Throughout history, the church has rarely seen an attack on the inerrancy, inspiration and authority of the Bible of the magnitude of modern debates—debates which really only gained academic credibility in the last two centuries and popular consensus within the last generation. And make no mistake, the attack against inerrancy is inextricably linked to inspiration—certainly in the way we have traditionally responded to our critical scholars. By proving the words of the Bible are accurate, we are, at the very least implicitly, answering the attack on the inerrancy of Scripture. Therefore, the answers to inerrancy and inspiration will be given together.

Inspiration, like its sister doctrine, inerrancy, is not something invented by theologians and forced on the church—the arguments for them arise from the Bible and are based upon the internal consistency of the Bible. And make no mistake, the Scriptures are equated with God’s revelation in words (Matt. 19:4-5; Heb. 3:7; Acts 4:24-25; see also 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21).

This truth is something that we have seen throughout this series, most recently in Aaron’s post offering a definition of verbal plenary inspiration. My goal in this post is to build upon these truths we’ve already discussed by addressing the question of how Jesus understood (and understands) the Bible before looking at four important conclusions on the matter of why this doctrine really does matter.

How Jesus Understood (and Understands) the Bible

As we look to Scripture, it’s crystal clear that Jesus recognized the authority and inerrancy of Scripture—indeed, the way he uses it explicitly affirms their inspiration. He made constant appeal to it when tempted by Satan (Matt. 4:1-11) and used it often in his ministry to defend his actions (Matt. 11:15-17, 26:54-56). This demonstrates the authority Jesus placed in the Scriptures, but we are not left to make assumptions on the basis of Jesus’ actions alone. He, on at least four occasions taught the Scriptures in such a way as to make clear His position on inerrancy.

In a confrontation with the Sadducees over the doctrine of the resurrection, which that group denied, Jesus silenced His opposition, arguing the entire resurrection belief on the tense of a simple verb, “to be” (Matt. 22:32). Jehovah had told Moses at the burning bush, “I am the God of Abraham,” but as Jesus implied, Abraham had been dead 480 years when the statement was made. Arguing that God was the God of the living, not the dead, Jesus claimed life after death must be true. Jesus used the tense of a verb to prove Abraham was not simply physically dead, but was living in the presence of God. The fact that Jesus used a word and it’s tense to demonstrate His deep confidence in inspiration and inerrancy. Continue Reading…

There’s been quite a few posts here lately about the nature and authority of the Bible—and for good reason. As Christians, we are to be people of the book. Men, women and children who observe and obey God’s Word, who love it and long to know the God who reveals Himself through it.

There’s an important question that comes up when we start trying to understand the nature of Scripture, and that is: What do we mean when we say that the Bible is inspired? Do we mean the same thing as when we say that a great song, book or movie was inspired? Or is there something else going on that we need to wrap our minds around?

My goal in this post is relatively simple: I want to provide you with a ground-level understanding of the doctrine of inspiration that will help you as we continue on in this series looking at the nature of Scripture and its implications.

“Verbal Plena—what now?”

The doctrine of inspiration has to do with the origins of Scripture—where it came from and how it came to be. Theologians like to refer to it with a fancy term: “verbal plenary inspiration.” (I dare you to say that three times fast.) Despite being a painfully vague term (not to mention being a bit of a tongue twister), the concept behind it is pretty simple. In a nutshell, the term means is that every word of Scripture is inspired by God and written down by human authors. Inspiration in this view is not limited merely to ideas but to exact words—indeed, every “iota” and “dot” as Jesus says in Matt. 5:18. Every word is there because God intended it to be so.

But let’s break this term down in a little more detail:

Verbal. This term addresses subject. And the subject being defined is the words of Scripture. Simple enough, right? Let’s move to the next point.

Plenary addresses scope or extent. In other words, all the words of Scripture are equally inspired, from the most incredible description of a battle or miracle to the most detailed instruction about how the Israelites were to dress. There aren’t some parts that are more or less inspired than others.

Inspiration addresses method of transmission. God guided the human authors of Scripture—“carried them along by the Holy Spirit,” as Peter wrote—using their unique perspectives, writing styles and experiences to record the exact message He desired to be expressed to humanity.

Clear as mud? Alright, let’s look quickly at the Scriptural support for such a notion.

