Some helps for the first two articles
Here's an interesting article on testimonies.
And..what about those lost books of the Bible?
R.C. Sproul on the sovereignty of God:
Two helpful articles from the Moody Handbook of Theology. One on canonicity and the second on inerrancy:
Bible, Inerrancy and infallibility of the Terms referring to the complete truthfulness of the Bible in what it teaches. Inerrancy means that it teaches no error. Infallibility means that it will not fail to accomplish what it is meant to do. Some use the term infallibility only in reference to the Bible’s truthfulness in matters of faith and practice.[1]
And..what about those lost books of the Bible?
R.C. Sproul on the sovereignty of God:
Two helpful articles from the Moody Handbook of Theology. One on canonicity and the second on inerrancy:
Article #1 Canonicity of the Bible
DEFINITION OF CANONICITY
If the Scriptures are indeed inspired by God then a significant question arises: Which books are inspired? Historically, it was important for the people of God to determine which books God had inspired and which ones were recognized as authoritative.
The word canon is used to describe the inspired books. The word comes from the Greek kanon and probably also from the Hebrew qaneh, signifying a “measuring rod.” The terms canon and canonical thus came to signify standards by which books were measured to determine whether or not they were inspired. It is important to note that religious councils at no time had any power to cause books to be inspired, rather they simply recognized that which God had inspired at the exact moment the books were written.
Jews and conservative Christians alike have recognized the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament as inspired. Evangelical Protestants have recognized the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as inspired. Roman Catholics have a total of eighty books because they recognize the Apocrypha as semi-canonical.
CANONICITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Masoretic (Hebrew) text of the Old Testament divided the thirty-nine books into three categories: Law (Pentateuch); Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, major and minor prophets); and the Writings (sometimes called “The Psalms,” including the poetry and wisdom books—Psalms, Proverbs, and Job; the Rolls—Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther; the Historical
Books—Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles). Originally these thirty-nine books were counted as twenty-four by combining 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, the minor prophets, and Ezra-Nehemiah. By the time of the New Testament this threefold division was recognized (Luke 24:44). Other designations such as “The Scripture” (John 10:35) and “The Sacred Writings” (2 Tim. 3:15) suggest a generally accepted Old Testament canon. This threefold division was also attested to by Josephus (a.d. 37–95), Bishop Melito of Sardis (ca. a.d. 170), Tertullian (a.d. 160–250), and others. The Council of Jamnia in a.d. 90 is generally considered the occasion whereby the Old Testament canon was publicly recognized (while debating the canonicity of several books).
There is evidence of the manner in which the Old Testament books were recognized as canonical. Laird Harris traces the continuity of recognition: Moses was recognized as writing under the authority of God (Ex. 17:14; 34:27; cf. Josh. 8:31; 23:6). The criterion for acknowledging the Pentateuch was whether it was from God’s servant, Moses. Following Moses, God raised up the institution of prophecy to continue revealing Himself to His people (cf. Deut. 18:15–19; Jer. 26:8–15). The prophets to whom God spoke also recorded their revelation (cf. Josh. 24:26; 1 Sam. 10:25; Isa. 8:1; Ezek. 43:11). Harris concludes, “The law was accorded the respect of the author, and he was known as God’s messenger. Similarly, succeeding prophets were received upon due authentication, and their written works were received with the same respect, being received therefore as the Word of God. As far as the witness contained in the books themselves is concerned, this reception was immediate.”
Specific tests to consider canonicity may be recognized. Did the book indicate Divine authorship? Did it reflect God speaking through a mediator? (e.g., Ex. 20:1; Josh. 1:1; Isa. 2:1). Was the human author a spokesman of God? Was he a prophet or did he have the prophetic gift? (e.g., Deut. 31:24–26; 1 Sam. 10:25; Neh. 8:3). Was the book historically accurate? Did it reflect a record of actual facts? How was the book received by the Jews?
In summary, the books of the Old Testament were divinely inspired and authoritative the moment they were written. There was human recognition of the writings; normally this was immediate as the people recognized the writers as spokesmen from God. Finally, there was a collection of the books into a canon.
CANONICITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
There were several factors that caused the recognition of a New Testament canon. (1) Spurious writings, as well as attacks on genuine writings, were a factor. Marcion, for example, rejected the Old Testament and New Testament writings apart from the Pauline letters (he altered Luke’s gospel to suit his doctrine). (2) The content of the New Testament writings testified to their authenticity and they naturally were collected, being recognized as canonical. (3) Apostolic writings were used in public worship, hence, it was necessary to determine which of those writings were canonical. (4) Ultimately, the edict by Emperor Diocletian in a.d. 303, demanding that all sacred books be burned, resulted in the New Testament collection.
