Here's a page from my book 'Recent Trends Among Evangelicals' (the full Of the three canons of authority - reason, tradition and scripture - But as Reformed theologian G.C. Berkouwer expressed it somewhere: 'To If the Bible is 'God's word in our words', we are immediately presented But if scripture is truly the word of God, what do we mean by 'truly'? Then, too, it's a question of priority. For James Boice and Harold Billy Graham's position is similar to his mentor, Carl Henry's: 'I The inerrantist view assumes that unless the Bible can be shown to give A third model we might call 'progressive evangelical'. We find an Jack Rogers has a helpful comment on these three models. He says all Rogers goes on to illustrate the three models by analogies. The first The metaphor suggested by the second model, says Rogers, is that of an The metaphor suggested by the third model is that of the President's 'The issue', says Rogers, 'among evangelicals is not whether there is Michael Kennedy wrote: I'm actually happy with the word 'infallible' if you mean God's Word, Notions of 'inerrancy' are too liberal for me: they're rationalistically Interesting that along the liberal-to-conservative continuum anyone to You need more faith than I've got to believe in inerrant originals - Rather than inerrant, eh? Start with 'Authentic Christianity' (excerpts from his writings), then Briefly, the Stott-type apologetic goes like this: in Jesus' promise of Actually, to take it one step further: those who believe in the And, (pardon the interruption) I've arrived at a similar position from > I would However, if I can be frank here, the 'faithful' often lose whatever Two issues: what should preachers do with their own questions when And how can we encourage people to move from faith in a book to a living
Graeme wrote:
>
> In view of the attack by rationalistic liberalism in this ng on the
> Word of God I am posting the following which is the accepted stance of
> amost all biblicists. I did not write it and I do not know who did,
> but I certainly agree with it.
>
> The Inerrancy of the Bible
text of the book is on our website) which reflects a position between
Graeme's and Nigel's (ie. my own):
evangelicals have always affirmed that scripture is 'God's word in our
words' and therefore is always our primary and supreme authority for all
matters of faith and conduct. Although reason and tradition may have
been illumined and guided by the Holy Spirit, they have a secondary and
subordinate place to scripture. Why? Because this was Christ's view of
scripture. John Stott puts it simply in various writings: 'The
conservative view of scripture... is Christ's view of scripture. He
endorsed the Old Testament, made provision for the New Testament, and
because of Christ we accept the authority of the book.'
confess holy
scripture and its authority is to be aware of the command to understand
and to interpret it. It always places us at the beginning of a road that
we can only travel in fear and trepidation.' If God has yet more light
and truth to break forth from his holy word, then we must face the hard
questions and continue to wrestle with them.
with two dangers: biblical docetism, which to varying degrees denies the
real humanness of the written documents; and biblical Arianism, which
denies that scripture is truly the word of God.
The founder of L'Abri, Francis Schaeffer, used to ask: 'Is the Bible
true truth? The issue is whether the Bible gives propositional truth
where it touches history and the cosmos ... or whether it is only
meaningful where it touches that which is considered religious.' For
Schaeffer this was the watershed issue: 'we draw the line here with love
and tears, even if evangelicals have to separate from one another.'
Lindsell, the authority of the Bible is an outcome of its inerrancy: 'If
you don't have an inerrant Bible, you don't have an authoritative Bible'
(Boice). Carl Henry objects to this elevation of inerrancy over
authority as the first claim to be made for the Bible: 'To concentrate
on inerrancy as the sole decisive issue is to wage the battle on too
narrow a front.'
believe the Bible is the inspired, authoritative word of God, but I
don't use the word "inerrant" because it's become a brittle, divisive
word.' It certainly has, but Graham went on to say something truly
prophetic: 'The issue [of the '80s] is going to be hermeneutics, or how
to interpret scripture properly and apply it to personal and social
life.'
trustworthy information on non-religious matters, then it can't be
trusted in the more important religious realm. The neo-orthodox view
says the Bible is a witness to God's primary revelation in Christ, but
as all human words are fallible it is not helpful to speak of the Bible
as being in itself the word of God. It may become the word of God as we
encounter God himself in Jesus Christ through its preaching.
exposition of it in John Stott's chapter, 'The Authority and Power of
the Bible', in Rene Padilla (ed.), 'The New Face of Evangelicalism
(Hodder and Stoughton, 1976). Commenting on the Lausanne Covenant phrase
'without error in all that it affirms', Stott writes: 'Not everything
included in scripture is true, because not everything recorded in
scripture is affirmed by scripture.' It would be naive, he argues, to
declare that 'every word in the Bible is true'. Consider, for example,
the Book of Job. Of the speeches recorded there God says, 'You have not
spoken of me what is right' (42:7). So in declaring that the scripture
is 'without error in all that it affirms', we are committed to 'the
responsible work of biblical interpretation, so that we may discern the
intention of each author and grasp what is being affirmed'.
three are useful
inasmuch as they are seeking to answer different questions. The first
model asks the question: Is the Bible an authoritative and trustworthy
revelation for all of life? We can answer with the inerrantists: 'Yes!'
