The Bible Speaks

Hotly contested today is the notion that the Bible is of any value at all. Of course, the claims range from "a book written by men about myths and fables without any real value or truth" to "the inspired Word of God, inerrant and infallible" and everywhere in between. There are those who claim that it is the Word of God but certainly not without error and certainly not infallible and there are those who claim that it is not the Word of God but is a fine book with lots of good things in it. One thing that most people today are quite sure is that this whole "inerrant and infallible" thing is itself a myth, a lie, a Johnny-come-lately argument tacked on in the last century and certainly not either genuine or useful.

The Bible, as it turns out, would disagree. The claim of the pages of Scripture is that "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (2 Tim 3:16). Some versions say "inspired" or the like, but the word there is unique -- theopneustos. It is a single word constructed of theo, God, and pneustos, breathed, into a single, interlinked word. It wasn't merely "inspired"; it was breathed by God. Dance all you want, but that's what the text says. That's the claim of the Bible.

Peter agreed. "No prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). That's the claim of the Bible. Not human-formed. Not human-superintended. Not merely human writings. The Scriptures are the product of God written through men.

"Oh, sure," some will say, "but that's just a reference to the Scripture of Paul's day, which is only the Old Testament." Well, the Bible would beg to differ. Peter wrote, "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Did you get that? Peter says first that Paul's writings are the product of not human wisdom, but "the wisdom given him". He goes on to say that Paul's writings are there among "the other Scriptures". Thus, the Bible holds that "Scripture" is not limited to the Old Testament, and that all Scripture is God-breathed, the work of the Holy Spirit in certain men selected by God to produce His Word. Jesus Himself recognized the authority of Scripture (Matt 5:18; John 10:35).

This puts an early crimp in the whole "The Bible is a nice book, but not literally 'God's Word'" argument. It demands a level of respect for the Bible that is not equivalent to any human book. It claims for itself to be God's Word.

But is it authoritative? Well, logically this would be a given. If God breathed it, it must be as authoritative as God is. But we're not left to logic here. The Bible says, that Scripture is God-breathed and, therefore, "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). There is the authority claim from Scripture. Teaching offers direction along the path. Reproof provides the indication of deviation from the path. Correction gives the method of returning to the path. Training in righteousness gives us the means of remaining on the path. That path is truth. And the source is Scripture.

But this claim in Scripture is not what makes the Bible authoritative. Clearly the argument will be offered that this is circular. The source of the claim claims that it is God's Word and authoritative. That's a circle. It is undeniably the claim of Scripture, but it is not the reason that Scripture is authoritative. The reason that Scripture is authoritative is that the claim is true -- God breathed it. Thus, the authority of Scripture is not merely on the claim of Scripture that it is God-breathed, but that it is God-breathed and, therefore, has the authority of God behind it. In fact, the Bible itself recognizes this. New Testament authors often refer to Old Testament writings because they are authoritative. And New Testament authors recognize both the human authorship of Scripture (see, for instance, Acts 4:25) and the divine authorship (see, for instance, Heb 1:5). God's Word has authority. The Bible is God's Word. Therefore, the Bible has authority. And if it is God's Word, in what possible sense can it be wrong? (Thus, inerrancy.)

The Bible is not the same as other sacred books. Mohammed claimed that the Q'uran was dictated to him by Allah. Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was also provided in the same manner. The Bible is not a dictation; it is breathed by God and written by men in their language, their vernacular, their wording.

Inerrancy is also a common misunderstanding. The Bible doesn't claim to be a science book. Thus, the use of, as a silly example, "sunrise" doesn't require that the Bible is claiming a geocentric view. Language, poetry, story-telling techniques, speech techniques like hyperbole or metaphor ... all of this work in Scripture and do not allow for a strict standard of "error-free" that we do not apply to any other writing. Beyond that, the biblical demand for "God-breathed" inerrancy does not extend to inerrant copying. A mistake in copying doesn't require that the Bible is in error; it means that the scribe was in error. So we use techniques of comparing manuscripts to get the most reliable outcome. Nor does inerrancy require my defense. It isn't based on my ability to prove that the original texts were without error; it is based on the claim of Scripture that this is God's Word and we know that God doesn't make mistakes.

This brings us to one interesting fact about the Bible, its claim to be God's Word, and the assersion that it is inerrant and infallible. This is not a new assersion. It has been, in fact, the historical position of the Church from the beginning. Augustine wrote, "If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, 'The author of this book is mistaken'; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood." The whole purpose of declaring the canon of Scripture was to hold safe what was Scripture against claims of what was not Scripture. In the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church disagreed with the Reformers on authority. The Reformers claimed "Sola Scriptura" -- Scripture is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice. The Roman Catholic Church claimed not that Scripture was not authoritative, but that it wasn't the sole authority, not that it was in error, but that people had trouble understanding it and needed the help of the Church and Tradition. That is, they agreed that Scripture was without error and authoritative. It was ever thus.

This argument against the Word of God only arose in the Enlightenment of the 18th and 19th centuries which spawned skeptics who assured us that the Bible was not trustworthy, that belief in a "God-breathed Word of God" was nonsense, that miracles were impossible, and that modern science knew much better than any old book. It was in response to this that some raised the "inerrancy" banner. It wasn't a new claim; it was, indeed, an old one. The Fundamentalists and the Evangelicals rose up and stood firmly on the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture in response to these humanist claims against it. And, of course, today this debate rages on.

Those who hold to the belief that the Bible is the Word of God, God-breathed just like it claims, the reliable output from God by the Holy Spirit speaking through men, an output that cannot be in error any more than God can be in error, are in an extreme minority now. The rest stand firmly with one foot in the spiritual grave and the other on a banana peel. Having carefully and methodically removed any sort of firm foundation or solid footing, they now stand against those who, with the saints through the ages, stand firmly on the Word of God as given to us in the pages of the Bible. They complain that we're narrowminded and backward while they don't appear to realize that they're arguing in a vacuum without authority or basis. And still the debate goes on. I suspect, in the end, only those who trust in the reliability of God Himself to speak to His own and provide a written record of it will stand, in the end, on any firm ground. Those, I believe, will be the wheat among the tares.