DOCSLIB.ORG

Biblical Inerrancy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biblical Inerrancy Biblical Inerrancy by Stephen L. Andrew Introduction This article first examines the history of the debate over biblical inerrancy within modern evangelicalism. Second, it examines traditional arguments both for and against inerrancy. We will demonstrate that inerrancy is an important doctrine to promote and defend, but caution is urged in choosing arguments to support it. Not all arguments for inerrancy are valid. At the outset it seems appropriate to consider definitions that have been offered for the doctrine of inerrancy. Paul D. Feinberg presents an excellent definition from the perspective of an advocate: Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences.1 Article XII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy offers a similar affirmation in support of the doctrine: We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific 1 Paul D. Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 294. Biblical Inerrancy 3 hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.2 For the purposes of this article, we shall understand “inerrancy” in light of both of the above definitions. Alternative understandings of inerrancy have been proposed. Millard Erickson has identified at least three theories. The first is “absolute inerrancy,” which is represented by the preceding definitions. The second is “full inerrancy,” represented by Roger Nicole and arguing that historical and scientific matters are “correct” but “not necessarily exact,” because they are only “popular descriptions.” Finally, there is “source inerrancy,” represented by Edward J. Carnell and Everett F. Harrison; they argue that inerrancy guarantees “only an accurate reproducing of the sources which the Scripture writer employed, but not a correcting of them.”3 This article considers arguments against inerrancy only from the point of view of Protestant evangelicalism, which applies an essentially grammatical-historical hermeneutic to Scripture and confesses Scriptural authority. Critics of inerrancy who come from this perspective often identify themselves as “limited inerrantists” (following B. B. Warfield’s original designation4) or as advocates of “biblical infallibility.” To limit confusion, I shall refer to this position as “limited inerrancy.” A good definition of this approach follows: The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of 2 “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” appendix to Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 496. 3 James Leo Garrett, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 166. That Harrison held to this view is supported by Clark H. Pinnock, Biblical Revelation—The Foundation of Christian Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1971), 77. 4 Warfield himself disagreed with limited inerrancy, as will be later demonstrated. 4 CTS Journal 8 (January–March 2002) faith and practice. In these senses, I personally hold that the Bible is infallible but not inerrant.5 A Brief History of the Inerrancy Debate It is necessary to provide a preliminary introduction to the history of the modern debate over inerrancy to contextualize the arguments offered on either side. Most historians agree that the opening shots in the debate among evangelicals were fired in the late 19th century. B. B. Warfield, probably the foremost American conservative theologian of his time, argued extensively for biblical inerrancy. James Orr, who insisted on limited inerrancy, opposed Warfield.6 Later, in the 20th century, G. C. Berkouwer took up Orr’s standard and, arguing primarily against Warfield’s view, delivered what remain perhaps the strongest arguments yet for limited inerrancy.7 The debate began to heat up in the 1960s, when Dewey M. Beegle published a scathing attack on inerrancy.8 But it was in 1976, with the publication of Harold Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible,9 that all figurative hell broke loose. In this book Lindsell documented the increasing movement toward limited inerrancy in 5 Stephen T. Davis, The Debate about the Bible: Inerrancy versus Infallibility (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 23. Throughout this article, all italics within quotations are in the original. In J. I. Packer, Beyond the Battle for the Bible (Westchester, Ill.: Cornerstone Books, 1980), 51, Packer opposes the distinction between infallibility and inerrancy: “Attempts such as that of Stephen Davis to affirm biblical infallibility while denying biblical inerrancy are the expedients of individuals with two convictional horses to ride—religious certainty about the Bible’s power, and intellectual uncertainty about its full truth.” 6 Garrett, 162; Pinnock, 77. 7 See Henry Krabbendam, “B. B. Warfield Versus G. C. Berkouwer on Scripture,” in Geisler, 413-46; Packer, 53–56. 8 Dewey M. Beegle, The Inspiration of Scripture (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963). 