The second model asks: In whom is God most fully revealed? We should
answer with the neo-orthodox: 'Jesus Christ, to whom scripture bears
unique and authoritative witness.' The third model asks yet another
question: How is the Bible most helpfully to be interpreted? Answer: 'It
is a divine message given in human words which are best understood in
their various historical and cultural contexts.'
model is like the President of the US dictating a letter to his personal
secretary. Thus the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy's
Chicago Statement, Article VIII, states: 'God, in causing these writers
to use the very words that he chose ... ', thereby asserting a notion of
dictation. However, in affirming that 'what scripture says, God says',
this declaration also denies that in choosing the words, God overrode
their [the writers'] personalities.
incumbent President running for re-election, with editorial writers who
report on and interpret his sayings and doings. These biblical
editorialists encourage the readers to meet the candidate in person and
give him their allegiance.
press secretary speaking to the public. Such a person has been with the
President and knows his inmost thoughts. When the press secretary
speaks, he carries the authority of the President. But he uses his own
words and adapts them to the questions being asked by the public.
transcendent truth in the biblical revelation, but how that truth is
incarnated in human, literary forms. The problem is not one of
authority, but of interpretation' (J. Rogers, 'Mixed Metaphors,
Misunderstood Models, and Puzzling Paradigms', unpublished paper, Fuller
Seminary, 1981).
Subject: Re: The Inerrancy of the Bible
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:43:19 -1000
From: "Rowland C. Croucher" <>
Organization: John Mark Ministries
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
<>
> Hi Rowland,
>
> Originally the topic was the infallibility of the Bible.
> (Which I believe in)
>
> My question - Is inerrancy the same as infallibility ?
expressed through any medium, accomplishes its divine intent. God's word
shall not return void as the KJV puts it. I think that's a biblically
authentic position (s'long as you realize that 'Word' doesn't mean - or
hardly ever means - 'book' to biblical people).
derived, not biblical :-)
Michael Kennedy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:43:19 -1000, "Rowland C. Croucher"
> <> wrote:
> >Michael Kennedy wrote:
> >> Hi Rowland,
> >>
> >> Originally the topic was the infallibility of the Bible.
> >> (Which I believe in)
> >>
> >> My question - Is inerrancy the same as infallibility ?
> >
> >I'm actually happy with the word 'infallible' if you mean God's Word,
> >expressed through any medium, accomplishes its divine intent. God's word
> >shall not return void as the KJV puts it. I think that's a biblically
> >authentic position (s'long as you realize that 'Word' doesn't mean - or
> >hardly ever means - 'book' to biblical people).
> >
> >Notions of 'inerrancy' are too liberal for me: they're rationalistically
> >derived, not biblical :-)
>
> TOO LIBERAL FOR YOUUUUUU...............
>
> Cough ! Splutter !
the 'left' of a conservative is liberal (and vice-versa from the liberal
end). Reminds me of the dictum that it's better for a prophet not to be
right- or left-wing but rather wingless :-)
>
> Getting a bit sarcastic there, Rowland. ;o)
>
> But, hold on to your chair. I tend to agree with you. (In a sense)
>
> Errors exists in every bible through translation problems.
>
> Even if you read greek, there are still many different versions you
> can read.
> Which one is the inerrant one ?
haven't met anyone who's seen one yet ;-)
>
> But God's word as given to us, be it in the Bible for this discussion,
> is still infallible.
> Therefore - The Bible is the infallible word of God.
>
> God Bless,
>
> Michael.
>
> PS.
>
> Beware mentioning the KJV around here, Nigel will get "VERY" agitated.
Scott Gilbert wrote:
>
> Rowland C. Croucher wrote in message <>...
>
> [snip]
>
> >Of the three canons of authority - reason, tradition and scripture -
> >evangelicals have always affirmed that scripture is 'God's word in our
> >words' and therefore is always our primary and supreme authority for all
> >matters of faith and conduct. Although reason and tradition may have
> >been illumined and guided by the Holy Spirit, they have a secondary and
> >subordinate place to scripture. Why? Because this was Christ's view of
> >scripture. John Stott puts it simply in various writings: 'The
> >conservative view of scripture... is Christ's view of scripture. He
> >endorsed the Old Testament, made provision for the New Testament, and
> >because of Christ we accept the authority of the book.'
>
> Where John Stott says that Christ made provision for the New
> Testament, do you know to what he refers? if so, is it on your web
> page or is there a book he has published that I can look up? It
> would answer a question or two I have been wrestling with for a
> while.
look at 'Understanding the Bible' (is that still in print?)
the Spirit to his followers, he included three dimensions of
'inspiration': 'He will bring to mind what I have spoken' (Gospels) 'He
will guide you into all truth' (epistles) 'He will show you things to
come' (apocalyptic etc.). Covers pretty-well all the NT (if you take
Paul's defense of his apostolicity seriously).
authority of the NT do it by faith, actually. They rest on an assumption
that the Holy Spirit has guided Christ's followers as they sorted out
the canon. Martin Luther was strong on that. But apparently the same
Spirit was not as successful in guiding the church in terms of
institutionalism ('popes and councils err' and all that :-)
Nigel B. Mitchell wrote:
>
> Hi, Mike.
>
> >Lest anyone think that I've approached this whole question with a
> >preconception that "the Bible has mistakes", this simply isn't true. I
> >once believed in inerrancy. I found that eventually I just couldn't any
> >more. The weight of evidence was too great. The wriggling to achieve a
> >harmonization became too blatant.
> >
>
> I don't think I have ever held the opinion that the Bible was
> inerrant, but I too have arrived at my current position through many
> years of study and prayerful meditation on the scriptures.
another perspective - that of biblical authority. If the Bible doesn't
posit something about itself, nor should we.
> hate anyone who reads this newsgroup to think that I was against the
> scriptures or trying to discredit them. Rather, I hope that my efforts
> assist people to read with understanding, and so to engender faith.
'faith' they had, when we preachers preach about the fallibility of the
biblical writers. They ask 'If I can't trust the Bible in this and that
can I trust it for anything?'
behind the pulpit?
faith in Christ?
> Cheers
>
> N+
>
> Nigel B. Mitchell
>
top of page