The Bible is the foundation of our faith and morals and precepts and our spiritual life itself.

Let’s begin.

I.. Introduction

A.. Historical view

The history of the church teaches me that the church fathers believed in inerrancy. For a quick overview, please watch this video by the Gospel Coalition, a Reformed organization.

The Doctrine of Inerrancy Is a Hill to Die On – Wes Huff

Jesus himself believed in inerrancy, so says the link. I agree. This is not to say there are no puzzles in the Bible, but the idea is that God’s word is trustworthy because God is trustworthy, and he inspired the Bible.

However, we don’t need to make our view of scripture so rigid that it becomes unrealistic. We need to strike a balance between what inerrancy actually looks like and what it does not. Let’s learn as we go.

B. Different views

All Renewalists have a range of beliefs about the Bible. Some insist on its inerrancy and / or infallibility in some categories, like doctrine and practice. Some insist on total inerrancy even in historical and cultural data and doctrinal areas. Some say the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture is wide open and let’s not impose foreign categories on a library of books (the Bible is a library). Others say all of Scripture is inerrant and infallible in all areas, even down to the very syllables.

To understand the trends, we need an historical perspective on the battle for the Bible, since the 1970s. I write from a Renewal perspective.

C.. The purpose of this post

Let’s explore and come to a consensus, if we can, so we can be confident that the word of God is reliable, accurate, authoritative, and inerrant.

II.. Reasonable Statement about Scripture

A.. Statement

Building on those diverse Statements of Faith about Scripture in the previous section, this one seems reasonable (to me at least):

The Bible is God’s word, inspired by the Spirit, culturally and historically reliable and accurate, and the only inerrant and authoritative rule of faith, doctrine, precept, and practice.

B.. Exposition

That is a fair statement of the Bible’s overarching themes and purposes, after the collation and sifting through the manuscripts that we hold in our hands today, without depending or focusing on the no-longer existing autograph manuscripts. The descriptors “culturally and historically reliable and accurate” come from the evidence outside of the Bible and confirms it (e.g. Jerusalem really is located in the South, and Galilee in the North; and Assyria and Babylon really conquered ancient Israel and Judea, respectively). This phrasing is therefore based on induction, not deduction.

On the other hand, the descriptors “inspired by the Spirit” and “inerrant and authoritative rule” are deductive or comes from the Scriptures’ self-testimony. The Scriptures are “God breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16). Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit inspired the Psalms and Psalmist (Matt. 22:43; Mark 12:36). The apostolic community also affirmed the Spirit spoke through the Psalmist (Acts 1:16; 4:25-26). Paul believed the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophet Isaiah (Acts 28:25-27). Jesus said the Scriptures cannot be broken or set aside (John 10:35). He gave a long Bible lesson to his disciples, after his resurrection because he believed the Old Testament was authoritative and inspired (Luke 24:27; 44-47).

Then a transition was taking shape. The earliest church listened and devoted themselves to apostolic teaching as if it were Scripture (Acts 2:42). The Greek word for devoted implies that they considered their teaching to be authoritative, particularly since the twelve spent time with Jesus from the beginning (Acts 1:22). Luke believed—and he was reflecting the belief of the earliest Christians—that Jesus instructed the apostles through the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:2). Thus for the earliest church, Jesus’s words, as eventually recorded in the four Gospels, were inspired by the Spirit, just like the Old Testament writers were. Paul affirmed that his words, which were not based on human wisdom, but were taught through the Spirit, and Spirit-taught words, were authoritative (1 Cor. 1:13). The other teachers, like Apollos or Priscilla and Aquila, did not have the same testimony as Paul did. All in all, the teachings of Jesus and the apostolic community were also Scripture, equivalent to the Old Testament.

If, however, some cultural and historical and scientific details and some verses in Scripture do not match up, then there is no need to reject the Bible. That would be over-reactive and simplistic and brittle. The Bible is not brittle, and neither should our respect for it be brittle.

To explain the second half of the statement, the Spirit inspired the authors of the Bible, so it is an inerrant guide to teach the Church what she needs for faith and practice, for guidance, for moral and personal growth in Christ, and for its basic doctrines: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). There is nothing in those verses about total inerrancy and infallibility in history and science.

See, for example, this post:

13.. Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?

C.. The universality and applicability of the Bible

The Bible, though ancient and emerging out of the ancient Near East, then the Roman empire, and Israel, which was part of the Roman empire, is universal and applicable to the world today.

