Books on theology often start with a prolegomenon, offering a basis for determining truth. FST builds on the truths revealed in the OT and NT.
The prolegomenon may be the most extended portion of a theology book because the basis of truth should determine all the conclusions throughout the theological perspective that is presented. However, I am not going to offer a lengthy prolegomenon. I have chosen to offer a brief description of how I value the Bible, and then show throughout the body of this work how I use the Bible as our source of truth.
I have accepted the apostle Paul’s evaluation that “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim. 3:16). Although Paul probably had the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) in mind when he wrote this, I accept the view of the historic Church that both the OT and NT are inspired by God. Inspired means “breathed upon,” and in the context of Scripture, we are saying God inspired the original writers to write what they wrote.
God’s inspiration gives the Scripture divine authority.
However, people, like me, who accept the inspiration of Scripture, often miss the value inherent in the Scripture simply because of its human authorship. In the Holy Book, we have over 1,400 years of documentation concerning God’s interactions with this world, along with the thoughts of various individuals and their understanding of God’s ways. Contributing to those thoughts are some of the most influential people in history, such as Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, Paul, and Jesus.
Please understand what I am saying here. Christians value the Scripture above all else because of God’s inspiration. However, even without that inspiration, the collection of writings we know as the Bible is invaluable because of the historical figures who contributed to those writings. If we had a similar collection of the writings of other noted historic figures—such as Plato, Pharaoh, Julius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Augustine, Mohammed, and so forth—each explaining their understanding of God and how He influenced them, that collection would be priceless. It would be studied and dissected by scholars around the world. The Bible is such a collection.
Yet Christians recognize that all the authors of the Bible wrote about the one true God. Most of those authors claimed to have had first-hand experience with God. They recorded how and what God communicated with them. They testified to miracles that they accredited to the One God.
Most profoundly, they did not disagree or argue with one another concerning who that One God is. The consistency is astounding when we realize that about 40 authors over 1,400 years contributed to the Bible.
Their understanding of God has been preserved and passed on to us so successfully that today, it is the Book in more homes and hearts than any other book.
The Bible also records the actions and words of Jesus Christ, who has the largest following of any leader in human history.12 This is the Jesus with whom millions have fallen in love. Most of what we know about Him is written on those Holy Pages.
We also value the Bible because it is the foundation of Christianity. Paul explained that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). If indeed we want to keep the Church firmly established upon that foundation, we must pay attention to the writings of the prophets in the OT and the writings of Jesus’ apostles in the NT.
When discussing how one values the Bible, it is common to categorize Christians as “liberals” or “Evangelicals.” Unfortunately, Christians do not have one dictionary upon which they all agree for definitions of key words, but many theology teachers will agree with the following definitions.
When we talk about liberals in the context of how one values the Bible, we are talking about Christians who believe the Bible is inspired by God but they mean this in the sense of the Bible being inspirational, able to inspire godly values and ideals in the reader. However, liberals do not usually believe the miracles referred to in the Bible ever took place, and they will say there are some errors and contradictions in the Bible, so it should not be taken literally.
In contrast, Evangelicals13 do believe in the miracles recorded in the Bible, including the virgin birth, divine healing, multiplying bread, and the resurrection of Jesus. Furthermore, Evangelicals believe we should use the Bible as our standard for truth in developing Christian doctrine.
Evangelicals sometimes divide themselves into categories when discussing how they value the Bible. They will use the words infallible and inerrant. When Evangelicals say the Bible is infallible, they are usually saying the Bible will not deceive because it is perfectly accurate in matters pertaining to Christian faith and living. When Evangelicals say the Bible is inerrant, they are usually saying the Bible is without any errors, including scientific and historical accuracy.14
Various Views on How to Value the Bible
- Liberal: inspirational, able to inspire godly values and ideals in the reader
- Evangelical: accurate; miracles are true; we should use the Bible as our standard for truth in developing all Christian doctrine
- Infallible: will not deceive, being perfectly accurate in matters of Christian faith and living
- Inerrant: without any errors, including scientific and historical accuracy15
Some Evangelicals will use both words, saying the Bible is infallible and inerrant, thus emphasizing their confidence in the accuracy of the Bible in every way.
Some Evangelicals will say the Bible is infallible but not inerrant. They are using the word infallible to say there are no errors on subjects related to the Christian faith or practice. However, Evangelicals who say the Bible is not inerrant are usually saying there may be minor errors in the Bible, but those errors are not related to fundamental Christian truths. Those Evangelicals may also be expressing their doubts about the Bible’s historical and scientific accuracy, especially about God creating the world in six days, a few thousand years ago, as a literal understanding of Genesis would lead one to believe.
