Theology, in its attempt to know God and to make Him known, presupposes that knowledge about God has been revealed. This revelation is foundational to all theological affirmations and pronouncements. What has not been revealed cannot be known, studied, or explained.
Simply put, revelation is the act of making known something that was previously unknown. What was hidden is now disclosed. A mother reveals what is baking in the oven; the auto mechanic reveals what is causing the engine to stall; the little boy reveals what creature is jumping in his pocket. Each of the mysteries is ended.
Although revelation occurs in every area of life, the term is especially associated with matters of religion. “Wherever there is religion, there is the claim to revelation.”1 Questions of faith center on God’s becoming known to human beings. Christianity is a revealed religion based on divine self-disclosure.
The Bible uses a number of Greek and Hebrew terms to express the concept of revelation.2 The Hebrew verb galah means to reveal by uncovering or by stripping something away (Isa. 47:3). Frequently it is used of God’s communication of himself to people. “Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). The Greek word apokalupsis (revelation) is associated with the making known of the Christian gospel. Paul said he did not receive the gospel from man’s instruction, but he “received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12). J. Oliver Buswell claims that apokalupsis may be used of persons or objects, but is usually used of some revealed truth.3 On the other hand, it is God who manifests or shows (Gk. phaneroō) himself (1 Tim. 3:16).
In other words, revelation involves not only information about God, but also the presentation of God himself. This, however, does not mean that one must reject propositional revelation4 in favor of existential revelation.5 Rather, “revelation about God is crucial to the knowledge of God.”6 Through His words and acts God makes known His person, His ways, His values, His purposes, and His plan of salvation. The ultimate goal of divine revelation is that people will come to know God in a real and personal way.
Although divine revelation is often limited to God’s self-disclosure, in original acts or words, it may also be understood as a larger chain of revelatory events. This broader understanding of divine revelation would include reflection and inscripturation (i.e., putting the revelation into written form) by inspired writers, the process of canonization of the inspired writings, and the illumination by the Holy Spirit of what God has revealed.
Inherent in the concept of a God who reveals himself is the reality of a God who is fully conscious of His own being. Cornelius Van Til describes God’s knowledge of himself as analytical, meaning “knowledge that is not gained by reference to something that exists without the knower.”7 God’s knowledge of himself did not come from comparing or contrasting himself with anything outside himself. “God had in himself all knowledge from all eternity.… Hence, all knowledge that any finite creature of God would ever have, whether of things that pertain directly to God or of things that pertain to objects in the created universe itself, would … have to rest upon the revelation of God.”8
The absolutely and eternally self-conscious God took the initiative to make himself known to His creation.
God’s revelation of himself was a deliberate self-disclosure. No one forced God to unmask himself; no one discovered Him by accident. In a voluntary act God made himself known to those who otherwise could not know Him. Emil Brunner sees this self-revelation as an “incursion from another dimension,” bringing knowledge “wholly inaccessible to man’s natural faculties for research and discovery.”9
Finite humanity is reminded that the infinite God cannot be found apart from His own invitation to know Him. J. Gresham Machen calls into question the gods of people’s own making:
A divine being that could be discovered by my efforts, apart from His gracious will to reveal Himself …, would be either a mere name for a certain aspect of man’s own nature, a God that we could find within us, or else … a mere passive thing that would be subject to investigation like the substances that are analyzed in a laboratory.… I think we ought to be rather sure that we cannot know God unless God has been pleased to reveal Himself to us.10
In the Book of Job, the answer to Zophar’s question, “Can you fathom the mysteries of God?” is a resounding no (Job 11:7). By one’s own searching, apart from what God has revealed, nothing could be known about God and His will, not even His existence. Because the infinite cannot be uncovered by the finite, all human affirmations about God end up as questions rather than declarations. “The highest achievements of the human mind and spirit fall short of arriving at the knowledge of God.”11
A person never progresses beyond the reality that what God has freely revealed sets the boundaries of all knowledge of Him. Divine revelation strips away all pretensions of human pride, autonomy, and self-sufficiency. The God of the universe has made himself known; the needed response to this initiative is, like Kepler’s, to think God’s thoughts after Him.
God not only initiated the revelation of himself, but also determined what that revelation would be, the form it would take, and the varied conditions and circumstances required for making himself known. His revelation of himself was a controlled self-disclosure. The communication of himself was exclusively determined by God.
God set the times of His revelation. He did not reveal himself all at once, but chose to make himself known gradually over many centuries. “In the past God spoke to our forefathers … at many times and in various ways” (Heb. 1:1). Even for God there is “a time to be silent and a time to speak” (Ecc. 3:7). He revealed himself when He was ready, when He wanted to declare His name and His ways (Ex. 3:14–15).
The manner in which God revealed himself—helping human beings to understand His nature, His ways, and His relationship to them—was also determined by Him. At times it was external, such as a voice, an event, a cloud, or an angel. On other occasions the revelation was internal, a dream or vision (Ex. 13:21–22; Num. 12:6; Dan. 9:21–22; Acts 9:3–4). But in either case, God did the revealing; He selected the manner in which His truth would be made known.
Likewise God determined the place and circumstance of His revelation. He made himself known in Eden’s garden, in Midian’s desert, and on Sinai’s mountain (Gen. 2:15–17; Ex. 3:4–12; 19:9–19). In palaces, in pastures, and in prisons He made His person and ways known (Neh. 1:11; Luke 2:8–14; Acts 12:6–11). Human searching for God results only in finding God on His terms (Jer. 29:13). God determines even the recipients of His revelation, be they shepherd or king, fisherman or priest (See Dan. 5:5–24; Matt. 4:18–20; 26:63–64).
The content of divine revelation is what God wanted communicated—nothing more, nothing less. All talk about God is speculation apart from what He himself has revealed. Karl Barth describes God as the one “to whom there is no path nor bridge, concerning whom we could not say … a single word if He did not of His own initiative meet us.”12 From God’s initial self-disclosure and throughout the eternal ages, Carl F. H. Henry says, “the God of the Bible is wholly determinative in respect to revelation.”13
Revelation, initiated and determined by God, is therefore personal communication. It originates in a personal God and is received by a personal creation. God reveals himself, not as some mere cosmic force or inanimate object, but as a personal being who speaks, loves, and cares for His creation. He scorns “other gods,” who are only the work of a craftsman’s hands (Isa. 40:12–28; 46:5–10), and reveals himself in terms of personal relationships, identifying himself by such terms as Father, Shepherd, Friend, Leader, and King. It is in these kinds of personal relationships that human beings are privileged to know Him.
Divine revelation is an expression of grace. God did not have a need that compelled Him to reveal himself. Perfect fellowship among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit required no external supplement. Rather, God made himself known to human beings for their benefit. Humankind’s greatest privilege is to be able to know God and glorify and enjoy Him forever.14 Such privileged communication from the Creator reflects God’s love and goodness. Only because of God’s gracious self-giving is a person able to come to know God truly. Brunner finds it wonderfully amazing that “God Himself gives Himself to me myself, and after that I can give myself to Him, in that I accept His self-giving.”15
Carl Henry draws attention to the “unto you, unto us” character of divine revelation as God brings the priceless good news that He calls the human race to fellowship with Him.
God’s purpose in revelation is that we may know him personally as he is, may avail ourselves of his gracious forgiveness and offer of new life, may escape the catastrophic judgment for our sins, and venture personal fellowship with him. “I will … be your God, and ye shall be my people” (Lev. 26:12, KJV), he declares.16
In mercy God continues to reveal himself to fallen humanity. To walk with Adam and Eve in the garden paradise is one thing, but to call wayward, rebellious sinners to forgiveness and reconciliation is another (Gen. 3:8; Heb. 3:15). One could understand had God’s gracious revelation ended with Eden’s flaming sword, Israel’s golden calf, or Calvary’s rugged cross. However, God’s revelation is redemptive in character. “The invisible, hidden and transcendent God, whom no man has seen nor can see, has planted His Word in the human situation that sinners might be brought nigh unto God.”17
An invitation to personal knowledge of himself is God’s highest gift to the human race. Its attainment is the cry of the human heart. “Thou madest us for Thyself, and our heart is restless, until it repose in Thee.”18 To know God at all is to want to know Him more. “I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:8).
Clearly God’s revelation of himself is for humankind’s benefit. This does not mean, however, that divine revelation itself guarantees a positive response to God by the recipient of that revelation. “Precisely because divine revelation is for man’s benefit we dare not obscure its informational content nor mistake God’s disclosure as automatically saving.… Simply hearing God’s revealed good news … does not redeem us automatically.”19
God’s revelation is a proclamation of life, but when rejected, a proclamation of death (Deut. 30:15; 2 Cor. 2:16).
God has graciously revealed himself and His ways to His creation. His self-disclosure spans the centuries, varies in form, and offers privileged communion with the Creator. This abundant revelation, however, has not exhausted the mystery of the eternal God. Some things about himself and His purpose He has chosen not to make known (Deut. 29:29; Job 36:26; Ps. 139:6; Rom. 11:33). This conscious withholding of information is a reminder that God transcends His own revelation. What God has withheld is beyond the need and possibility of persons to find out.
Revelation has both its basis and its limits in the will of God.… Human beings universally have no native resourcefulness for delineating God’s nature and will. Not even gifted persons of special capacity or notable religious endowment can by their own abilities divine the secrets of the Infinite … whereby they on their own power and initiative may clarify the mysteries of eternity.20
Libraries are full of explanations of God’s self-revelation, but such explanations must not be understood as adding to that revelation. As John the Baptist, one is called “to testify concerning that light,” not to create new light (John 1:7).
At all points God is fully in control of His own revelation. He is not imprisoned by the majesty of His person so that He cannot reveal himself, but neither is He incapable of selective revelation. Just as He determines the content and circumstances of His revelation, He likewise determines the extent of that revelation. God’s conscious limiting of His revelation is reflective of the nature of His person. “While God is revealed in his creation, he nonetheless ontologically [in relation to His being or existence] transcends the universe as its Creator, and transcends man epistemologically [with respect to the nature and limits of human knowledge] as well.”21 The God of the Bible is not pantheistic but reveals himself as Creator to His creation—a separate and voluntary revelation of which He is totally in control.
Although human beings will never fully exhaust the knowledge of God, God’s revelation is not incomplete with respect to humanity’s needs. While not exhaustive, what God has made known is sufficient for salvation, for acceptability before God, and for instruction in righteousness. Through His revelation one can come to know God and to grow in that knowledge (Ps. 46:10; John 17:3; 2 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 5:19–20).
The inexhaustible God will continue to transcend His revelation, even though our knowledge of Him will be greater, or fuller, in heaven (1 Cor. 13:12). One of the joys of heaven will be the unfolding throughout all eternity of greater insights into God’s person and His gracious dealings with the redeemed (Eph 2:7). That we now know only “in part,” however, does not alter the validity, importance, and dependability of His present divine revelation.
When it comes to divine revelation, the God of the Bible stands in stark contrast with the gods of polytheistic paganism. He is no local deity competing for a voice in the affairs of a region with divided loyalties. He is not the dumb idol carved from wood or stone. Neither is He the projected voice of political leaders who cloak their ideas in religious mythology. Rather, He is the one true God who is Lord over the whole universe. The revelation of His will is law for all peoples. He is the Judge of all the earth (Gen. 18:25; Ps. 24:1; Rom. 2:12–16).
Walther Eichrodt notes the distinct linguistic possibility that the Hebrew Shema‘ may be read, “Yahweh our God is one single God” (Deut. 6:4), indicating Yahweh is not a God who can be split into various divinities or powers like the Canaanite gods.22 When He speaks, there is but one voice; there is no room for confusing or conflicting messages. Although God may choose to reveal himself through various means and to speak through many people, the message remains His and a continuity is evident. In divine revelation there are no dual or rival revelations, but a comprehensive unity flowing from the one and only God.
Consequently, there is an exclusiveness to true divine revelation. Henry suggests two prominent dangers that threaten this rightful exclusiveness. The first is the danger of seeing the human experience of the supernatural in non-Christian world religions as valid divine revelation. These religions do not speak with the voice of God but rather of Satan and his demons (see 1 Cor. 10:20). Some of them even deny the indispensable corollary of genuine divine revelation, the personal existence of God. The second is the tendency to acknowledge additional sources of independent revelation (such as human reason and experience) alongside God’s own disclosure. While human reason enables one to know the truth of God, reason is not a new originating source of divine truth.23 Similarly one may experience the truth of God, but one’s experience does not create that truth. One’s theology must not be built on subjective experience but on the objective Word of God. Our experience must be judged by the Word, and we must be like the Bereans who “received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11).
