itself makes such claim and has to be
self-authenticating because there is no higher authority than God, Secondly, there
is unity in its doctrines, historical viewpoints, ethics and expectations
despite the diversity of writers and time frame. Thirdly, the transformative
power of the Scriptures in our lives as we read it. Fourthly, the extraordinary
preservation of the Scriptures through the centuries despite the adverse
conditions. However, it is important to note that the Confession is a
derivative and fallible document[102],
and this document alone does not give us an adequate understanding of the
authority of the Scriptures in today’s pluralistic world.
Although the Scriptures is our ‘supreme
legislative authority’, there are other sources of authority, such as
reason, experience and tradition, which are complementary rather than
competitive. Furthermore, there is more to the concepts of inspiration,
infallibility and inerrancy, because with passage of
time, the multifaceted nature of the definition of these terms and the
hermeneutical issues defy attempts toward precision. Some theologians believe
we need to make a big deal on inerrancy of the Scriptures because it is God’s word[103],
and if
the accuracy of the Scriptures extends to the point of inerrancy, it would be a
direct proof of its divinity.[104]
Others suggest harmonising where possible but await
further data rather than force a solution now.[105]
Some believe that ‘infallibility’ is a better term and we should simply accept a
high view of the Scriptures by faith and trust that what it teaches is for our
good[106],
which I agree with.
[1]R. C. Sproul, Truth We
Confess: A Layman’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith Volume 1(Philipsburg:
P&R Publishing, 2006), 4-5.
[2]Benjamin B. Warfield, Benjamin
B. Warfield: Selected Shorter Writings Volume 2, edited by J. E. Meeter, (Phillipsburg:
P&R Publishings, 2001), 560. This chapter was considered clause by clause,
by the House of Commons, as well as the Assembly of Divines, before it was
finally passed.
[3]Sproul, Truth We Confess,
12.
[4]Sproul, Truth We Confess,
13.
[5]K.Scott Oliphint, “Because It Is the
Word of God,” In Did God Really Say,
edited by D. B. Garner, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2012),
[6]A.T.B. McGowan, The Divine Spiration of Scripture: Challenging evangelical perspectives
(Nottingham: Apollos, 2007), 28.
[7]Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 216.
[8]Bruce Milne, Know the Truth
(Leicester: IVP, 1982), 16.
[9]Milne, Know the Truth, 16.
[10]Milne, Know the Truth, 17.
[11]Erickson, Christian Theology, 216.
[12]Milne, Know the Truth, 17.
[13]Milne, Know the Truth, 18.
[14]John Macquarie, Principles of
Christian Theology (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1977), 10. When we seek to “make
sense” of our experience, and the process of bringing the content of the faith-experience
to clear expression in words embarks us on the business of theology.
[15]Macquarie, Principles of
Christian Theology, 5.
[16]Macquarie, Principles of
Christian Theology, 11.
[17]Erickson, Christian Theology, 225.
[18]Milne, Know the Truth, 18.
[19]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 10.
[20]“How Do We Know the Bible is God's Word? Recovering the Doctrine of a
Self-Authenticating Scripture,” Michael Kruger, accessed April 19, 2016,
[21]Sproul, Truth We Confess,
11. Inspiration translates the Greek word theopneustos,
meaning God-breathed. Paul is saying that sacred Scripture is God-breathed, out
of the mouth of God, where it originates, is nothing less than the Word of God,
which has binding authority upon us.
[22]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 39. There
is a tendency among those who write on the doctrine of the inspiration of
Scripture to assume this type of meaning, that the writers of Scripture had a
heightened religious sensitivity. The claim is not being made that the authors
were ‘inspired’ but rather that the Scriptures were ‘God-breathed’. In fact,
‘expiration’ is a more accurate conveyance than ‘inspiration’.
[23]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 28.
[24]Gordon R. Lewis, and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 134.
[25]Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT. “The Inspiration and
Interpretation of Scripture” (report to the 111th Annual Assembly,
Sydney, Australia, September 25, 1979). Both the verbal and dynamic views were
held in the Commission.
[26]Erickson, Christian Theology, 175.