The process of the recognition and collection took place in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early, the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul, for example, recognized Luke’s writing on a par with the Old Testament (1 Tim. 5:18 quotes Deut. 25:4, and Luke 10:7 and refers to both texts as “the Scripture says”). Peter also recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15–16). Letters were being read in the churches and even circulated among the church (cf. Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27).
In the post-apostolic era, Clement of Rome (c. a.d. 95) mentioned at least eight New Testament books in a letter; Ignatius of Antioch (c. a.d. 115) also acknowledged about seven books; Polycarp, a disciple of John, (c. a.d. 108), acknowledged fifteen letters. That is not to say these men did not recognize more letters as canonical, but these are ones they mentioned in their correspondence. Later Irenaeus wrote (c. a.d. 185), acknowledging twenty-one books. Hippolytus (a.d. 170–235) recognized twenty-two books. The problematic books at this time were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John.
Even more important was the witness of the Muratorian
Canon (a.d. 170), which was a compilation of books recognized as canonical at that early date by the church. The Muratorian Canon included all the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and one epistle of John.
In the fourth century, there was also prominent recognition of a New Testament canon. When Athanasius wrote in a.d. 367 he cited the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as being the only true books. In a.d. 363 the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (a.d. 393) recognized the twenty-seven books, and the Council of Carthage (a.d. 397) affirmed that only those canonical books were to be read in the churches.
How did the church recognize which books were canonical? There were certain tests applied to answer that question.
(1) Apostolicity. Was the author an apostle or did he have a connection with an apostle? For example, Mark wrote under Peter’s authority, and Luke wrote under Paul’s authority.
(2) Acceptance. Was the book accepted by the church at large? The recognition given a particular book by the church was important. By this canon, false books were rejected (but it also delayed recognition of some legitimate books).
(3) Content. Did the book reflect the consistency of doctrine with what had been accepted as orthodox teaching? The spurious “gospel of Peter” was rejected as a result of this principle.
(4) Inspiration. Did the book reflect the quality of inspiration? The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were rejected as a result of not meeting this test. The book should bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit.[1]
The Inerrancy of Scripture
In addition to affirming the Bible’s infallibility, Reformed theology describes the Bible as inerrant. Infallibility means that something cannot err, while inerrancy means that it does not err. Infallibility describes ability or potential. It describes something that cannot happen. Inerrancy describes actuality.
For example, I could score 100% on a spelling test. In this limited experience, I was “inerrant”; I made no mistakes on the test. This would not warrant the conclusion that I am therefore infallible. Errant human beings do not always err. They sometimes, indeed often do, err because they are not infallible. An infallible person would never err simply because infallibility as such precludes the very possibility of error.
In our day some scholars have asserted that the Bible is infallible but not inerrant. This creates no small amount of confusion. As we have seen, infallible is the stronger of the two words.
Why then have these scholars preferred the word infallible? The answer is probably located somewhere in the emotive realm. The term inerrancy is frowned on in certain academic circles. It is loaded with pejorative baggage. The term is often associated with unsophisticated and unscholarly types of fundamentalism. On the other hand, the term infallibility has a history of academic respectability, particularly in Roman Catholic scholarship. People may reject the Roman Catholic view of infallibility, but they do not identify it with backwoods, primitive theology. Jesuits, for example, do not suffer from a reputation of unsophisticated scholarship. To escape guilt by association with anti-intellectual circles, some have retreated from the term inerrancy and taken refuge in the term infallibility. If in the process infallibility is redefined to mean something less than inerrancy, however, then the shift in nomenclature is a dishonest subterfuge.
Though both inerrancy and infallibility have been integral to historic Reformed theology, the modern controversy over the Bible’s trustworthiness has led others to argue that the concept of inerrancy was not advocated by the magisterial Reformers but instead was originated by scholastic or rationalistic theologians of the seventeenth century. Though it may be accurate to say that the term inerrancy came into vogue later, it is by no means accurate to assert that the concept is absent from the works of sixteenth-century Reformers. Let us note a few observations from Martin Luther:
The Holy Spirit Himself and God, the Creator of all things, is the Author of this book.
Scripture, although also written of men, is not of men nor from men, but from God.
He who would not read these stories in vain must firmly hold that Holy Scripture is not human but divine wisdom.
The Word must stand, for God cannot lie; and heaven and earth must go to ruins before the most insignificant letter or tittle of His Word remains unfulfilled.
We intend to glory in nothing but Holy Scripture, and we are certain that the Holy Spirit cannot oppose or contradict Himself.
St. Augustine says in the letter to St. Jerome …: I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture inerrant.