The two primary categories of divine revelation are general revelation and special revelation. General revelation involves God’s self-disclosure through some mediate, natural mode. Special revelation is divine self-disclosure through an immediate, supernatural mode. Natural theology24 and revealed theology are the theological understandings arrived at through human reason and reflection as one views general revelation and special revelation respectively. General revelation is usually understood as God’s making himself known through history, natural environment, and human nature.
GENERAL REVELATION
Human History. God has revealed himself through the providential ordering of human history. As the divine Governor of His universe, He is at work in the oversight and direction of His creation. He guides the affairs of humanity as He moves toward the fulfillment of His purposes. In behalf of His people He acts forcefully and decisively. Israel delighted in rehearsing the mighty “acts of God” throughout their history (Ps. 136). He is the God who sets up kings and brings down kings (Dan. 2:21). The creeds of the Church recite God’s redemptive acts in history. For example, the Apostles’ Creed highlights the acts of creation; Christ’s incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and second coming; and the judgment. The student of history may trace God’s hand in the interactions of nations. As the God who is just and powerful, His dealings with humanity have continuity. “History has a theological character: all of it bears the imprint of God’s activity.”25 All history unfolds under God’s governing purpose as He controls, guides, and personally acts within it.
Nature. God also reveals himself through nature and through the universe. Creation, with its infinite variety, beauty, and order, reflects a God who is infinitely wise and powerful. The moon and countless stars in the heavens are the work of the fingers of the Lord; His name is majestic in all the earth, which He has created (Ps. 8).
Psalm 19:1–4 provides important information about general revelation in nature.
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world (Psalm 19:1–4).
This passage has been wrapped in controversy largely because of the more literal reading of verse three. “They have no speech, there are no words; no sound is heard from them” (v. 3, NIV, alternate translation). Four different interpretations of this passage suggest four views on general revelation in nature.
1. The universe is mute and there is no objective general revelation through nature.
2. There is an objective general revelation in nature, but it is not subjectively perceived because it falls on deaf ears and blind eyes adversely affected by sin.
3. There is no objective general revelation in nature. Rather, a subjective general revelation is read into nature by believers only. The one who already knows God through special revelation reads Him into the creation.
4. There is an objective general revelation, but it is not presented in a formal written or spoken language, nor is it propositional in form. Instead, it is embodied in the language of nature, which transcends all human language, has gone out to the ends of the earth, and is available to all humankind.
The fourth interpretation seems best to fit the context of Psalm 19 and the teaching of Scripture elsewhere on general revelation and nature. “The wordless message of God’s glory extends to all the earth. The reflection of God in the vast array of heavenly bodies pulsating with light is viewed by a worldwide audience.”26 Other psalms, such as Psalms 29, 33, 93, and 104, celebrate God’s majesty revealed in the realm of nature.
To the people of Lystra, Paul speaks of a continuing witness the Creator God has left about His relationship to His world. “We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn … to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them.… He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy” (Acts 14:15,17).
In Paul’s speech to the Athenians at the Areopagus (Acts 17), he appeals to what has already been revealed to them through general revelation—that God is Creator and is sovereign over His creation. He is self-sufficient, the source of life and all else needed by humankind, and is near and active in human affairs. Significantly Paul gives the reason for this self-disclosure of God in nature. “God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him” (Acts 17:27). This is the positive goal of general revelation.
Romans 1:18–21 has been called the locus classicus for God’s self-disclosure in nature.27 General revelation through nature is universally given and universally received. It brings truth about God to all human beings, including the sinner. Through nature the invisible qualities of God—“his eternal power and divine nature”—are made visible. This truth about God, mediated through nature, is “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Rom. 1:20). Both the perception of the senses and the reflection of the mind are confronted by the phenomena of nature.
The revelation of nature is a revelation from God about God. “God’s speech in nature is not to be confused with the notion of a talking cosmos, as by those who insist that nature speaks, and that we must therefore hear what nature says as if nature were the voice of God. ‘Hear God!’ is the biblical message, not ‘Listen to Nature!’”28
God reveals himself in the created order of nature, yet He is not to be identified with the created universe as pantheism insists. The earth and the created universe are not god or gods. If they were, their destruction would be the destruction of God. On the other hand, God is involved in the ongoing processes of the universe He created, and He reveals himself in many ways.
Unfortunately, the rebellious sinner suppresses the truth from nature about God, incurring His wrath (Rom. 1:18) and sinking to further ungodliness (Rom. 1:21–32).
Human Nature. General revelation also includes God’s self-disclosure through one’s own human nature. The human race was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27). The Fall brought a break in the relationship with God. But the image of God in human beings was not annihilated by the Fall.
Although man is a sinner through and through, the Bible acknowledges that he is a rational creature with whom God can communicate.… Thus God’s invitation …, “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the Lord.” (Isa. 1:18) … Moreover, New Testament texts such as Ephesians 4:24 and Colossians 3:10 assure us that a valid point of contact does exist at the epistemic level [that is, at a level of genuine knowledge] between God and man.29
After the Fall this image was marred and distorted but not utterly destroyed (Gen. 9:6; James 3:9). It is in need of renewal.
The moral and spiritual nature of humanity reflects, however inadequately, the moral character of the holy and perfect Creator. A universal, though distorted, awareness of a connection between humanity and God is affirmed repeatedly in Scripture and is the testimony of missionaries and anthropologists alike.30 Romans 2 attests to the validity of God’s revelation through human nature even apart from any special revelation from God (Rom. 2:11–15). Those who do not have the Mosaic law “do by nature things required by the law,” because “the requirements of the law are written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:14–15). Even persons estranged from God because of sin are not bereft of a moral consciousness and moral impulses that reflect norms of conduct. God’s gracious moral revelation to the human heart preserves sinful humankind from unchecked self-destruction.
The Jews had a written moral code in the Law. The Gentiles, on the other hand, had basic moral concepts, which were foundational to the law written on their hearts.31 Paul’s designation “requirements of the law” emphasizes that the Gentiles do not have a different law, but essentially the same law that confronts the Jews. This “heart law” is only less in detail and clarity. The unifying principle between the written Law and the heart law is the source of them both—God!
Many limit this mode of general revelation to a person’s conscience. However, it seems preferable to include the whole of a person’s moral nature, which would include the conscience. The conscience witnesses to God’s “heart revelation” as a “second knowing”32 alongside what has already been revealed. The “joint witness” of conscience judges whether one is living in obedience to the things of the law written on the heart. In addition, one’s thoughts either accuse or excuse an individual on the basis of obedience or disobedience to the heart law (Rom. 2:15). Consequently, even without being confronted by any written law of God, unregenerate people experience countless mental conflicts every day as they are confronted by God’s law within them.
General revelation brings cognitive knowledge of God to all humankind. This knowledge is true and clear and relentless. “The Creator God’s testimony to himself … continues daily and hourly and moment by moment. Fallen man in his day-to-day life is never completely detached nor isolated from the revelation of God.”33 The person who declares there is no God is most foolish, for such a declaration denies what is known in the depths of one’s being and what is displayed at every turn of life.
Bruce Demarest lists nineteen specific areas of knowledge about God that Scripture indicates come to humanity through general revelation.34 He concludes that “God’s glory (Ps. 19:1), divine nature (Rom. 1:20), and moral demands (Rom 2:14–15) are to some extent known through general revelation!”35 This revelation of himself is objective, rational, and valid regardless of human response to, or availability of, any special revelation from God. “General Revelation is not something read into nature by those who know God on other grounds; it is already present, by the creation and continuing providence of God.”36
To affirm the validity of objective general revelation is not to deny the consequences of the Fall with regard to such revelation. The Bible clearly states that sin has adversely affected humankind’s knowledge of God (Acts 17:23; Rom. 1:18–21; 2 Cor. 4:4). Sin obscures the objective knowledge of God that comes through general revelation to the point that it limits that knowledge to a cognitive understanding that God exists in majesty and power and executes moral judgment. Sin’s effect on the intellect has influenced one’s philosophical presuppositions and conclusions and has corrupted the will. “Unbelievers are not God’s children, not because they have no knowledge of him, but because they lack spiritual commitment and vocational obedience.”37
Sinful humanity willfully suppresses and rejects the knowledge of God. It manufactures truth substitutes, transgresses God’s law that is stamped on the heart, and invents new gods. The knowledge of the true God through general revelation is perverted to become the source of the gods of many world religions.38 God is made in the image of human beings, rather than human beings acknowledging they were made in the image of God.
Despite the popularity of a neo-universalism (see chap. 10) which accepts the truth of all religions, one must recognize these religions as serious distortions of God’s true revelation. Persons seeking after God in false religions are not to be applauded as “good enough.” The wrath of God is directed at them for their idolatry (Rom. 1:18,23–32).
Suppression of the truth of God in general revelation does not relieve one of the responsibility to appropriate that truth.
The revelation of God [cognitive] invades and penetrates the very mind and conscience of every man, despite the fact that in face of this very revelation, men do not choose to know God [existentially]. … Man’s situation is not one of natural agnosticism, nor is he called to trust in God in the absence of cognitive knowledge; rather, sinful man violates what he knows to be true and right.39
One can suppress only what one has first experienced. General revelation brings the knowledge of God to all persons and “though repressed, [it] is not destroyed. It remains intact, though deeply buried in the subconscious.”40 Since this knowledge of God comes to all, all are left “without excuse” before Him (Rom. 1:20).
While the Bible affirms the reality of objective general revelation, it denies the validity of a natural theology that is based on human reason alone. One cannot reflect on the truth revealed in general revelation and develop a theology that enables one to come to a saving knowledge of God. What Paul says in Romans 1 and 2 concerning general revelation must be understood in light of chapter 3, which emphasizes that all fall short of God’s standard and therefore not a single one is righteous (Rom. 3:10,23). General revelation is not designed to allow one to develop additional knowledge of God from the truth it brings. Rather, the truth of general revelation “serves, as does the law [of Scripture], merely to make guilty, not to make righteous.”41 However, it does cause the believer to rejoice in the truth (Ps. 19:1) and may be used by the Spirit to cause one to seek the truth (Acts 17:27).
In response to the troubling question of God’s justice in condemning those who have never heard the gospel in the formal sense, Millard J. Erickson states, “No one is completely without opportunity. All have known God; if they have not effectually perceived him, it is because they have suppressed the truth. Thus all are responsible.”42 It is important, however, to see general revelation not as the callousness of God but as the mercy of God (Rom. 11:32). “General cosmic-anthropological revelation is continuous with God’s special revelation in Jesus Christ not only because both belong to the comprehensive revelation of the living God, but also because general revelation establishes and emphasizes the universal guilt of man whom God offers rescue in the special redemptive manifestation of his Son.”43
As does the written Law, general revelation condemns sinners in order to point them to a Redeemer outside of themselves. Its intent is to lead them to special revelation. In fact, the insufficiency of general revelation to save fallen humanity necessitated a special revelation of Jesus Christ as the Truth who sets people free from the bondage of sin (John 8:36).
Because one cannot arrive at God’s plan of redemption by a natural theology, a revealed theology is needed through a special revelation from God. For example, moral norms, commands, and prohibitions were established for Adam in Eden by special, not general, revelation. Even though it preceded the Fall, special revelation is primarily understood in terms of “redemptive purpose.” Special revelation complements the self-disclosure of God in nature, history, and humanity and builds on the foundation of general revelation. But because general revelation cannot bring salvation, the added truth content of special revelation is essential (Rom. 10:14–17).
Personal. “Through Jesus Christ revealed in inspired Scripture, man comes to know God personally in a redemptive relationship. From knowing things about God (His existence, perfections, and moral demands), man gains practical knowledge of God himself in personal fellowship.”44 While neoorthodoxy views special revelation solely in the person of Christ45 and sees the Scriptures as only a “witness” to this divine revelation, “evangelical Christianity acknowledges both the living Word and the written Word as revelation.”46
The neoorthodox restriction of revelation to a nonpropositional personal encounter with God [who is “wholly other”] similarly fails to do justice to the full range of biblical teaching. Although the [Living] Word represents the highest form of the divine self-disclosure, Scripture scarcely limits God’s revelation to this important modality.47
It is through the special revelation of Scripture that one comes to know Jesus Christ. “These are written that you may believe [keep on believing] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31).
