Biblical literalism Wikipedia pages

Biblical inspiration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search




Rembrandt's The Evangelist Matthew Inspired by an Angel.
Biblical inspiration is the doctrine in Christian theology that the authors and editors of the Bible were led or influenced by God with the result that their writings may be designated in some sense the word of God.[1]


Contents  [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Basis
3 Views 3.1 Roman Catholic
3.2 Protestant 3.2.1 Evangelical 3.2.1.1 Criticism
3.2.2 Modernist Christianity
3.2.3 Neo-orthodox

4 See also
5 References
6 Bibliography
7 Further reading
8 External links

Etymology[edit]
The word inspiration comes by way of Vulgate Latin and the King James English translations of the Greek word θεοπνευστος (theopneustos, literally, "God-breathed") found in 2 Timothy 3:16–3:17:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.[2]Omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum, ad arguendum, ad corripiendum, et erudiendum in justitia : ut perfectus sit homo Dei, ad omne opus bonum instructus.[3]πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, ἵνα ἄρτιος ᾖ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος.[4]
When Jerome translated the Greek text of the Bible into the language of the common people of Latium (the region of central western Italy in which the city of Rome is located), he translated the Greek theopneustos as divinitus inspirata ("divinely breathed into"). The word "inspiration" comes from the Latin noun inspiratio and from the verb inspirare. Inspirare is a compound term resulting from the Latin prefix in (inside, into) and the verb spirare (to breathe). Inspirare meant originally "to blow into", as for example in the sentence of the Roman poet Ovid: "conchae [...] sonanti inspirare iubet"[5] ("he orders to blow into the resonant [...] shell"). In classic Roman times, inspirare had already come to mean "to breathe deeply" and assumed also the figurative sense of "to instill [something] in the heart or in the mind of someone". In Christian theology, the Latin word inspirare was already used by some Church Fathers in the first centuries to translate the Greek term pnéo.
The Church Fathers often referred to writings other than the documents that formed or would form the biblical canon as "inspired".[6] Some modern English translations opt for "God-breathed" (NIV) or "breathed out by God" (ESV) and avoid "inspiration" altogether, since its connotation, unlike its Latin root, leans toward breathing in instead of breathing out.
Basis[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2013)
The Bible contains many passages in which the authors claim divine inspiration for their message, or report the effects of such inspiration on others. Besides the direct accounts of written revelation, such as Moses receiving the Ten Commandments, the Prophets of the Old Testament frequently claimed that their message was divine by the formula "Thus says the LORD" (for example, 1 Kgs 12:22–24;1 Chr 17:3–4; Jer 35:13; Ezek 2:4; Zech 7:9; etc.). The Second Epistle of Peter claims that "no prophecy of Scripture ... was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet 1:20–21).
An exception common to all the different views of inspiration is that, although the New Testament Scriptures quote, paraphrase, and refer to other works including other New Testament documents, the Septuagint (the Jewish translation of the Torah into Greek, later books were translated anonymously and later included in the Septuagint), including the Apocrypha, and the Greek writers Aratus, Epimenides, Menander, and perhaps Philo, none of the various views of inspiration teach that these referenced works were also necessarily inspired, though some teach that the use and application of these other materials is inspired, in some sense.
Second Timothy 3:16-17 is cited by many Christians as evidence that "all scripture is breathed out by God and profitable ..." (English Standard Version – see similar language in the King James Version and the New International Version, among others). Others offer an alternative reading for the passage, for example, theologian C. H. Dodd suggests that it "is probably to be rendered" as, "Every inspired scripture is also useful..."[7] A similar translation has been included in the New English Bible, Revised English Bible, and as a footnoted alternative in the New Revised Standard Version. The Latin Vulgate can be so read.[8] Yet others defend the "traditional" interpretation, calling the alternative "probably not the best translation".[9]
Views[edit]



Hildegard of Bingen receiving divine inspiration (illustration in the Rupertsberger Codex, c. 1180)
A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question."[10]
Roman Catholic[edit]
The Roman Catholic Church holds the Bible as inspired by God, but does not view God as the direct author of the Bible, in the sense that he does not put a 'ready-made' book in the mind of the inspired person.[11]
As summarized by Karl Keating,[12] the Roman Catholic apologetic for the inspiration of scripture first considers the scriptures as a merely historical source, and then it attempts to derive the divinity of Jesus from the information contained therein, illuminated by the tradition of the Catholic Church and by what they consider to be common knowledge about human nature. After offering evidence that Jesus is indeed God, they argue that his biblical promise to establish a church that will never perish cannot be empty, and that promise, they believe, implies an infallible teaching authority vested in the church. They conclude that this authoritative Church teaches that the Bible's own doctrine of inspiration is in fact the correct one.
Protestant[edit]
According to Frederic Farrar, Martin Luther did not understand inspiration to mean that scripture was dictated in a purely mechanical manner. Instead, Luther "held that they were not dictated by the Holy Spirit, but that His illumination produced in the minds of their writers the knowledge of salvation, so that divine truth had been expressed in human form, and the knowledge of God had become a personal possession of man. The actual writing was a human not a supernatural act."[13] John Calvin also rejected the verbal dictation theory.[14]
Evangelical[edit]
Evangelicals view the Bible as a genuinely human product, but one whose creation was superintended by the Holy Spirit, preserving the authors' works from error without eliminating their specific concerns, situation, or style. This divine involvement, they say, allowed the biblical writers to communicate without corrupting God's own message both to the immediate recipients of the writings and to those who would come after. Some Evangelicals have labelled the conservative or traditional view as "verbal, plenary inspiration of the original manuscripts", by which they mean that each word (not just the overarching ideas or concepts) was meaningfully chosen under the superintendence of God.
Evangelicals acknowledge that there are textual variations between Biblical accounts of apparently identical events and speeches. These are seen as complementary, not contradictory, and are explained as the differing viewpoints of different authors. For instance, the Gospel of Matthew was intended to communicate the Gospel to Jews, the Gospel of Luke to Greeks, and the Gospel of Mark to Romans. Evangelical apologists such as John W. Haley in his book "Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible"[15] and Norman Geisler in "When Critics Ask"[16] have proposed answers to hundreds of claimed contradictions. Some discrepancies are accounted for by changes from the autographa (the original manuscripts) that have been introduced in the copying process, either deliberately or accidentally.
Many Evangelicals consider biblical inerrancy and/or biblical infallibility to be the necessary consequence of the Bible's doctrine of inspiration (see, for example, the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy).
Three basic approaches to inspiration are often described when the evangelical approach to scripture is discussed:[17]:239
Dictation theory: God dictated the books of the Bible word by word as if the biblical authors were dictating machines;[17]
Verbal plenary inspiration: This view gives a greater role to the human writers of the Bible, while maintaining a belief that God preserved the integrity of the words of the Bible."[18] The effect of inspiration was to move the authors so as to produce the words God wanted.[17] In this view the human writers' "individual backgrounds, personal traits, and literary styles were authentically theirs, but had been providentially prepared by God for use as his instrument in producing Scripture."[18]
Dynamic inspiration: The thoughts contained in the Bible are inspired, but the words used were left to the individual writers.[17]
According to T.D. Lea and H.P. Griffen, "[n]o respected Evangelicals maintain that God dictated the words of Scripture."[17]
Criticism[edit]
At times this view has been criticized as tending toward a dictation theory of inspiration,[19] where God speaks and a human records his words. C. H. Dodd wrote:

