The Nature of Scripture
 Lecture Notes for Topic 1.3.1- Religion 492

Last revised: 2/5/04 Explanation: Contained below is a manuscript summarizing the class lecture(s) covering the above specified range of topics from the List of Topics for Religion 492.  Quite often hyperlinks (underlined) to sources of information etc. will be inserted in the text of the lecture. Test questions for all quizzes and exams will be derived in their entirety or in part from these lectures; see Exams in the course syllabus for details. To display the Greek text contained in this page download and install the free BSTGreek True Type fonts from Bible Study Tools. Created by   a division of   All rights reserved©

Go directly to topic: Assigned Readings 1.3.1.1 1.3.1.2 1.3.1.3 Summation Bibliography

Assigned Readings for This Topic:
Gerald Bray, "The nature of Scripture," Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present, pp. 19-25

Resource Materials to also be studied:
Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Faith and Message (June 14, 2000), article I. Scriptures:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

Exodus 24:4; Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 17:19; Joshua 8:34; Psalms 19:7-10; 119:11,89,105,140; Isaiah 34:16; 40:8; Jeremiah 15:16; 36; Matthew 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16ff.; 17:11; Romans 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21.

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.

Ex. 24:4; Deut. 4:1-2; 17:19; Josh. 8:34; Psalms 19:7-10; 119:11, 89, 105, 140; Isa. 34:16; 40:8; Jer. 15:16; 36; Matt. 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16ff.; 17:11; Rom. 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Heb. 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21.

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.
 

"Others have asked why we changed language in Article I, 'The Scriptures.' Events in recent years have demonstrated that we needed to clarify that the Bible is not merely the record of God's revelation, but is itself God's revealed Word in written form. With Christians throughout the ages, most Southern Baptists believe in verbal inspiration. The Bible itself teaches that every word of Scripture was inspired by God, and is therefore completely true and trustworthy [2 Timothy 3:16]. The Bible is inerrant, infallible, and is our sole authority for faith and practice in the Church...."

Assignment (to be completed by class time on the day Topic 1.3.1 is scheduled to be covered):

1. Identify the changes in the 2000 statement from the earlier 1963 statement.
 
 

2. Assess possibile implications of these changes theologically.
 

3. Assess the hermeneutical credibility of the formal structure of these two statements that make declarations and then provide a list of scripture passages as the scriptural basis of the statements; note the different approach in the Abstract of Principles.
 
 

4. Evaluate the correctness of this article generally in both statements against the backdrop of the discussion in Bray and in the sub-topics below.
 
 

1.3.1.1 The Bible is a collection of documents written by people at different times to describe their experience of God.
Additional Assigned Readings for This Topic:
None

Discussion
        Prof. Bray describes this stance toward scripture as recognizing "that there is a common tradition of faith contained within the covers of the Bible" (p. 20). Yet, contradictions also exist when harmonization of the scripture is attempted without seriously considering the cultural and historical aspects of the many centuries of the accumulation of these religious experiences recorded in scripture.  Then in his critique of this stance (p. 21) he relates it mainly to the modern era of critical biblical scholarship, especially as skeptical criticism reached a high point in the nineteenth century before beginning to diminish in influence. One ramification of this approach is that the study of scripture is focused only on the human angle of the text and refuses to explore the text as divinely inspired revelation. The divine angle lies beyond the boundaries of legitimate historical investigation as history has been understood since the Enlightenment.
        Thus the emerging historical criticism at the beginning of the modern era concerned itself only with the 'then' meaning of the text, and was highly skeptical of any attempt at a 'now' meaning. What is not dealt with by Prof. Bray is the cultural and historical situations in Europe at the beginning of the modern period when a state church dominated most of the developing European countries and often was a billy club of government to repress peasants and the newly emerging 'working class' of European societies. This was particularly prevalent in the industrial revolution beginning in the middle 1800s. Often the classical liberal scholars in Protestantism especially and in limited ways among Roman Catholics saw this approach to scripture as the only means to discredit the state church and its corrupt leaders so that an 'authentic' Christianity could be preserved in the midst of a hostile populace that was inclined increasingly toward the teachings of Karl Marx. The concern was that Christianity would be extinguished completely if it remained shackled to the government sponsored church.
        In his appraisal of strengths and weaknesses (p. 21), Prof. Bray complements this approach for being free to explore new ways of interpreting scripture but rightly criticizes the result of leaving the final interpretative conclusions in the hands of contradictory scholarly viewpoints. Most church people are highly reluctant to do this, on both sides of the Atlantic. Prof. Bray's evangelical Anglican stance certainly comes to the surface in his criticisms.
        For us as American evangelicals, and mostly as Baptists, we need to respond out of our own particular situation. Each of us needs to deal with a series of questions arising from the above view of scripture. What is present in it that we can affirm?  What does the statement lack? What makes us uncomfortable? Why? Also, how does this statement relate to the above listed Baptist Faith and Message statements? What parts of the BFM are in tension with this view of scripture?
 

