The publisher says this books has helped hundreds of thousands of Christians "discover the truth of God’s Word for themselves through Kay’s inductive study tools." Arthur defines inductive study as using the Bible itself as the primary source of information to understand scripture. It is surely useful to examine key words, the context, and how the topic is addressed elsewhere in the good book.
Arthur's book is based upon two premises common in evangelical theology.
1) The Bible can be understood by any reasonably intelligent person who reads it in its most obvious, literal sense.
2) The Bible has exclusive authority, inerrancy, consistency, internal harmony, self-sufficiency and universal applicability.
One problem with individuals interpreting what the the Bible means for themselves is the incredible range of interpretations this produces, also known as “pervasive interpretive pluralism." That range is reflected in the thousands of denominations (aka “massive fragmentation” of the church) that disagree about aspects of doctrine and Biblical meaning.
When sincere believers have incompatible views about what the Bible means, how can the Bible can be THE final, infallible authority believers purport it to be? How can contradictory positions all be the theologically right one? Which interpretation is infallible?
The Bible is "the only place" that has the truth about God, asserts Arthur. The pervasive disagreement about interpretation, however, suggests the Bible is not as clear, consistent and authoritative as Arthur would have it.
Different interpretations between denominations are not just about minor matters. A list compiled by Professor Christian Smith includes baptism, divorce, hell, rapture,
homosexuality, women in ministry, free will vs. predestination, the Sabbath, prosperity as a blessing, nonviolence and just war, charismatic gifts, atonement and justification, to oppose, separate from or transform the culture. and God-honoring worship.
Evangelical scholar Kenton Sparks recognizes that “Scripture does not seem to furnish use with one divine theology; it gives us numerous theologies.”
To Arthur, readers can understand the exact meanings of texts by examining the context, key words, asking questions, and getting the big picture. But the texts can make understanding difficult when there are multiple plausible meanings to choose from. That leads to more than one reasonable interpretation.
Arthur's guidelines about interpretation are revealing.
"Scripture will never contradict Scripture," she insists. "The Bible is one revelation without contradiction." If one passage seems to contradict another, "then your interpretation of at least one passage is incomplete or wrong."
Believe God's word, she writes, even if you can't reconcile contradictions. Her first premise admits of no error, which makes an idol of the Bible. The object of our faith is not the Scripture but Jesus Christ, of whom scriptures attest.
"Interpret Scriptire literally," she writes. "Everything that God says in His Word about any given subject is absolute truth."
So believe there was a talking donkey and a talking snake. Believe there were giants fathered by angels, and that Methuselah lived 969 years. Believe that the ark carried either two or seven of every animal species on earth. Believe that "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons. This testimony is true.” (Titus 2:12-13) Are other ethnic slurs absolute truth, or just for the Cretans?
If the Word is to be taken literally, I wonder if Arthur's church follows the rule that women should not be allowed to speak in church found in 1Cor. 14:34 and Tim 2:12. Or if they greet each other with a holy kiss and wash each other's feet.
Teaching Biblical infallibility, warns Christian Smith, can set up young people for disillusionment when they find that their black or white view of inerrancy isn’t sustained by scholarship.
In sum, Arthur provides a comprehensive method to analyze Scripture. She offers good advice such as "be objective," (although she operates from premises that compromise objectivity.)
On the other hand, she overstates the ease of understanding scripture even when using her method. She ignores the inevitable disagreement that comes when interpreting the gospels by letting "Scripture interpret Scripture." She denies that there are contradictions in Scripture, even though they become evident with a careful, objective study. Nor does she address how the Word of God can be inerrant when faithful Christians have incompatible views on significant matters. Each denomination claims to be right, but there should be a better approach to Christian authority and truth. -30-