The theory which is commonly described as that of "verbal inspiration" is fairly precise. It maintains that the entire corpus of Scripture consists of writings every word of which (presumably in the original autographs, forever inaccessible to us) was directly "dictated" by the Deity… They consequently convey absolute truth with no trace of error or relativity… No attempt will be made here to formulate an alternative definition of inspiration… That I believe to be a false method. There is indeed no question about the original implications of the term: for primitive religious thought the "inspired" person was under the control of a supernatural influence which inhibited the use of his normal faculties.[19]
The Evangelical position has been criticized as being circular by non-Christians and as well as Christians such as Catholic and Orthodox authors, who accept the doctrine but reject the Protestant arguments in favor of it. These critics claim that the Bible can only be used to prove doctrines of biblical inspiration if the doctrine is assumed to begin with.[12] Some defenders of the evangelical doctrine such as B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge, however, moved away from such circular arguments and "committed themselves to the legitimacy of external verification" to inductively prove the doctrine, though they placed some restrictions on the evidences that could be considered.[20] Others such as Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, and John Frame have accepted circularity as inevitable in the ultimate presuppositions of any system and seek instead to prove the validity of their position by transcendental arguments related to consistency.
Modernist Christianity[edit]


 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2013)
The typical view within Liberal Christianity and Progressive Christianity rejects the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired in a unique way. Some advocates of higher criticism who espouse this view even go so far as to regard the Bible as purely a product of human invention. However, most form critics, such as Rudolf Bultmann and Walter Brueggemann, still regard the Bible as a sacred text, just not a text that communicates the unaltered word of God. They see it instead as true, divinely inspired theology mixed with foreign elements that can sometimes be inconsistent with the overarching messages found in Scripture and that have discernible roots in history, mythology, or ancient cultural/cultic practices. As such, form critics attempt to separate the kernel of inspired truth from the husk that contains it, doing so through various exegetical methods.
Neo-orthodox[edit]


 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2013)
The Neo-orthodox doctrine of inspiration is summarized by saying that the Bible is "the word of God" but not "the words of God". It is only when one reads the text that it becomes the word of God to him or her. This view is a reaction to the Modernist doctrine, which, Neo-orthodox proponents argue, eroded the value and significance of the Christian faith, and simultaneously a rejection of the idea of textual inerrancy. Karl Barth and Emil Brunner were primary advocates of this approach.
See also[edit]
General revelation
John Calvin's view of Scripture
Progressive revelation (Christianity)
Thought inspiration
Verbum Domini - apostolic exhortation of the Pope Benedict XVI.
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "With regard to the Bible, inspiration denotes the doctrine that the human authors and editors of canonical scripture were led or influenced by the Deity with the result that their writings many be designated in some sense the word of God." B.M. Metzger & M.D. Coogan, "The Oxford Companion to the Bible," Oxford University Press, New York, NY, (1993), Pages 302 to 304
2.Jump up ^ The Holy Bible: King James Version. (1995) (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
3.Jump up ^ Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam. (2005) (Ed. electronica.). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
4.Jump up ^ Aland, B., Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., & Wikgren, A. (1993). The Greek New Testament (4th ed., p. 554). Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies.
5.Jump up ^ Ovid, Metamorphoses 1, 334.
6.Jump up ^ Metzger, Bruce (1987). The Canon of the New Testament : its origin, development, and significance. New York: Oxford University. ISBN 978-0-19-826180-3.[page needed]
7.Jump up ^ Dodd, Charles Harold (1978). The Authority of the Bible. London: Collins. p. 25. ISBN 0-00-625195-1.
8.Jump up ^ The Douay-Rheims Bible, relying on the Vulgate, has "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach ...". See the comment in the New Jerusalem Bible study edition- footnote 'e', page 1967 Darton Longman Todd 1985. ISBN 0-232-52077-1, but with the caution "less probably".
9.Jump up ^ Daniel B. Wallace (1996). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. pp. 313–314. ISBN 0-310-21895-0.
10.Jump up ^ Jones, Jeffrey M. (July 8, 2011). "In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally". Gallup.
11.Jump up ^ Durand, Alfred (1910). "Inspiration of the Bible". The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Archived from the original on 25 November 2010. Retrieved November 15, 2010.
12.^ Jump up to: a b Proving Inspiration, Catholic Answers
13.Jump up ^ Farrar, F. W. (1886). History of interpretation (p. 339). London: Macmillan and Co.
14.Jump up ^ Farrar, F. W. (1886). History of interpretation (p. 345). London: Macmillan and Co.
15.Jump up ^ Haley, John W. Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. W.F. Draper.
16.Jump up ^ Geisler, Norman (1992). When Critics Ask. Wheaton, IL, USA: Victor Books. p. 604. ISBN 0896936988.
17.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Lea, T. D., & Griffin, H. P. (1992). Vol. 34: 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
18.^ Jump up to: a b Myers, A. C. (1987). The Eerdmans Bible dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Entry on Inspiration
19.^ Jump up to: a b Dodd, Charles Harold (1978). The Authority of the Bible. London: Collins. ISBN 0-00-625195-1.[page needed]
20.Jump up ^ Coleman, Richard J. (January 1975). "Biblical Inerrancy: Are We Going Anywhere?". Theology Today 31 (4). OCLC 60620600. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
Bibliography[edit]
Warfield, B. B. (1977 reprint). Inspiration and Authority of Bible, with a lengthy introductory essay by Cornelius Van Til. ISBN 0-8010-9586-7.
Sproul, R. C.. Hath God Said? (video series).
Geisler, Norman, ed. (1980). Inerrancy. ISBN 0-310-39281-0.
C. H. Dodd (1960). The Authority of The Bible.
Further reading[edit]
Chafer, Lewis Sperry (1993) [1947]. "Inspiration". Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Kregel. pp. 61–88. ISBN 978-0-8254-2340-6.
External links[edit]
"The Authority & Inspiration of the Scriptures" by B. B. Warfield
"God-Inspired Scripture" by B. B. Warfield
The Inspiration Of Scripture by Loraine Boettner
The Divine Inspiration of the Bible by Arthur Pink
"The Protestant Rule of Faith", chapter 6 of the introduction from Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology, which argues for the traditional doctrine over and against the Modernist doctrine.
Bibliography for and on-line articles about inspiration
Scholarly articles on Biblical Inspiration from the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Library
Catholic Encyclopedia, Modernism
Ten reasons why I believe the Bible is The Word of God by R. A. Torrey


