![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/21\/2015\/04\/ben-white-181034.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIn my immediately preceding essay in this series I wrote about \u201crevelation\u201d and argued that good Christian theology is based on revelation reasonably interpreted using tradition, reason, and experience. I suggested also that the Bible is the primary source<\/em> of revelation for \u201cdoing theology\u201d in the sense of critiquing messages claimed to be \u201cChristian\u201d and constructing doctrines for all Christians.<\/p>\n However, all who have read the Bible carefully and especially all who have studied it know it has problems; it is not a \u201cperfect book\u201d if you\u2019re looking for a system of doctrines dropped from heaven to earth, as it were. It\u2019s a collection of various kinds of literature written over a long period of time by different kinds of people with different purposes in mind.<\/p>\n It seems ludicrous to me to think that if someone could go back in time and tell all or even some of the human authors of scripture that someday someone would compose a system of truth, like a philosophy, based on what they wrote, they would be bemused.<\/p>\n And yet, that development seems\u2014with hindsight\u2014inevitable. But I won\u2019t go into that here. I will just say that, apparently, to me, anyway, the Bible is NOT a not-yet-systematized systematic theology or philosophy. And I consider it unfortunate that some Christians treat it that way and attempt to create such systems and claim that they are functionally equivalent with the Bible itself. (I won\u2019t name any such Christians but only say that anyone who has studied the history of Christian theology knows to whom I am referring.)<\/p>\n *Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the \u201cNote to commenters\u201d at its end.*<\/em><\/p>\n Here I will describe a number of Christian views of the Bible in broad categories and with broad descriptions. Know that each one contains different versions that have some major viewpoint about the Bible in common.<\/p>\n First, many Christians throughout history, since the Bible was written and canonized (but even before the New Testament was finally canonized), have viewed it as a book or collection of books (writings) dictated by God. <\/em>There are places in their writings, for example where third century Christian scholar Origen and sixteenth century Christian reformer Luther treated the Bible this way. That it was dictated by God left open how it should be interpreted and they disagreed about that. But the issue here is not the history of the Bible\u2019s interpretation but the history of Christian thought about what the Bible is<\/em>.<\/p>\n Second, many modern Christians, especially in the 19th<\/sup> through the 21st<\/sup> centuries have viewed the Bible as \u201cour sacred stories\u201d only and not as supernaturally inspired or authoritative. Such modern, \u201cliberal Christians\u201d often consider other<\/em> religions\u2019 scriptures as their sacred stories<\/em> but eschew devotion to any book as authoritative.<\/p>\n Third, most conservative Protestants and Catholics have viewed the Bible as the \u201cinspired and inerrant (or infallible) Word of God written\u201d and thus supremely authoritative. For Catholics this means alongside a certain strand of extra-biblical tradition that does not contradict the Bible<\/em>. For Protestants this means above all tradition<\/em>. For conservative Protestants since the Reformation the Bible is the supreme source and norming norm<\/em> of all religious belief and practice. Underlying this view of the Bible is the belief that it is verbally inspired by God<\/em> and that God is its ultimate author<\/em>.<\/p>\n Fourth, and I will end with this one while acknowledging that I cannot cover all the myriad of Christian beliefs about the Bible, for many 20th<\/sup> and 21st<\/sup> century Christians, especially so-called \u201cneo-orthodox\u201d or \u201cdialectical\u201d theologians, the Bible is God\u2019s unique instrument and witness to Jesus Christ who is revelation in person<\/em>. The Bible \u201cbecomes the Word of God\u201d when a person is drawn by it into decision-making encounter with God. For the person totally outside such encounter the Bible is simply a religious text with no authority or power.<\/p>\n Again, I know there are other Christian views of the Bible, but I think the majority of Christian views of the Bible fall somewhere near one or more of these categories.<\/p>\n Each one of these views has strengths and weaknesses\u2014from a modern (and I don\u2019t mean liberal) perspective. The idea that the Bible was dictated by God is fraught with difficulties. So are all the views. On the other hand, the idea that the Bible is our sacred stories can hardly be rejected except insofar as it claims to say everything about the Bible that needs to be said. The first one (dictation) does not do justice to the humanness of the Bible. The second one (our sacred stories) does not do justice to the divine aspect of the Bible (viz., its inspiration).<\/p>\n Jumping now over many questions and issues I will tackle the one that consumes the most attention and energy among especially conservative Protestants in at least Great Britain and America and places where conservative Protestants from those countries have gone as missionaries to found churches: the question of the Bible\u2019s accuracy<\/em>. This is also known as the inerrancy controversy<\/em>.