[27]J. I. Packer, Fundamentalism
and the Word of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 79.
[28]Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT, “The Inspiration and
Interpretation of Scripture”
[29]James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith
(Leicester: IVP, 1986), 58.
[31]Norman L. Geisler, editor., Inerrancy
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 499.
[32]Boice, Foundations of the Christian
Faith, 58.
[34]Boice, Foundations of the
Christian Faith, 64.
[36]Boice, Foundations of the
Christian Faith, 57.
[37]Boice, Foundations of the
Christian Faith, 64.
[38]Boice, Foundations of the
Christian Faith, 59.
[39]Boice, Foundations of the
Christian Faith, 60.
[40]Lee Martin McDonald, Formation of the Bible: The Story of the
Church’s Canon (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2012), 59. Jesus referred to the
Scriptures as either the “Law,” the law of Moses,” or the “Law and the
Prophets”. Only in one exception, Luke 24:44, “law of Moses, the prophets, and
the psalms.”
[41]Donald Robinson, Faith’s
Framework: The structure of New Testament theology (Sydney: Albatross
Books, 1985), 11.
[42]Michael J. Kruger, “Deconstructing
Canon: Recent Challenges to the Origins and Authority of the New Testament
Writings,” In Did God Really Say,
edited by D. B. Garner, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2012), 55. The core is represented well by the
late second-century Muratorian fragment, which recognised the four Gospels,
Acts, the thirteen epistles of Paul, 1-2 John, Jude and Revelation. The vast
majority of canonical debates among early Christians focused on the handful of
“peripheral” books like 2 Peter, James, Hebrews, and 3 John.
[43]Robinson, Faith’s Framework,
12.
[44]Robinson, Faith’s Framework,
13.
[45]Kruger, “Deconstructing Canon,” 66.
[46]Craig D. Allert, A High View
of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament
Canon (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 76-77.
[48]R. C. Sproul, Essential Truths
of the Christian Faith (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1992), 22-23.
[49]Richard B. Gaffin, “The New Testament: How Do We Know for Sure?” Christianity Today, February 5, 1988, 29.
[50]Gaffin, “The New Testament: How Do We Know for Sure?” 28.
[51]John Barton, How the Bible Came to Be (Westminster John Knox Press: Louiseville,
1997), 23.
[52]Gaffin, “The New Testament: How Do We Know for Sure?” 28.
[53]Gaffin, “The New Testament: How Do We Know for Sure?” 29.
[54]Sproul, Essential Truths of
the Christian Faith, 22-23.
[55]Ronald Youngblood, “The Process: How We Got Our Bible,” Christianity Today, February 5, 1988, 25.
Sola scriptura means “the Bible alone”
[56]Sproul, Essential Truths of
the Christian Faith, 22-23.
[57]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 208. The writers of the Scriptures were viewed as men reflecting
on their religious experience rather than men speaking from God as they were
carried along by the Holy Spirit.
[59]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 62.
[60]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 63.
[61]Pinnock and Callen, The
Scripture Principle, 95.
[62]Geisler, editor., Inerrancy,
500.
[63]Erickson, Christian Theology, 191.
[64]Clark H. Pinnock and Barry L. Callen, The Scripture Principle: Reclaiming the Full
Authority of the Bible(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 101.
[65]Erickson, Christian Theology, 191.
[66]Erickson, Christian Theology, 191-192.
[67]Erickson, Christian Theology, 192.
[68]Mark Noll, “A Brief History of Inerrancy, Mostly in American,” In The Proceedings of the Conference on
Biblical Inerrancy 1987, (Nashville: Broadman, 1987), 9-10.
[69]D.G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture:
Revelation, Inspiration and Interpretation (Downers Grove: IVP, 1994),
33-34.
[70]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 85.
[71]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 90. Coined by Curtis Lee Laws.
[72]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 94.
[73]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 91. There were certain cultural distinctives: fundamentalists
did not dance or drink or smoke or go to the cinema and so on. There was also
serious concentration on one issue, namely the campaign to ensure that the case
for biological evolution was not permitted to be taught in public schools.