Understandable. In the special revelation of Scripture, God revealed himself in anthropic form, that is, in the character of human language at the time, using human categories of thought and action. Erickson has a helpful section dealing with the language equivalence used in God’s verbal communication. He distinguishes between the terms “univocal” (a word having only one meaning—e.g., tall) and “equivocal” (a word possessing completely different meanings—e.g., row in “row a boat” and “a row of corn plants”) and suggests that Scripture uses analogical language (between univocal and equivocal—e.g., run in “running a race” and “a motor running”).
In analogical usage, there is always at least some univocal element. … Whenever God has revealed himself, he has selected elements which are univocal in his universe and ours. … [U]sing the term analogical, we mean “qualitatively the same”; in other words, the difference is one of degree rather than of kind or genus.48
That is, when the Bible uses words such as “love,” “give,” “obey,” or “trust,” they convey the same basic meaning to us as they do to God (at the same time, His love, for example, is far greater than ours). In this way it is possible for God to communicate Scripture through verbally rational propositions.
What makes this analogical knowledge possible is that it is God who selects the components which he uses.…
God … knowing all things completely, therefore knows which elements of human knowledge and experience are sufficiently similar to the divine truth that they can be used to help construct a meaningful analogy.49
Since this analogical concept of communication cannot be verified by human reason alone, for we do not have all the facts, one embraces this presupposition as a matter of faith. However, it is rationally defendable in light of Scripture’s own claim to be a divine revelation.
Humanity is dependent on God for special revelation. Because one knows only the human sphere of knowledge and experience (and that to a minimal degree) one is unable to develop any valid special revelation. Only God has knowledge of God and only God can make himself known. Since God has chosen to reveal himself analogically, we can apprehend God. However, because the finite cannot fully grasp the Infinite, we will never know God exhaustively. “God always remains incomprehensible.… Although what we know of him is the same as his knowledge of himself, the degree of our knowledge is much less.”50 The knowledge of God through Scripture is limited—but true and sufficient.
Progressive. God did not reveal all the truth He wanted to convey about himself and His ways in Scripture all at one time, but over a period of about fifteen centuries (Heb. 1:1–2). Special revelation was progressive, not in the sense of a gradual evolutionary development, but in the sense of later revelation building upon earlier revelation. “This does not mean a movement in special revelation from untruth to truth but from a lesser to a fuller disclosure.”51 The very earliest revelation was true and accurately presented the message of God. Later revelation served to complement or supplement what God had disclosed before, but never to correct or contradict it. The whole of His revelation was to teach humankind who He is, how to be reconciled to Him, and how to live acceptably before Him.
Recorded. Certainly the modes of special revelation are not limited to the Scriptures. God has revealed himself in His mighty redemptive acts, through His prophets and apostles, and most dramatically through His Son (Heb. 1:1). One might wonder why God thought it necessary or important to have much of this revelation written down, creating the Scriptures as a unique special revelation of himself. What follows are three plausible reasons.
First, an objective standard by which to test the claims of religious belief and practice is needed. Subjective experience is too obscure and variable to provide assurance on the nature and will of God. Considering the eternal significance of God’s message to humanity, what was needed was not an “uncertain sound” but a “more sure word” (1 Cor. 14:8, KJV; 2 Pet. 1:19, KJV). A written standard of revelation provides the certainty and confidence of “thus says the Lord.”
Second, a written divine revelation ensures the completeness and continuity of God’s self-disclosure. Since special revelation is progressive, with later building on earlier, it is important that each occasion of revelation be recorded for a fuller understanding of God’s complete message. Generally speaking, the continuity of the Old Testament with the New Testament allows one to understand with greater clarity the message of redemption. Specifically, one would have a difficult time understanding the Letter to the Hebrews without knowing about the sacrificial system detailed in the Pentateuch. Therefore, by having the “whole” inscripturated, the “parts” are more meaningful.
Third, an inscripturated revelation best preserves the truth of God’s message in integral form. Over long periods of time, memory and tradition tend toward decreasing trustworthiness. The crucial content of God’s revelation must be accurately handed down to succeeding generations. The message one receives about God today must contain the same truth revealed to Moses or David or Paul. Books have been the best method of preserving and transmitting truth in its integrity from generation to generation.
Transmitted. By holding special revelation from God in a permanent form, the Bible is both a record and an interpreter of God and His ways. God’s written revelation is confined to the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. The whole of His revelation that He wanted preserved for the benefit of all humankind is stored in its integrity in the Bible. To search the Scriptures is to find God as He wants to be known (John 5:39; Acts 17:11). God’s revelation is not a fleeting glimpse, but a permanent disclosure. He invites one to return again and again to Scripture and there to learn of Him.
God’s revelatory acts and His self-disclosing words are brought together in the Scriptures. “The revelation of mighty deeds of God without revelation of the meaning of those deeds is like a television show without sound track; it throws man helplessly back upon his own human guesses as to the divine meaning of what God is doing.”52 The Bible faithfully records God’s acts and enhances our understanding of them by providing God’s own interpretation of those acts. “The deeds could not be understood unless accompanied by the divine word.”53 Revelation events along with their inspired interpretation are indivisibly unified in the Bible.
The Bible not only stores the revelation of God, but also brings that historical revelation to us in the present. Even Moses indicated the importance of writing down God’s revelation so that it would benefit God’s people on later occasions as well (Deut. 31:24–26). God has spoken in the past, and through the record in Scripture He continues to speak. “‘What Scripture says, God Says.’ The divine Word is cast into permanent form in Scripture, which is the durable vehicle of special revelation and provides the conceptual framework in which we meet … God.”54 What God said to others in the past, He now says to us through the Scriptures.
Debate often ensues over whether the Bible is the Word of God or merely contains the Word of God. Actually, both ideas are true, only from different perspectives. Revelation that preceded its inscripturation was later recorded as part of the Scripture message. Therefore the Bible record contains the Word of God that may have come to someone long before it was written down. For example, the Bible contains the record of God’s speaking to Abraham or to Jacob (Gen. 12:1; 46:2). This fact, however, does not warrant the Barthian distinction between God’s Word as divine and its record in Scripture as human.55 Rather, the Bible is “a divine-human book in which every word is at once divine and human.”56 The whole of Scripture is the Word of God by virtue of the divine inspiration of its human authors. God’s Word in the form of the Bible is an inspired record of events and truths of divine self-disclosure. Benjamin B. Warfield emphasizes that Scripture is not merely “the record of the redemptive acts by which God is saving the world, but [is] itself one of these redemptive acts, having its own part to play in the great work of establishing and building up the kingdom of God.”57
A key issue in this debate is whether God can and has revealed himself in propositional form. Neoorthodoxy views God’s revelation as “personal but nonpropositional,” while Evangelicalism views it as personal, “cognitive and propositional.”58 How one defines revelation determines whether the Bible is coextensive with special revelation. If revelation is defined only as the act or process of revealing, then Scripture is not revelation, for revelation often occurred long before it was written down. If, however, revelation is defined also as the result, or product, of what God revealed, then Scripture as an accurate record of the original revelation is also entitled to be called special revelation.59
RIVALS OF SCRIPTURE
Historically, the Christian Church has acknowledged the authority of Scripture in matters of faith and practice. This does not mean there have not been, and continue to be, rivals to the Bible’s claim of full authority. These rivals have tended to subordinate, qualify, or equal the authority of Scripture. The earliest rival was oral tradition. Alongside the written Word, religious stories and teachings circulated widely. However, oral transmission, regardless of the topic, is subject to alteration, development, change, and deviation. Scripture supplied a standard, a point of reference for the oral word. Therefore, where oral tradition accords with Scripture it reflects Scripture’s authority; however, where it deviates from the written Word its authority vanishes.
A second claim to religious authority is the church. Roman Catholics hold to this because the Church was divinely established by Christ; it proclaimed the gospel before it was inscripturated. Roman Catholics also claim it was the institution that produced the New Testament Scriptures and in some sense it established the canon of Scripture. In practice the Catholic Church places itself above Scripture. Although originally it held to the supremacy of Scripture, by the time of the Reformation it had exalted its traditions to the level of Scripture. More significantly the Catholic Church insisted that the teachings of the Bible could rightly be mediated only through the church hierarchy. Subtly the Roman Church had usurped the authority of the Scriptures and vested it in their guarded teachings. Consequently, the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformers was Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”)! The Bible given by God speaks with God’s authority directly to the individual. It does “not need Popes or Councils to tell us, as from God, what it means; it can actually challenge Papal and conciliar pronouncements, convince them of being ungodly and untrue, and require the faithful to part company with them.”60
Where the Church speaks biblically it speaks with authority; where it does not, individuals may reject and challenge any claim to authority it makes. Such is the case with any ecclesiastical voice of authority, not just that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Creeds, confessions, and other church standards have also at times, consciously or unconsciously, been allowed to rival the authority of Scripture. Throughout history, churches and church leaders properly have spoken out on important issues of life and doctrine. Godly persons, greatly gifted by God, have labored to set forth Christian standards designed to reflect the attitude and will of God. Over and over again these documents have been looked to for authoritative direction. However, the writers would no doubt be the first to acknowledge that their works are fallible and open to revision, though one easily recognizes the significant biblical scholarship behind those important writing. Further, all the great creeds of the church acknowledge the full authority of Scripture. These godly efforts should be appreciated. God has used them for His glory. However, they must be kept in their proper relationship to Scripture. To allow them to rival scriptural authority destroys their own normative value and debases the Word of God they desire to honor. The acknowledgment of the unique authority of Scripture establishes the value of these other standards.
The authority of Scripture has also been challenged by what some view as the authority of an individual’s personal encounter with God. That is, the person’s encounter with the Living Word, rather than with the written Word, is paramount. Those who hold this view say the Bible may be used to help bring about such an encounter; however, the Bible “does not have authority of itself, but rather by virtue of the God to whom it witnesses and who speaks in its pages.”61 This is subtly different from saying that the Bible is authoritative because it is inherently the Word of God. Existentialists believe that through encounter with God “the Bible must become again and again His Word to us.”62
It is true that the Christian’s authority is more than paper and ink, but “God’s propositional revelation … cannot … be distinguished from divine self-revelation.”63 No authoritative encounter with God supersedes the authority of His written Word. Otherwise the “experience of God” of the Hindu mystics or of one using mind-altering drugs could claim equal authority. The validity of one’s encounter with God is determined by the authority of the Scriptures which disclose Him. All personal experiences must be checked and judged by Scripture.
Even the Holy Spirit has been viewed by some as a rival of biblical authority. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones sees Pentecostalism and Roman Catholicism at opposite extremes in such areas as structure and hierarchy, yet very similar in their emphasis on authority. Catholicism emphasizes the authority of the Church, while some Pentecostals seem to emphasize the authority of the Spirit above that of the Word.64 Erickson cites an interesting 1979 Gallup poll that showed that a greater number of eighteen- to twenty-nine-year-olds chose the Holy Spirit rather than the Bible as their main religious authority.65 Some elevate a “direct impression” of the Holy Spirit or a manifestation of the Spirit, such as prophecy, above the written Word.66 The Holy Spirit is the one who inspired the Word and who makes it authoritative. He will not say anything contrary to or beyond what the inspired Word declares.
These rival claims to religious authority are joined by a host of world religions and religious cults. Is Jesus to be believed over Sun Myung Moon? Is the Koran as authoritative as the Bible? Does a word of modern prophecy carry the authority of Scripture? These and other practical questions make it essential for one to consider seriously the evidences for biblical authority. Virtually all religions have their sacred scriptures. Although many of them may contain worthy moral teachings, Christianity has historically maintained that the Bible is uniquely and exclusively the Word of God.
EVIDENCES TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF SCRIPTURE
The following paragraphs present some of the evidences for identifying the Bible as God’s Word.
