The Authority and Inerrancy of the Bible - Part 2

This is a continuation of review questions from Chapter two of the Wayne Gruden's book Bible Doctrine.

4. Define the term inerrancy and discuss how this idea can be consistent with the Bible's use of the language of ordinary, everyday speech.

Inerrancy defined by Dictionary.com states that it is 1) lack of error; infallibility. and 2) the belief that the Bible is free of error in matters of science as well as those of faith.

Bible Doctrine defines inerrancy as meaning that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything which is contrary to fact." So it means that the Bible always tell us the truth in what it talks about, not that it tells all the facts about every subject.

Though inerrant, the Bible still uses everyday ordinary language that is easily understood by regular people such as the sun rising or such as the number of casualties in a battle reported as 8,000 instead of 7,995 or other measurements. Approximate or round numbers are used in regular speech and are appropriate in many contexts in the Bible.

In the time that the Bible was written, exact quotes were not necessary in quoting someone - in fact quotation marks were not in use at all. So quotes were really usually simply a summary of the correct content of what the person said. So when we see quotes in our Bibles, we need to realize that the writer didn't mean for us to assume that he was writing exactly verbatim what the quoted writer said. So, the Bible can still be inerrant and have loose quotations.

Ordinary people (like us bloggers) were used to write the Bible. So the fact that there are errors in grammar should not be seen as a problem for inerrancy. A southerner who uses what we may deem to be incorrect grammar can have a reputation as a truthful person though his grammar is poor. A persen like me who tends to spell things wronge can, in an incorectly spelled sentanse, right the trugth (yes I know there are problems in that sentence!). God used regular people in their ordinary language.

5. List and respond to three objections to the concept of the inerrancy of Scripture.

1) Some argue that the Bible is only an authority for "faith and practice." People with this belief will say that in matters of history or science the Bible may be in error and will assure you they believe the Bible to be infallible but not inerrant. Infallible is used to mean without error in matters of faith and practice only.

However, the bible itself says that all scripture is useful for us (2 Tim 3:16) and that its perfect and true (Prov 30:5) and we should believe everything written in the prophets (Acts 24:14, Luke 24:14, Rom 15:4, etc.) . When reviewing historical details from the OT referred to in the NT, we see small details used to instruct NT Christians like the three and a half year famine (Luke 4:25-26) , a plot of ground Jacob gave to Joseph (John 4:5), the donkey speaking (2 Pet 2:16) and more. The NT writers didn't seem to think that some parts of the OT were untrustworthy. Although the major purpose of scripture is related to faith and practice, we need to make sure we don't in doing that assume that it is the only purpose in having the scripture. Part of the purpose of the Bible must be to tell us about minor historical details and other aspects of life. it's better to say that the "whole purpose of Scripture is to say everything it does say, on whatever subject." God put every word there for a reason and we should value what he values.

2) Some say that inerrant is a poor word to use since it's so precise and seems to claim a scientific accuracy that we shouldn't use for the Bible. They may also say that the word is not used in the Bible and so we shouldn't use it either.

But inerrancy has been used for hundreds of years and in that word they have always allowed for limitations of speech in ordinary language. Also we use many words like trinity or incarnation that are not in the Bible but useful for summarizing a true concept in one word.

3) Some argue that since we don't have any original manuscripts talking about an inerrant Bible is useless. However, by comparing manuscripts that we do have, it's possible to reconstruct original documents. Through this process, we know what the original manuscripts said for over 99% of the words. Where there are variation, there are often obvious copy errors. In the small percentage of passages with uncertainty about the original text, usually the general sense of the sentence is clear from context. So, in essence the published scholarly tests of the Hebrew OT and Greek NT "are the same as the original manuscripts." So inerrancy should be applied to those as well as the original manuscripts.

6. Name four possible problems that may result from a denial of biblical inerrancy.

1) If we say that the Bible is not inerrant, then are we allowed to lie in small areas too as we imitate God? This would be a dangerous stance to take.

2) If we deny inerrancy, can we really trust anything God says? If it's known that a person is untruthful in one area, we naturally tend to question everything that person says. Denying inerrency will cause us to question portions of the Bible that we disagree with or that are inconvenient for us.

3) A denial of inerrancy makes our brains a higher standard of truth than God's word. We would be saying that we know better than God in some areas.

4) In denying inerrancy, we have to say that the Bible is wrong in its doctrine about the truthfulness and reliability of God's word which would be a major doctrinal concern.

