The Authority of Scripture

Introduction:

If these writings are God’s word to us, then gods word carries authority of god himself. It speaks to us with divine authority.

It speaks to us with divine authority.

Therefore what god says is true.Therefore the bible is inerrant.

Therefore the bible is inerrant.

Scripture in Inerrant

Defining Inerrancy:

Most people simple define inerrancy as: “Everything the bible says is true.”

cannot mean simple: Everything the bible says is true.

But that cannot be and is not a suitable definition.

Why: Because simple put: Not every thing the bible says is true.

The bible records false statements that are not true:

It records false statements made by Job’s poor councillors.

The bible records false statements by jobs councillors

Job 42:7 KJV 1900

And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

Pontius Pilate who mocks truth, and Then of course the bible records statements made by Satan who only lies.

and Then of course the bible records statements made by Satan who only lies.

So one cannot just ay that any verse is true - it must be looked at in context.

This is also true in the literary sense. people cannot be taken as literal fact, its poetry. and hyperbole and metaphor.

Better definition: The bible is truthful in everything that it affirms/teaches.

The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy

The bible is truthful in everything that it affirms/teaches.

Great definition of inerrancy can be found in the Chicago Statement of biblical inerrancy.

History:

The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars,

It was produced for the purpose of announcing what biblical inerrancy is referring to.

Lets go over some key points to help us in our study.

Short statement Paragraph 2:

Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises. The Chicago Statement

Then in Paragraph 4:

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. The Chicago Statement

Note the following highlights:

1: Touches - then, 2: Affirms, then 3: Teaches.

So biblical inerrancy must be defined as being based in the intention of what scripture teaches or affirm.

Another aspect of Inerrancy it the belief in infallibility. Lets look again at the hicago tatement:

lnfallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters. The Chicago Statement

Thats it all Scripture is Reliable.

Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions. The Chicago Statement

That is, all scripture is True.

This is very important and the difference must be noted because the Statement recognises then they there are parts of scripture that are not part of its teachings or assertions. Therefore they go on to say:

Statment recognises then they there are parts of scarypyure that are not parts of its teachings or assertions.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. The Chicago Statement

Very important

Very Important: Best selling religious writer Bart Erman - history.

His Book undermines bible as truthful, full of error and contradictions all because he and many do not understand inerrancy.

Lets me explain this passage:

It was standard and common practice in ancient literally biographies that the author could be free to rearrange events chronologically and to tell them in different order, to group certain themes together for example.

This changing of order was normal back then and should not be seen as error.

We must not look at scripture as a modern day police report where chronology and detail are given first importance, back then, these were of no, or little importance.

Similarly:

Imprecise citation:

OT passages are cited sometimes out of the Hebrew and sometimes out of the Septuagent. This was normal common practice.

Also when the NT was written there was no such thing as citation punctuation marks like quotations.

So writers rarely differentiated between direct and indirect speech, so it would be unfair to point out these as an error today when they would not be seen as an error back then in literally methodology.

It goes on:

When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed. The Chocago Statement

Let me give you a simple Illustration:

Rules of Rugby have changed. Moves might be wrong now, but they were not wrong then, so when we watch an old games we bases the players and their playing on the rules and expectations they were under back then, not on the new rules of today. We cannot say that a player 30 years ago is guilty of a penalty or foul move if no such rule existed 30 years ago.

Similarly, the rules of literature have changed. but when we read and study a text written 200 years ago we must judge that text on the bases of what was expected 2000 years ago.

Very Important: Best selling religious writer Bart Erman - history.

His Book undermines bible as truthful, full of error and contradictions all because he and many do not understand inerrancy.

Let me give examples of what the Chicago Stament meamns in that last quote

Examples:

Chronological Inconsistency:

We have lots of examples of ancient biography of various Romans and Greeks. Socraties, Achilies, hippocraties...

The purpose of these writings was not to tell a series of chronological events from cradle to grave, But rather highlights from his/her life.

The gospels are written to these same standards.

John and Mark don’t even start with birth but pick up midday through and the writers felt free to mention various teachings, events and miracles in different order.

Classic example:

Mathew, Mark and Luke - cleansing of temple by Jesus takes place in the passion week.

John - cleaning is very early, right at the beginning.

Many sincere christens try to harmonise this apparent inconsistency by assuming there are 2 cleansing events. one at the start and one at the beginning.

But this is really forcing a non issue and it creates even more inconsistencies and problems.

Why then do Matthew, Mark and Luke not record this first cleansing?

Why is the language used the EXACT same in all the”first” and then “second” cleansing?

No biblical scholars assert this double event. The Geneva study, Matthew Henry Study, Calvin commentaries, With the Word Study, The Baker Exegetical study.... none force this issue.

Its an artificial assertion based on a forces harmonisation.

But as you can see from the definition of inherency- its not an inconsistency at all!

John putting it at the beginning does not pose any problem and breaks no literacy rule of the time.

Bart Erman

Hyperbole Usage:

More subtle it the claim that scripture is true in everything that it teaches.

One has to ask of every passage: What is the teaching of this passage? What is this passage trying to teach us?

Example:

Mark 4:30–32 KJV 1900

And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.

mk

mark 40:30-32

Question: What is the teaching topic of this passage? It this passages trying to teach us about the kingdom of God or botany?

question:

It this passages trying to teach us about the kingdom of God or botany?

So Jesus is free to use hyperbole with regard to his statements on seeds to teach his point about the kingdom of God. Perhaps this is the smallest seed that his audience knew bout, or were familer with. It would be no good jesus talking about microscopic fungal pores...

So there are smaller seeds than the mustard seed. But Jesus is not teaching about the mustard seed is he? so his hyperbole that the seed is the smallest is not an error in the bible.

To say this is an error is to miss the point or teaching of the passage - inerrancy means that the bible is true in all that it teaches.

Such an importatnt doctrine:

The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.