Internal Support. It is legitimate to look for the source and character of a writing by examining the contents of the writing itself. The Bible provides convincing internal testimony to its unique authority as a message from God. “It is … the positive internal evidence of a Divine origin which gives power and authority to the claims of the Bible.”67
The Bible displays an amazing unity and consistency in its content considering the great diversity in its writing. It was written over a period of approximately fifteen centuries by more than forty authors from varied walks of life—politician, fisherman, farmer, doctor, king, soldier, rabbi, shepherd, and others. They wrote in different places (e.g., wilderness, palace, prison) and during varied circumstances (e.g., war, exile, travel). Some wrote history, some wrote law, and some wrote poetry. Literary genres range from allegory to biography to personal correspondence. All had their own backgrounds and experiences and their own strengths and weaknesses. They wrote on different continents, in three languages, and covered hundreds of topics. Yet their writings combine to form a consistent whole that beautifully unfolds the story of God’s relationship to humanity. “It is not a superficial unity, but a profound unity. … The more deeply we study the more complete do we find the unity to be.”68
Josh McDowell tells an interesting story comparing the Bible to the Great Books of the Western World. Although the set of books comprised many different authors, the sales representative admitted it offered no “unity” but was a “conglomeration.”69 “[T]he Bible is not simply an anthology; there is a unity which binds the whole together. An anthology is compiled by an anthologist, but no anthologist compiled the Bible.”70 Such extraordinary unity can be explained most plausibly as the result of the revelation by one God.71
The Bible, being correlated with the complex nature of the human person, addresses every essential area of one’s life. As a person reads the Bible, the Bible in turn reads the person. Although written centuries ago, it speaks forcefully to the human needs of each generation. It is the voice of God penetrating to the very core of one’s being, providing reasonable answers to the ultimate questions of life (Heb. 4:12–13). God’s Word continually directs the reader toward God as the source of meaning and purpose for oneself and for one’s world. For the one who embraces its message, the Word has a transforming power. It creates faith in the heart and brings that person into a dynamic encounter with the living God (Rom. 10:17).
Scripture sets forth an ethical standard that surpasses what would be expected of ordinary men and women. It calls one to a morality that exceeds one’s own measure of righteousness. “Each of these writings … has represented moral and religious ideas greatly in advance of the age in which it has appeared, and these ideas still lead the world.”72 The Bible deals frankly with human failure and the problem of sin. Its ethical system is comprehensive, including all areas of life. The concern of biblical ethics is not merely what one does but who one is. Adherence to an external code falls short of the Bible’s demand for internal goodness (1 Sam. 16:7; Matt. 5; 15:18). Both one’s moral failure and moral redemption are understood only in terms of one’s relationship to a holy God. Through the Bible, God calls one not to reformation but to transformation by becoming a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 4:20–24).
Prophecies that speak of future events, many of them centuries in advance, pervade the Scriptures. The accuracy of these predictions, as demonstrated by their fulfillments, is absolutely remarkable. Scores of prophecies relate to Israel and the surrounding nations. For example, Jerusalem and its temple were to be rebuilt (Isa. 44:28); and Judah, although rescued from the Assyrians, would fall into Babylon’s hands (Isa. 39:6; Jer. 25:9–12). The restorer of Judah, Cyrus of Persia, is named more than a century before his birth (Isa. 44:28).73 The Bible contains hundreds of prophecies made hundreds of years before the actual events.74 Included are predictions of Christ’s virgin birth (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23), the place of His birth (Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:6), the manner of His death (Ps. 22:16; John 19:36), and the place of His burial (Isa. 53:9; Matt. 27:57–60).75
Some critics, in redating various Old Testament books, have tried to minimize the predictive miracle of biblical prophecy. However, even if one would agree with the later dating, the prophecies would still have been written hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. (Since the Septuagint [LXX] translation of the Hebrew Scriptures was completed by about 250 B.C., this would indicate that the prophecies contained in those writings had to have been made prior to this date.)
Some have suggested the prophecies did not predict Jesus’ activity but that Jesus deliberately acted to fulfill what was said in the Old Testament. However, many of the specific predictions were beyond human control or manipulation. Nor were the fulfillments of the predictions just coincidences, considering the significant number of persons and events involved. Peter Stoner examined eight of the predictions about Jesus and concluded that in the life of one person the probability of even those eight being coincidental was 1 in 1017 (1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000).76 The only rational explanation for so many accurate, specific, long-term predictions is that the omniscient God, who is sovereign over history, revealed such knowledge to the human writers.
External Support. The Bible also has areas of external support for its claim to be a divine revelation. Who would deny its tremendous influence on human society? It has been printed in part or in whole in nearly two thousand languages and read by more people than any other book in history.77 Recognizing its wisdom and value, believer and nonbeliever quote it in support of their causes. Claim has been made that the Bible, if lost, could be reconstructed in all its principal parts from the quotations made in the books sitting on the shelves of public libraries. Its principles have served as the foundation for the laws of civilized nations and as the impetus for the great social reforms of history. “The Bible … has produced the highest results in all walks of life. It has led to the highest type of creations in the fields of art, architecture, literature, and music.… Where is there a book in all the world that even remotely compares with it in its beneficent influence upon mankind?”78
God is at work, impacting society through the lives changed by following the teachings of His Word (Ps. 33:12).
The accuracy of the Bible in all areas, including persons, places, customs, events, and science, has been substantiated through history and archaeology. At times the Bible was thought to be in error, but later discoveries time after time have attested to its truthfulness. For example, it was once thought that there was no writing until after the time of Moses. Now we know that writing goes back before 3000 B.C. Critics once denied the existence of Belshazzar. Excavations identify him by his Babylonian name, Bel-shar-usur. Critics said the Hittites, mentioned twenty-two times in the Bible, never existed. Now we know the Hittites were a major power in the Middle East.79
Biblical history is corroborated by the secular histories of the nations involved with Israel. Archaeological discoveries continue to support and help interpret the biblical text. McDowell shares an interesting quotation from a conversation between Earl Radmacher, president of Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, and Nelson Glueck, archaeologist and former president of a Jewish theological seminary:
I’ve been accused of teaching the verbal, plenary inspiration of the scripture. … All I have ever said is that in all of my archaeological investigation I have never found one artifact of antiquity that contradicts any statement of the Word of God.80
The same judgment is rendered by renowned archaeologist William F. Albright.
The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries … has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.81
Even those religious scholars who deny total accuracy of the Bible on philosophical grounds (e.g., human authors demand human error) are hard pressed to substantiate their claim of inaccuracies in the biblical text. Kenneth Kantzer comments, “Though Barth continued to assert the presence of errors in Scripture, it is exceedingly difficult to locate any instances in his writing where he sets forth any particular error in Scripture.”82 Considering the multitude of details in the Bible, one would expect a considerable collection of errors. Its amazing accuracy points to revelation from the God who is true.
The remarkable survivability of the Bible also attests to its divine authority. Comparatively few books survive the ravages of time. How many thousand-year-old writings can one name? A book that survives a century is a rare book. Yet the Bible has not only survived, it has thrived. There are literally thousands of biblical manuscripts, more than for any ten pieces of classical literature combined.83
What makes this survival so remarkable is that the Bible has faced numerous periods of ecclesiastical restraint (e.g., during the Middle Ages) and governmental attempts to eliminate it. From Diocletian’s edict in 303 to destroy every copy of the Bible to the present day, there have been organized efforts to suppress or exterminate the Bible. “Not only has the Bible received more veneration and adoration than any other book, but it has also been the object of more persecution and opposition.”84 Considering that in the early centuries of Christianity Scripture was copied by hand, the utter extinction of the Bible would not have been humanly impossible. The noted French deist Voltaire predicted that within one hundred years Christianity would fade away. Within fifty years of his death in 1778, the Geneva Bible Society used his press and house to produce stacks of Bibles!85 Only if the Bible is indeed God’s redemptive message to humanity is its indestructibility not so amazing: God has kept His omnipotent hand on His Word.
Both the authenticity and historicity of the New Testament documents are solidly affirmed. Norman Geisler points out that the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is overwhelming and provides a solid basis for reconstructing the original Greek text.86 Textual scholar Bruce Metzger says that in the third century B.C. Alexandrian scholars indicated that the copies of the Iliad they had were about 95 percent accurate. He also indicates that northern and southern texts of India’s Mahabharata differ in extent by twenty-six thousand lines.87 This in contrast to “over 99.5 percent accuracy for the New Testament manuscript copies.”88 That final half percent consists mostly of copyists’ errors in spelling, etc., where the original cannot be determined. No doctrine of the Bible depends on any of those texts.
JESUS’ VIEW OF SCRIPTURES
The writing of the New Testament books was completed by the end of the first century at the latest, many of them within twenty to thirty years of Jesus’ death. We have the assurance also that even the recounting of events by the writers was superintended by the Holy Spirit to prevent human error that might be caused by forgetfulness (John 14:26). The Gospels, detailing the life of Jesus, were written by contemporaries and eyewitnesses. These well-attested New Testament writings provide accurate, reliable information about Christ and His teachings. The authority of the written Word is anchored in the authority of Jesus. Since He is presented as God incarnate, His teachings are true and authoritative. Therefore, Jesus’ teaching on Scripture determines its rightful claim to divine authority. Jesus gives consistent and emphatic testimony that it is the Word of God.
In particular, Jesus addressed His attention to the Old Testament. Whether speaking of Adam, Moses, Abraham, or Jonah, Jesus treated them as real persons in true historical narratives. At times He related current situations to an Old Testament historical event (Matt. 12:39–40). On other occasions He drew from an Old Testament happening to support or reinforce something He was teaching (Matt. 19:4–5). Jesus honored the Old Testament Scriptures, emphasizing that He did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17). At times He castigated the religious leaders because they had wrongly elevated their own traditions to the level of Scripture (Matt. 15:3; 22:29).
In His own teaching Jesus himself cited at least fifteen Old Testament books and alluded to others. Both in tone and in specific statements He clearly demonstrated His regard for the Old Testament Scriptures as the Word of God. It was the word and commandment of God (Mark 7:6–13). Quoting Genesis 2:24 Jesus stated, “‘The Creator [not Moses] … said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother”’” (Matt. 19:4–5). He spoke of David’s making a declaration “speaking by the Holy Spirit” (Mark 12:36). Concerning a statement recorded in Exodus 3:6, He asked, “‘Have you not read what God said to you?’” (Matt. 22:31). Repeatedly Jesus claimed the authority of the Old Testament, citing the formula “It is written” (Luke 4:4). John W. Wenham asserts that Jesus understood this formula to be equivalent to “God says!”
“There is a grand and solid objectivity about the perfect tense gegraptai, ‘it stands written’: ‘here is the permanent, unchangeable witness of the Eternal God, committed to writing for our instruction.’”89 The decisiveness with which Jesus wielded this formula says something emphatic about how Jesus regarded the authority of the writings of Scripture. “The written Word, then, is the authority of God for settling all disputes of doctrine or practice. It is God’s Word in man’s words; it is divine truth in human terms.”90 Those who would claim that Jesus simply accommodated himself to the Jewish understanding of Scripture and went along with their false beliefs miss entirely His emphatic tone and emphasis of full acceptance and authority. Rather than accommodate himself to the views of His day, He corrected their errors and raised Scripture again to its rightful place. Further, accommodation to falsehood is not morally possible for the God who is absolutely true (Num. 23:19; Heb. 6:18).
Jesus claimed divine authority not only for the Old Testament Scriptures, but also for His own teachings. One who hears His sayings and does them is a wise person (Matt. 7:24) because His teachings are from God (John 7:15–17; 8:26–28; 12:48–50; 14:10). Jesus is the Sower, sowing the good seed of God’s Word (Luke 8:1–13). His frequent expression “But I tell you” (Matt. 5:22), used side by side with an understanding of the Old Testament, demonstrated that “his words carry all the authority of God’s words.”91 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but [His] words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35).
Jesus also indicated that there would be a special divine character to the witness of His followers to Him. He had trained them by word and example and commissioned them to be His witnesses throughout the whole world, teaching people to observe whatever He had commanded them (Matt. 28:18–20). He instructed them to wait in Jerusalem for the coming of the Holy Spirit whom the Father would send in His name, so that they would have power to be witnesses unto Him (Luke 24:49; John 14:26; Acts 1:8). The Holy Spirit would remind the disciples of everything Jesus had said to them (John 14:26). The Spirit would teach them all things, testify about Christ, guide them into all truth, tell them what was yet to come, and take the things of Christ and make them known to the disciples (John 14:26; 15:26–27; 16:13–15).