9 Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976). Biblical Inerrancy 5 evangelical circles, including various seminaries,10 denominations, and parachurch groups. He named offenders’ names and mounted a vigorous (if not entirely scholarly) defense of inerrancy as a cardinal doctrine of orthodoxy. The reactions on both sides were extraordinary. Fuller Theological Seminary printed a defense of its position in a special issue of its in-house alumni newsletter, following up with a symposium of essays defending limited inerrancy, edited by Fuller professor Jack Rogers.11 In the meantime the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (I.C.B.I.) arose to defend inerrancy and released its Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in 1978. The following year Lindsell released his sequel, The Bible in the Balance,12 which responded to the criticism generated from the previous volume and traced the progression of limited inerrancy during the intervening three years. That same year, Jack Rogers and Donald McKim published The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach,13 which argued that the contemporary notion of inerrancy was novel in the history of the Christian church. This of course provoked a firestorm from the inerrantists and further stoked the fires of debate. The debate has died down somewhat since the 1980s, but the issues (and the wounds) still linger. The eminent evangelicals who joined the battle over the years for inerrancy include: Lindsell, Earl D. Radmacher, Carl F. H. Henry, James I. Packer, John D. 10 Lindsell, a founding professor of Fuller Seminary, hit that institution especially hard. The seminary was particularly vulnerable, insofar as it had always tried to combine conservative, evangelical fervor with responsible critical scholarship. Matters were not helped by the publication of Professor Paul K. Jewett’s Man As Male and Female, in which he argued that “the apostle Paul erred on the matter of the subordination of a wife to her husband, which is taught in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians” (Lindsell, 118). The seminary faculty formally disavowed Jewett’s conclusions, but took no further disciplinary action against him. 11 Jack Rogers, ed., Biblical Authority (Waco, TX.: Word, 1977). 12 Harold Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979). 13 Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979). 6 CTS Journal 8 (January–March 2002) Woodbridge, John Warwick Montgomery, James Montgomery Boice, Francis Schaeffer, E. J. Young, R. C. Sproul, Norman L. Geisler, John H. Gerstner, Gleason L. Archer, and the very early Clark H. Pinnock. The eminent evangelicals who joined the battle over the years on the side of limited inerrancy include: Beegle, Jewett, Davis, Rogers, McKim, Daniel P. Fuller, George E. Ladd, William S. LaSor, Charles Kraft, Robert Mounce, and F. F. Bruce.14 Arguments for Inerrancy I should acknowledge at the outset of this section that I am personally sympathetic to inerrancy. This is why I shall first discuss the methodological ground rules for the evaluation of the arguments presented. Next, I shall consider the slippery-slope argument. Third, I will evaluate the epistemological argument, followed by the historical argument. Finally, I will examine the biblical argument for inerrancy. Preliminary Considerations Before we examine the arguments themselves, it is necessary to clarify some preliminary points. The hinge on which the debate swings is hermeneutical. There are very few inerrantists who argue for an objective inerrancy, in which statements in Scripture ought to be interpreted apart from their grammatical and historical contexts. For example, an objective inerrantist would argue that when Christ said that the mustard seed “is the smallest of all the seeds” (Matthew 13:31-32),15 He meant the mustard seed is indeed the smallest seed in all the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biblical Exegesis in African Context
    Biblical Exegesis in African Context Frederick Mawusi Amevenku Senior Lecturer, Trinity Theological Seminary, Legon-Accra & Research Associate, Stellenbosch University, South Africa Isaac Boaheng Research Fellow, University of Free State, South Africa Series in Philosophy of Religion Copyright © 2021 Vernon Press, an imprint of Vernon Art and Science Inc, on behalf of the authors. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Vernon Art and Science Inc. www.vernonpress.com In the Americas: In the rest of the world: Vernon Press Vernon Press 1000 N West Street, Suite 1200 C/Sancti Espiritu 17, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 Malaga, 29006 United States Spain Series in Philosophy of Religion Library of Congress Control Number: 2021936399 ISBN: 978-1-64889-176-2 Cover design by Vernon Press. Cover image: Education photo created by wirestock / Freepik. Product and company names mentioned in this work are the trademarks of their respective owners. While every care has been taken in preparing this work, neither the authors nor Vernon Art and Science Inc. may be held responsible for any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by the information contained in it. Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in
    [Show full text]
  • Inerrancy and Church History: Is Inerrancy a Modern Invention?