At this point, readers who are making a serious attempt to understand FST will want to know where I am positioned on this subject. I am an Evangelical in reference to my understanding of the Bible.16 I believe all the miracles recorded in the Bible, including the virgin birth, divine healing, multiplying bread, and Jesus’ resurrection, really did happen. I also believe we should use the Bible as our standard for truth in developing Christian doctrine.
Before I align myself with infallibility and/or inerrancy, I want to identify with another term that has recently become popular. I take the Bible seriously. Using this terminology, “seriously” gets right to the appropriation of the Book we claim to believe. In contrast, someone may say the Bible is infallible and/or inerrant but not necessarily apply it to their life. Anyone who takes the Bible seriously will diligently try to live according to its teachings.
I take all of the Bible seriously, but concerning the terms infallible and inerrant, I must introduce another factor before telling you where I align my teaching. There is something more significant in determining how Christians interpret and value the Bible. It has to do with what Bible verses a person dismisses as not relevant. There are many ways in which Bible teachers accomplish this or at least try to justify it.
For example, many ministers, Bible schools, and denominations are cessationists, which refers to their view that certain Bible passages were applicable during the early Church but are not today. The most noted cessationists claim that miracles and divine healings happened during the 1st century of the early Church, but God no longer does miracles or divine healings.17 Modern Evangelical Christians who hold to a cessationist view may say the Bible is infallible and inerrant; however, they have effectually dismissed specific Bible passages as not applicable today.
Another way Christian individuals and groups dismiss certain Bible passages is via dispensational thinking,18 which is a view that divides the Bible into distinct periods, then claims God acts in a specific way during each period. Dividing the Bible in this way allows dispensationalists to dismiss large parts of the Bible as belonging to another period and, therefore, not relevant today.
Other Christians dismiss sections of the Bible by explaining how they were culturally relevant during a specific time and/or with a particular group of people but are not culturally relevant to us today.
By mentioning a few of these methods through which Christians can dismiss parts of the Bible, I do not mean to imply all or any of them are wrong. They each have some valid points and may allow the readers to view the Bible in ways that reveal specific truths. However, I mention them simply so you will recognize how all Evangelical Christians, even those who say they take the Bible inerrantly, infallibly, and seriously, have ways to dismiss some Bible passages as not relevant.
Perhaps the most subtle way Christians dismiss Bible passages as not relevant is by labeling them “figures of speech,” not to be taken literally. To see this, consider how Christians who hold to inerrancy versus infallibility are often distinguished from one another by their understanding of the Creation account in Genesis 1. Those holding to inerrancy typically believe in a literal six-day Creation approximately 6,000 years ago. In contrast, those who hold to infallibility but not inerrancy are more open to scientific evidence for an old earth and/or some type of evolution, at least among plants and animals.
These different understandings of Genesis 1 are not the result of one group thinking there are errors in the Bible, while the other group says there are no errors. The primary difference stems from the reader’s understanding of whether the writer of Genesis 1 used figurative language, such as a parable or a poem.
Both camps, Evangelicals who hold to infallibility and Evangelicals who hold to inerrancy, believe God inspired the words written by the author of Genesis 1. Christians in both camps may believe the writer accurately wrote what God wanted him to write. Their differences concerning whether to consider Genesis 1 as scientifically and historically accurate result from the reader’s decision about what form of communication is being used in Genesis 1.
To understand any passage of the Bible, readers must determine what form of communication is being used. Almost all Christians who take the Bible seriously believe the Bible uses figures of speech when referring to the finger or wings of God. Christians also believe Jesus used parables to teach spiritual principles; therefore, those parables should be taken seriously but not literally.
How should we decide which passages are figures of speech? This is a question of hermeneutics, a theological term referring to our methods of interpreting the Bible. I will stand by the most fundamental hermeneutical standard: “A Bible teacher should say what the author said.” Therefore, if the writer was using a figure of speech, I will do my best to teach the relevant passage as a figure of speech. If the writer meant it literally, I will do my best to teach it literally.
Of course, understanding what the human author said often requires the study of the original languages and understanding the historical setting, along with identifying the audience and culture. Once a Bible teacher has become well-acquainted with these factors, they should communicate as accurately as possible what the author intended to say.
This is not to deny that sometimes God reveals truths beyond what the human writers were trying to communicate. For example, God spoke through some of the OT prophets without the prophets being fully aware of what God was saying through them. Indeed, God is the Ultimate Author of the Bible, and the Bible teacher should also say what the Ultimate Author said.