Jesus’ promises to His disciples were fulfilled. The Holy Spirit inspired some of them to write of their Lord. Consequently, in their writings, along with those of the Old Testament, the Bible makes the express and direct claim to be special revelation from God.92
THE EXTENT OF BIBLICAL AUTHORITY
The Bible touches on a number of areas: economics, geography, culture, biology, politics, astronomy, and so forth; but it does not claim to be, nor should one regard it as, a textbook on all these subjects. Styles of dress, means of transportation, political structures, human custom, and the like are not intended to be followed simply because they are mentioned in the authoritative Scriptures. Although what is written in these areas is reliable, it is not necessarily normative or comprehensive. These areas lie outside scriptural authority except as they have theological or ethical implications. (For example, from the standpoint of Scripture it makes no difference if we ride a camel or a motorcycle, but it does make a difference whether we obtained either one honestly.)
The Bible’s sixty-six books claim full and absolute authority in regard to God’s self-revelation and all the implications for belief and practice that follow. Although the Bible’s authority is historical because God has revealed himself in historical events, primarily its authority is theological. The Bible reveals God to humankind and sets forth His relationship to His creation. Because God is to be understood through this book, its words must be authoritative. The authority of the Word is absolute—God’s own words about himself.
The Bible’s ethical authority stems from its theological authority. It does not speak of all that should be done in every age or of all that was done in the times of its writing. However, the principles it sets forth, its standard of righteousness, its information about God, its message of redemption, and its lessons of life are authoritative for all ages.
Certain biblical passages are not binding on us today as far as conduct is concerned, but are authoritative in the sense that they reveal God in some relationship to humanity. For example, some of the Old Testament ceremonies have been fulfilled in Christ. “Where there is a relation of promise (or prefiguring) and fulfillment, the figure serves only a temporary purpose and ceases to have a binding status with the fulfillment.”93 Even though Christ is the fulfillment, the ceremonies authoritatively present an aspect of God’s redemptive work. The relationship of God to human beings and the relationship of human beings to God have implications for every aspect of life. Therefore the Word bears authoritatively upon these other spheres of life.
The scope of Scripture’s authority is as extensive as God’s own authority in relationship to all areas of human existence. God is over all areas of life and speaks to all areas of life through His Word. The authority of the written Word is the authority of God himself. The Bible is not merely a record of God’s authority in the past, but is God’s authority today. Through the written Word the Holy Spirit continues to confront men and women with the claims of God. It is still “Thus says the Lord!”
God has revealed himself to His creation. Inspiration refers to the recording, or writing down, of this divine revelation. Since the Bible was written by human authors, it must be asked, “In what sense, if any, can their writings be called the Word of God?” A related issue concerns the degree, or extent, to which their writings can be viewed as revelation from God.
THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR INSPIRATION
Because any witness has the right of self-testimony, the claim of the biblical writers to divine inspiration will be examined first. Many of those who wrote the Scriptures were participants in or eyewitnesses of the events they wrote about.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard (1 John 1:1–3).
Whether Moses, David, Jeremiah, Matthew, John, Peter, or Paul, each wrote out of his own experiences as God revealed himself in and through his life (Ex. 4:1–17; Ps. 32; Jer. 12; Acts 1:1–3; 1 Cor. 15:6–8; 2 Cor. 1:3–11; 2 Pet. 1:14–18). Yet their writings were more than the accounts of involved reporters. They claimed to write not only about God, but also for God. Their word was God’s Word; their message was God’s message.
Throughout the Old Testament one finds expressions such as “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Tell …’” (Ex. 14:1); “This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD” (Jer. 11:1); “‘Son of man … say: “This is what the Sovereign LORD says …”’” (Ezek. 39:1); “The LORD said to me …” (Isa. 8:1); or “This is what the LORD says …” (Amos 2:1). These statements are used more than thirty-eight hundred times and clearly demonstrate that the writers were conscious of delivering an authoritative message from God.94
The New Testament writers were no less certain that they too were communicating on behalf of God. Jesus not only commanded the disciples to preach, but also told them what to preach (Acts 10:41–43). Their words were not “words taught … by human wisdom but … words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words” (1 Cor. 2:13). They expected the people to acknowledge that what they were receiving was written as “the Lord’s command” (cf. 1 Cor. 14:37). Paul could assure the Galations “that what I am writing you is no lie” (Gal. 1: 20), because he had received it from God (Gal. 1:6–20). The Thessalonians were commended for receiving their message “not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). Commands were written to the Church in the name of Jesus, and failure to obey them was reason for disassociation from the disobedient person (2 Thess. 3:6–14). Just as God had spoken in and through the holy prophets, now commands were given by the Lord to His apostles (2 Pet. 3:2). Receiving eternal life was connected with believing God’s testimony concerning His Son, which the disciples recorded (1 John 5:10–12).
In these and similar passages it is evident that the New Testament writers were convinced that they were declaring the “whole will of God” in obedience to the command of Christ and under the direction of the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:27). The New Testament writers also acknowledged the absolute authority of the Old Testament Scriptures, because God “spoke by the Holy Spirit” through the human authors (Acts 4:24–25; Heb. 3:7; 10:15–16).
Paul wrote to Timothy that the Scriptures were able to make him “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). The value of Scripture is derived from its source. Paul indicates that its value goes beyond the immediate human writer to God himself. He affirms, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16, KJV). The term “inspiration” is derived from this verse and applied to the writing of the Scriptures. The Greek word used here is theopneustos, which literally means “God-breathed”; newer versions rightly read, “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16, NIV) Paul is not saying that God breathed some divine characteristic into the human writings of Scripture or simply that all Scripture exudes or speaks of God. The Greek adjective (theopneustos) is clearly predicative and is used to identify the source of all Scripture.95 God is the ultimate author. Therefore all Scripture is the voice of God, the Word of God (Acts 4:25; Heb. 1:5–13).
The context of 2 Timothy 3:16 has the Old Testament Scriptures in view; the explicit claim of Paul is that the whole Old Testament is an inspired revelation from God. The fact that the New Testament was just being written and was not yet complete prohibits such an internal explicit claim for it. However, some specific statements by the New Testament writers imply that the inspiration of Scripture extends to the whole Bible. For example, in 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul writes, “For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’” Paul is quoting from Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7, and he regards both the Old and New Testament quotations “as Scripture.” Also, Peter refers to all the letters of Paul which, though they write of God’s salvation, “contain some things that are hard to understand.” Therefore some people “distort [them], as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16, italics added). Notice that Peter puts all Paul’s letters in the category of Scripture. To distort them is to distort the Word of God, resulting in destruction. The New Testament writers communicated “in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths” (1 Cor. 2:13), even as Jesus had promised (John 14:26; 16:13–15).
In his second epistle Peter speaks of his impending death and his desire to assure his readers of the truth of what he had previously shared with them. He tells them he did not invent clever but false stories and reminds them he was an eyewitness—he was with Christ, he heard and saw for himself (2 Pet. 1:12–18). Peter then proceeds to write of an even “more certain” word than his eyewitness testimony (v. 19). Speaking of the Scriptures, he describes human authors as being “led along” (pheromenoi) by the Holy Spirit as they communicated the things of God. The result of the superintending of their activity by the Holy Spirit was a message not initiated by human design or produced by mere human reason and research (not that these were excluded). Peter says, “You must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (vv. 20–21).
Peter’s use of the term “prophecy of Scripture” is a case of pars pro tota: in this case, a part standing for the whole of Scripture. For the whole of Scripture, “the impetus which led to the writing was from the Holy Spirit. For this reason Peter’s readers are to pay heed … for it is not simply men’s word, but God’s word.”96
Because of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, all Scripture is authoritative. Jesus spoke of even the least of the biblical commandments as important and binding.
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:18–19).
Reward or judgment is predicated on one’s relationship to even the least of the commandments. Accused of blasphemy because of His claim to deity, Jesus appealed to the phrase “you are ‘gods’” found in Psalm 82:6. He built His defense against their charge of blasphemy on the well-accepted truth that even a relatively obscure phrase of Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:34–35). The reason it could not be broken was that, as even a small portion of Scripture, it was still the authoritative Word of God.
MODES OF INSPIRATION
Once the self-testimony of the Scriptures is accepted, the inspiration of Scripture is clear. As the human authors wrote, in some sense God himself was involved in the communication of their message. Since in most cases, however, the Bible does not reveal the psychology of inspiration, various understandings of the mode of inspiration have arisen. Five basic views are briefly considered in this section.
Natural Intuition. Inspiration is merely a natural insight into spiritual matters exercised by gifted persons. Just as some may have an aptitude for math or science, the biblical writers had an aptitude for religious ideas. No special involvement of God is seen. One might just as naturally be inspired to write a poem or to compose a hymn.
Special Illumination. Inspiration is a divine intensification and exaltation of religious perceptions common to believers. The natural gifts of the biblical writers were in some way enhanced by the Holy Spirit, but without any special guidance or communication of divine truth.
Dynamic Guidance. Inspiration is a special guidance of the Holy Spirit given to the biblical writers to assure the communication of a message from God as it deals with matters of religious faith and godly living. Emphasis is on God’s providing the writers with the thoughts or concepts He wanted communicated and allowing the human writers full, natural expression. The elements of religious faith and practice were directed, but so-called nonessential matters were wholly dependent on the human authors’ own knowledge, experience, and choice.
Verbal Plenary. Inspiration is a combination of the writers’ natural human expression and the Holy Spirit’s special initiation and superintendence of their writings. However, the Holy Spirit not only directed the writers’ thoughts or concepts, but also oversaw their selection of words for all that was written, not just for matters of faith and practice. The Holy Sprit guaranteed the accuracy and completeness of all that was written as being a revelation from God.
Divine Dictation. Inspiration is the infallible superintendence of the mechanical reproduction of divine words as the Holy Spirit dictated them to the human writers. The Scripture writers were obedient stenographers writing under the Holy Spirit’s special direction for content, words, and style.
FORMULATING A VIEW OF INSPIRATION
A view of inspiration must take into account everything necessary for God’s revelation to be accurately communicated. A proper mode of inspiration must include all the elements that the Bible posits in both the act of inspiring and the effects of that act. It must also give proper place to God’s activity and to human activity.
As one examines the data of Scripture, a number of elements involved in the act of inspiring are clearly presented. (1) “All Scripture is God-breathed”; it proceeds from the mouth of God (2 Tim. 3:16). (2) The writers of Scripture were “carried along [or ‘led along’] by the Holy Sprit” (2 Pet. 1:21). (3) The writers did not speak from their own will, but from God’s (2 Pet. 1:21). (4) Yet the writers did speak for themselves (Luke 20:42; John 12:39; Acts 3:22).
Likewise Scripture provides clear effects, or results, of the act of inspiring. (1) All Scripture is God-breathed and therefore all Scripture is the Word of God (1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Tim. 3:16). (2) All Scripture is profitable and is a complete and sufficient rule for faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:16–17). (3) Not a single line of Scripture may be set aside, nullified, or destroyed; the whole of Scripture is to be taken in its full integrity (John 10:35). (4) Scripture is more certain than even empirical observation (2 Pet. 1:12–19). (5) No Scripture is conditioned as to its truthfulness by any limitation of its human author (v. 20). Normal historical conditioning as well as humankind’s sinfulness and finiteness are offset by the Holy Spirit’s superintendence.
In light of the preceding observations drawn from Scripture, an evaluation of the five suggested modes of inspiration can be made. Those views that regard inspiration as only some natural gift of illumination do not give proper attention to God’s “breathing out” the Scripture. The dynamic guidance view, which sees matters of faith and life as inspired apart from other more mundane content, leaves no sure method of determining what is inspired and what is not. Nor does it address the explicit biblical claim that all Scripture is inspired, even the most obscure verses.
The divine dictation view of inspiration does not give proper recognition to the human element—the peculiar styles, expressions, and emphases of the individual writers.
The verbal plenary view of inspiration avoids the pitfalls of emphasizing God’s activity to the neglect of human participation, or of emphasizing the human contribution to the neglect of God’s involvement. The whole of Scripture is inspired, as the writers wrote under the Holy Spirit’s direction and guidance, while allowing for variety in literary style, grammar, vocabulary, and other human peculiarities. After all, some of the biblical writers had, in God’s providence, gone through long years of unique experience and preparation, which God chose to use to communicate His message (e.g., Moses, Paul).
