A Small Defense of the Authority, Canon, Inerrancy, and Inspiration of Scripture

 Introduction

            As argued for in the previous two sections (papers), we have discovered that the Bible has been inspired by God and is also inerrant. Those points do not need to be restated here but it in some respects has to do with the character of God. It is God’s character and knowledge (partially/ His plan) that he desires to give humanity. His character traits can be seen in the scriptures and also provide justification for thinking the scriptures are both inspired and inerrant. Next, the authority of Scripture is the next step in the building process. If the Bible is inspired (by God) and also inerrant, then it would seem likely that it would have authority.

Authority

            The concept of authority is one that is looked down upon in our current age. The term itself spurs on looks of disgust and as a blight against self-autonomy. However, the modern context is not devoid of the concept of authority because, even though many decry the idea, it is still prevalent in their lives. No matter what, everyone has an authority that they are under, either by choice or not.[1] With that said, even with the strong disdain for authority, this does not make authority simply disappear. The Bible is something that has claimed authority. For better or worse, those who have piggybacked off its authority have either done good or harm (in many cases harm). But if authority is based on the character and nature of God, any deviation from the proper use of authority would be sin and morally deficient.

            Fundamental to this discussion is the nature of God (as pointed out in both previous sections/ papers). The Christian conception of God is one of perfection (in all areas). The Christian God is morally perfect and perfect in power. He desires that all come to know, love, and be with Him. It is this God who provided the original writers with His inspiration (His breathe/ Holy Spirit) to guide the process and is the reason it is reasonable to say it is without error. The original writers saw “any repudiation of divine inspiration as a property of the biblical text they would have considered an attack on the authority of Scripture. In their view Scripture is authoritative, because divinely inspired, and as such, is divine truth.”[2] Scripture talks about the nature of God as one that is perfect and that he does not lie (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 89:35; Heb. 6:18). Obviously, God having certain perfections does not entail that he is the supreme authority. However, Scripture does tell us that it is through God that we have our existence and being (Gen 1:27). In a cosmic way, God is our Father (similar to our conception of father but perfect and non-physical). In this way, “scripture is authoritative, then, because, as the word of the supreme authority in the universe, God, it has the right to command thought and behavior, and its divine author has the right and power to enforce compliance.”[3] Feinberg is noting that Scriptures authority in some sense derives its stance because of who God is and what He is able to do (whether or not He chooses to do it or not). God stands outside of the human authors, so the authority imbued within Scripture is not something seen as humans being in a certain position. God used human authors to convey His authority not vice versa.

            When thinking about this issue it is good to think about how God differs from human beings. God is ontologically different than human persons. Granted, humans are persons in a similar way to that of God but as humans, we are contingent, i.e., we did not have to be. To the contrary, God is a necessary being whose existence must be the case. His being is unlike ours and the only reason our being is like His in any way is because He designed it that way. We derive our being from God (as His creation). In a similar way, Scripture derives its authority from God.

            A final area to think about is tradition. This is not to say that traditions have all of the answers. But what it causes us to do is to think about the matter as deeply as our forebearers thought about it. It can be seen as a collective venture. The early church fathers often used the idea of apostolic succession for determining doctrinal disputes. In much the same way, church history can provide some insight into what our first brothers/ sisters thought about Scripture. On thing is clear, nearly everyone pointed back to the authority of Scripture for their views, orthodox and heterodox alike. When it comes to these theological disputes it is less about “if” the Bible has authority but rather “who” has the proper way to find the theological answers (i.e., it is a hermeneutical problem). The breakdown away from Scripture alone and to more church authorities came later in Church history. Even though there was a shifting of the sands towards the papacy and church authorities this did not remove the authority that was intrinsic to Scripture, it simply pushed it to the background. The important takeaway from history is that people saw the authority of Scripture as intrinsic or internal to itself not from something external. This means that because God authored/ inspired the book that the quality of authority resides in the text and not in the manner it is used or by a certain function it performs.[4]

Conclusion to Authority

            Even though authority is a concept that is much belied idea in modern times, it does nothing to remove it from lived experience/ reality. The authority of Scripture is one that is built upon the truthfulness of the Bible’s inspiration and inerrancy. The Bible does not provide testimony (per se) of Scriptures authority (e.g., The Bible has authority over all things). However, Scripture does carry authority, and this is pointed out time and again throughout. The authority of Scripture is never argued against when referenced by Jesus or other NT writers when dealing with opponents. Scripture’s authority is derived from the nature of God since He is ultimately the one standing behind the human writers. We also showed that the authority of the Scriptures was a view held throughout the history of the church. There was no lack of pointing to the Scriptures for a certain theological position, but the matter centered around hermeneutical issues. With all of this said, the Bible should and does have authority over the lives of people whether they recognize it. This is mostly due to the perfect creator God who has passed His authority through the text.