The Authority and Inerrancy of the Bible

Chapter two of Wayne Grudem's book Bible Doctrine examines the Bible's authority and if it can be trusted as inerrant. The first 3 of 6 review questions and my answers follow:

1. Defend the following statement: "All the words in Scripture are God's words."

In many places, the Bible claims to have a record of God's words. Old Testament prophets often used the phrase, 'Thus says the Lord" and in many places what the Prophets said are referred to as being words that God spoke through the prophet (1 Kings 14:18, Jer 37:2, etc). Although those verses don't claim that all the words in the old testament are God's words, they do demonstrate that we actually have a written record of God's own words. Other passages state that the Book of the covenant or God's laws are considered to be God's words as well (Ex. 24:7). Verses like 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 1:20-21 in the New testament indicate that all the Old Testament are God's words. The word Scripture used in the New Testament refers to the Old Testament writings and not to any sayings that are recorded in books not part of the canon. In 2 Pet 3:15-16, Peter refers to all the letters that Paul wrote as something that people distort as they do "other scriptures." This comparison classifies the writing of Paul as equal with the old testament scriptures. Paul does a similar thing when he quotes twice from the "scriptures" in 1 Tim 5:18 - one quote is from Deuteronomy and the other from Luke. So in this, we find that at least one of the gospels was also classified as scripture. Therefore, the writers of the New Testament appear to be well aware that more writings were being added to the category of scripture which contain God's own words.

We become convinced that the Bible contains God's words by the Holy Spirit speaking in and through the words of the Bible as we read them. This doesn't happen unless we take the time to actually read what the Bible says. Then we will realize that the Bible is not like any other book, but actually God's words speaking to our hearts.

It's also useful to know that there are external evidences of the truth of the bible through the fulfilled prophecies, changed lives, and accurate historical information.

2. What is meant by the idea that the words of Scripture are "self-attesting"?

If we believe that the Bible is the highest authority, it's impossible to find a higher authority to use a proof that the Bible is God's word. Using human logic or science to try to prove the Bible makes those things to be more reliable or truthful than the Bible. So, the Scripture must be the ultimate authority to prove the Scripture is God's Word.

It does seem to be a circular argument, but that doesn't make it invalid. One must appeal to the highest authority for proof or else it wouldn't be the highest authority. Everyone actually uses this type of circular argument to justify their beliefs: Reason is justified as ultimate authority because it is reasonable; Logic is thought to be highest because it seems logical; human experiences are justified as the only authority for truth because human experiences show a person that is true. So if we all use circular logic when defending a belief in our ultimate authority, how can a person find truth?

In the end, the Bible will show itself to be far more persuasive in it's truth than other religious books or intellectual reason. All other options have inconsistencies and shortcomings while the Bible will prove to be accurate in all its teachings about the world, about us and about God. Since we are sinful, our perceptions are faulty so this will really only happen as the Holy Spirit enables us to be persuaded that the Bible is God's word and is true. So, more knowledge of the Bible and a correct understanding of God and creation together confirm the accuracy of each other. Creation doesn't prove the Bible, but it does give us a greater assurance that the Bible is really the only truly ultimate authority.

3. How can we know God's words are truthful?

If the Bible does indeed contain God's words as argued above, we can be sure of their truthfulness only if we can be sure that God always tells the truth. We learn in the Bible that God doesn't lie in Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18. So if God can't lie, then then his word's (the scriptures) must be truthful and without error. The Bible is not just true, but it is actually the ultimate standard of truth itself (see John 17:17). So, there will never be a fact of science or history ever discovered that will contradict the Bible. God has known everything forever so he will not be contradicted by any new human discovery. It is possible that man has incorrectly interpreted the Bible to say something that it did not teach so we must reexamine the Bible when what are thought to be new facts are discovered that seem to contradict the bible to see if the facts are false of if man's interpretations of the Bible are false.

----- the next 3 questions will come hopefully sometime soon this week. After an hour of answering these questions, I feel the need to stop and do something else since my brain is tired!

Bible Doctrine - Study of Systematic Theology

I left off without completing the last of four reasons we should study systematic theology last time so here it is:

4) We should study systematic theology because it will help us grow as Christians. We will learn more about God and his Word and how he relates to man which will enable us to trust and then more completely praise him and even be more likely to obey him. This will mature us as Christians. Doctrine is necessary for true Christian maturing

Review Question #4: Name six attitudes or activities that should characterize or accompany the study of systematic theology:

When we study systematic theology we should always pray because we need the Holy Spirit to give us the ability to understand scripture. We also should study with humility and avoid pride. It is appropriate to employ logical reasoning from the scriptures, but we must make certain not to draw conclusions that go beyond what is being taught or contradict other clear teachings of the scripture. If our reasoning brings us to a conclusion that contradicts other scriptural teaching we must realize that what we thought was a valid conclusion is in error and not conclude that the scriptures are in error. We should study with help from others - both teachers and books as well as through talking to other Christians about what is studied. Systematic theology must be studied by collecting and understanding all relevant passages of scripture on that topic by using books books like this one. If you want to study a topic on your own, use a concordance to look up verses with words related to the topic and find many verses with the same key words. After studying those passages, make notes to summarize points made. Once study is complete, the teaching should be summarized into a small number of main points stating what the Bible teaches about that topic. It's also useful to then study other theology books to see the topic from various perspectives that will either strengthen the position stated or make you realize that further research is needed. A study of systematic theology should be accompanied with rejoicing and praise since it's a study of our living and true God and what he did in redemption and as we understand more of God, we won't be able to help but to praise Him.

Bible Doctrine

Two years ago at a New Attitude Conference, one of the speakers recommended that we should study Bible Doctrine more and that Wayne Grudem's book Bible Doctrine was a perfect one for us to use. I looked at the book then, the price ($25 at the conference), and the number of pages (528) and decided that since I might not actually read the book I wouldn't get it. Well, after considering it occasionally for the last couple years and wishing that I had purchased it, I finally got a copy at this year's New Attitude Conference in May. Today (two months later), I finally took it off my shelf (or more precisely off the ledge of my window) and began reading.

This looks like a great book for me to study. It looks like it will help to make more concrete many Biblical doctrines. I want to be able to more fully understand and explain concepts that I either should know or do know but don't know how to articulate.

The book is broken into 34 chapters and each chapter contains review questions as well as questions for personal application, special terms and scripture memory. As I enjoy blogging, I intend to post my answers for at least the review questions on this blog. This is mostly for my benefit (so I can have it saved and easily found no matter where I am) though I hope reading what I write may help those who read this site to study Bible doctrine for themselves. I also hope that if I write something that you disagree with or have another take on that you will respond to the post so we can get even more in depth in that area.

So this is the first installment for Chapter 1- "Introduction to Systematic Theology"

Chapter 1 - Review Questions

1. Define systematic theology and discuss its relationship with other theological disciplines (historical theology, philosophical theology, apologetics, Old Testament theology, New Testament theology, and biblical theology).

According to this book, systematic theology is 'any study that answers the question, "What does the whole Bible teach us today?"' It endeavors to answer the question of what God desires for us to know and believe by looking at the teaching of the entire bible to understand each subject studied.

Although systematic theology my overlap other types of theology, there are distinct differences in focus. Historical theology examines how Christians in history have understood the Bible. Philosophical theology doesn't primarily use the Bible as it's text, but looks instead at philosophical tools and reasoning from observing the universe. Apologetics is focused on a defense of the truth of Christianity in order to convince those who don't yet believe. Old Testament or New Testament theology look at topics in the order they were presented in history or in the way a certain teacher or author address a subject in the Old or New Testament. Biblical theology does contain the Old and New Testament theology, but focuses especially on what individual authors taught and to each teaching in the "historical development" of the teaching as well as what the understanding was of the teaching to the original readers.

Systematic theology therefor concentrates on a carefully thought out and organized way on the collection of Biblical theology and "attempts to summarize the teaching of the Scripture in a brief, understandable, and very carefully formulated statement." It will use terms that may not be in the Bible but are useful in explaining things to summarize bible concepts in our current world. Practical application is necessary since systematic theology is looking at what the Bible teaches us today.

2. What is a "doctrine," and how does this relate to the study of systematic theology?

"A doctrine is what the whole Bible teaches us today about some particular topic." It is very similar to the definition of systematic theology, but narrows the systematic theology to one specific topic. So a doctrine is the teaching of systematic theology one topic at a time.

3. Give four reasons why Christians should study systematic theology

1) We ought to study so we can obey Jesus. He commanded his disciples to teach people to observe or obey everything that he told them to do. In order to teach others, we must first be able to collect and summarize what the Bible says on a particular topic so we understand his teachings ourselves. His teachings include the entire New Testament since it was written through the Holy Spirit as well as the entire Old Testament which must be understood in the ways it applies to the truths of redemption.

2) We should study systematic theology because it will "help us overcome our wrong ideas." It's easy to take something out of context and incorrectly apply that verse to many areas or to simply ignore teaching when it doesn't line up with how we prefer to think. A study of systematic theology will show us what the whole Bible teaches in a particular area.

3) A study of systematic theology will also help us to "make better decisions later". Questions may come from new controversies due to culture or from new situations we face in live due to life changes such as marriage, children, witnessing, or money. Since the Bible is useful in every area of life, an organized study of the topics will provide building blocks to base decisions on in the practical areas of life.

Question 4 to come sometime in the future.