1.3.1.2 The Bible is a record made by people who heard God speaking to them and who recorded what they understood.
Additional Assigned Readings for This Topic:
none

Discussion
        This approach is described by Prof. Bray (p.20) as a middle ground stance that attempts to learn from modern critical scholarship and maintain a pietistic commitment to scripture at the same time. In his critique (pp. 21-22), he asserts that many of the church fathers such as Origen held to an early form of this view, although much of Protestantism abandoned this view beginning in the 1500s. Yet, among scholars in mainstream Christian groups today, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, a contemporary version of this view is quite popular. He offers the criticism of 'compartmentalization' as the major weakness of this view (p. 22). What he means by this label is the tendency of some scholars to live in an interpretive schizophrenic world. In their professional vocation they are highly critical scholars, while at church they are devoted worshippers. I have seen this tendency first hand and have been puzzled by it at times. In part through my personal observation, this double personality orientation seems to have become a way to reconcile the tensions between the divine and the human angles clearly present in scripture. At work, focus on the human angle; at church, on the divine angle. I have a number of professional colleagues both in North America and in Europe who have adopted some version of this model.
       I do, however, take exception to his statement that this stance will reflect the strongest opposition to systematic theology. My observations are just the opposite. What seems to enable many to feel comfortable with this approach is a creedal faith orientation where scripture is used at church mostly in a highly liturgical manner and minimal exposition of scripture takes place either in the sermon or in a Sunday School type program. Church dogma stands as the functional foundation for Christian faith, whether expressed in the Common Book of Prayer or through other means.
        Reflective questions again need to be raised here. What is present in it that we can affirm?  What does the statement lack? What makes us uncomfortable? Why? Also, how does this statement relate to the above listed Baptist Faith and Message statements? What parts of the BFM are in tension with this view of scripture?
 

1.3.1.3 The Bibe is a Word from God given through human agents.
Additional Assigned Readings for This Topic:
none

Discussion
        The third approach to scripture is identified with orthodox Protestant tradition, and also, with modern Christian fundamentalism in a deviant version (pp. 20, 22-24). I'm not so convinced of the accuracy of this linkage, although the above declaration  (1.3.1.3) is made in highly inclusive, broad language that is subject to a variety of differing elaborations. In his critique (pp. 22-24) Prof. Bray acknowledges a "broad spectrum of continuity between scholars and theologians who hold this position and less educated conservative believers" (p. 22). He then contends that the above stance "is the closest to the spiritual perception of the church through the ages" (p. 23). Modern conservative defenders will reflect much of the thinking of the Reformers in their views of inspiration and revelation, which, as Bray contends (p. 23), has its roots in the early church fathers. One of his criticisms is the tendency of conservative defenders to work off outmoded presuppositions and a world view popular in early Enlightenment rationalism but long since rejected by most westerns as woefully inadequate.
        Reflective questions once more need to be raised. What is present in it that we can affirm?  What does the statement lack? What makes us uncomfortable? Why? Also, how does this statement relate to the above listed Baptist Faith and Message statements? What parts of the BFM are in tension with this view of scripture?
 
 

Check Bray's bibliography in appropriate chapter of the textbook.

Check the appropriate Bibliography section in Cranfordville.com