In recent years, some Bible teachers have embraced a Christocentric hermeneutic, which holds that all Scripture should be viewed through the lens of God’s character and nature as revealed in and through Jesus. Of course, elevating Jesus as the most accurate revelation of God is correct and invaluable. Our understanding of every Scripture passage should align with our knowledge of the nature of God.
However, the Christocentric hermeneutic19 can also be used as another method to dismiss parts of the Bible as untrue. Some Christians pick and choose Bible passages that focus on specific aspects of Jesus’ nature, especially those aspects that show Jesus as passive, and then reject any Bible passage that shows God as not similarly passive. The Christocentric method sounds noble and proper when explained by adherents, but it usually results in the Bible reader devaluing the authority of Scripture. The Christocentric method often results in subjugating what the Bible says to the reader’s diminished version of Jesus. I find such manipulation of Scripture as disingenuous. Jesus did not come to reveal some other God than the one that Israel already worshiped. Jesus came to reveal the God of the OT more fully and clearly.
I will align my understanding of Scripture to my knowledge of Jesus. Still, it is the Jesus who submissively gave His life on the cross, conquered His enemies in the Book of Revelation, and will judge the world in the end (Is. 53:7, Rev. 19:11–16 & Acts 17:30–31). In other words, I hold to a higher value of Scripture than what can be subjugated to a passive version of Jesus.
Though I hold the Scriptures as my final authority in establishing truth related to Christian doctrine and practice, I am not comfortable identifying myself as holding to inerrancy or infallibility. That seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Once a Bible teacher aligns themselves with inerrancy or infallibility, they have put themselves in a box and should continue interpreting the Scripture according to the label to which they have claimed allegiance. It seems to me a Bible teacher should reverse that order.
Compare this to one’s trust in science. My first university degree was a Bachelor of Science. During my studies, I learned to put trust in what I was learning. However, I also learned about numerous mistakes made in various scientific endeavors. I will always have some level of trust in science, but I reserve the right to continue evaluating what I am hearing from the scientific community.
With a similar perspective, I study the Bible. I take the Bible seriously and believe it is inspired by God, but I am in an ongoing investigation of the Book. For over 40 years, I have averaged more than 6 hours every day studying, teaching, and writing about what the Bible teaches. During those 40-plus years, I have studied with four different seminaries and learned from some brilliant Bible instructors. More importantly, I have lived with the Holy Book during 45-plus years of marriage, including raising a family and living through daily successes and failures. Through all this, I have been continually awed by the light shining from those holy pages. I expect to continue interacting with the Bible for the rest of my life.
My ongoing interaction with the Book leads me to trust what is written there. Therefore, I use the Bible, confident that it is trustworthy. However, I do not trust the Bible because I have unquestioningly accepted it as infallible and inerrant. Instead, I presently trust the Book because my ongoing interactions with the Book continue to convince me it is trustworthy and true. Furthermore, the experiences described by the Bible’s authors correspond with my experiences with God.
Therefore, I will do my best to communicate faithfully with you what the authors of the Bible were communicating.
12: Some may disagree with this point, claiming instead that Abraham has the largest following since he is considered a forefather of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Indeed, Abraham is the forefather of a greater number, but people do not follow Abraham in the sense of listening to and following his teachings.↩︎
13: The word “Evangelical” means different things in different contexts and in different parts of the world. Here, I am referring to Christians who believe the Bible is inspired by God and, therefore, believe that a person must be born again to be saved.↩︎
14: Many teachers will qualify their belief in inerrancy, saying the manuscripts that were written by the original human authors were without error, but the scribes who recopied the manuscripts time and again may have made some errors. Teachers who point this out, may still hold to inerrancy, but they are applying the term to the original manuscripts, called the autographs.↩︎
15: Instead of identifying “inerrancy” as a way in which some Evangelicals value Scripture, some teachers separate it from Evangelicalism and align it with fundamentalism.↩︎
16: In some contexts such as in American Christian bookstores, Evangelicals are usually separated from Charismatics, but the definition of Evangelical used here includes Charismatics because Charismatics believe the Bible is inspired and that a person must be born again to be saved.↩︎
17: The label “cessationist” is sometimes used to refer to Christians who claim the gifts of apostle and prophet were for the 1st century Church but are not for today.↩︎
18: Dispensational thinking will be explained in IX:A.↩︎
19: Different Bible scholars have offered various versions of Christocentric hermeneutics, but I am especially critical of the version offered by Karl Barth and how his followers have used Christocentric hermeneutics to devalue Scripture.↩︎