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christian theology


Systematic


Scripture
Inspiration ·
 Canonics ·
 Biblical studies ·
 Exegesis ·
 Law and Gospel ·
 Hermeneutics
 

God


Attributes ·
 Christology ·
 Pneumatology ·
 Theocentricism ·
 Immutability ·
 Impassibility
 

Trinity
Father ·
 Son (Hypostatic union ·
 Incarnation ·
 Jesus ·
 Logos ·
 Christocentric) ·
 Holy Spirit
 


Cosmology
Creation ·
 Angels ·
 Angelic hierarchy ·
 Humanity ·
 Fallen angels ·
 Satan ·
 Theodicy
 

Soteriology
Absolution ·
 Adoption ·
 Assurance ·
 Atonement ·
 Baptism ·
 Conversion ·
 Eternal life ·
 Faith ·
 Forgiveness ·
 Glorification ·
 Grace ·
 Irresistible grace ·
 Imputation ·
 Justification ·
 Lapsarianism ·
 Means of grace ·
 Monergism ·
 Mortification ·
 Ordo Salutis ·
 Predestination ·
 Reconciliation ·
 Redemption ·
 Regeneration ·
 Repentance ·
 Resurrection ·
 Salvation ·
 Sanctification ·
 Synergism ·
 Theosis ·
 Union with Christ
 

Hamartiology
Adam ·
 Anthropology ·
 The Fall ·
 Incurvatus in se ·
 Original sin ·
 Sin ·
 Theodicy ·
 Total depravity
 

Ecclesiology
Sacrament  (Eucharist)
   ·
 Missiology ·
 Polity (Congregational ·
 Episcopal ·
 Presbyterian) ·
 Synod ·
 Conciliarity
 

Eschatology
Summary of differences ·
 Historicism ·
 Idealism ·
 Dispensationalism ·
 Futurism ·
 Preterism ·
 Millenarianism (Pre- / Post- / A-millennialism) ·
 Adventism ·
 Antichrist ·
 Apocalypse ·
 Apocalypticism ·
 Covenant / New Covenant theology ·
 End times ·
 Heaven ·
 Hell ·
 Last Judgment ·
 Millennialism ·
 New Jerusalem ·
 Rapture ·
 Second Coming ·
 Soul sleep ·
 Tribulation ·
 War in Heaven
 


Historical
History of Christian theology ·
 Calvinist–Arminian debate ·
 Apostolic Age ·
 Canon ·
 Patristics ·
 Caesaropapism ·
 Semipelagianism ·
 Iconoclasm ·
 Scholasticism ·
 Thomism ·
 Conciliarism ·
 Renaissance ·
 Protestant Reformation ·
 Counter-Reformation ·
 Pietism ·
 Great Awakenings
 

Practical
Apologetics ·
 Biblical law ·
 Education ·
 Ethics ·
 Homiletics ·
 Liturgics ·
 Missiology ·
 Moral ·
 Pastoral ·
 Polemics ·
 Political
 

By tradition




[show] 
Eastern Orthodox























[show] 
Roman Catholic

































[show] 
Protestant



















































































Outline of Christian theology
P christianity.svg Christianity portal




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity











Stained glass at St John's Ashfield, illustrating Jesus' description of himself, "I am the Good Shepherd", from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11.









































































































Category
Portal icon
WikiProject




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Revelation












Hildegard von Bingen.jpg













  


Categories: Christian theology of the Bible
Christian terminology






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Български
Dansk
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Esperanto
Français
한국어
Interlingua
Italiano
Қазақша
Kiswahili
Nederlands
日本語
Português
Српски / srpski
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
Українська
Edit links
This page was last modified on 21 March 2015, at 05:08.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration













Biblical authority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The term biblical authority refers to the extent to which propositions within the Old and New Testament scriptures are authoritative over human belief and conduct, as well as the extent to which their propositions are accurate in matters of history and science. Biblical authority entails but is not exhausted by questions raised by biblical inerrancy, biblical infallibility, biblical interpretation, biblical criticism, and Biblical law in Christianity.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, a debate over biblical authority arose between Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, on the one hand, and John D. Woodbridge, on the other. Rogers and McKim, in their 1979 book, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach, advanced the view that the Bible has authority over social endeavors, such as imperatives for conduct, for church organization, and for the articles of faith, but isn't necessarily reliable in its reportage of historical events and scientific facts. The belief that Scripture is "inerrant" in matters of history and science, argued Rogers and McKim, constituted a 19th-century innovation. Woodbridge challenged this thesis in his 1982 book Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal, arguing that for each of those categories, God's Word has authority and is without error. Moreover, Woodbridge asserted that this particular rendering of biblical authority had been the normative, orthodox position throughout the history of Christianity.
See also[edit]
Generalbiblical inspiration, biblical inerrancy, biblical interpretation, biblical infallibility, biblical criticismOtherClarity of scripture, Sola scriptura
External links[edit]
How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright
How Does “Biblical Authority” Affect Your Everyday Life? by Don Landis



Stub icon This article related to the Bible is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




  


Categories: Hermeneutics
Christian terminology
Bible stubs




Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 6 July 2014, at 15:43.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_authority












Biblical authority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The term biblical authority refers to the extent to which propositions within the Old and New Testament scriptures are authoritative over human belief and conduct, as well as the extent to which their propositions are accurate in matters of history and science. Biblical authority entails but is not exhausted by questions raised by biblical inerrancy, biblical infallibility, biblical interpretation, biblical criticism, and Biblical law in Christianity.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, a debate over biblical authority arose between Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, on the one hand, and John D. Woodbridge, on the other. Rogers and McKim, in their 1979 book, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach, advanced the view that the Bible has authority over social endeavors, such as imperatives for conduct, for church organization, and for the articles of faith, but isn't necessarily reliable in its reportage of historical events and scientific facts. The belief that Scripture is "inerrant" in matters of history and science, argued Rogers and McKim, constituted a 19th-century innovation. Woodbridge challenged this thesis in his 1982 book Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal, arguing that for each of those categories, God's Word has authority and is without error. Moreover, Woodbridge asserted that this particular rendering of biblical authority had been the normative, orthodox position throughout the history of Christianity.
See also[edit]
Generalbiblical inspiration, biblical inerrancy, biblical interpretation, biblical infallibility, biblical criticismOtherClarity of scripture, Sola scriptura
External links[edit]
How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright
How Does “Biblical Authority” Affect Your Everyday Life? by Don Landis



Stub icon This article related to the Bible is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.




