Articles
BookstoreLibraryLinksMessage BoardsSermons
Peterson's Reformed World
ArticlesBookstoreLibraryLinksMessage BoardsSermons
One's view of scripture is a critical factor in how one approaches God and as a result how beneficial one's encounter with God will be. There are three main views of scripture that are of concern to those who desire to approach God with lasting positive results issuing from their encounter with Him.
The first view is the Received view or Reformed view. This view is best associated with the identity-thesis of scripture. Namely, there is a direct identity between the words of the human authors of scripture and God's Word. What scripture says God says.
There is one specific tenet of the received view that marks it as distinct from the other two. Scripture is a propositional revelation. In scripture, through the various literary genres of which it is composed, God reveals himself verbally and truthfully. This idea is expressed in the terms, "verbal-plenary inspiration" and "Infallibility and inerrancy". To say that God reveals himself verbally in scripture (verbal-plenary inspiration) is equal to saying that the very words of scripture are the very words of God. This verbal inspiration, however, does not follow the theory of dictation where God dictated to the human agents the exact words of scripture. Rather, it follows the concursive theory of verbal inspiration in that God oversees the writing of scripture and what is written by free human authors is what he intended. Likewise, to say that God reveals himself truthfully in scripture (infallibility and inerrancy) is to say that what scripture speaks it speaks reliably.
In opposition to this view is the Neo-Orthodox view as taught by Karl Barth. This view is most commonly associated with an indirect identity thesis. Scripture is not the revealed word of God. Instead Christ is the revealed word of God. One comes to knowledge of Christ through scripture but scripture is not redemptive, as it would be in the Received view. Scripture is an indirect witness of Christ. It is the fallible words of humans commissioned by the Spirit to bear witness to Jesus Christ.
However, Barth does not claim that there is no identity between God and scripture and that there is no verbal inspiration involved in scripture. Indeed there is an indirect identity between what God says and what scripture says. This identity is found in the purpose of scripture in its act of bearing witness to the Word. While God did not verbally inspire scripture, he does use it in a dynamic way in order to reveal the presence of the Word and thereby Himself. Scripture is therefore indispensable to the church for through the preaching of scripture (the fallible words of humans bearing witness to Christ) God speaks to those who hear and thereby the church bears witness to Christ.
One step removed from the Neo-Orthodox view is the Neo-Liberal view. This view is best associated with the non-identity thesis. There is no link between the Word of God and the words of scripture. Scripture is non-propositional in that it makes no truth claims about God and is not verbally inspired by him. Instead, scripture is humanities written account of its experience with God. As individuals were illumined by God through their personal experiences of Him they attempted to communicate the nature of their experiences and those attempts are what we know as scripture. As those written words found acceptance among groups of individual believers ecclesiastical traditions were formed. It is through these ecclesiastical traditions and personal religious experiences that God reveals Himself to people. In this way, scripture finds its authority not in its origin but in its results. To the extent that individuals are brought to faith through the reading of such writings those writings have authority. Scripture does not stand as an object of faith rather it is used as an instrument to develop faith. Inspiration is therefore said to occur when the reader responds to revelation through his or her religious experiences.
Scripture, however, does not allow itself to be understood thus. Nor does it lend itself to a Neo-Orthodox view of scripture. Both the Neo-Orthodox and Neo-Liberal view ignore scriptures claims about itself and impose upon it an origin, a definition and a purpose/result that is man made. Of these three views, only the Received view makes claims about scripture which scripture itself allows.
Moses declared concerning the words of the law that "These words the Lord spoke with a loud voice to your whole assembly at the mountain, out of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, and he added no more. He wrote them on stone tablets, and gave them to me" (Deut 5:22) As a result he told them to do as God had commanded and thereby live. Not only did Moses teach that the words of the law were the written words of God, declaring a direct identity between the words of scripture and God's word, he also declared that the words of scripture were propositional. They taught truth about God, His nature, and His covenant with His people. They were seen as authoritative and life giving to those who were obedient to them.
Furthermore, Jesus and the apostles saw the O.T. scriptures as authoritative and used them in a normative way. (John 5:45-47; 2 Tim 3:16-17) When they spoke of the O.T. canon they used terms like "scripture, the law of the prophets, it is written, God says, and scripture says." Thus demonstrating that they believed O.T. canon to be the very word of God. They also saw their writings as scripture. The most pointed example is found in 2 Peter 3:16 where Peter calls the writing of Paul. "scripture." Because Paul was recognized as an apostle his writings carried scriptural authority in Peter's eyes. It seems clear that the New Testament authors believed that their writings were the inspired words of God and therefore beneficial for salvation. For this reason I hold to the received view which affirms all these matters as fact.