Canon

            As has been seen throughout the course of these writings (three previous papers), developing a sound view of Scripture is much like building a house. There is a foundation, walls, and a roof. This idea of canon can be seen as the roof to the house of Scripture, where it closes everything in and completes the house. Canon has less to do with the human establishment of a certain set of criteria that writings must meet to be included. Rather, it was a process of recognizing which writings possessed the qualities of Inspiration, Inerrancy, and (primarily) Authority.

            First, it would be prudent to dispel a common objection to the canon of Scripture. Some hold that because it was not officially endorsed until much later in church history (at Synod of Carthage in 397)[1] this means that it was an invention of the Church. This objection is fundamentally a misunderstanding in the history of the Church and do not fully appreciate that many things in the human arena are not born fully developed. Situation demands response; and you will focus on the issues right in front of you not the ones that have not demanded attention. Within the first few hundred years of the Church, there arose many theological deviations from what the standard was (Gnosticism primarily). These groups pulled from the same scriptures the apostles (and subsequently Church Fathers) did. The problem was not canon or the authority of certain texts but rather who’s understanding was correct. Once the fighting over proper theological understanding had calmed, the focus became further developing doctrine and establishing norms for the Church Catholic. The statement of canon (or writings recognized as Scripture) was not a late development but a delayed recognition. The actions of the very first Christians (and honestly the apostles, who were Jews) point to their recognition of a particular set of writings that were authoritative and thus “canonical.” In a sense, there is a historical lineage for Scripture that starts with Jesus and continues through His followers. Granted, Jesus’ recognition of Scripture was the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) but if Jesus had authority then so did His disciples (Luke 9:1-2).[2] If Jesus was endorsing the disciples actions in preparation for His ascension, it stands to reason that He would endorse their teachings (which He commanded them to give) and subsequently the written form of those teachings (i.e., the New Testament).

            Carl Henry makes an important point,

The Roman Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church itself.[3]

 

The early Church believed that the inspiration of the written words was grounds to hold that it must be included in a particular set and are authoritative. As noted earlier, the canon is one that is born of tradition. This is not tradition in the sense of humanness but rather in the sense of being passed down through the generations. Within Christian tradition, Jesus is the starting point (being the God-man) who’s authority reigns supreme and thus what He passes down is what is authoritative. Again, His passing down of information and passing of teaching authority to the disciples is a way for the continuation of inspired divine speech to reach humanity. Thus, those things that are of apostolic origin are those that are included and regarded as canon.

            We can see from creation that God is orderly. God is a perfect and supreme being. It stands to reason that if God is good and orderly that He would provide us with an orderly communication (this assumes He has communicated). God desired humanity to have communication from Him and inspired writers and speakers throughout history to speak on His behalf. Wolterstorff submits an idea of verbal transmission through deputation.[4] God deputizing human beings to speak on His behalf is a plausible means to generate communication. When those who have spoken on Gods behalf decide to write down that speech then those written words become authoritative. This is because the source is God and not the human being. If canon is to be considered those speakings and writings that are divine communication than any deputized speech/ writing would be included in the canon. The goal is not to force human criteria upon certain writings but to recognize which writings and speakings display the qualities of divine communication.

Conclusion to Canon

            The canon of Scripture has been defended through biblical means and historical means. There is this idea of apostolic succession that is felt throughout the history of the Church. This is because those who are/ were seen as deputized by God were given special place among the populace. The reason is that if they in fact provided humanity with divine communication then that communication is seen as vital and authoritative. Not only is tradition an important part of discovering what is/ was seen as authoritative divine communication but also the very nature of God. God being a perfect person would ensure that whoever He deputized would accurately and honestly represent His communicative act. Based on His person He would also desire and design a way to solidify His communication in some form. In this case, God used human being to write down the information He desired humans to have and that has been codified within the Old and New Testaments. We can rest confident that the God of the universe would ensure that we have the best information possible to come to know and love Him.