  


Categories: Hermeneutics
Christian terminology
Bible stubs




Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 6 July 2014, at 15:43.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_authority











Clarity of scripture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Ambox question.svg
 This article possibly contains previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (March 2009)
The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (often called the perspicuity of Scripture) is a Protestant Christian position teaching that "...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them"[1] Clarity of scripture is an important doctrinal and Biblical interpretive principle for many evangelical Christians. Perspicuity of scripture does not imply that people will receive it for what it is, as many adherents to the doctrine of perspicuity of scripture accept the Calvinist teaching that man is depraved and needs the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order to see the meaning for what it is. Martin Luther advocated the clearness of scripture in his work On the Bondage of the Will.[2] Arminius argued for the perspicuity of scripture by name in "The Perspicuity Of The Scriptures."[3]
This doctrine is in contrast to other Christian positions like that of Augustine,[4] who wrote in Against the Epistle of Manichaeus that he "should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."[5] and in On Christian Doctrine, says "Let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church…"[6] Vincent of Lérins concurs, "Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."[7][8] The doctrine can also be contrasted by positions which assert that subjective experience should be preferred over knowing the originally intended meaning of scripture, since it is basically unclear.[citation needed] Finally, the doctrine is contrasted with the more literalist[citation needed] idea that "scientific exegesis" is unnecessary.[9]


Contents  [hide]
1 In Lutheranism
2 See also
3 References
4 External links

In Lutheranism[edit]
Lutherans hold that the Bible presents all doctrines and commands of the Christian faith clearly.[10] God's Word is freely accessible to every reader or hearer of ordinary intelligence, without requiring any special education.[11] Of course, one must understand the language God's Word is presented in, and not be so preoccupied by contrary thoughts so as to prevent understanding.[12] As a result of this, no one needs to wait for any clergy, and pope, scholar, or ecumenical council to explain the real meaning of any part of the Bible.[13]
See also[edit]
Hermeneutics
Authorial intent
Prima scriptura
Sola scriptura
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Westminster Assembly (1646). "Chapter 1". Westminster Confession of Faith.
2.Jump up ^ Luther, Martin (1931) [1525]. "Erasmus' Scepticism: Section IV". On the Bondage of the Will.
3.Jump up ^ Arminius, Jacobus (1956) [1853]. "The Perspicuity Of The Scriptures". Writings. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House. LCCN 56007575. OCLC 2174096. Retrieved 9 March 2009.
4.Jump up ^ Mathison, Keith A. (2001). "Augustine". The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press. pp. 39–42. ISBN 1-885767-74-9. OCLC 45835442. Retrieved 10 March 2009.
5.Jump up ^ Augustine (1890) [397]. "Against the Title of the Epistle of Manichæus". Against the Epistle of Manichæus, Called Fundamental in Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV.
6.Jump up ^ Augustine (1890) [397]. "Rule for Removing Ambiguity by Attending to Punctuation". On Christian Doctrine, Book III. in Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume II.
7.Jump up ^ Vincent of Lérins (1890) [434]. "A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity". The Commonitory. in Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume XI.
8.Jump up ^ Mathison, Keith A. (2001). "The Vincentian Canon". The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press. pp. 43–45. ISBN 1-885767-74-9. OCLC 45835442. Retrieved 10 March 2009.
9.Jump up ^ Berkhof, Louis (1996) [1938]. "The Perspicuity of Scripture". Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 167. ISBN 0-8028-3820-0. OCLC 35115001.
10.Jump up ^ Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 29., Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 11–12.
11.Jump up ^ Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 11., Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
12.Jump up ^ Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 11.
13.Jump up ^ Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
External links[edit]
Clarity of Scripture on Theopedia
Edwards, Richard M. (December 2002). "Clarity of Scripture: History, Theology & Contemporary Literary Studies, The". Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.
"On the Perspicuity of Scriptures", Works of James Arminius, Vol.2
  


Categories: Christian theology of the Bible
Christian philosophy
Protestant theology






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 22 March 2015, at 20:21.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_of_scripture











Clarity of scripture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Ambox question.svg
 This article possibly contains previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (March 2009)
The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (often called the perspicuity of Scripture) is a Protestant Christian position teaching that "...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them"[1] Clarity of scripture is an important doctrinal and Biblical interpretive principle for many evangelical Christians. Perspicuity of scripture does not imply that people will receive it for what it is, as many adherents to the doctrine of perspicuity of scripture accept the Calvinist teaching that man is depraved and needs the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order to see the meaning for what it is. Martin Luther advocated the clearness of scripture in his work On the Bondage of the Will.[2] Arminius argued for the perspicuity of scripture by name in "The Perspicuity Of The Scriptures."[3]
This doctrine is in contrast to other Christian positions like that of Augustine,[4] who wrote in Against the Epistle of Manichaeus that he "should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."[5] and in On Christian Doctrine, says "Let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church…"[6] Vincent of Lérins concurs, "Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."[7][8] The doctrine can also be contrasted by positions which assert that subjective experience should be preferred over knowing the originally intended meaning of scripture, since it is basically unclear.[citation needed] Finally, the doctrine is contrasted with the more literalist[citation needed] idea that "scientific exegesis" is unnecessary.[9]