In the books of St. Augustine one finds many passages which flesh and blood have spoken. And concerning myself, I must also confess that when I talk apart from the ministry, at home, at table, or elsewhere, I speak many words that are not God’s Word. That is why St. Augustine, in a letter to St. Jerome, has put down a fine axiom—that only Holy Scripture is to be considered inerrant.
It is clear that the concept of inerrancy was not a late invention. It is attested to in antiquity, not only in men such as St. Augustine but in Irenaeus as well. Luther cites Augustine’s view with manifest approval. The same approbation is found profusely in John Calvin’s writings.
Clearly, inerrancy and infallibility do not extend to copies or translations of Scripture. Reformed theology restricts inerrancy to the original manuscripts of the Bible or the autographa. The autographa, the initial works of the writers of Scripture, are not directly available to us today.
Clearly, inerrancy and infallibility do not extend to copies or translations of Scripture. Reformed theology restricts inerrancy to the original manuscripts of the Bible or the autographa. The autographa, the initial works of the writers of Scripture, are not directly available to us today.
For this reason, many scoff at the doctrine of inerrancy, saying it is a moot point since it cannot be verified or falsified without access to the original manuscripts. This criticism misses the point altogether. We carry no brief for the inspiration of copyists or translators. The original revelation is the chief concern of the doctrine of inerrancy. Though we do not possess the autographs themselves, we can reconstruct them with remarkable accuracy. The science of textual criticism demonstrates that the existing text is remarkably pure and exceedingly reliable.
Suppose the normative yardstick housed at the National Bureau of Standards were to perish in a fire. Would we no longer be able to determine the distance of three feet with accuracy? With the multitude of existing copies, we could reconstruct with almost perfect accuracy the original yardstick. To restrict inerrancy to the original documents is to call attention to the source of biblical revelation: the agents who were inspired by God to receive his revelation and record it.
Reformed theology carries no brief for the infallibility of translations. We who read, interpret, or translate the Bible are fallible. The Roman Catholic church adds another element of infallibility by claiming it for the church’s interpretation of Scripture, especially when the pope speaks ex cathedra (“from the chair” of St. Peter). Though this adds a second tier of infallibility, the individual Roman Catholic is still left to interpret the infallible interpretation of the infallible Bible fallibly. Whereas Protestants are faced with a fallible interpretation of the church’s fallible interpretation of the infallible Bible, Catholics assume a double level of infallibility.
What does the Bible’s infallibility mean for the average Christian seeking to be guided by Scripture? If the final stage of receiving Scripture rests in our fallible understanding, why is the infallibility of the original documents so important? This is a practical question that bears heavily on the Christian life.
Suppose two people read a portion of Scripture and cannot agree on its meaning. Obviously one or both of them misunderstand the text. The debate between them is a debate between fallible people.
Suppose, however, that the text is clear and that neither person disputes its meaning. If one of them is convinced that the text is God’s infallible revelation, then the question of whether he should submit to it is answered. If the other person is persuaded that the text itself (in its original transmission) is fallible, then he is under no moral obligation to be bound by it.
The Authority of Scripture
The issue of Scripture’s inspiration and infallibility boils down to the issue of its authority. A famous bumper-sticker reads as follows: “God says it. I believe it. That settles it.”
What is wrong with this statement? It adds an element that is unsound. It suggests that the matter of biblical authority is
not settled until the person believes the Bible. The slogan should read: “God says it. That settles it.” If God reveals something, that revelation carries the weight of his authority. There is no higher authority. Once God opens his holy mouth, the matter is settled. This is axiomatic for Reformed theology.
The question of sola Scriptura is fundamentally one of authority. Here the supreme authority rests with the Bible, not the church; with God, not with man. This came home to me in a discussion with a former college roommate. We had lost contact with each other and had not seen each other for twenty years when we met again at a theology conference, where I was speaking on the topic of biblical authority. After the meeting, we had dinner together and my friend said to me, “R. C., I don’t believe in the infallibility of Scripture anymore.”
I asked him what he did still believe in from our earlier days. He said, “I still believe in Jesus as my Savior and Lord.”
I indicated I was pleased to hear this but proceeded to ask, “How does Jesus exercise his Lordship over your life?”
My friend, a bit perplexed by my question, asked, “What do you mean?”
“If Jesus is your Lord, then that means he exercises authority over you. How do you know how he wants you to live if not from the Bible?”
“From the teaching of the church,” he replied.
Here was a “Protestant” who forgot what he was protesting. He had come full circle, jettisoning sola Scriptura and replacing it with the authority of the church. He placed the church above Scripture. This is not unlike what occurred in Rome. Though Rome did not deny Scripture’s infallible authority as my friend did, she nevertheless in a real and critical sense subordinated Scripture to the church.