Inerrancy

            John Feinberg notes in his book Light in a Dark Place, inerrancy used to be standard fare within evangelicalism and was connected to inspiration.[1] Feinberg also notes that the shift away from including inerrancy (as standard) with inspiration was because the idea was question begging (some stated).[2] The concept of begging the question is, that you are assuming the thing you are trying to prove. This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening with inerrancy and trying to prove that it is the case. As noted, this case is much like building a house, where there is a foundation and for the walls to stand the foundation must be in place. Inspiration is the foundation and a result of acknowledging this, implies inerrancy. Under the Christian conception of God (i.e., perfect, personal, powerful, etc.), if he spoke/ interacted with and through people, then it is likely what he has shared would be inerrant. His perfection makes it necessary that any communication that comes from Him would be without error because that is fundamental to his nature. Feinberg provides a syllogism and is not afraid to acknowledge the human aspect to the scriptures, but he says, “the kind of superintendence premise 2 requires is such that human abilities and styles of writing are used to produce Scripture but are guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit so that the authors’ words are also God’s.”[3] The mistake made by critics of the inerrancy of Scripture is taking into full account the working of the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that they must accept His reality, but they must accept His reality in relation to the argument. To take down this point (inerrancy as Feinberg presents it), the critic would be required to show that the Holy Spirit either does not exist or that He had nothing to do with the writing of Scripture. “Inerrancy is to be regarded as an essential concomitant of the doctrine of inspiration, a necessary inference drawn from the fact that Scripture is God’s Word.”[4] Pinnock is acknowledging that the inerrancy of Scripture follows from the concept (and truth) of inspiration. This is an important recognition because it is, fundamentally based upon, the nature of God.

            Since Christianity is fundamentally centered around the person, character, and work of Jesus Christ, it would seem prudent to include what He thought about inerrancy. It should be stated that inerrancy was not a word that Jesus would have used. However, the lack of a specific word does not mean the concept is not present. For Jews, there is already a high regard for Scripture and Jesus would have held to similar position. Jesus “taught the high, exalted view of Scripture” and many of His responses to critics were “it is written.”[5] This view that Jesus held (as used here) should not be equated as saying “the Bible is inerrant because the Bible told me so.” What Scripture (or the historical documents that make up the Bible) gives us is the words of Jesus (ipsissima verba vs ipsissima vox), either position is equally valid here. If we have Jesus’ actual words or His actual voice, both of these point to what He believed. Scripture tells us that Jesus never down graded what was previously written but rather used the inerrant word of God as the conclusion to His argument. For example, Jesus has said that “Scripture can never be broken” (John 10:35) and that “Your word is truth” (John 17:17), as well as stating “it is written.” The critics of Jesus saw the power in his saying “it is written” as the definitive end of the argument. So, not only did Jesus see what Scripture said as not in error but also his critics. Conceptually, the teaching of Jesus is to say that God (His Father) has communicated with humanity through the prophets and is now having that communication come to a head in His own ministry. Jesus Christ is the definitive revelation of God (and is God incarnate) and thus what Jesus taught is also inerrant. This view obviously comes from the conclusion that Jesus is, in fact, who he said he was. But if it is true, that He is who He said He is, then it follows that what he taught is inerrant or without error. The culmination in defending the inerrancy of Jesus can be found in His resurrection. If God raised Jesus from the dead, then it seems reasonable to say that He was being confirmed by the Father. Paul noted that if Christ is not raised then our faith is worthless, and we are still in our sins. So, the fact that Jesus is raised then we can trust His testimony for the inerrancy of the Scriptures because it is what God said and what God wanted us to know.