The dynamic guidance and verbal plenary views of inspiration are widely held, for these views recognize the work of the Holy Spirit as well as the obvious differences in the vocabularies and styles of the writers. A major difference between two views involves the extent of inspiration. Acknowledging the Holy Spirit’s guidance, how far did this guidance extend? With regard to the Scripture writings, proponents of various dynamic views would suggest the Spirit’s guidance extended to mysteries unattainable by reason, or only to the message of salvation, or only to the words of Christ, or perhaps to certain materials (such as didactic or prophetic sections or maybe to all matters relating to Christian faith and practice). Verbal plenary inspiration maintains that the guidance of the Holy Spirit extended to every word of the original documents (i.e., the autographs).
With regard to the Spirit’s guidance of the writer, the dynamic guidance view would suggest the Spirit’s influence extended to only the initial impulse to write or to only the selection of topics, the subject matter, or to just the writer’s thoughts and concepts—to be expressed as the writer saw fit. In verbal plenary inspiration the Spirit’s guidance extended to even the words the writer chose to express his thoughts. The Holy Spirit did not dictate the words, but guided the writer so that he freely chose the words that truly expressed God’s message. (For example, the writer may have chosen the word “house” or “building” according to his preference, but could not have chosen “field” since that would have changed the content of the message.)97
Any combination of the suggestions of the dynamic guidance view involves one in a relative stance on the subject of the extent of inspiration. This relative stance requires that some principle be employed to differentiate between inspired and noninspired (or lesser and greater inspired) portions of Scripture. Several principles have been suggested: whatever is reasonable, whatever is needful for salvation, whatever is valuable for faith and practice, whatever is Word-bearing (i.e., points to Christ), whatever is genuine kerygma, or whatever the Spirit bears special witness to. All such principles are essentially human-centered and subjective. Also, there is the problem of who shall employ the principle and actually make the determination. Church hierarchy, biblical scholars and theologians, and individual believers would all want to make the choice. In an ultimate sense the dynamic guidance view ends with the Bible’s authority being derived from humanity rather than God. Only the verbal plenary view of inspiration avoids the quagmire of theological relativity while accounting for human variety by recognizing that inspiration extends to the whole of Scripture.
Verbal plenary inspiration essentially carries its definition in its name. It is the belief that the Bible is inspired even to the very words (verbal) that were chosen by the writers. It is plenary (full, all, every) inspiration in that all of the words in all of the autographs are inspired. A more technical definition of inspiration from a verbal plenary perspective might read something like this: Inspiration is a special superintending act of the Holy Spirit whereby the writers of the Scriptures were motivated to write, were guided in their writing even to their employment of words, and were kept from all error or omission.
At the same time, although every word is inspired by God, whether or not it is true depends on its context. That is, it may authoritatively record a lie; it is an inspired, true record of a lie. For example, when the serpent told Eve she would not die if she ate of the forbidden fruit, it was lying—she would die! (Gen. 3:4–5). However, because the whole of Scripture is inspired, the false words of the tempter are accurately recorded.
Verbal plenary inspiration was the view of the Early Church. During the first eight centuries of the Church no major church leader held to any other view, and it was the view of virtually all orthodox Christian churches until the eighteenth century.98 Verbal plenary inspiration continues to be the view of Evangelicalism.
Verbal plenary inspiration elevates the concept of inspiration to full infallibility since all the words are ultimately God’s words. Scripture is infallible because it is God’s Word and God is infallible. In recent years some have attempted to support the concept of verbal plenary inspiration without the corollary of infallibility. In response, books have been written, conferences held, and organizations formed to try to shore up the historical understanding of inspiration. “Limited inerrancy” as opposed to “limited errancy” has been debated. A string of qualifiers has been added to “verbal plenary” until some would insist the view be called “verbal plenary, infallible, inerrant, unlimited inspiration.” When one investigates what all these qualifiers mean, it is exactly what “verbal plenary inspiration” meant from the beginning!
One notable change in terminology resulting from all the discussion in the area of the inspiration of Scripture is the preference for the term “inerrancy” over “infallibility.” This probably has to do with the insistence of some that one could have an infallible message but an errant biblical text.
“Infallibility” and “inerrancy” are terms used to speak of the truthfulness of Scripture. The Bible does not fail; it does not err; it is true in all that it affirms (Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35). Although these terms may not have always been used, the early church fathers, the Roman Catholic theologians, the Protestant Reformers, modern evangelicals (and therefore “classical” Pentecostals), all have affirmed a Bible that is entirely true, without room for falsehood or error.99 Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory Naziansus, Justin Martyr, Iraneus, Tertullian, Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and a host of other giants of church history acknowledge the Bible as breathed out by God and entirely true. Listen to the emphatic affirmation of a few of these notables:
Augustine: “I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.”100
Martin Luther: “The Scriptures never err.”101 “… where the Holy Scripture establishes something that must be believed, there we must not deviate from the words.”102
John Calvin: “The sure and infallible record.” “The certain and unerring rule.” “Infallible Word of God.” “Free from every stain or defect.”103
Probably two of the most significant historical developments regarding the doctrine of infallibility and inerrancy have been the statement on Scripture in The Lausanne Covenant (1974) and the Chicago Statement (1978) of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Lausanne statement offers what some regard as too great a flexibility in its declaration that the Bible is “inerrant in all that it affirms.” (That is, some things may not be “affirmed” in the Bible.) In response, the Chicago Statement affirmed: “Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.”104
The Chicago Statement was adopted by a gathering of nearly three hundred evangelical scholars in an effort to clarify and strengthen the evangelical position on the doctrine of inerrancy. It comprises nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, with an extended closing exposition, designed to describe and explain inerrancy in a way that leaves absolutely no room for any errors of any kind in any part of the Bible.
While it may be questioned whether inerrancy is taught deductively in Scripture, it is the conclusion supported by inductive examination of the doctrine of Scripture taught by Jesus and the biblical writers. It should be made clear, however, that the Bible’s authority rests on the truth of the inspiration, not on a doctrine of inerrancy. Inerrancy is a natural inference that follows inspiration and is “drawn from the scriptural teaching and is fully supported by Jesus’ own attitude.”105 Some have suggested that surrender of the doctrine of infallibility is the first step to surrender of biblical authority.
Inerrancy recognizes apparent contradictions or inconsistencies in the text not as actual errors, but as difficulties that can be resolved when all the relevant data are known. The possibility of harmonizing apparently contradictory passages has often been demonstrated by evangelical scholars who have patiently reviewed textual difficulties in light of new historical, archaeological, and linguistic discoveries. (One should, however, avoid forced or highly speculative harmonizations.)
The doctrine of inerrancy is derived more from the character of the Bible than merely from examining its phenomena. “If one believes the Scripture to be God’s Word, he cannot fail to believe it inerrant.”106 God breathed out these words that were written down and God cannot lie. Scripture does not err because God does not lie. Consequently, inerrancy is an expected property of inspired Scripture. The critic who insists on errors in the Bible in difficult passages seems to have usurped for himself the infallibility he has denied the Scriptures. An erring standard provides no sure measurement of truth and error. The result of denying inerrancy is the loss of a trustworthy Bible. When errors are admitted, divine truthfulness is surrendered and certainty vanishes.
DEFINITION OF INERRANCY
Although the terms “infallibility” and “inerrancy” historically have been virtually synonymous for Christian doctrine, in recent years many evangelicals have preferred one term over the other. Some have preferred the term “inerrancy” to distinguish themselves from those who held that infallibility may refer to the truthful message of the Bible without necessarily meaning the Bible contains no errors. Others have preferred the term “infallibility” to avoid possible misunderstandings due to an overly restrictive definition of inerrancy. Presently the term “inerrancy” seems to be more in vogue than “infallibility.” Therefore, the following series of statements attempt to set bounds for a definition of verbal inerrancy that would be widely accepted in the evangelical community.
1. God’s truth is accurately expressed without any error in the very words of Scripture as they are used to construct intelligible sentences.
2. God’s truth is accurately expressed through all the words of the whole of Scripture, not just the words of religious or theological content.
3. God’s truth is inerrantly expressed directly only in the autographs (original writings) and indirectly in the apographs (copies of the original writings.)
4. Inerrancy allows for the “language of appearance,” approximations, and varying noncontradictory descriptions from different perspectives. (For example, to say the sun rises is not an error but a recognized perceptive description).
5. Inerrancy recognizes the use of symbolic, figurative language and a variety of literary forms to convey truth.
6. Inerrancy understands that New Testament quotations of Old Testament statements may be paraphrases and may not be intended to be word-for-word renderings.
7. Inerrancy considers the cultural and historical methods of reporting such things as genealogies, measurements, and statistics to be valid, rather than requiring today’s modern methods of technological precision.
From these seven statements it is hoped that one can construct a view of inerrancy that avoids extremes while taking seriously the self-testimony of Scripture to its accuracy and truthfulness. However, our attempts to define inerrancy are not themselves inerrant. Therefore, while endeavoring to influence others to acknowledge the doctrine of inerrancy, it would be well to heed the wise, loving advice of respected inerrantist Kenneth Kantzer. “Conservative evangelicals, especially, must take great care, lest by too hasty a recourse to direct confrontation they edge into unorthodoxy the wavering scholar or student troubled either by problems in the biblical text or by some of the common connotations of the word inerrant.”107
Likewise, it should be understood that “scriptural inerrancy does not imply that evangelical orthodoxy follows as a necessary consequence of accepting of this doctrine.”108 Right interpretation and spiritual commitment must follow.
PROPOSITIONAL REVELATION
A major philosophical issue related to the question of infallibility and inerrancy concerns whether God can reveal himself truly. Truth refers here to propositional statements, or assertions, that accurately correspond to the object or objects they refer to. Can God reveal truth about himself? Is He able to reveal propositionally something of who He actually is to humanity? If the answer is yes, but what He reveals is only generally trustworthy, then God’s revelation contains error. If God has revealed himself through a mixture of truth and error, either He must have done so deliberately or He could not help doing so.
It is not likely that God deliberately revealed error. No firm evidence of any such revealed error is indicated in the Bible. Also, deliberately revealed error is antithetical to God’s nature as the God of truth. God always acts according to His nature.
To say that God could not keep from revealing error in His self-disclosure calls into question both His omniscience and His omnipotence. To say what God can or cannot do, apart from divine revelation, is presumptuous. His revelation of himself truly is not one of the things the Bible says God cannot do (not an inability of power but of moral nature). If God, who created all things including the human mind, can communicate one truth to the human person, then there is no logical reason He cannot communicate any and all truth He desires.
After acknowledging that God is able to reveal himself truly, we may ask, Did He also cause His revelation to be inscripturated truly? To deny this reduces one to agnosticism or skepticism with regard to any absolute truth, awaiting empirical verification of each statement of Scripture (assuming all matters are capable of empirical verification). Instead, if one is to have confidence in the Bible as the Word of God, the witness of Scripture to itself must be taken as normative in defining the true doctrine of inspiration. As examined earlier in this chapter, Jesus and the biblical writers with one voice proclaim that God’s revelation of truth has inerrantly been inscripturated. It cannot be broken and will not pass away!
PRESERVATION OF THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE
Has God caused His revelation to be purely preserved? If “purely preserved” means “inerrantly preserved,” the answer is no. As mentioned above, inerrancy adheres directly to the autographs only. In the many biblical manuscripts that have been preserved, there are thousands of variations. Most of these are so minor they are negligible (e.g., spelling, grammar, transposition of words, etc). Not a single doctrine is based on a questionable manuscript reading.
If, however, “purely preserved” means the teachings of Scripture have been “uncorruptedly preserved,” the answer is a resounding yes. Today the Church has several different modern versions of the Bible based on the many extant Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. These versions carefully compare the ancient manuscripts and early versions of the Bible. They provide the reader with the Scriptures in an up-to-date vocabulary and style while retaining the accuracy of meaning. These versions, in turn, have been translated into hundreds of languages.
Although today’s Bibles are far removed from the autographs in time, they are not far removed in accuracy. A chain of witnesses exists going back to those who claim they saw the autographs (e.g., Polycarp, Clement of Rome). They had both the motive and opportunity to assure the reliability of copies made from the originals. There was a desire among believers to preserve the teachings of Scripture, and care went into its transmission from one generation to another. It is possible by the science of textual criticism to arrive at a biblical text that is an accurate representation of the autographs. Then, to the degree that we approximate the content and God’s intended meaning of the Scripture through textual criticism, exegesis, and interpretation—to that degree we can say we are proclaiming the Word of God.