Second Timothy 3:16-17 is broad enough to include the world. The Bible is a universal and relevant communication to people outside the Church

¹⁶ All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, ¹⁷ so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Since the Bible is God-breathed, the world can also enjoy a salvific and relational knowledge with the Father, in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit. The Bible speaks with divine clarity and God-backed authority for everyone.

In Acts 2:43, the people “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching.” It was inspired teaching because it was rooted in the Old Testament and Jesus commissioned them. If people devote themselves to it, then we can conclude that it was becoming the church’s Scripture as well. They did not read the Old Testament without the apostolic teaching to guide them, as Peter’s numerous references to it in his sermons in Acts 2, 3, and 4, and then in other teachings by other men of God throughout the book of Acts. Today we have the Scriptures in the four Gospels, Acts, the epistles and even the Revelation, if it is interpreted properly.

III.. Canon of Scripture

A.. Meaning

“Canon” in Greek means measuring stick or yardstick (a meterstick!). It is the norm or standard by which we measure or size up all ideas. The canon of Scripture is the measuring stick by which we measure all other doctrines and truths flooding society, right now with the web.

In this series I won’t discuss how we got the canon. I accept that they are the 66 books in the Bible, 39 in the OT and 27 in the NT. Nor do I discuss the apocrypha or the deuterocanonical books. I don’t consider them God-breathed or inspired by the Spirit.

For this series (and me), it is all about the Bible. It fills my plate with plenty of work and divine truths to study.

Here they are:

Source: Google AI (I didn’t want to write out all the books!)

B. Competing texts

The recognition of the canon did not happen in an historical vacuum. What were the competing writings and genres in the second to third centuries? We can even look into the first century in some cases.

• Historical writings (Josephus)
• Philosophical writings (Stoics, Philo, Epicureans)
• Biographies (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, Philostratus the Life of Apollonius of Tyana, without a Jewish context in Israel and other major differences from the four Gospels. Go here for a good list and here).
• Gnostic texts (many of them, all bizarre)
• Satire (Lucian)
• Greek novels
• Speeches by moralistic pagan orators (Dio Chrysostom)
• The later “Acts,” written in the mid-to-late second and third centuries: the Acts of John, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of Andrew, and the Acts of Thomas.
• And so on

C. Explaining the differences

The point to this list: in the early church the writings of the New Testament were easy to contrast with the above list. Spotting the differences did not even need a special council, nor special knowledge to see them. The authors lived later and had different intentions in the writings. And so the New Testament canon clearly presented itself, particularly in contrast to the Gnostic texts. Everyone could see it, just like we can today. The competing texts were and are easy to deny for canonicity.

For example: the later Acts. It is easy to see why scholars reject any claim that they are canonical. In Acts of John, a young man repents by cutting off his private parts and throwing them before his adulteress-mistress (Destruction of the Temple of Artemis 53). Necrophilia is described (Drusiana and Callimachus 70). In the Acts of Thomas, a demon has sex with a woman (Fifth Acts 42). It may be true that these “apostles” travel from city to city, but the books stray far from history and biblical morality, as if they do not even try to root their stories in time and place. There is no eyewitness testimony. These Acts are fake and diabolical fakes (I’m not afraid to say it in the “Age of Tolerance”).

Another example: the Greek novel. Here the events and people seem real. Typically, the young hero and heroine are arranged to be married, but they are separated and are compelled by circumstances and fate to go on adventures, before they are reunited and live happily ever after. They travel to cities with accurate names (e.g. Ephesus, Aphrodisias, Syracuse, Alexandria, or Tyre), islands (e.g. Lesbos or Chios), regions (e.g. Egypt, Syria or Phoenicia), people with the right title (e.g. first man, law clerk, shepherds, priestesses) and events (e.g. shipwrecks, confronting pirates, slave markets, meeting realistic, average people). But these characters also dance with nymphs.

The strong point in these novels is verisimilitude (literally “truth-like”). They couch these charming fictions in real-life scenarios and scenery to give them the air of realism. The audiences who heard them read out loud could relate and no doubt smiled and chuckled and sometimes felt the drama in these fictional stories.

However, the big difference between the Greek novel and our Book of Acts is seen in their intention, sources, and technique.

The intention of the novelists was to provide entertaining fictional stories. When people gathered around to listen to the stories read aloud, they knew what they were getting. They were not about to hear Thucydides or Polybius, both of whom wrote what, for the audience, had to be boring ancient history. These novels succeeded because the novelists intended to entertain their audiences.

The novels’ sources were the imagination of the writer; an expert could tell us whether there were earlier fictions, but then this would still be proto-entertaining fictions from the imagination of earlier writers.