Where does the Bible Talk about Inspiration?

Biblically, the two passages that deal most directly with this idea are found in the epistles of Paul and Peter:

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable…” (2 Tim. 3:16, emphasis added).

“…no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (1 Pet. 20-21, emphasis added). Continue Reading…

With the creation of the first man and woman, God saw “everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” The divine work of creation was now complete. Genesis chapter two leaves us with a picture of the “very good”-ness of creation as the man and the woman enjoy a perfect relationship with one another, with the rest of creation, and most importantly with their Creator. It was a world in which poverty could not exist. A world free from any material, relational, or spiritual need. It’s the world we still long for today.

In this perfect world, there was only one rule, found in Genesis 2:16-17: “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” We don’t know how many days, months, or years passed, but for some time Adam and Eve obeyed that single command. Then the serpent came, a cunning creature that was no mere reptile. He was apparently the devil himself, come with one agenda: to tempt God’s image-bearers to reject their Creator.

What makes the serpent so cunning is that he doesn’t grandstand. His technique for tempting Adam and Eve to disobey God is subtle and understated. He starts by simply slithering up to the woman and starting a conversation.

“Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” the serpent asks. At first glance, it almost sounds like the serpent is merely asking for clarification. But something else is going on. God had made a ruling about one single tree. By suggesting that God’s prohibition extended to every tree, the serpent misrepresents God. He also positions Eve to begin to think differently about God and his commands. That’s the way temptation is: subtle, multi-layered, and easy to miss.

The serpent’s temptation leads Eve to fix her eyes on what she doesn’t have—freedom to eat of the fruit of this one tree—rather than on all that God has graciously provided, and this discontentment gives the serpent his opportunity to strike. You can almost hear the twisted delight in his voice as he says, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

With Eve already contemplating disobedience, the serpent gives her a final incentive to sin: she will be like God. If she does the one thing she is forbidden from doing (eating from that particular tree) she will have the one thing she does not now possess: a supposed equality with God—the God who suddenly seems so unreasonable and oppressive.

All it took was a single question—a conversation starter—to move Eve along the serpent’s train of thought. She went from devoted follower and faithful friend of God to not merely doubting God’s goodness, but wanting to be like him.

—from Awaiting a Savior, pp. 14-16

Today’s post continuing our series on the doctrine of inerrancy is by Dave Jenkins, Director of Servants of Grace.

The doctrine of inerrancy means that the Bible is entirely truthful and reliable in all that it affirms in its original manuscripts. The Bible does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. As Aaron pointed out last week, the Bible’s authority is derived from the character and authority of God. A tree has a root structure that supports the base and the weight of the tree. Inerrancy is the root structure and base upon which the doctrine of Scripture is built. God has given special revelation of Himself, and inspired His servants to record it. Believers want assurance that the Bible is a dependable source of revelation from and about God. The doctrine of inerrancy gives believers the assurance that God’s Word is without error, and entirely reliable in all that it teaches.

Inerrancy, the Church and Cults

There is evidence that when a theologian, school or a movement begins by regarding biblical inerrancy as unimportant or optional, and abandons this doctrine that such a move is frequently joined by other doctrines such as the deity of Christ or the Trinity. Church history is the laboratory in which theology tests its ideas. From church history one learns that moving away from the doctrine of inerrancy is to move away from the complete trustworthiness of Scripture. This move away from the doctrine of inerrancy is a serious step not only because of what it does to one’s doctrine of Scripture, but because of what happens to other doctrines as well.

Some may object at this point that I am overstating my case about inerrancy. Inerrancy is a test for orthodoxy, but it is not a test for salvation. One can deny inerrancy and be saved, but he/she is being inconsistent in his/her beliefs. All salvific truths are found in the Bible, but how can one trust those salvific truths without inerrancy? What if the salvific statements are wrong? To be consistent in her/her beliefs, one should affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. Further, one can be orthodox or evangelical in all other areas and still be unorthodox on inerrancy. For example, the neorthodox theologian Karl Barth affirmed the Virgin birth, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and Christ’s bodily resurrection, but denied the inerrancy of Scripture.