Conclusion to Inerrancy

            Based on the argumentation, it should be obvious why inerrancy is based on inspiration. The fact that a perfect and personal being has provided communication implies that it is without error. As noted, God superintended the process of His divine communication because He desired to give humanity His divine discourse. All of this is predicated on the Christian conception of God. The argumentation herein would not work for say Islam (because it does not fit the Islamic conception of Allah). Also important for the discussion of the inerrancy of Scripture is Jesus Christ. If Jesus is (I believe He is) the physical manifestation of God (God in the flesh) then it is reasonable to share His view of the scriptures. The trustworthiness of Jesus’ testimony on the matter rests on His resurrection from the dead. No evidence has been provided for this fact but there is a plethora of evidence and arguments given elsewhere. All of this should give us comfort in knowing Scripture is inerrant and it provides us with a level of warrant to hold to it.

Introduction to Final Section

            First, as a preliminary point, this paper (along with the three other doctrinal defense papers) should be viewed as part of a four-part series. The doctrinal defense papers will be built upon the previous ones. By this, I mean that this paper (Inspiration) will be part one of a whole, four-part collection, each section building on the other and, in some respects, depending on the previous section(s) for the case to be made. Inspiration seems to be the first cog in the machine for the rest of the machine to follow and function. Below will hopefully be a sound defense of the idea of inspiration (biblical). The goal is to present a biblical, philosophical, and theological case for why the Bible is inspired. Part of the problem is that it is difficult to make a significant and comprehensive case in a discourse such as this. With that said, much of the content will likely not plum much below the surface, but with any hope, there will be some moderate depth. These points stated here will not need to be noted in any subsequent paper.

Inspiration

            What is this idea of inspiration, and where does it come from? The primary reason anyone talks about the inspiration of the scriptures is because the idea (or concept) is mentioned in Scripture. Second Timothy 3:16-17 is typically the go-to place for pointing out or showing the inspiration of Scripture. Paul states that “all scripture is God-breathed.” The statement “God-breathed” is what we mean by inspiration, and it is the Greek word theopneustos, which is properly understood (as translated) as God breathed out or divinely breathed. Scripturally, it is the idea that God the Creator has provided some sort of speaking action for humans to have and listen to. Paul even goes on in the reference above to state some of the things that Scripture is used for (his list is not exhaustive). The primary concern is whether or not we have divine communication and what that means for humanity.

            For biblical Christianity, having divine communication is vital because it is the foundation of all doctrine and practice. If the scriptures are simply the writings of enlightened individuals, then the writings can be respected but cannot be universal (in the sense of being ontologically different). We want to affirm some form of inspiration where the authors are guided by God but not dictated to. Verbal plenary inspiration is the idea that the very words of Scripture are inspired. This is stated nicely by Feingold,

God’s inspiration of the sacred writer consisted in an influence of efficacious grace that illumined his intellect and reasoning (including historical research), moved his will, and guided all his faculties in the composition of his work, especially his imagination, memory, and literary judgment…Instrumental causality is present when, through the impulse and direction of a superior cause, an inferior cause is elevated above its own level, and made capable of producing an effect that transcends its proper capacity taken alone.[1]

 

Of course, simply stating that the Bible says it has been inspired does not seem to instill much confidence in many who argue against this doctrine. However, it is worth noting that the arguments go beyond just because the Bible said so and more fundamentally on what the authors/ writers thought they were receiving. When a person is given something (say a bit of information), that information is not valid because “we say it’s valid,” but rather, it is valid because of the source of the information. Those writers believed (regardless of whether the modern person thinks they were correct or not) that God was giving them information to pass along. It is also essential to keep in mind that to even have the option of composing any sort of doctrine at all (be it ones you like or not), there must be some foundation for it. Carnell makes this point quite clearly, “We are free to reject the doctrine of the Bible’s view of itself, of course, but if we do so, we are demolishing the procedure by which we determine the substance of any Christian doctrine. If we pick and choose what we prefer to believe, rather than what is biblically taught, we merely exhibit once again the logical (and existential) fallacy of trying to have our cake and our penny, too.”[2] I think Carnell’s point is a valid one. He essentially means that if we are to take the Bible as a source for doctrine in any case (i.e., the doctrines we hold) but disregard what the Bible says about itself, we are inconsistent in our use of foundations. It isn't easy to see how we can hold to a biblical doctrine over here because it is plainly stated in Scripture but not hold to another doctrine because it is one we do not like or prefer.

