BIBLICAL AUTHORITY

by Jack Bartlett Rogers

"The 'battle for the Bible' today threatens evangelicalism with schism. Here, by a group of authors of unquestioned faith and integrity, is urgent reading. Concentrating on the saving purpose of the Bible, they present a responsible alternate view in the conflict over the precise nature of biblical infallibility."

Genres: Theology

Hardcover

First published January 1, 1977

About the author

Jack Rogers is Professor of Theology Emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary and Moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). He also served as vice-president of San Francisco Theological Seminary and founded their Southern California campus. Earlier, he was Professor of Philosophical Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary for 17 years.

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE FAMOUS (AND CONTROVERSIAL) COLLECTION OF ESSAYS ON THE BIBLE

Paul Rees says in the first essay of this 1977 book, “1. Assertions of biblical inerrancy are made in reference to the original autographs only. None of these is extant, nor is there any reason to believe that we shall ever have access to them. 2. Therefore the inerrancy claimed for the Scriptures does not apply to any version or copy of the Bible that anyone may now be reading or holding in his hand. 3. On that account we should think twice before allowing ourselves to be caught in the dilemma of the often-mentioned ‘domino theory.’ As applied to Scripture it means: if you can find one inaccuracy in the Bible you are using, then in one stroke you have made it impossible to say with assurance that anything in the Bible is dependable.” (Pg. 12)

Jack Rogers points out, “it is no doubt possible to define the meaning of biblical inerrancy according to the Bible’s saving purpose and taking into account the human forms through which god condescended to reveal himself. Inerrancy thus defined could be heartily affirmed by those in the Augustinian tradition. However, the word ‘inerrancy’ has been so identified with the Aristotelian notions of accuracy imposed on it by the old Princeton theology that to redefine it in America culture would be a major task… To confuse ‘error’ in the sense of technical accuracy with the biblical notion of error as willful deception diverts us from the serious intent of Scripture. The purpose of the Bible is not to substitute for human science. The purpose of the Bible is to warn against human sin and offer us God’s salvation in Christ. Scripture infallibly achieves that purpose. We are called… to accept its saving message. Our faith is not in human proofs but in a Divine Person whose Word persuades us.” (Pg. 45-46)

Clark Pinnock observes, “inerrancy is taken to refer to the autographs, not the present copies of Scripture, whereas it is likely that Jesus and Paul in teaching about inspiration had reference to the imperfect copies in their possession. If they did, one cannot press the point that they taught inerrancy in this sense… When we consider the subtlety of the inerrancy inference, we must be cautious in claiming without qualification that the Bible teaches exactly that.” (Pg. 63-64) He continues, “A writer like Harold Lindsell… is not denying errors in the text of the Bible WITHOUT QUALIFICATION since he admits there are errors of a casual kind, as in grammar of numerical exactness, and errors of other kinds in the copies of Scripture modern readers have always had to use.” (Pg. 65)

Later, he argues, “As one who defends biblical inerrancy, I urge charity toward those whose hesitation over inerrancy is due to their honest judgment and not any weakness of their evangelical convictions. Inerrancy must not become a ‘shibboleth’ to be wielded like a sledge hammer to destroy the work of God.” (Pg. 68)

Bernard Ramm refers to a 1881 essay written by A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield: “The essay… At the same time it makes some very high claims for the completely errorless character of Scripture it also makes unusual concessions to the humanity and historicity of the Scriptures. It will assert on one page that Scripture is absolutely without error and on another that it is the INTENTION of the author which determines what is meant by inerrancy… It was this give-and-take which led the great … James Orr to say that, although the essay denied any error in Scripture, its many qualifications about what constituted an error offered tacit admission that there were some.” (Pg. 111) He adds, “there is a difference between a Bible-only mentality which is limited and limiting and a healthy strong, theological stance on ‘sola scriptura.’ The latter is in total accord with the theology of the Reformers and is compatible with a genuinely contemporary evangelical theological scholarship.” (Pg. 123)

Earl Palmer states, “Biblical Christians are not biblioaters. We worship Jesus Christ, not the Holy Bible. The Bible, taken seriously, never stimulates false worship, but by its texts and themes, its history and poetry, its yearnings and prayers, its real people from Moses to John, points us to the Lord. Therefore, when the Bible is truly authoritative for our faith, there is little danger of that faith becoming sidetracked with insignificant themes and cultic curiosities.” (Pg. 146)

David Hubbard notes, “We break with the basic Reformed teaching on the sufficiency of the Bible, both when we claim it to be inerrant on the basis of minute details of chronology, geography, history, or cosmology or when we attack its authority by pointing to alleged discrepancies. The false alternatives often posed between biblical inerrancy and biblical errancy are not themselves biblical choices. They are imposed from without in a way that tries to force the Bible to give answers that God, who inspired the Book, apparently had no intention of giving.” (Pg. 168)

This book will be “must reading” for those on all sides of the “inerrancy” debate.

[Philip Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

Some essays better than others. Raised good questions and addressed fair problems. Some of the answers were a little to my left.