Inerrancy is not only an issue that is facing the Church, but it is also one that is under attack from cults. The Mormons teach that the Bible is correct only so far as it is correctly translated. It is basically trustworthy according to them. It is the only one of the four standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price) and is not considered infallible. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God but only in so far as they use their own translation (New World Translation) as the basis of their belief in inerrancy.¹

Over and against all of these views is what the Word of God says about itself. The Bible teaches that it is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, most prominently in 2 Timothy 3:16—“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” All Scripture in distinction “from the sacred writings” in 2 Timothy 3:15 means everything which, through the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the church, is recognized by the church as canonical, that is, authoritative. Paul is referring here to the Old Testament, and later “all scripture” at the close of the first century A.D. had been completed. Continue Reading…

To deny the irresistibility of God’s saving grace is to say that God can be resisted, against His will, by mere man. The Scriptures teach us that no one can thwart God’s will (Eph. 1:11) or stop His hand (Dan. 4:35), and the electing God is the calling God (Rom. 8:29-30). Thus, salvation is monergistic grace (Eph. 2:1-10); it is not a work that we accomplish in whole or even in part (2 Tim. 1:9). It is not a joint venture between the Holy Spirit and us; we do not even cooperate in bringing about our salvation. The elect are not born again because they believe; rather, they believe because they are born again by the Spirit of God (1 John 5:1).

A rather legalistic Christian once criticized another Christian’s testimony, saying: “I appreciated all you said about what God did for you. But you didn’t mention anything about your part in it.”

“Oh yes,” the other Christian said. “I apologize for that. I really should have said that my part was running away, and His part was running after me until He caught me.”

Monergistic grace comes to us at enormous cost. The good news of the gospel is that the cost of our sin was paid by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not by us. Pardon and forgiveness did not come to us at a moment of God’s weakness; they came when He was being most mighty. His righteousness, justice, and truth are maintained when He adopts believing sinners into His family. The law came by Moses, but grace comes in Jesus Christ (John 1:17). God condones no sin, not even when He shows mercy to us.

Adapted from Joel R. Beeke, Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism (Kindle Edition)

Today’s post is by Dr. Brian Mattson, Senior Scholar of Public Theology for the Center For Cultural Leadership, continuing his series on The Apostles’ Creed. You can fan his Facebook page (Dr. Brian G. Mattson), follow him on Twitter ( @BrianGMattson), and read his blog (www.drbrianmattson.com).

…and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord…”

Outside of the anomaly of Latino and Hispanic communities, there are not a lot of boys running around with the name “Jesus.” While I have no explanation whatsoever for the use of the name in those particular communities, I suspect that its absence among other cultural groups signals a lingering sense of reverence for the name. Somehow in the Western world people have named their children after dozens of biblical characters, yet “Jesus” is a name usually reserved for Jesus of Nazareth. To see that this is unique, one only has to ask how popular “Mohammed” is among Muslims.

Ironically, some parents would never dream of naming their child “Jesus,” and settle instead for “Joshua,” not realizing that they are the same name! Jesus is simply the Greek version of “Yeshua,” or “Joshua,” and it means “God saves.” And there we find the reason the name is so reserved for Jesus of Nazareth. There were lots of little “Joshuas” running around in Jesus’ time, but none of them wore the name the way Jesus did. For Jesus was, in the truest sense possible, “God saves.” He is the perfect embodiment of God’s saving action in the world. He is the Anointed One, the One by Whom God would rescue and save his people. The word for “Anointed One” is messiah or “Christ.” “Christ” is not Jesus’ last name. It is his office. It is the role he fulfills. He is anointed to be the one who would mediate between God and humanity. He is Immanuel, “God with us.”

And that is what the Apostles’ Creed confesses. After telling us the identity of the one in whom we believe, “Jesus Christ,” the creed tells us two relationships Jesus has. First, Jesus is “his only Son.” He is his Father’s Son. He has a unique relationship on the divine side of things. But this Jesus Christ is also “our Lord.” He has a unique relationship on the creaturely side of things, as well, a relationship with us. We are really confessing what the Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…” A mediator is somebody who stands “between” two parties. And in order to bring about a reconciliation between two parties, he must have a relationship with the two parties. And this is expressed for us in the creed by declaring that Jesus is God’s “only Son”—that is his relationship to His Father—and “our Lord”—his relationship to us. Continue Reading…