Contents  [hide]
1 In Lutheranism
2 See also
3 References
4 External links

In Lutheranism[edit]
Lutherans hold that the Bible presents all doctrines and commands of the Christian faith clearly.[10] God's Word is freely accessible to every reader or hearer of ordinary intelligence, without requiring any special education.[11] Of course, one must understand the language God's Word is presented in, and not be so preoccupied by contrary thoughts so as to prevent understanding.[12] As a result of this, no one needs to wait for any clergy, and pope, scholar, or ecumenical council to explain the real meaning of any part of the Bible.[13]
See also[edit]
Hermeneutics
Authorial intent
Prima scriptura
Sola scriptura
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Westminster Assembly (1646). "Chapter 1". Westminster Confession of Faith.
2.Jump up ^ Luther, Martin (1931) [1525]. "Erasmus' Scepticism: Section IV". On the Bondage of the Will.
3.Jump up ^ Arminius, Jacobus (1956) [1853]. "The Perspicuity Of The Scriptures". Writings. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House. LCCN 56007575. OCLC 2174096. Retrieved 9 March 2009.
4.Jump up ^ Mathison, Keith A. (2001). "Augustine". The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press. pp. 39–42. ISBN 1-885767-74-9. OCLC 45835442. Retrieved 10 March 2009.
5.Jump up ^ Augustine (1890) [397]. "Against the Title of the Epistle of Manichæus". Against the Epistle of Manichæus, Called Fundamental in Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV.
6.Jump up ^ Augustine (1890) [397]. "Rule for Removing Ambiguity by Attending to Punctuation". On Christian Doctrine, Book III. in Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume II.
7.Jump up ^ Vincent of Lérins (1890) [434]. "A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity". The Commonitory. in Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume XI.
8.Jump up ^ Mathison, Keith A. (2001). "The Vincentian Canon". The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press. pp. 43–45. ISBN 1-885767-74-9. OCLC 45835442. Retrieved 10 March 2009.
9.Jump up ^ Berkhof, Louis (1996) [1938]. "The Perspicuity of Scripture". Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 167. ISBN 0-8028-3820-0. OCLC 35115001.
10.Jump up ^ Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 29., Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 11–12.
11.Jump up ^ Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 11., Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
12.Jump up ^ Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 11.
13.Jump up ^ Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
External links[edit]
Clarity of Scripture on Theopedia
Edwards, Richard M. (December 2002). "Clarity of Scripture: History, Theology & Contemporary Literary Studies, The". Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.
"On the Perspicuity of Scriptures", Works of James Arminius, Vol.2
  


Categories: Christian theology of the Bible
Christian philosophy
Protestant theology






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 22 March 2015, at 20:21.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_of_scripture










Sola scriptura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the theological concept. For other uses, see Sola scriptura (disambiguation).


 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2014)

The Five Solae of the
Protestant Reformation

Sola scriptura

Sola fide

Sola gratia

Solus Christus

Soli Deo gloria
v ·
 t ·
 e
   

Protestantism


95Thesen.jpg
(The Ninety-Five Theses)

The Reformation

History

Culture

Major branches
Adventism
Anabaptism
Anglicanism
Baptist churches
Calvinism (Reformed tradition)
Lutheranism
Methodism
Pentecostalism
Evangelicalism
Other Protestants

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God.
Sola scriptura is a formal principle of many Protestant Christian denominations, and one of the five solas. It was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers, who taught that authentication of Scripture is governed by the discernible excellence of the text as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man. Some Evangelical and Baptist denominations state the doctrine of sola scriptura more strongly: Scripture is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
By contrast, the Anglican Communion and the Methodist Church, though generally considered a form of Protestantism, uphold the doctrine of prima scriptura,[1][2] with Sacred Scripture being illumined by tradition, reason, and in Methodism, experience as well, thus completing the four sides of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.[3][4]


Contents  [hide]
1 Overview 1.1 Characteristics in Lutheranism 1.1.1 Inspiration
1.1.2 Divine authority
1.1.3 Clarity
1.1.4 Efficacy
1.1.5 Sufficiency
1.2 Characteristics in the Reformed faith
2 Prima scriptura
3 Singular authority of Scripture
4 Scripture and Sacred Tradition
5 Critiques
6 Legacy
7 See also
8 References
9 External links

Overview[edit]



Sola scriptura was one of the main theological beliefs that Martin Luther proclaimed against the Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation
Sola scriptura is one of the five solas, considered by some Protestant groups to be the theological pillars of the Reformation.[5] The key implication of the principle is that interpretations and applications of the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves; hence, the ecclesiastical authority is viewed as subject to correction by the Scriptures, even by an individual member of the Church.
Luther said, "a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it". The intention of the Reformation was to correct what he asserted to be the errors of the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority and to reject what Catholics considered to be Apostolic Tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible, wherever Tradition did not have Biblical support or where it supposedly contradicted Scripture.[citation needed]
Sola scriptura, however, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible. Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice. As Luther said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so."[6]
Characteristics in Lutheranism[edit]
Part of a series on
Lutheranism
Luther's rose
Luther's rose


Book of Concord[show]


















Theology[show]





















Sacraments ·
 Rites
 [show]









Organization[show]










History[show]













Missionaries[show]






















Bible translators[show]

















































Theologians[show]



























Lutheranism portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Lutheranism teaches that the Bible of the Old and New Testaments is the only divinely inspired book and the only source of divinely revealed knowledge.[7] Scripture alone is the formal principle of the faith in Lutheranism, the final authority for all matters of faith and morals because of its inspiration, authority, clarity, efficacy, and sufficiency.[8]
Inspiration[edit]
Lutheranism teaches that the Bible does not merely contain the Word of God, but every word of it is, because of verbal inspiration, the direct, immediate word of God.[9] As Lutherans confess in the Nicene Creed, the Holy Spirit "spoke through the prophets". The Apology of the Augsburg Confession identifies Holy Scripture with the Word of God[10] and calls the Holy Spirit the author of the Bible.[11] Because of this, Lutherans confess in the Formula of Concord, "we receive and embrace with our whole heart the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel."[12] The apocryphal books were not written by the prophets, by inspiration; they contain errors[13] were never included in the Palestinian Canon that Jesus used,[14] and therefore are not a part of Holy Scripture.[15] The prophetic and apostolic Scriptures are said by the Lutheran church to be authentic as written by the prophets and apostles, and that a correct translation of their writings is God's Word because it has the same meaning as the original Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek.[15] A mistranslation is not God's word, and no human authority can invest it with divine authority.[15]



 "I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach..."[16] This illustration is from the title page of Luther's Bible.
Divine authority[edit]
Holy Scripture, the Word of God, carries the full authority of God in Lutheranism: every single statement of the Bible calls for instant, unqualified and unrestricted acceptance.[17] Every doctrine of the Bible is the teaching of God and therefore requires full agreement.[18] Every promise of the Bible calls for unshakable trust in its fulfillment;[19] every command of the Bible is the directive of God himself and therefore demands willing observance.[20]
What is said here of "every statement of the Bible" does not represent the faith of all Lutherans: a 2001 survey showed that 72 percent of members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America do not accept that everything in the Bible is literal, but that it may contain scientific or historical errors or describe events symbolically.[21]
Clarity[edit]
Main article: Clarity of scripture
Lutheranism teaches that the Bible presents all doctrines and commands of the Christian faith clearly;[22] that God's Word is freely accessible to every reader or hearer of ordinary intelligence, without requiring any special education.[23] It also teaches that readers must understand the language God's Word is presented in, and not be so preoccupied by contrary thoughts so as to prevent understanding.[24] It teaches that, consequently, no one needs to wait for any clergy, and pope, scholar, or ecumenical council to explain the real meaning of any part of the Bible.[25]