The subordination of Scripture was a burning issue among the Reformers. John Calvin said: “A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed—viz. that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men. With great insult to the Holy Spirit, it is asked, Who can assure us that the Scriptures proceeded from God[?].…”
Calvin then reminds the reader that the Scriptures themselves (Eph. 2:20) declare that the church is established on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. He continues: “Nothing, therefore, can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted, but, acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent.”
Calvin has in view here the debate over the canon of Scripture. The sixty-six books of the Bible together comprise the canon of Scripture. The term canon means “measuring rod” or “rule.” The Reformers did not recognize the books of the Apocrypha (written during the intertestamental period) as part of the canon. Rome did include the Apocrypha in the canon. Questions of which books are to be included in the canon were debated in the early church. In the final analysis, the church recognized the books that now comprise the New Testament.
Since the church was involved in this process, some have argued that the Bible owes its authority to the church’s authority and is therefore subordinate to the church’s authority. This is the point Calvin so vigorously disputes. He declares that the church “does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted” but acknowledges it as God’s truth. Calvin argues that there is a big difference between the church’s recognizing the Bible’s authority and the church’s creating the Bible’s authority. The church used the Latin term recepimus, which means “we receive,” to acknowledge that books of the Bible are what they already were in themselves, the Word of God.
Luther wrote in a similar vein to Calvin concerning the relationship between the authority of the Bible and the authority of the church: “It is not the Word of God because the church says so; but that the Word of God might be spoken, therefore the church comes into being. The church does not make the Word, but it is made by the Word.” Luther goes on to say: “The church cannot give a book more authority or dependability than it has of itself, just as it also approves and accepts the works of the fathers, but thereby does not establish them as good or make them better.”12
Roman Catholics view the canon as an infallible collection of infallible books. Protestants view it as a fallible collection of infallible books. Rome believes the church was infallible when it determined which books belong in the New Testament. Protestants believe the church acted rightly and accurately in this process, but not infallibly.
This does not mean that Reformed theology doubts the canonical status of books included in the New Testament canon. Some Protestant theologians believe a special work of divine providence kept the church from error in this matter without imparting to the church any permanent or inherent infallibility.
Table 2.2
The Canon
Biblical canon
|
Biblical books
| |
Roman Catholic view
|
infallible
|
infallible
|
Protestant view
|
fallible
|
infallible
|
The Reformed doctrine of sola Scriptura, then, affirms that the Bible is the sole written authority for the faith and life of God’s people. We respect and submit to lesser ecclesiastical authority, but we are not bound by it absolutely as we are by biblical authority. This is the basis for the Reformation principle of semper reformanda, which indicates that reformation of the church is an ongoing process. We are always called to seek more and more to bring our faith and practice into conformity to the Word of God.[2]
Article #2 Inerrancy of the Bible
DEFINITION OF INERRANCY
In the past it was sufficient to state that the Bible was inspired; however, it has now become necessary to define the evangelical position more precisely. The result, as Charles Ryrie has shown, has necessitated the inclusion of additional verbiage. To state the orthodox view it is now necessary to include the terms “verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant, unlimited inspiration!” All this has been necessitated because of those who have retained words like inspiration, infallible, and even inerrant while denying that the Bible is free from error.
E. J. Young provides a suitable definition of inerrancy: “By this word we mean that the Scriptures possess the quality of freedom from error. They are exempt from the liability to mistake, incapable of error. In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth” Ryrie provides a syllogism for logically concluding the biblical teaching of inerrancy: “God is true (Rom. 3:4); the Scriptures were breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16); therefore, the Scriptures are true (since they came from the breath of God who is true).”
In defining inerrancy it is also important to state what it does not mean. It does not demand rigidity of style and verbatim quotations from the Old Testament. “The inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict.” At the Chicago meeting in October 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy issued the following statement on inerrancy: “Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.”
In a final definition it is noted that inerrancy extends to the original manuscripts: “Inerrancy means that when all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything they teach, whether that teaching has to do with doctrine, history, science, geography, geology, or other disciplines or knowledge.”
To suggest there are errors in the Bible is to impugn the character of God. If the Bible has errors it is the same as suggesting that God can fail, that He can make a mistake. “To assume that God could speak a Word that was contrary to fact is to assume that God Himself cannot operate without error. The very nature of God is at stake.”