    MSJ 27/1 (Spring 2016) 75–90 INERRANCY AND CHURCH HISTORY: IS INERRANCY A MODERN INVENTION? Jonathan Moorhead Instructor, The Master’s Academy International, Czech Republic The claim that the church has always believed in the inerrancy of Scripture has been challenged for over a century. In particular, it has been charged that the doc- trine of inerrancy was invented by Princetonian theologians and proto-fundamental- ists. This article will show from primary resources that this claim is without warrant. ***** In 1970, Ernest Sandeen (Macalester College) claimed that nineteenth-century Princeton theologians A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield created the doctrine of iner- rancy to combat the burgeoning threat of liberalism.1 In particular, Sandeen posited that the doctrine of inerrancy in the original autographs “did not exist in either Europe or America prior to its formulation in the last half of the nineteenth century.”2 In 1979, Jack Rogers (Fuller Seminary) and Donald McKim (Dubuque Theological Seminary) wrote, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Ap- proach, which popularized this theory on a broad scale. Over the past forty years, the conclusions of Sandeen, Rogers and McKim have affected how many Christians think about the doctrine of inerrancy. Namely, if the doctrine of inerrancy was not promoted throughout church history, why should the church fight for it now? 1 Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800– 1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Sandeen did not originate this charge. As early as 1893 Philip Schaff claimed, “the theory of a literal inspiration and inerrancy was not held by the Re- formers” (quoted by B.B.
    [Show full text]
  • THS 571 Theology of the Believers Church Tradition
    1 THS 571 Theology of the Believers Church Tradition Class notes for Fall, 2010 – Spring, 2011 Compiled and arranged by Dr. Archie J. Spencer © Do not Copy without permission These notes are provided as a favor to students to help them follow the lectures and engage in discussion. They are a work in progress still needing some editing and correction. All suggestions for improvement and lists of errata welcomed. Hope you find them helpful nevertheless. They are required reading for the course. 2 THS 571 Theology of the Believers Church Tradition Session I Toward a Working Definition of the Believers Church Tradition Introductory Comments a) What do we mean by Believers Church Tradition - When I was first informed that I would be teaching a course called “Believers Church Theology” I was initially amused at the strange title. After some consideration, realizing that I myself stood in a “Believers Church Tradition” of sorts, I wondered what such a course would and should look like. You are probably wondering as well. What follows is an extended definition that draws on the history of theology, systematic theology and applied ecclesiology, which can be found, in various ways and shapes in the traditions represented here at ACTS. - Such a course, however, will always be taught from the differing perspectives within the ACTS consortium, and, while I will do my level best to be comprehensive across these traditions, it is a given that my perspective will often reflect the Baptist tradition in which I now stand. I make no apologies for this, but do wish to encourage the class to engage in dialogue with myself and other colleagues, from their own perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inerrancy of Scripture, Kevin Vanhoozer
    The Inerrancy of Scripture: By Kevin Vanhoozer, Senior Lecturer in Theology and Religious Studies at New College, University of Edinburgh – Republished with permission from Latimer House 131 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7AJ Whereas inspiration concerns the origin of the bible's authority, inerrancy describes its nature. By inerrancy we refer not only to the Bible's being 'without error' but also to its inability to err (we might helpfully illustrate this point by comparing it to the distinction between Jesus' sinlessness or being without sin, on the one hand, and his impeccability or inability to sin on the other). Inerrancy, positively defined, refers to a central and crucial property of the Bible, namely, its utter truthfulness. The basis for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is located both in the nature of God and in the Bible's teaching about itself. First, if God is perfect – all knowing, all wise, all-good – it follows that God speaks the truth. God does not