[74]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 94.
[75]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 96.
[76]Jack B. Rogers, and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach
(New York: Harper & Row, 1979), 458-461.
[77]John Woodbridge, Biblical
Authority: A critique of the Rogers/McKim proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1982), 153.
[78]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 103.
[79]Allert, A High View of Scripture?,
160.
[80]Macquarie, Principles of
Christian Theology, 10.
[81]Dewey Beegle. “Inerrancy and the Phenomena of Scripture,” in Readings in Christian Theology Volume 1,
ed. Millard J. Erickson (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), 307.
[82]Boice, Foundations of the
Christian Faith, 61. On the surface these reports are different, but when they
are examined further they reveal a remarkable harmony.
[83]I.H. Marshall, Biblical
Inspiration (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1982), 61. For example, in the
story of Jairus as recorded by Matthew it is simply said that when Jairus first
met Jesus he told him that his daughter was dead (Matthew 9:18). According to
Mark and Luke, however, the daughter was merely on the point of death at the beginning
of the story, and it was only later that Jairus and Jesus learned that she had
actually died (Mark 5:35, Luke 8:49). We can explain the contradiction quite
easily by saying that Matthew, whose general policy was to tell stories about
Jesus in fewer words than Mark, has abbreviated the story. But the fact still
remains that Matthew has attributed to Jairus words which he did not actually
say at the time stated.
[84]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 112.
[85]Geisler, Inerrancy, 501.
[86]Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopaedia
of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Regency, 1982), 347-351.
[87]Boice, Foundations of the
Christian Faith, 61.
[88]Geisler, Inerrancy, 501.
[89]Geisler, Inerrancy, 502.
[90]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 112.
[91]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 109.
[92]John M. Frame, “N. T. Wright and the Authority of Scripture,” In Did God Really Say, edited by D. B.
Garner, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2012), 108.
[93]Beegle, “Inerrancy and the Phenomena of Scripture,” 308.
[94]Everett F. Harrison, “Criteria of Biblical Inerrancy,” in Readings in Christian Theology Volume 1,
ed. Millard J. Erickson. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), 313-314.
[95]Erickson, Christian Theology, 202. Stephen, in his speech in Acts 7, may not
have been inspired, although he was filled with the Holy Spirit.
[96]Erickson, Christian Theology, 203. The word “son” has basically one meaning
in our language and culture. In biblical times, it was broader in meaning,
almost tantamount to “descendant”.
[97]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 114.
[98]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 123.
[99]Erickson, Christian Theology, 189.
[100]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 124.
[101]Billy Graham, Just As I Am:
The Autobiography of Billy Graham (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1997), 139.
[102]Oliphint, “Because It Is the Word of God,” 7.
[103]Frame, “N.T. Wright and the Authority of Scripture,” 123.
[104]Boice, Foundations of the
Christian Faith, 59.
[105]Harrison, “Criteria of Biblical Inerrancy,” 313-314.
[106]McGowan, The Divine Spiration
of Scripture, 125.
Bibliography:
Allert, Craig D. A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation
of the New Testament Canon. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
Archer, Gleason L. Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Regency, 1982.
Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT. “The
Inspiration and Interpretation of Scripture.” Report to the 111th
Annual Assembly, Sydney, Australia, September 25, 1979.
Barton, John. How the Bible Came to Be. Louiseville: Westminster John Knox Press,
1997.
Beegle, Dewey. “Inerrancy and the Phenomena
of Scripture,” In Readings in Christian
Theology Volume 1, edited by Millard J. Erickson, 293-309. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1989.
Bloesch, D. G. Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration and Interpretation. Downers
Grove: IVP, 1994.
Boice, James Montgomery. Foundations of the Christian Faith.
Leicester: IVP, 1986.
Calvin, John. Tracts and Treatises, trans. Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1958.
Dunn, J. D. G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character
of Early Christianity. London: SCM Press, 1990.
Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.
Erickson, Millar J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Word of God. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing,
2010.
Frame, John M. “N. T. Wright and the
Authority of Scripture,” In Did God
Really Say, edited by D. B. Garner, 107-128. Phillipsburg: P&R
Publishing, 2012.