Their technique is to invent entertaining plots and characters and events from their imagination.

Gnosticism: An Introduction

Ancient Heresy of Gnosticism and Its Postmodern Teachers

For a good offsite resource about the development of the canon, please go to this link:

Michael J. Kruger, The Complete Series: 10 Misconceptions About the NT Canon, 24 Aug. 2012.

IV.. Four Characteristics of Scripture

A.. The authority and inerrancy of Scriptures

We look into this topic in the next post.

B.. The clarity of Scripture

This is also called perspicacity or perspicuity. The Bible is clear on how we can know God through his Son, how to experience salvation, how we can live a life of godliness, or how we can live moral lives in society, to name only those areas. Other passages may be difficult to understand because of the cultural distance between us and the Bible. But hard work can often bridge the cultural gap. Right relationship with God and our fellow humans are not so difficult to grasp.

We will look further into clarity, in Parts Two and Three.

C.. The necessity of Scripture

It means that without it we would be lost in our Christian faith. We would not know who Jesus was except for a few aspects here and there. Is he just a moral teacher and good example? Or is he the mighty Son of God? We would not know what the gospel is without it. Is it anything goes? Sloppy grace? We would not have the Ten Commandments. Maybe we should commit adultery! We would not know God’s will for our lives. We might get into a complicated marriage with an unbeliever.

And so we need Scripture for the foundation of our faith and relationship with God.

D.. The sufficiency of Scripture

It contains all we need to live in right relationship with God and other people, in other words, salvation and social righteousness or right behavior. We don’t need other holy books like the Quran or the Buddhist scriptures. We don’t even need wholesome books that expand on Scripture, like an exposition of the Ten Commandments. These books may be edifying, and you can read them for your learning and edification, but they are not authoritative or inerrant. Only Scripture has those doctrines that provide for us all we need for faith and practice. And we don’t need an infallible interpreter of Scripture, like a magisterium. The sufficiency of Scripture is sola scriptura  (Scripture alone).

V. Reflections

A.. Practicing the Bible

Doing what the Scriptures say is more important than certain words in a Statement of Faith. We should actually live Scripture in the power of the Spirit. “Therefore, everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Matt. 7:24). Let me reemphasize: this looks more and more like Jesus’s words are inspired and authoritative and becoming unerring Scripture, even surpassing the Old Testament for the very earliest church. In our day, they are indeed inspired and authoritative and unerring Scripture. Let’s not read the Old Testament without The New Testament.

Putting his words, including the charismata or gifts of the Spirit, into practice explains why the Renewal Movement are the fastest growing sectors in the global church. (And I pray for this to happen for the next great and global revival.)

Christianity Is Fastest Growing Religion in World

Therefore, there is no urgency to insert “total inerrancy” or “total infallibility” in the statement. However, it is no fault if a church decides to insert those words, either.

B.. Scripture alone

Therefore no Christian should regard the Bible lightly, but to see it as still inspired, authoritative, and inerrant for theology doctrine and Christian life and morals. It is highly reliable and accurate on cultural and historical matters. Though an ancient text, it is relevant and applicable to the needs of the world today. And the New Testament should not be unhitched from the Old Testament. Both are authoritative and inerrant, though the Old is incomplete without the New.

We see Scripture as so authoritative and sufficient in itself that for us it is sola scripture (Scripture alone in our churches).

LONGER POST

Sec. 2, 1 Bibliology, Doctrine of the Bible: The Basics

RELATED

1. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Introduction to Series

2. Archaeology and the Synoptic Gospels

3. Archaeology and John’s Gospel

4. Did Jesus Even Exist?

5. The Gospel Traditions

6. Reliable Gospel Transmissions

7. What Is the Q ‘Gospel’?

8. Did Some Disciples Take Notes During Jesus’ Ministry?

9. Authoritative Testimony in Matthew’s Gospel

10. Eyewitness Testimony in Mark’s Gospel

11. Eyewitness Testimony in Luke’s Gospel

12. Eyewitness Testimony in John’s Gospel

13. Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?

14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels

15. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Conclusion

Church fathers and the authorship of the four Gospels

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel

Reliability of the New Testament Manuscripts (Part 4 is the summary)

1. New Testament Manuscripts: Preliminary Questions and Answers

2. Basic Facts On Producing New Testament Manuscripts

3. Discovering And Classifying New Testament Manuscripts

4. The Manuscripts Tell The Story: The New Testament Is Reliable

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works Cited