tell lies; God is not ignorant. God's Word is thus free from all error arising either from conscious deceit or unconscious ignorance. Such is the unanimous confession of the Psalmist, the prophets, the Lord Jesus and the apostles. Second, the Bible presents itself as the Word of God written. Thus, in addition to its humanity (which is never denied), the Bible also enjoys the privileges and prerogatives of its status as God's Word. God's Word is thus wholly reliable, a trustworthy guide to reality, a light unto our path. If the biblical and theological basis of the doctrine is so obvious, however, why have some in our day suggested that the inerrancy of the Bible is a relatively recent concept? It is true, as some have suggested that the inerrancy of the Bible is a relatively recent concept? Is it true, as some have argued, that the doctrine of inerrancy was 'invented' in the nineteenth century at Princeton by B B Warfield and Charles Hodge and is therefore a novelty in the history of theology? In answer to this question, it is important to remember that doctrines arise only when there is a need for them.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Writing Your Exegesis Paper of a Psalm
    1 Guidelines for Writing an Exegesis Paper Prepared by Ross Cole, March 28, 2011 The Goal of Exegesis An exegesis paper attempts to understand a passage in terms of its original context. Our goal in ministry is to apply the text to our present context. Application is not the same thing as exegesis. Nevertheless, exegesis must come first, if we as inspiring yet uninspired teachers are to make accurate applications to contemporary situations. Organizing Your Paper Exegesis is normally defined in terms of three contexts: Historical context Literary context Linguistic Context There are characteristically a number steps involved in establishing each of these, and we will here deal with each of them in order. However, these contexts and steps are listed in an order, simply because it is impossible to describe them all in one breath. There is nothing sacred about the sequence, and each context and step may interact with other contexts and steps. There may be better ways of organizing the final paper than just following the order below. What is important is that the paper needs to exhibit a logical flow. By the end of the paper, you need to present a wholistic understanding of the passage, in accordance with how the first readers/listeners would have understood it. It should not be like a string of disconnected beads (as one lecturer describe an exegesis paper I did as an undergraduate student). It should instead be like a stew with the aromas of the different ingredients mixed together. Use of Sources The exegetical methodology here described is meant to give you a certain independence from commentaries and other sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of the Problem 1
    Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF OPEN THEISM WITH THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY A Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology by Stuart M. Mattfield 29 December 2014 Copyright © 2015 by Stuart M. Mattfield All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with all things, the first-fruits of my praise goes to God: Father, Son and Spirit. I pray this work brings Him glory and honor. To my love and wife, Heidi Ann: You have been my calm, my sanity, my helpful critic, and my biggest support. Thank you and I love you. To my kids: Madison, Samantha, and Nick: Thank you for your patience, your humor, and your love. Thank you to Dr. Kevin King and Dr. Dan Mitchell. I greatly appreciate your mentorship and patience through this process. iii ABSTRACT The primary purpose of this thesis is to show that the doctrine of open theism denies the doctrine of inerrancy. Specifically open theism falsely interprets Scriptural references to God’s Divine omniscience and sovereignty, and conversely ignores the weighty Scriptural references to those two attributes which attribute perfection and completeness in a manner which open theism explicitly denies. While the doctrine of inerrancy has been hotly debated since the Enlightenment, and mostly so through the modern and postmodern eras, it may be argued that there has been a traditional understanding of the Bible’s inerrancy that is drawn from Scripture, and has been held since the early church fathers up to today’s conservative theologians. This view was codified in October, 1978 in the form of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.
