The Lowedown

Bibliology Questionnaire Answers

What do you think the Bible means when it says that Scripture is "inspired"?

The Bible claims inspiration for itself in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17. What this means basically is that the words of Scripture are God’s words. Inspiration means that God, speaking through the Holy Spirit, and using ordinary men as his agents, communicated exactly the thoughts and ideas which He wanted to communicate. He did so in such a way that the personality of each individual author was not suppressed.

Do you think it is possible for someone to come to a knowledge of the plan of salvation apart from the Bible or anyone explaining the Biblical message?

This question deals with the process of revelation. There are two types of revelation: general revelation and specific revelation. General revelation is general because it is accessible to everyone and because it only gives general information. Examples of general revelation include creation, and one’s moral conscience.

Specific revelation is limited to specific information given to specific people in a specific way at a specific time. Examples of specific revelation might include a vision from the Lord, the life of Jesus Christ, and of course, God’s written word, the Bible.

Some people believe that it’s possible for people using general revelation and their rational, logical mind to come to some specific conclusions about God. For example, through creation, they might surmise that God is a powerful God. Their conscience tells them that He must be a righteous God, yet they know that they themselves must have offended Him. They then surmise that this God must have provided a solution and though they don’t know the name of the Redeemer, they conclude that there must be a redeemer. They then put their trust in that redeemer to save them.

I believe that this is a stretch to believe that people can connect the dots in that way. The Bible is clear that there is general revelation that reveals certain information about God and His character. If this were all that was needed though, God wouldn’t have sent the more specific revelation of the prophets, His Son Jesus, and ultimately His Word. Also, if general revelation is all that is needed, then it wouldn’t be necessary for missionaries to communicate to others what it means to be saved. This is inconsistent with the Biblical mandate for all Christians to preach the gospel to all creation.

God’s Word gives us more specific information about who God is and it actually brings clarity to the general revelation that we do have. In addition, even those who have sought God as a result of general revelation alone, eventually receive some specific revelation to increase their understanding. Hence, specific revelation is necessary for a person to come to a saving knowledge of Christ.

Some people believe that the Bible is inerrant, while others believe that it is only infallible. Which do you believe and why?

Though these 2 terms seem to carry the same meaning, they are slightly different. The term "inerrant" means that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, is completely without error on all matters to which it speaks. The term "infallible" has come to mean that the Bible, in it’s original manuscripts, does contain some minor errors on scientific matters, numerology and other areas that are not related to doctrine and moral teachings. But in these areas of doctrine and moral teachings, the Bible is without fail.

The debate over whether the Bible is "inerrant" or "infallible" did not appear until about 100 years ago. Until that time, most evangelical Christians held firmly to the idea that the Bible is inerrant. However, some well-meaning Christians, in an effort to explain some of the minor inconsistencies that appear in our modern Bibles, came up with the idea of infallible.

It’s true that there are a few minor inconsistencies that are hard to explain and appear to be errors. How are we to address these issues?

One way is to say that the errors are real errors and that the Bible is infallible on matters of doctrine and moral teachings.

Another approach, which I prefer, is to say that the errors don’t exist in the original manuscripts (that is the originals are inerrant). The reason that the errors are there is because we don’t have the originals. If we did, we would be able to explain all of the inconsistencies. This makes sense in light of the fact that there used to be even more inconsistencies than there are today. However, as new evidence has come to light (such as older manuscripts, archaeology, etc.), many of these inconsistencies have been explained.

Those who hold to the idea of inerrancy believe that the Bible is without error in its original manuscripts. We acknowledge that there are a few minor inconsistencies, but we believe that these inconsistencies could be explained if we had all the evidence.

Do you believe that it is possible for someone to read the Bible for himself or herself and arrive at a correct interpretation or is there an overriding authority which must be consulted to determine whether or not your interpretation is correct?

This question deals with a process known as "illumination". Illumination is a process whereby the Holy Spirit reveals to the individual the correct understanding of the Biblical text.

Some people, such as those in the Catholic Church, believe that the Holy Spirit doesn’t "illuminate" the meaning to individuals. Instead, they believe that the Holy Spirit has "illuminated" the correct meaning to the church as a whole. Therefore, if you want to know the correct interpretation of a passage, you must consult the church to see if your interpretation is correct.

I don’t subscribe to the Catholic view of illumination. The Bible was written largely to individuals and to groups of people. People were instructed to read the Bible and to memorize its statutes. The Biblical evidence gives no support to the idea that we must consult a governing authority such as the Catholic Church, in order to arrive at a correct understanding of the Biblical message. While we agree that it is often helpful to consult those who have more understanding and have a more adequate knowledge of the Bible, we reject the notion that the average person cannot understand these passages Himself with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

What is your understanding of how we arrived at the Bible that we have today? (Describe the canonization process as you understand it)

The Old Testament books were pretty well established by the time of Jesus. The Jews of the time acknowledged as authoritative the same books that we currently have in our Protestant Bible. Jesus authenticated the Old Testament canon by quoting from almost every book of the Old Testament. It is interesting to note though, that Jesus is not recorded as having quoted from the Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha (a collection of writings that deal mostly with the time between the testaments) was typically included with the Old Testament Scriptures because they were regarded as being useful for Christian reading but were not thought to be on the same level as the other Scriptures. Somewhere along the line their limited status was removed and the Catholic Church accepts the Apocrypha as sacred Scripture today.

The New Testament came into being as a result of some early church councils. What is important to know is that most of the letters that are in our present New Testament were already widely accepted as being authoritative. However, they were not yet compiled into a single volume. The purpose of the council was not to create the canon, but instead it was to recognize those books and letters that were already accepted as being inspired. In this way, they could exclude many of the heretical teachings that were lobbying for equal status of inspiration.

The early Fathers used 3 tests as their measuring rod (canon) to accept a document as Scripture. The first test was the test of authorship. Did someone who knew Jesus or a close associate of someone who knew Jesus write the document? If not, that document was excluded. This test alone eliminated many of the heretical documents which were vying for "inspired" status.

The second test was the test of content. Was there a general awareness of blessing and guidance from the book? Many of the letters failed this test because their content did not bring blessing or guidance.

The final test was that of widespread acceptance. Documents that were only accepted in certain regions were discarded. In this way, only those documents that were already widely accepted made it into our modern New Testament.