This can be true only if we can be sure the autographs were the Word of God, infallibly inscripturated by supernatural inspiration. Inerrancy is essential somewhere along the line if we are to know what is true. The value of inerrant autographs is that we are certain that what men wrote down was exactly what God wanted recorded. The autographs derive their value from the fact that, in essence, they are the Word of God rather than merely the words of human writers.
The apographs on the other hand, derive their value from the fact that they so closely represent the autographs. The copies, versions, and translations cannot be said to have been inspired in their production, but surely they must in some derivative, mediate sense retain the quality of inspiration that was inherent in the autographs. Otherwise they would not be authoritative. The act of inspiration happened only once; the quality of inspiration was retained in the apographs. The original act of inspiration produced an inspired Word in both the autographs and the apographs.
All religious literature, even the most helpful and widely read, is not considered Scripture. This not only is true today, but also was true in the days of the writing of the Old and New Testaments. The Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, and other religious writings were recognized as having varying degrees of value, but were not considered worthy to be called the Word of God. Only the sixty-six books contained in the Bible are referred to as the canon of Scripture.109
The term “canon” comes from the Greek kanon, which denoted a carpenter’s rule or some similar measuring rod. In the Greek world, canon came to mean “a standard or norm by which all things are judged or evaluated.”110 Canons developed for architecture, sculpture, literature, philosophy, and so forth. Christians began to use the term theologically to designate those writings that had met the standard to be considered holy Scripture. These canonical books alone are regarded as the authoritative and infallible revelation from God.
It is understandable that the Jewish and Christian believers would want to have an established canon as other fields of learning had. Religious persecution, geographical expansion, and increasing circulation of a wide range of religious writings added to the impetus to gather such a canon. Tradition suggests that Ezra was largely responsible for gathering the Jewish sacred writings into a recognized canon. However, the recognition of a closed Old Testament canon is usually dated from a supposed Council of Jamnia about A.D. 90–100.111 The oldest surviving Christian list of the Old Testament canon comes from about A.D. 170, compiled by Melito, bishop of Sardis.112 In the early centuries of Christianity various canons of Scripture were proposed, from that of the heretic Marcion in 140 to the Muratorian Canon of 180 to the first complete New Testament Canon of Athanasius in 367. The New Testament canon as we now have it was officially recognized at the Third Council of Carthage in 397 and by the Eastern Church by 500.113
The establishment of the biblical canon was not the decision of the writers or religious leaders or a church council, however. Rather, the process of these particular books’ being accepted as Scripture was the Holy Spirit’s providential influence on the people of God. The canon was formed by consensus rather than decree. The Church did not decide which books should be in the biblical canon, but simply acknowledged those already recognized by God’s people as His Word. Clearly, the Church was not the authority; it saw the authority in the inspired Word.
Various guiding principles, or criteria, for canonical writings, however, have been suggested. They include apostolicity, universality, church use, survivability, authority, age, content, authorship, authenticity, and dynamic qualities. Of primary concern was whether the writing was regarded as inspired. Only those writings breathed out by God fit the measure of the authoritative Word of God.
The biblical canon is closed. God’s infallible self-revelation has been recorded. Today He continues to speak in and through that Word. Just as God revealed himself and inspired writers to record that revelation, He preserved those inspired writings and guided His people in the selection of them to ensure His truth would be known. Other writings are not to be added to, nor any writings taken from, the canonical Scriptures. The canon contains the historical roots of the Christian Church, and “the canon cannot be remade for the simple reason that history cannot be remade.”114
INSPIRATION
The Scriptures were breathed out by God as the Holy Spirit inspired men to write in behalf of God. Because of His initiation and superintendence, the writers’ words were, in truth, the Word of God. At least in some instances the biblical writers were aware that their message was not merely human wisdom, but “in words taught by the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:13).
Others were also aware of the Spirit-inspired quality of the writings of Scripture, as is shown by expressions such as the following: “David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared …” (Mark 12:36); “‘The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me’” (2 Sam. 23:2); “‘Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David’” (Acts 1:16); “‘The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet …’” (Acts 28:25); “So, as the Holy Spirit says: ‘Today, if you hear his voice …’” (Heb. 3:7); “The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: ‘This is the covenant I will make’” (Heb. 10:15–16). Thus whoever the writers were—whether Moses, David, Luke, Paul, or unknown (to us)—they wrote “as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21).
Some have wrongly viewed this inspiration of the Spirit to be a mechanical dictation of Scripture, appealing to such a notable as John Calvin. Several times Calvin does use the term “dictation” in conjunction with the Spirit’s inspiration. For example, “Whoever is the penman of the Psalm, the Holy Spirit seems by his mouth to have dictated a common form of prayer for the Church in her affliction.”115 However, Calvin uses the term “dictation” in a less strict sense than is currently understood by the dictation view of inspiration. He was aware of the contribution of the human authors in areas such as style of writing. Note his observation of Ezekiel’s style:
Ezekiel is verbose in this narration. But in the beginning of the book we said, that because the teacher was sent to men very slow and stupid, he therefore used a rough style.… [H]e had acquired it partly from the region in which he dwelt.116
Calvin did believe, therefore, that God prepared the biblical writers through various experiences of life and that the Holy Spirit spoke according to the style of the writer needed for a particular occasion. Whether to reach the educated or uneducated, “the Holy Spirit so tempers his style as that the sublimity of the truths which he teaches is not hidden.”117
The Holy Spirit, using the personalities, experiences, abilities, and styles of the human authors, superintended their writings to ensure that God’s message was accurately and fully communicated. As Jesus had promised, the Spirit led them into truth, brought to them remembrances, and taught them all that was needed for God’s divine revelation (John 14 through 16).
REGENERATION
The work of the Holy Spirit is complementary to the work of Christ in regeneration. Christ died on the cross to make it possible for the sinner to be made alive again to God. Through spiritual rebirth one enters the kingdom of God (John 3:3). The Holy Spirit applies the work of Christ’s salvation to the heart of the individual. He works in the human heart to convict of sin and to produce faith in Christ’s atoning sacrifice. This faith is responsible for regeneration through union with Christ.
This regenerating faith produced by the Holy Spirit, however, should not be considered abstractly. It does not exist in a vacuum, but arises in relation to the Word of God. Faith comes from hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:17). Not only was the Holy Spirit responsible for recording the message of salvation found in the Scriptures, but He also witnesses to the truth of the Scriptures. If God has spoken to humankind in the Bible, then the Holy Spirit must convince persons of that fact. The Spirit convinces not just of a general truthfulness of Scripture, but of a powerfully personal application of that truth (John 16:8–11). Christ as personal Savior is the object of the faith produced in the heart by the Spirit. This faith is inseparably linked to God’s promises of grace found throughout the Bible. “The Spirit and the Word are both needed. The Spirit takes the Word and applies it to the heart to bring repentance and faith, and through this, life.”118 For this reason the Bible speaks of regeneration both in terms of being “born of the Spirit” and of being “born again … through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Pet. 1:23; see also John 3:5).
ILLUMINATION
The doctrine of the illumination of the Spirit involves the Holy Spirit’s work in a person’s acceptance, understanding, and appropriation of the Word of God. Earlier we considered a number of internal and external evidences for the Bible’s being the Word of God. However, more powerful and more convincing than all of them is the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. While the evidences are important and the Spirit may use them, ultimately it is the Spirit’s authoritative voice to the human heart that brings the conviction that indeed Scripture is the Word of God.119
Without the Spirit, humankind neither accepts nor understands the truths that come from the Spirit of God. The rejection of God’s truth by unbelievers is linked to their lack of spiritual understanding. The things of God are seen as foolishness by them (1 Cor. 1:22–23; 2:14). Jesus described unbelievers as those who hear but do not understand (Matt. 13:13–15). Through sin “their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts darkened” (Rom. 1:21). “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel” (2 Cor. 4:4). Their only hope for spiritual understanding (i.e., that they may perceive God’s truth) is the illumination of the Spirit (Eph. 1:18; 1 John 5:20). This initial spiritual perception results in regeneration but also opens the door to a new life of growing in the knowledge of God.
Although the promises of John 14 through 16 concerning the Spirit’s guidance and teaching have special reference to the disciples of Jesus who would be used to write the New Testament Scriptures, there is a continuing sense in which this ministry of the Spirit relates to all believers. “The same Teacher also continues His teaching work in us, not by bringing new revelation, but by bringing new understanding, new comprehension, new illumination. But He does more than show us the truth. He brings us into the truth, helping us put it into action.”120
It is important to keep the written Word of God and the illumination of the Spirit together: What the Spirit illumines is the truth of God’s Word, not some mystical content hidden behind that revelation. The human mind is not bypassed but quickened as the Holy Spirit elucidates the truth. “Revelation is derived from the Bible, not from experience, nor from the Spirit as a second source alongside and independent of Scripture.”121 Even the gifts of utterance given by the Holy Spirit are in no way equal to the Scriptures and are to be judged by the Scriptures (1 Cor. 12:10; 14:29; 1 John 4:1). The Holy Spirit neither alters nor expands the truth of God’s revelation given in Scripture. The Scriptures serve as the necessary and only objective standard through which the Holy Spirit’s voice continues to be heard.
Illumination by the Spirit is not intended to be a shortcut to biblical knowledge or a replacement for sincere study of God’s Word. Rather, as one studies the Scriptures the Holy Spirit gives spiritual understanding, which includes both belief and persuasion. “Philological and exegetical research is not rendered useless by His operation, for it is in the heart of the interpreter himself that He works, creating that inner receptivity by which the Word of God is really ‘heard.’”122 Causing the Word to be heard by the heart as well as by the head, the Spirit brings about a conviction concerning the truth that results in an eager appropriation (Rom. 10:17; Eph. 3:19; 1 Thess. 1:5; 2:13).
Neoorthodoxy tends to confuse inspiration and illumination by viewing the Scriptures as “becoming” the Word of God when the Holy Spirit confronts a person through those human writings. According to neoorthodoxy, Scripture is revelation only when and where the Spirit speaks existentially. The biblical text has no definite objective meaning. “[S]ince there are no revealed truths, only truths of revelation, how one person interprets an encounter with God may be different from another person’s understanding.”123
Evangelicals, however, view Scripture as the objective written Word of God inspired by the Spirit at the time of its writing. True communication about God is present in propositional form whether or not one recognizes, rejects, or embraces that truth. The authority of Scripture is intrinsic due to inspiration and is not dependent on illumination. It is distinct from and antecedent to the testimony of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit illumines what He has already inspired and His illumination adheres only to that written Word.
God’s revelation of himself is centered on Jesus Christ. He is the Logos of God. He is the Living Word, the Word incarnate, revealing the eternal God in human terms. The title Logos is unique to the Johannine writings of Scripture, although the term’s use was significant in Greek philosophy of the day. Some have tried to connect John’s usage to that of the Stoics or early Gnostics, or to the writings of Philo. More recent scholarship suggests John was primarily influenced by his Old Testament and Christian background. However, he was probably aware of the wider connotations of the term and may have intentionally used it for the purpose of conveying additional, unique meaning.124
The Logos is identified with both God’s creative Word and His authoritative Word (law for all humankind). John staggers the imagination as he introduces the eternal Logos, the Creator of all things, very God himself, as the Word made flesh to dwell among His creation (John 1:1–3,14). “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known” (John 1:18). This Living Word has been seen, heard, touched, and now proclaimed through the written Word (1 John 1:1–3). The Bible ends with the living Logos of God, faithful and true, poised on heaven’s balcony, ready to return as King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 19:11–16).
God’s highest revelation is in His Son. For many centuries through the words of the Old Testament writers, God was progressively making himself known. Types, figures, and shadows gradually unfolded His plan for lost humanity’s redemption (Col. 2:17). Then in the fullness of time God sent His Son to more perfectly reveal God and to execute that gracious plan through His death on the Cross (1 Cor. 1:17–25; Gal. 4:4). All Scripture revelation prior to and subsequent to Christ’s incarnation center on Him. The many sources and means of previous revelation pointed to and foreshadowed His coming. All subsequent revelation magnify and explain why He came. God’s revelation of himself began as cryptic and small, progressed through time, and climaxed in the incarnation of His Son. Jesus is the fullest revelation of God. All the inspired writings that follow do not add any greater revelation, but amplify the greatness of His appearance. “He [the Spirit] will not speak on his own.… He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you” (John 16:13–14).