    [Show full text]
  • THE EXEGETICAL ROOTS of TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY MICHAEL SLUSSER Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pa
    Theological Studies 49 (1988) THE EXEGETICAL ROOTS OF TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY MICHAEL SLUSSER Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pa. N RECENT YEARS systematic theologians have been showing increased I interest in studying the doctrine of the Trinity. An integral part of that study should be an exposition of the origins of the doctrine. The question of origins can be posed in an analytical fashion, as Maurice Wiles has done: .. .we seem forced to choose between three possibilities: either (1) we do after all know about the Trinity through a revelation in the form of propositions concerning the inner mysteries of the Godhead; or (2) there is an inherent threefoldness about every act of God's revelation, which requires us to think in trinitarian terms of the nature of God, even though we cannot speak of the different persons of the Trinity being responsible for specific facets of God's revelation; or (3) our Trinity of revelation is an arbitrary analysis of the activity of God, which though of value in Christian thought and devotion is not of essential significance.1 I think that this analytical approach is in important respects secondary to the genetic one. The first Christians spoke about God in the terms which we now try to analyze; surely the reasons why they used those terms are most relevant to a sound analysis. The main words whose usage needs to be fathomed are the Greek words prosöpon, hypostasis, ousia, andphysis.2 Prosöpon is the earliest of these terms to have attained an accepted conventional usage in early Christian speech about God, and therefore the chief determinant of the shape which the complex of terms was to take.
    [Show full text]
  • Patristic Exegesis and Theology: the Cart and the Horse
    WTJ 69 (2007): 1-19 HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL STUDIES PATRISTIC EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY: THE CART AND THE HORSE DONALD FAIRBAIRN his article grows out of two dominant perceptions that I have developed Tthrough my work with theological students and teachers. The first of these perceptions is that there is strong and growing interest in patristic interpretation of the Bible among evangelical biblical scholars and theologians. The second perception is that virtually all biblical studies students and professors I have encountered are working from a model for understanding patristic exegesis that is inadequate and does not reflect what patristics scholars have been writing about patristic exegesis for the last several decades. I have in mind the model that divides patristic exegesis into two competing—and largely mutually exclu- sive—schools, one based in Antioch and the other in Alexandria. Now I should hasten to add that the inadequacy of such a model is not some- thing that biblical scholars and theologians could necessarily have recognized themselves, and I hope that nothing I am about to write will be taken as a criti- cism of contemporary biblical scholars. Rather, the prevalence of this model is an unfortunate example of the way the scholarly arena sometimes works. What patristics scholars were saying seventy or eighty years ago about patristic exege- sis has worked its way into the historical theology, church history, and herme- neutics textbooks in the last forty or fifty years. As American patristics scholar Charles Kannengiesser recently pointed out, a great deal of work on patristic exegesis done by biblical scholars from about 1950 onwards treated the literal and figurative senses of biblical passages not as interpretive options for the texts under investigation, but rather as general exegetical methods, and these methods were bound to local ‘‘school’’ requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • The Doctrine of Satan
    Scholars Crossing The Lucifer File Theological Studies 5-2018 The Doctrine of Satan Harold Willmington Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lucifer_file Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Willmington, Harold, "The Doctrine of Satan" (2018). The Lucifer File. 1. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lucifer_file/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Theological Studies at Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Lucifer File by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE DOCTRINE OF SATAN I. The Existence of Satan – There is scarcely a culture, tribe, or society to be found in this world that does not have some concept or fear of an invisible evil power. This has been attested by Christian missionaries and secular anthropologists alike. Witch doctors, shrunken heads, voodoo dolls, and totem poles all give dramatic evidence of this universal fear. One may well ask where this fear came from and of whom are they afraid. The study of the doctrine of Satan may not thrill the soul of man, but it will answer these questions. A. His existence is doubted by the world. 1. As shown by the typical “Walt Disney cartoon concept” – Most of the world today pictures the devil as a medieval and mythical two-horned, fork-tailed impish creature, dressed in red flannel underwear, busily pitching coal into the furnace of hell.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evangelical Theological Society and the Doctrine of the Trinity Kevin Giles