            Let us take it from a slightly different angle. Anselm stated that God is the greatest conceivable being (Proslogion) and asked what implications this means for what we should expect from a being of this kind. If there is a God who is perfect, this will (or should) have an effect on how we view the world and, more specifically, how we consider Christian belief (i.e., doctrines). Henry makes a point (implicitly) when he says, “To maintain silence about the divine inspiration of the Scriptures is, in effect, to attenuate the work of God and to minimize the ministry of the Spirit.”[3] The point is that God, a perfect being, has interacted with humans, and to not see this as possible is to minimize or negate his ability to do so. Of course, one could argue that God does not have to interact with humans. This is true, but making this argument would be to argue against a different conception of God than the Christian argues for. This becomes a definitional dispute, and we must go back to the presuppositions of each camp and build from there.

            Now, arguing in this way comes from a certain assumption, namely, that the Bible has proven to be a reliable transmission of accurate information. I believe this can be shown, but it is outside the purview of this discourse. That said, based on the Christian conception of God and his character, driven by the accuracy and provenness of the scriptural message, it is safe to infer that God has used specific authors to convey a message that he desired humanity to have. This message can be trusted because His character is of a particular sort that is trustworthy. This by no means implies that one must believe other facets of the text. The primary purpose of the arguments herein is to show that based on the conception of God as personal and perfect; he has given us a communicative act through historical persons in such a way that he would want us to have it.

Conclusion

            This short treatment of biblical inspiration showed that Scripture possesses this idea within (granted, only one verse was provided). The authors of Scripture saw that they had received some sort of communication from God and that He wanted them to concretize it for generations. There are theological considerations when thinking about the inspiration of Scripture. When it comes to theology, I pointed out that no doctrine could be held or developed without any idea of inspiration. What kind of doctrine would it be if it were not derived from God? The last point is that, if a perfect God exists and communicates, then it is reasonable to believe that he would inspire writers to provide a concretized communication with humanity. This does not give an exhaustive report and defense of inspiration. However, this is a foundational understanding, and the points made are defensible.

[1] Carl F.H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, Vol IV (Wheaton: Crossway, 1976), 8. Henry is making essentially the same points I am making above. The idea of authority in the modern context is one that is floating away and is disdained.

[2] Henry, Authority, 67.

[3] John Feinberg, Light in a Dark Place (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 393.

[4] Feinberg, Light, 394-396. Feinberg notes the differences between intrinsic and extrinsic authority. 

---

[1] John Feinberg, Light in a Dark Place (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 436.

[2] Granted, this verse talks about Jesus giving the disciples power over spirits and demons. The second portion is important to note: Jesus gave them power and sent them out to proclaim the Kingdom of God. This would mean that Jesus was endorsing their ability (and words) as it related to God’s kingdom.

[3] Carl F.H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, Vol IV (Wheaton: Crossway, 1976), 162.

[4] Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 186. This is the page where he lists his opening assumptions and this idea of deputation is carried throughout.

---

[1] John Feinberg, Light in a Dark Place (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 231-232.

[2] Ibid, 232.

[3] Ibid, 286.

[4] Clark Pinnock, Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1998), 73. Note: the ebook has the page as 65 but the physical copy page is as listed.

[5] R.C. Sproul, “Can I Trust the Bible?” Crucial Question (November 2017): Ch 3. The electronic resource did not have page numbers so this reference came from chapter 3 of this section of this collection.

---

[1] Lawrence Feingold, Faith Comes from What is Heard (Steubenville: Emmaus Academic, 2016), 289-290.

[2] Edward John Carnell, “Letters to the Editor,” Christianity Today (Oct 1966): 23.

[3] Carl F.H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, Vol IV (Wheaton: Crossway, 1976), 161. 

Bibliography

 

Feinberg, John. Light in a Dark Place. Wheaton: Crossway, 2018.

Henry, Carl F.H. God, Revelation, and Authority, Vol IV. Wheaton: Crossway, 1976

Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Divine Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Pinnock, Clark. Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1998.

Sproul, R.C. “Can I Trust the Bible?” Crucial Question (November 2017).

Carnell, Edward John. “Letters to the Editor,” Christianity Today (Oct 1966).

Feingold, Lawrence. Faith Comes from What is Heard. Steubenville: Emmaus Academic, 2016.