In the person of Jesus Christ, the source and content of revelation coincide. He was not just a channel of God’s revelation, as were the prophets and apostles. He himself is the “radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Heb. 1:3). He is “the way and the truth and the life”; to know Him is to know the Father as well (John 14:6–7). The prophets said, “The Word of the Lord came unto me,” but Jesus said, “I say unto you”! Jesus reversed the use of the “amen,” beginning His statements with “‘Truly, truly, I say to you’” (John 3:3, NASB). By virtue of His saying it, truth was immediately and unquestionably declared.
Christ is the key that unlocks the meaning of the Scriptures (Luke 24:25–27; John 5:39–40; Acts 17:2–3; 28:23; 2 Tim. 3:15). They testify of Him and lead to the salvation He died to provide. The Scriptures’ focus on Christ, however, does not warrant reckless abandonment of the biblical text in areas that seem to be devoid of overt Christological information. Clark H. Pinnock wisely reminds us that “Christ is the hermeneutical Guide to the meaning of Scripture, not its critical scalpel.”125 Christ’s own attitude toward the whole of Scripture was one of total trust and full acceptance. Special revelation in Christ and in the Scriptures is consistent, concurrent, and conclusive. One finds Christ through the Scriptures and through the Scriptures finds Christ. “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31).
1. Animism usually involves the worship of aspects of nature. Reflect on how this would relate to general revelation. Could general revelation serve as a bridge to witnessing to animists? How?
2. The Bible affirms the value of general revelation. Yet sin has impacted general revelation in a negative way. How is general revelation to be understood prior to the fall of man, presently to sinful man, and presently to redeemed man?
3. The doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture does not require that the authors only mechanically transcribed what God wanted communicated. The writers retained their own particular literary style and form. Select two biblical authors and note some of their writing characteristics.
4. Both biblical prophecy and biblical archaeology have been appealed to as areas of evidence for the uniqueness of the Bible. Compile a list of biblical prophecies and their fulfillment and a list of archaeological discoveries that support biblical content.
5. The doctrine of biblical inerrancy refers to the biblical autographs. Since we do not have any of the autographs, how does inerrancy relate to the versions and translations of the Bible we use today?
6. Most non-Christian religions have their own holy book(s). In what ways is the Bible unique among such writings?
7. Choose two Scripture passages that seem to be contradictory or a passage that seems to contain an error. Suggest a possible solution.
8. How do spiritual gifts such as prophecy, tongues, and interpretation relate to the concept of a closed canon of Scripture?
1Emil Brunner, Revelation and Reason (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1946), 20.
2Dewey M. Beegle, “The Biblical Concept of Revelation,” in The Authoritative Word, ed. Donald K. McKim (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), 95. Beegle suggests over thirty terms associated with the concept of revelation used in the Bible.
3James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, vol.1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 183.
4Statements that declare something about God.
5That is, knowledge that comes through one’s own personal experience.
6Clark H. Pinnock, Biblical Revelation—The Foundation of Christian Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), 24.
7Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972), 37.
8Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1978), 63.
9Brunner, Revelation and Reason, 23, 30.
10J. Gresham Machen, The Christian Faith in the Modern World (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1936), 14–15.
11J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 31.
12Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 321.
13Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 2 (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1976), 19.
14See “The Larger Catechism” in The Westminster Standards (Philadelphia: Board of Christian Education of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1925), Question and Answer 1.
15Brunner, Revelation and Reason, 42.
16Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 1, 31.
17Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, 29.
18The Confessions of St. Augustine, trans. Edward B. Pusey (New York: P. F. Collier and Son Corporation, 1937), 5.
19Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 1, 38.
20Ibid., 50.
21Ibid., 48.
22Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967), 226.
23Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 2, 72–73.
24Natural theology develops its ideas using human reason apart from and often in a way critical of, or even rejecting, divine revelation. It often makes the individual’s own reason the final authority.
25Williams, Renewal Theology, vol. 1, 34.
26Bruce A. Demarest, General Revelation: Historical Views and Contemporary Issues (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 36.
27Demarest, General Revelation, 238.
28Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 1, 98.
29Demarest, General Revelation, 128.
30Ibid., 229, 243.
31The Jews had both the written Law and the heart law.
32Gk. suneidēsis, “co-knowing,” “conscious, spiritual or moral awareness.”
33Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 1, 85.
34They include the facts that God exists (Ps. 19:1; Rom. 1:19) and He is uncreated (Acts 17:24); that He has standards (Rom. 2:15), requires persons to do good (Rom. 2:15), and judges evil (Rom. 2:15–16); that He is the Creator (Acts 14:15), Sustainer (Acts 14:17; 17:25), and Lord (Acts 17:24), and is self-sufficient (Acts 17:24), transcendent (Acts 17:24), immanent (Acts 17:26–27), eternal (Ps. 93:2), great (Ps. 8:3–4), majestic (Ps. 29:4), powerful (Ps. 29:4; Rom. 1:20), wise (Ps. 104:24), good (Acts 14:17), righteous (Rom. 1:32), sovereign (Acts 17:26), and to be worshiped (Acts 14:15; 17:23). Demarest, General Revelation, 243.
35Ibid.
36Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 170.
37Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 1, 129.
38See, for example, Raimundo Panikkar’s scheme of religions in such writings as The Unknown Christ of Hinduism (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1964).
39Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 1, 130, 136.
40James Montgomery Boice, The Sovereign God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978), 34.
41Erickson, Christian Theology, 173.
42Ibid.
43Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 1, 86.
44Demarest, General Revelation, 247.
45Neoorthodoxy does not mean the historic Christ, i.e. Jesus, but the Christ proclaimed in the church.
46Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 1, 80. See Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, chap. 1 for the viewpoint of neoorthodoxy.
47Demarest, General Revelation, 128.
48Erickson, Christian Theology, 179–80.
49Ibid., 180–81.
50Ibid., 180.
51Williams, Renewal Theology, vol. 1, 37.
52Kenneth S. Kantzer, “The Christ-Revelation as Act and Interpretation” in Jesus of Nazareth: Savior and Lord, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1966), 252.
53George E. Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967), 27.
54Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, 34.
55Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, 99ff.
56Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Divine and Human in the Bible” in The Princeton Theology 1812–1921, ed. Mark A. Noll (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 278.
57Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970), 161.
58Carl F. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 3 (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1979), 455.
59Erickson, Christian Theology, 196–97.
60J. I. Packer, “‘Sola Scriptura’ in History and Today,” in God’s Inerrant Word, ed. John Warwick Montgomery (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany Fellowship, 1974), 45.
61John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1967), 31.
62Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, 110.
63Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 3, 462.
64David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Authority (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1958), 7, 8. It should be noted, however, that the Statement of Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God puts the inspiration and authority of Scripture in first place.
65Erickson, Christian Theology, 244–45.
66In doing so they ignore the Bible’s direction that “others should weigh carefully what is said” (1 Cor. 14:29).
67Charles Hodge, “The Scriptures Are the Word of God” in The Princeton Theology 1812–1921, ed. Mark A. Noll (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 133.
68Reuben A. Torrey, The Bible and Its Christ (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1904), 26.
69Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith (San Bernadino, Calif.: Campus Crusade for Christ International, 1972), 19–20.
70F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, rev. ed. (Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963), 88.
71One of the reasons some ancient books were not included in the canon of Scripture was because they did not fit in or contribute to the harmony of Scripture. See the discussion on the canon.
72Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1907), 175.
73Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979), 48.
74Floyd Hamilton, The Basis of Christian Faith (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1927), 297.
75McDowell, Evidence, chaps. 9 and 11. Josh McDowell provides ninety pages of analysis of biblical predictive prophecies and their fulfillments.
76Peter W. Stoner, Science Speaks (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), 106.
77By 1992 the Scripture had been translated into many languages: 1,964 living languages had some Scripture; 276 languages had the whole Bible; 676 had the entire New Testament. Barbara F. Grimes, ed. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 12th ed. (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1992), 931.
78Thiessen, Systematic Theology, 47.
79Keith N. Schoville, Biblical Archaeology in Focus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), 194.
80McDowell, Evidence, 24.
81William F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine, revised ed. (New York: Pelican Books, 1960), 127–28.
82Kenneth S. Kantzer, “Biblical Authority: Where Both Fundamentalists and Neoevangelicals Are Right,” Christianity Today, 7 October 1983, 12.
83The New Testament in the original Greek is found in 88 papyri, 257 uncial (capital letter) leather manuscripts, 2,795 minuscule (small letter) manuscripts, and over 2,200 lectionaries (manuscripts with New Testament portions arranged for daily or weekly readings). See Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987), 102, 105, 128, 160. This compares with Homer’s Iliad, which is preserved in 457 papyri, 2 uncial manuscripts, and 188 minuscule manuscripts. See Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 34.
84Emery H. Bancroft, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1949), 360.
85Sidney Collett, All About the Bible, 20th ed. (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1934), 63.
86Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 308.
87Bruce M. Metzger, Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1963), 148–51.
88Geisler, Apologetics, 308.
89John W. Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 22.
90Geisler, Apologetics, 362.
91Wenham, Christ and the Bible, 47.
92See Inspiration of Scripture, pp. 93–97.
93Geoffrey W. Bromiley, “The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture,” Eternity, August 1970, 20.
94Thiessen, Systematic Theology, 68.
95“Both Paul’s usage and the Greek word order in 2 Tim 3:16 call for the translation, ‘All Scripture is inspired by God.’” The New Testament Greek-English Dictionary, Zeta-Kappa, vol. 13 in The Complete Biblical Library (Springfield, Mo.: The Complete Biblical Library, 1990), 87.
96Erickson, Christian Theology, 201.
97The Bible indicates that God’s guidance began from the point of conception (Jer. 1:5). The Holy Spirit led the writers along not only while they wrote, but also through all their experiences and development so that even their vocabulary was prepared to write the truth in the way the Holy Spirit wanted it to be recorded.
98In the ninth century, Scholasticism began to assert reason over biblical authority through the School Men such as John Scotus. See “The Church Doctrine of Biblical Authority,” Jack B. Rogers, The Authoritative Word, ed. Donald K. McKim (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983); Pinnock, Biblical Revelation; Robert D. Preus, “The View of the Bible Held by the Church: The Early Church Through Luther,” in Inerrancy, Norman L. Geisler, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979).
99Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, 74, 154.
100Augustine, “The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustine, with a Sketch of His Life and Work,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Phillip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, reprint 1988), letter 32.
101R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978), 34.
102Geisler, Inerrancy, 373.
103Ibid. 391.
104Ibid. Kenneth Kantzer’s doctoral dissertation is an excellent defense of Calvin’s view on inerrancy.
105Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1979), 164.
106Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, 74.
107Kenneth S. Kantzer, “Evangelicals and the Doctrine of Inerrancy” in The Foundations of Biblical Authority, ed. James M. Boice (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 155.
108Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 4, 204. Note that scientific language was not invented until modern times. The Bible uses everyday language; for example, it speaks of a sunset just like we do. However, when the Bible gives specific teachings in the area of science or history we hold that these teachings are inerrant.
109Roman Catholics and some other groups include, in addition, fourteen books of the Old Testament Apocrypha. These books were included in the LXX version. The Early Church as a whole considered them to be worth reading but not inspired. Some of the books, such as First Maccabees, contain good history. Others contain errors and doctrines contrary to the rest of the Bible. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, did not consider them on the same level as the sixty-six books of the canon. All the Reformers rejected them.
110Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988), 40.
111The Jewish Sanhedrin moved to Jamnia (Jabneel, Jabneh), south southwest of Jerusalem, after Jerusalem was destroyed. Little evidence exists of any official discussion or any “Council of Jamnia.” However, during this period there was a general consensus, probably reached by common usage. See William LaSor, David Hubbard, Frederic Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982), 22.
112F. F. Bruce, “Tradition and the Canon of Scripture” in The Authoritative Word, ed. Donald K. McKim (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), 65.
113Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, 60–61.
114Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 275.
115John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 2, trans. James Anderson (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 205.
116John Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Ezekiel, vol. 1, trans. John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 392.
117Calvin, Commentary on Psalms, 229.
118Stanley M. Horton, What the Bible Says About the Holy Spirit (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1976), 115.
119Calvin, Institutes, I, vii, 4, 5.
120Horton, What the Bible Says, 121.
121Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 4, 284.
122Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, 215.
123Erickson, Christian Theology, 253.
124Ruth B. Edwards, “Word” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 5, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1915), 3105.
125Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, 37.