<\/p>\n I have studied this question, this issue, this controversy from every possible angle. I have read scores of books about it and have written some chapters about it. In the very conservative Christian church I grew up in the word \u201cinerrancy\u201d was not used. \u201cInspired and infallible\u201d was how the Bible was described. Then, during my seminary career, the great \u201cinerrancy controversy\u201d broke out with the publication of a book entitled The Battle for the Bible<\/em> (1976). The controversy had been simmering beneath the surface of conservative Protestantism for a long time\u2014at least back to the mid-19th<\/sup> century\u2014but now, with that book\u2019s publication, it broke out into internecine theological warfare.<\/p>\n Every evangelical theologian and many pastors were forced to declare themselves either for<\/em> or against<\/em> the \u201cinerrancy of the Bible in the original autographs.\u201d Many books were written; many statements were issues. Some Statements of Faith were re-written to include \u201cinerrancy.\u201d Seminary professors were fired; pastors lost their churches. Denominations divided. Ironically, the National Association of Evangelicals\u2019 Statement of Faith did not include \u201cinerrancy.\u201d It describes the Bible as infallible. Are those the same? Some said yes; others said no.<\/p>\n \u201cBiblical inerrancy\u201d became a litmus test and sometimes a shibboleth used to decide who is and who is not authentically evangelical (meaning truly conservative, biblically committed Protestant Christian).<\/p>\n Story: In 1984, at the height of the \u201cinerrancy controversy,\u201d I applied to teach theology at a mainstream evangelical college and seminary. The denomination that operated the institution had\/has a Statement of Faith that includes that the Bible is inerrant (or without error) in the original autographs. During my interviews (three levels) I brought this up and said that I was not committed to the word \u201cinerrancy\u201d (or the phrase \u201cwithout error\u201d) even though I believed the Bible is supernaturally inspired and the supreme authority for Christian belief and practice. Fortunately for me, before any of the interviews, a friend on the faculty gave me an unpublished statement about the Bible written by John Piper when he interviewed to teach there. He had some concerns about the word \u201cinerrancy\u201d as well. So earlier (he was no longer on the faculty when I interviewed and then was hired) had written this two page essay full of qualifications about \u201cinerrancy.\u201d What it came down to was that he affirmed \u201cinerrancy\u201d insofar as it means \u201cperfect with respect to purpose.\u201d (I considered and still do consider \u201cinfallible\u201d a better term for that than \u201cinerrant.\u201d) I used that unpublished Piper statement about \u201cinerrancy\u201d throughout my interviews. Everyone knew that it was accepted by the faculty and administration as sufficient for hiring Piper as he has been on that faculty for a few years earlier. (By that time he had moved on to pastor a local Baptist church.)<\/p>\n The rest is my history\u2014I was hired with the understanding that I did not like the terms \u201cinerrant\u201d or \u201cinerrancy\u201d or even \u201cwithout error\u201d but that I could live with them and teach in accordance with them so long as I understood them to mean \u201cperfect with respect to purpose.\u201d<\/p>\n Just out of curiosity I sent Piper\u2019s two page essay about the Bible\u2019s accuracy (perfect with respect to purpose) to Carl F. H. Henry, the \u201cdean of evangelical theologians, and asked if he considered it a sufficient equivalent of \u201cbiblical inerrancy.\u201d My specific question to him was whether \u201cperfect with respect to purpose\u201d could be a sufficient definition of \u201cinerrancy\u201d when used about the Bible\u2019s accuracy. He wrote back with a \u201chard no\u201d (to borrow a phrase from a current commercial for a television series I haven\u2019t watched and probably won\u2019t). In essence he said \u201cThat would be a \u2018hard no\u2019.\u201d Well, I tend to agree. To the \u201cperson in the pew,\u201d anyway, \u201cinerrancy\u201d means something much stronger\u2014in terms of absolute, technical, detailed accuracy of every sentence\u2014than \u201cperfect with respect to purpose.\u201d All through my fifteen years teaching at that college and seminary I showed Piper\u2019s essay to students and colleagues and explained that this is what I mean when I affirm \u201cbiblical inerrancy.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n So what is the Bible\u2019s purpose with regard to which it is perfect? I believe it is to draw us into communion with God with all that that entails. I believe it is also to reveal needed information about God for Christian worship, devotion, moral living, ethical action, and teaching and preaching.<\/p>\n *Note to commenters:<\/em> This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives\/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and \u201con topic.\u201d Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger\u2019s (or guest writers\u2019) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A Series: Christian Theology\u2014Answers to Questions: Six: What Is the Bible? In my immediately preceding essay in this series I wrote about \u201crevelation\u201d and argued that good Christian theology is based on revelation reasonably interpreted using tradition, reason, and experience. I suggested also that the Bible is the primary source of revelation for \u201cdoing theology\u201d […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":58,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6909","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n