EXPLANATION OF INERRANCY
Inerrancy allows for variety in style. The gospel of John was written in the simple style one might expect of an unlearned fisherman; Luke was written with a more sophisticated vocabulary of an educated person; Paul’s epistles reflect the logic of a philosopher. All of these variations are entirely compatible with inerrancy.
Inerrancy allows for variety in details in explaining the same event. This phenomenon is particularly observed in the synoptic gospels. It is important to remember that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the writers of Scripture wrote their accounts in Greek, meaning they had to translate the original words into Greek. One writer would use slightly different words to describe the same incident, yet both would give the same meaning, albeit
with different words. There is an additional reason for variety in details. One writer might have viewed the event from one standpoint while the other gospel writer viewed it from another standpoint. This would make the details appear different, yet both would be accurate.
Inerrancy does not demand verbatim reporting of events. “In times of antiquity, it was not the practice to give a verbatim repetition every time something was written out.” A verbatim quote could not be demanded for several reasons. First, as already mentioned, the writer had to translate from Aramaic to Greek in recording Jesus’ words. Second, in making reference to Old Testament texts it would have been impossible to unroll the lengthy scrolls each time to produce a verbatim quote; furthermore, the scrolls were not readily available, hence, the freedom in Old Testament quotes.37
Inerrancy allows for departure from standard forms of grammar. Obviously, it is wrong to force English rules of grammar upon the Scriptures. For example, in John 10:9 Jesus declares, “I am the door,” whereas in verse 11 He states, “I am the Good Shepherd.” In English this is considered mixing metaphors, but this is not a problem to Greek grammar or Hebrew language. In John 14:26 Jesus refers to the Spirit (pneuma = neuter) and then refers to the Spirit as “He” (ekeinos = masculine). This may raise an English grammarian’s eyebrows, but it is not a problem of Greek grammar.
Inerrancy allows for problem passages. Even with so vast a work as the Holy Scriptures, it is impossible to provide solutions to all the problems. In some cases the solution awaits the findings of the archaeologist’s spade; in another case, it awaits the linguist’s research; in other cases, the solution may never be discovered for other reasons. The solution to some problems must be held in abeyance. The answer, however, is never to suggest there are contradictions or errors in Scripture. If the Scriptures are God-breathed they are entirely without error.
Inerrancy demands the account does not teach error or contradiction. In the statements of Scripture, whatever is
written is in accord with things as they are. Details may vary but it may still reflect things as they are. For example, in Matthew 8:5–13 it is noted that the centurion came to Jesus and said, “I am not qualified.” In the parallel passage in Luke 7:1–10 it is noted that the elders came and said concerning the centurion, “He is worthy.” It appears the elders first came and spoke to Jesus, and later the centurion himself came. Both accounts are in accord with things as they are.
PROBLEMS IN REJECTING INERRANCY
Errantists conclude that errors can teach truth. They suggest it is unimportant to defend the Bible’s accuracy concerning “minute details of chronology, geography, history, or cosmology or … alleged discrepancies. However, matters of chronology, geography, history, and so forth, are not unimportant. Frequently, they are intertwined with significant theological truths. For instance, the historicity of Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 and 2 is important because Paul draws an analogy between Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12–21. If Adam is not historical the analogy breaks down. The chronology of Matthew 1 is important for it details the lineage of Jesus Christ. If His lineage is inaccurate, what can be said concerning the account of His life? The geography of Micah 5:2, announcing Christ’s birth as being in Bethlehem, is important because the same verse also teaches the eternality of Christ. If the geography concerning Christ cannot be believed, can His eternality be believed?
The conclusion is obvious: if the Bible cannot be trusted in matters of chronology, history, and geography, it cannot be trusted in the message of salvation.
Errancy impugns the character of God. As has already been noted, Scripture is the result of the out-breathing of God (2 Tim. 3:16) and the superintending work of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). If the Scriptures contain errors then God erred.
Errantists disagree in listing errors. Errantists each have their own list of errors that differ from one another. “What are the criteria for determining areas in which errors are immaterial? … what or who decides the boundary lines between the territory of permissible errancy and the territory of necessary inerrancy?”
CONCLUSION
Inerrancy is an important doctrine. When correctly understood, it means that the Bible speaks accurately in all its statements, whether theological matters, the creation account, history, geography, or geology. It does, however, allow for variety in details concerning the same account; it does not demand rigidity of style. In all the Bible’s statements it is accurate and in accord with the truth.[3]
[1] Erickson, M. J. (2001). The concise dictionary of Christian theology (Rev. ed., 1st Crossway ed.) (22). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.
[2] Sproul, R. (2000). Grace unknown : The heart of reformed theology (electronic ed.) (48–55). Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
[3] Enns, P. P. (1997). The Moody handbook of theology (166–170). Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.
Comments