Luther's translation of the Bible, from 1534, with four books placed after those Luther considered, "...the true and certain chief books of the New Testament.".[26]
Efficacy[edit]
Lutheranism teaches that Scripture is united with the power of the Holy Spirit and with it, not only demands, but also creates the acceptance of its teaching.[27] This teaching produces faith and obedience. Holy Scripture is not a dead letter, but rather, the power of the Holy Spirit is inherent in it.[28] Scripture does not compel a mere intellectual assent to its doctrine, resting on logical argumentation, but rather it creates the living agreement of faith.[29] The Smalcald Articles affirm, "...in those things which concern the spoken, outward Word, we must firmly hold that God grants His Spirit or grace to no one, except through or with the preceding outward Word."[30]
Sufficiency[edit]
Lutheranism teaches that The Bible contains everything that one needs to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life.[31] There are no deficiencies in Scripture that need to be filled with by tradition, pronouncements of the Pope, new revelations, or present-day development of doctrine.[32]
Characteristics in the Reformed faith[edit]
The Westminster Confession of Faith spoke of the use of "the ordinary means" (such as turning to pastors and teachers) for reaching an understanding of what is contained in Scripture and is necessary to know:

Chapter 1, Section VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
Prima scriptura[edit]



 In the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, experience is an additional source of authority. Pictured is a memorial to John Wesley's own experience of the New Birth and Assurance.
Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Prima scriptura, which holds that, besides canonical Scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he or she should live. Examples of this include the general revelation in creation, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from canonized Scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that Scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the Scriptures.
Two Christian denominations that uphold the position of prima scriptura are the Anglican Communion and the Methodist Church.[1][4] In the Anglican tradition, Sacred Scripture, tradition, and reason form the Anglican triad or "three-legged stool", formulated by the Anglican theologian Richard Hooker.[4][33] "Building on the Anglican theological tradition, Wesley added a fourth emphasis, experience. The resulting four components or "sides" of the [Wesleyan] quadrilateral are (1) Scripture, (2) tradition, (3) reason, and (4) experience. For United Methodists, Scripture is considered the primary source and standard for Christian doctrine. Tradition is experience and the witness of development and growth of the faith through the past centuries and in many nations and cultures. Experience is the individual's understanding and appropriating of the faith in the light of his or her own life. Through reason the individual Christian brings to bear on the Christian faith discerning and cogent thought. These four elements taken together bring the individual Christian to a mature and fulfilling understanding of the Christian faith and the required response of worship and service."[3]
Sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority, other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, biblical commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.
Singular authority of Scripture[edit]
The idea of the singular authority of Scripture is the motivation behind much of the Protestant effort to translate the Bible into vernacular languages and distribute it widely. Protestants generally believe each Christian should read the Bible for themselves and evaluate what they have been taught on the basis of it. In the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church, both of which teach that authoritative doctrine can also come from tradition, have been more active in translating them as well as the Bible into the vernacular languages. Contrary to a common polemic of the Reformation, many German translations of the bible existed before Martin Luther.[34] Traditions of these non-Protestant churches include the Bible, patristic, conciliar, and liturgical texts. Prior to the Protestant movement, hundreds of vernacular translations of the Bible and liturgical materials were translated throughout the preceding sixteen centuries. Some Bible translations such as the Geneva Bible included annotations and commentary that were anti-Roman Catholic. Before the Protestant Reformation, Latin was almost exclusively utilized in Latin Rite Catholic Churches, but was understood by only the most literate.
According to sola scriptura, the Church does not speak infallibly in its traditions, but only in Scripture. John Wesley stated in the 18th century, "In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church."[35] For this reason, sola scriptura is called the formal cause or principle of the Reformation.
Protestants[who?] argue that the Scriptures are guaranteed to remain true to their divine source—and thus, only insofar as the Church retains Scriptural faith is it assured of God's favor. They further assert that, if the Church were to fall away from faith through Scripture (a possibility Roman Catholics deny but Protestants affirm), its authority would be negated. Therefore, early Protestants[who?] argued for eliminating traditions and doctrines they believed were based on distortions of Scripture, or were contrary to the Bible—but that the Roman Catholic Church considered Scripturally-based aspects of the Christian faith, such as transubstantiation, the doctrine of purgatory, the veneration of images or icons, and especially the doctrine that the Pope in Rome is the head of the Church on earth (Papal supremacy). Roman Catholics[who?] point to verses such as John 6:51 (transubstantiation), 1 Cor 3:15 (purgatory), Numbers 21:8 (icons), John 21:17 (Papal supremacy) to argue these are biblical doctrines.[citation needed]
However, the Reformers[who?] believed some tradition to be very seriously in conflict with the Scriptures: especially, with regard to teaching about the Church itself, but also touching on basic principles of the Gospel. They believed that no matter how venerable the traditional source, traditional authority is always open to question by comparison to what the Scriptures say. The individual may be forced to rely on his understanding of Scripture even if the whole tradition were to speak against him. This, they said, had always been implicitly recognized in the Church, and remains a fail-safe against the corruption of the Church by human error and deceit. Corruptions had crept in, they said, which seriously undermined the legitimate authority of the Church, and Tradition had been perverted by wicked men.[citation needed]
Sola scriptura is a doctrine that is not, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 "expressly set down in Scripture". However, it is claimed[by whom?] that it passes the second test of being part of "the whole counsel of God" because it is "deduced from Scripture" "by good and necessary consequence", citing passages such as Isaiah 8:20: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Jesus is also typically understood by Protestants[who?] as expressly nullifying unscriptural traditions in the (Jewish) church, when he says, for example in Mark 7:13: "thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."
Scripture and Sacred Tradition[edit]
The Catholic Church, from which the Protestant Church broke away, and against which they directed these arguments, did not see Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the faith as different sources of authority, but that Scripture was handed down as part of Sacred Tradition (see 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Timothy 2:2). Accepted traditions were also perceived by the Church as cohesive in nature. The proper interpretation of the Scriptures was seen as part of the faith of the Church, and seen indeed as the manner in which Biblical authority was upheld (see Book of Acts 15:28-29). The meaning of Scripture was seen as proven from the Faith universally held in the churches (see Phil 2:1, Acts 4:32), and the correctness of that universal Faith was seen as proven from the Scriptures and apostolic Sacred Tradition (see 2 The 2:15, 2 The 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2). The Biblical canon itself was thus viewed by the Church as part of the Church's Tradition, as defined by its leadership and acknowledged by its laity.[citation needed]
The Catholic Dei verbum and the papal encyclicals Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII and Divino afflante Spiritu by Pope Pius XII set out Catholic teaching on tradition versus individual interpretation.[36][better source needed][37]
The Catholic Church teaches that Christ entrusted the preaching of the Gospel to the apostles, who handed it on orally and in writing, and according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time. This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it."[38] "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches."[39] For the Eastern Orthodox too, "the Holy Bible forms a part of Holy Tradition, but does not lie outside of it. One would be in error to suppose that Scripture and Tradition are two separate and distinct sources of Christian Faith, as some do, since there is, in reality, only one source; and the Holy Bible exists and found its formulation within Tradition."[40]
The 1978 Evangelical declaration Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, conversely, states:

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us. We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.[41]
Critiques[edit]
Following the Protestant Reformation, sola scriptura has come under serious critique by Catholic and Orthodox Christians. In his The Shape of Sola Scriptura, the Reformed Christian writer Keith A. Mathison mentions several recent examples of such critics.[42] In response, Mathison distinguishes what he considers to be the true doctrine of sola scriptura from the "subjective and individualistic version" of the doctrine that most Protestants have adopted.[43]
The American author and television presenter Patrick Madrid wrote that Sola scriptura is self-referentially incoherent, as the Bible itself does not teach sola scriptura, and therefore the belief that the Scriptures are the only source of Christian belief is self-contradicting given that it cannot be supported without extra-scriptural doctrine.[44]
In the 2008 book Catholicism and Science, the authors Peter M.J. Hess and Paul Allen wrote that sola scriptura is "inherently divisive", citing the Marburg Colloquy where Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli debated the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist on scriptural grounds but were unable to reach agreement on Sacramental Union. Hess and Allen argue that, when Scripture is seen as the only source of infallible teaching, its interpretation is subject to fallible interpretation, and without an infallible interpreter, a certainty of Christian belief is not possible.[45]
The Catholic Encyclopedia of Theology notes that, since the 27 books that make up the New Testament canon of Scripture are not based on a Scriptural list that authenticates them to be inspired, their legitimacy would be impossible to distinguish with certainty without appealing to another infallible source, such as the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which assembled and authenticated this list at the Synod of Rome in 382 A.D. Before this, a compiled and authenticated Bible as it is now known did not yet exist.[46]
The American Catholic writer Dave Armstrong wrote that there are several examples of Jesus and his Apostles accepting oral and extrabiblical tradition in the New Testament:[47]
The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matthew 2:23). This prophecy, which is considered to be "God's word", was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses' seat", but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses.
In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul the Apostle refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But, this critic writes, rabbinic tradition does.
"As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Timothy 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (cf. Exodus 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
In 1 Peter 3:19, the Apostle Peter describes Jesus' descent into Hell, drawing directly from a Jewish apocalyptic book, the Book of Enoch, which is not part of the Biblical canon in Catholic or Protestant churches.
In the Epistle of Jude 9, a dispute is mentioned between the Archangel Michael and Satan over Moses' body, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, and is drawn from oral Jewish tradition.
In the Epistle of James 5:17, when recounting the prayers of Elijah described in 1 Kings 17, a lack of rain for three years is mentioned, which is absent from the passage in 1 Kings.
Armstrong argues that since Jesus and the Apostles acknowledge authoritative Jewish oral tradition, Christians can therefore not dispute oral tradition's legitimacy and authority.
Legacy[edit]


 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2014)
Sola scriptura continues to be a doctrinal commitment of conservative branches and offshoots of the Lutheran churches, Reformed churches, and Baptist churches as well as other Protestants, especially where they describe themselves by the slogan "Bible-believing".
See also[edit]