Gaffin, Richard B. “The New Testament: How
Do We Know for Sure?” Christianity Today,
February 5, 1988.
Geisler, Norman L., editor. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1980.
Graham, Billy. Just As I Am: The Autobiography of Billy Graham. San Francisco:
HarperCollins, 1997.
Harrison, Everett F. “Criteria of Biblical
Inerrancy,” In Readings in Christian
Theology Volume 1, edited by Millard J. Erickson, 311-315. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1989.
Kline, Meredith G. The Structure of Biblical Authority. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1997.
Kruger, Michael J. “Deconstructing Canon:
Recent Challenges to the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Writings,”
In Did God Really Say, edited by D.
B. Garner, 49-70. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2012.
Kruger, Michael J. “How Do We
Know the Bible is God's Word? Recovering the Doctrine of a Self-Authenticating
Scripture (Talk presented in 2015 TGC National Conference Workshop).” Accessed
April 19, 2016.
Lewis, Gordon R. and Bruce A. Demarest. Integrative theology. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1994.
Macquarie, John. Principles of Christian Theology, London: SCM Press Ltd, 1977.
Marshall, I. H. Biblical Inspiration, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1982.
McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority,
Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007.
McDonald, Lee Martin. Formation of the Bible: The Story of the Church’s Canon, Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2012.
McGowan, A. T. B. The Divine Spiration of Scripture: Challenging evangelical perspectives,
Nottingham: Apollos, 2007.
Milne, Bruce. Know the Truth, Leicester: IVP, 1982.
Noll, Mark. “A Brief History of Inerrancy,
Mostly in American,” In The Proceedings
of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy 1987, 9-46. Nashville: Broadman, 1987.
Oliphint, K. Scott. “Because It Is the Word
of God,” In Did God Really Say,
edited by D. B. Garner, 1-22. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2012.
Packer, J. I. Fundamentalism and the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958.
Pinnock, Clark H. and Barry L. Callen. The Scripture Principle: Relcaiming the Full
Authority of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
Reardon, Bernard M. G. Religious Thought in the Reformation. London: Longman, 1981.
Robinson, Donald. Faith’s Framework: The structure of New Testament theology. Sydney:
Albatross Books, 1985.
Rogers, Jack B. Scripture in the Westminster Confession: A Problem of Historical
Interpretation for American Presbyterianism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967.
Rogers, Jack B. and Donald K. McKim. The Authority and Interpretation of the
Bible: An Historical Approach. New York: Harper & Row, 1979.
Sproul, R. C. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Wheaton: Tyndale House
Publishers, 1992.
Sproul, R. C. Truth We Confess: A Layman’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of
Faith Volume 1. Philipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2006.
Warfield, Benjamin B. Benjamin B. Warfield: Selected Shorter Writings Volume 2, edited by
J. E. Meeter, Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2001.
Wang, Ying-fan Yvonne. Dr Yvonne Wang’s Blabberings.
Last modified May 5, 2016. http://dryvonnewang.blogspot.com.au.
White, James R. Scripture Alone. Bethany House: Minneapolis, 2004.
Williams, Michael D. “The Church, a Pillar
of Truth: B. B. Warfield’s Church Doctrine of Inspiration,” In Did God Really Say, edited by D. B.
Garner, 23-48. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2012.
Woodbridge, John. Biblical Authority: A critique of the Rogers/McKim proposal. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.
Woodbridge, John. “Evangelical
Self-Identity and the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy,” In Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st
Century: Essays in Honor of D. A. Carson on the Occasion of His 65th
Birthday, edited by A. Köstenberger and R. W. Yarbrough, 104-159. Wheaton:
Crossway, 2011.
Yarbrough, Robert W. “Inerrancy’s
Complexities: Grounds for Grace in the Debate,” In Did God Really Say, edited by D. B. Garner, 71-92. Phillipsburg:
P&R Publishing, 2012.
Youngblood, Ronald. “The Process: How We
Got Our Bible.” Christianity Today,
February 5, 1988.
No comments:
Post a Comment