    EQ 80.4 (2008). 323-338 The Evangelical Theological Society and the doctrine of the Trinity Kevin Giles Kevin Giles served as an Anglican rector in Australia for 38 years. He now lectures, writes, travels and helps with grandchildren. This paper was read at the 2006 Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in Washington, DC. KEY WORDS: Arianism, being, Christoiogy, Father, Wayne Grudem, George Knight Ill, role, Son, submission, subordination, Bruce Ware, women. In America the Evangelical Theological Society is a very significant organiza­ tion with over four thousand members. It claims to be the voice of conservative evangelical scholarship. In its Doctrinal Basis only two matters are made funda­ mental to the evangelical faith: belief in the inerrancy of the Bible in its original autographs and belief in a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three 'uncre­ ated' persons, who are 'one in essence, equal in power and glory'.! In the history of the ETS the first fundamental belief has caused many a painful disruption in the evangelical family, the second has not. In this paper I argue that critical consideration should be given to what several leading theologians of the ETS are teaching on the Trinity because it would seem to implicitly contradict what the ETS statement of faith says on the Trinity. ETS members are bound to believe that the three divine persons are one in essence and equal in power. To argue that the Son is eternally subordinate in authority to the Father, denies that he is equal in power with the Father and the Spirit and by implication, that he is one in es­ sencelbeingwith the Father and the Spirit.2 The novel post 1970s doctrine ofthe eternally subordinated Son In his highly influential book, New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship The words on the Trinity were added in 1990 to exclude people with a high view of inerrancy who rejected the historic doctrine of the Trinity as spelt out in the Creeds and Reformation confessions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inerrancy and Authority of Scripture in Christian Apologetics
    The Journal of Ministry & Theology 50 The Inerrancy and Authority of Scripture in Christian Apologetics Lee Allen Anderson Jr. INTRODUCTION Scripture’s call to Christians to engage in the apologetic task is markedly obvious. For example, 1 Peter 3:15 instructs believers to always be “ready to make a defense (ἀπολογίαν) to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.” Similarly, Jude 3 exhorts Christians to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” Here, the “faith” refers not to the subjective element of personal trust in the Lord God, but instead to that “body of truth that very early in the church’s history took on a definite form,” that is, the content of Christian faith—doctrinal truth (cf. Gal 1:23; 1 Tim 4:1).1 Implicit in this verse, therefore, is the acknowledgment of the fact that a certain body of doctrinal truth exists, which in turn implies a source or origin for that doctrinal truth. For the Christian, the principle, authoritative source of doctrinal truth is the “God-breathed” holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16). The reliability of Scripture as a standard for Christian doctrine hinges on the fact that, as the inspired word of the true God who does not lie (Num 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18), it is wholly true (Ps 119:160; John 17:17). To echo the words of the longstanding affirmation of the Evangelical Theological Society, “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”2 This affirmation is not a peripheral issue to Christian theology; it is germane to the life of the church and, of logical consequence, the upholding of the Christian faith.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Perspective on Paul: Its Basic Tenets, History, and Presuppositions
    TMSJ 16/2 (Fall 2005) 189-243 THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL: ITS BASIC TENETS, HISTORY, AND PRESUPPOSITIONS F. David Farnell Associate Professor of New Testament Recent decades have witnessed a change in views of Pauline theology. A growing number of evangelicals have endorsed a view called the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) which significantly departs from the Reformation emphasis on justification by faith alone. The NPP has followed in the path of historical criticism’s rejection of an orthodox view of biblical inspiration, and has adopted an existential view of biblical interpretation. The best-known spokesmen for the NPP are E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright. With only slight differences in their defenses of the NPP, all three have adopted “covenantal nomism,” which essentially gives a role in salvation to works of the law of Moses. A survey of historical elements leading up to the NPP isolates several influences: Jewish opposition to the Jesus of the Gospels and Pauline literature, Luther’s alleged antisemitism, and historical-criticism. The NPP is not actually new; it is simply a simultaneous convergence of a number of old aberrations in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. * * * * * When discussing the rise of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), few theologians carefully scrutinize its historical and presuppositional antecedents. Many treat it merely as a 20th-century phenomenon; something that is relatively “new” arising within the last thirty or forty years. They erroneously isolate it from its long history of development. The NPP, however, is not new but is the revival of an old ideology that has been around for the many centuries of church history: the revival of works as efficacious for salvation.
    [Show full text]