Portal icon Christianity portal
Biblical criticism
Bibliolatry
Cessationism versus Continuationism, where sola scriptura is discussed with regard to the issue of charismatic gifts
Ex cathedra
Fundamentalist Christianity
Ijtihad, the Islamic concept of interpretation of religion and law not limited by tradition
Prima scriptura
Qur'an alone, an Islamic movement influenced in its theory by sola scriptura.
Karaite Judaism
Nichiren Buddhism
Wesleyan Quadrilateral
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b "Methodist Beliefs: In what ways are Lutherans different from United Methodists?". Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. 2014. Retrieved 22 May 2014. "The United Methodists see Scripture as the primary source and criterion for Christian doctrine. They emphasize the importance of tradition, experience, and reason for Christian doctrine. Lutherans teach that the Bible is the sole source for Christian doctrine. The truths of Scripture do not need to be authenticated by tradition, human experience, or reason. Scripture is self authenticating and is true in and of itself."
2.Jump up ^ Humphrey, Edith M. (15 April 2013). Scripture and Tradition. Baker Books. p. 16. ISBN 9781441240484. "historically Anglicans have adopted what could be called a prima Scriptura position."
3.^ Jump up to: a b Waltz, Alan K. (1991). "A Dictionary for United Methodists". Abingdon Press. "The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Building on the Anglican theological tradition, Wesley added a fourth emphasis, experience. The resulting four components or "sides" of the quadrilateral are (1) Scripture, (2) tradition, (3) reason, and (4) experience. For United Methodists, Scripture is considered the primary source and standard for Christian doctrine. Tradition is experience and the witness of development and growth of the faith through the past centuries and in many nations and cultures. Experience is the individual's understanding and appropriating of the faith in the light of his or her own life. Through reason the individual Christian brings to bear on the Christian faith discerning and cogent thought. These four elements taken together bring the individual Christian to a mature and fulfilling understanding of the Christian faith and the required response of worship and service." 
4.^ Jump up to: a b c Schmidt, Richard H. (2002). Glorious Companions: Five Centuries of Anglican Spirituality. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 15. ISBN 9780802822222. "A favorite, if overworked, image among Anglicans is that of the three-legged stool, which stands only when all three legs are in place, as a visual way to think of the Anglican view of authority. We acknowledge three sources of authority, and we manage not to fall down when all three are in place. The first and most important of these is the Bible. The Articles of Religion, a Reformation-era statement of Anglican views on questions of the day, says that the Bible "containeth all things necessary to salvation," so that nothing not found in the Bible is to be required as an article of faith."
5.Jump up ^ Michael Horton (Mar–April 1994). "Reformation Essentials". Modern Reformation. Retrieved 2008-07-10. Check date values in: |date= (help)
6.Jump up ^ Martin Luther, Smalcald Articles II, 15.
7.Jump up ^ For the traditional Lutheran view of the Bible, see Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 3ff. ISBN 0-524-04891-6.. For an overview of the doctrine of verbal inspiration in Lutheranism, see Inspiration, Doctrine of in the Christian Cyclopedia.
8.Jump up ^ Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 7ff. ISBN 0-524-04891-6., Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 29.
9.Jump up ^ 2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Corinthians 2:13, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Romans 3:2, 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Samuel 23:2, Hebrews 1:1, John 10:35, John 16:13, John 17:17, Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 26.
10.Jump up ^ "God's Word, or Holy Scripture" from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article II, of Original Sin
11.Jump up ^ "the Scripture of the Holy Ghost." Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Preface, 9
12.Jump up ^ The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, "Rule and Norm", 3.
13.Jump up ^ (Tobit 6, 71; 2 Macc. 12, 43 f.; 14, 411),
14.Jump up ^ See Bible, Canon in the Christian Cyclopedia[dead link]
15.^ Jump up to: a b c Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 27.
16.Jump up ^ Revelation 14:6
17.Jump up ^ Matthew 4:3, Luke 4:3, Genesis 3:1, John 10:35, Luke 24:25, Psalm 119:140, Psalm 119:167, Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 27., Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–9. ISBN 0-524-04891-6.
18.Jump up ^ 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Luke 24:25-27, Luke 16:29-31, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Jeremiah 8:9, Jeremiah 23:26, Isaiah 8:19-20, 1 Corinthians 14:37, Galatians 1:8, Acts 17:11, Acts 15:14-15, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–10. ISBN 0-524-04891-6.
19.Jump up ^ 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Corinthians 1:20, Titus 1:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Peter 1:19, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–9. ISBN 0-524-04891-6.
20.Jump up ^ Deuteronomy 12:32, Deuteronomy 5:9-10, James 2:10, Joshua 1:8, Luke 16:29, 2 Timothy 3:16, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–11. ISBN 0-524-04891-6.
21.Jump up ^ "Bible: Literal or Inspired". The Lutheran. Retrieved 13 October 2012.
22.Jump up ^ Psalm 19:8, Psalm 119:105, Psalm 119:130, 2 Timothy 3:15, Deuteronomy 30:11, 2 Peter 1:19, Ephesians 3:3-4, John 8:31-32, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, John 8:43-47, 2 Peter 3:15-16, Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 29., Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 11–12. ISBN 0-524-04891-6.
23.Jump up ^ Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 11. ISBN 0-524-04891-6., Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
24.Jump up ^ Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 11. ISBN 0-524-04891-6.
25.Jump up ^ Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
26.Jump up ^ Luther's Treatment of the 'Disputed Books' of the New Testament
27.Jump up ^ Romans 1:16, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 11. ISBN 0-524-04891-6., Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 27.
28.Jump up ^ Romans 1:16, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, Psalm 119:105, 2 Peter 1:19, 2 Timothy 1:16-17,Ephesians 3:3-4, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 11–12. ISBN 0-524-04891-6., Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
29.Jump up ^ John 6:63, Revelation 1:3, Ephesians 3:3-4, John 7:17, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 12. ISBN 0-524-04891-6., Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
30.Jump up ^ Smalcald Articles, part 8, "Of Confession"
31.Jump up ^ 2 Timothy 3:15-17, John 5:39, John 17:20, Psalm 19:7-8, Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
32.Jump up ^ Isaiah 8:20, Luke 16:29-31, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 13. ISBN 0-524-04891-6., Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
33.Jump up ^ Lewis, Harold T. (1 January 2001). Christian Social Witness. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 138. ISBN 9781561011889. "It is Hooker to whom we are indebted for the ”three-legged stool” of scripture, tradition, and reason on which the ethos and identity of Anglicanism rest."
34.Jump up ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_German#Pre-Lutheran_German_Bibles. |first1= missing |last1= in Authors list (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
35.Jump up ^ Popery Calmly Considered (1779) in The works of the Rev. John Wesley, vol. XV, p. 180, London (1812), digitized by Google Books
36.Jump up ^ http://cathapol.blogspot.in/2010/01/sola-scriptura-self-refuting.html
37.Jump up ^ http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Scripture/Articles/SolaScripturasSelf-Refutation.aspx[dead link]
38.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 75-78
39.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 97
40.Jump up ^ Orthodox Outreach, "Holy Tradition"
41.Jump up ^ "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article VII". Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Retrieved 1 November 2014.
42.Jump up ^ Robert A. Sungenis, author of Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing Co., 1997); Mark Shea, author of By What Authority? (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1996); Clark Carlton, The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Catholic Church (Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 1997); Patrick Madrid (editor), Surprised by Truth (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994); Scott Hahn and Kimberley Hahn, Rome, Sweet Home (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993); David Currie, Born Fundamentalist. Born Again Catholic (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993); Peter Gilquist (editor), Coming Home: Why Protestant Clergy Are Becoming Orthodox (Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1992). Cited in Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press & Book Service 2001 ISBN 978-1-88576774-5), p. 13
43.Jump up ^ Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press & Book Service 2001 ISBN 978-1-88576774-5), pp. 13–14
44.Jump up ^ Patrick Madrid (2012). Envoy for Christ: 25 Years as a Catholic Apologist. Servant Books. p. 25.
45.Jump up ^ Peter M.J. Hess and Paul Allen (2008). Catholicism and Science. Greenwood Press. pp. 28–29. ISBN 978-0313331909.
46.Jump up ^ Karl Rahner, ed. (1999). Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi. Burns & Oates. p. 172. ISBN 978-0860120063.
47.Jump up ^ Dave Armstrong (2004). The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants. Sophia Institute Press. pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-1928832737.
External links[edit]
Articles on sola scriptura from a Reformed perspective
Bible verses on sola scriptura from a Catholic perspective
Scripture & Tradition from a Catholic perspective Proving Inspiration refers to "sola scriptura"
Scripture and Tradition and "What's Your Authority?" argues against "sola scriptura"
The Shape of Sola Scriptura (2001) by Keith Mathison (himself a Calvinistic evangelical)
A written debate on sola scriptura between Douglas Jones and Gerald Matatics from Antithesis Magazine
A formal written debate on sola scriptura between Julie Staples and Apolonio Latar
A Catholic assessment of sola scriptura
An Orthodox Christian assessment of sola scriptura
Orthodox Christian Responses to Protestant Apologists on Sola Scriptura
"Paradosis: The Handing On of Divine Revelation" from a Catholic perspective
"A Disputation on Holy Scripture" by Puritan William Whitaker (1588)
Citations from the Early Church Fathers on "Sola Scriptura"
Sola Scriptura - The Sufficient and Final Authority of the Scriptures, from an Anabaptist Brethren perspective


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity











Stained glass at St John's Ashfield, illustrating Jesus' description of himself, "I am the Good Shepherd", from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11.









































































































Category
Portal icon
WikiProject




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
History of Christianity



























The Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea

























































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Anabaptists


























































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Martin Luther




























































































Authority control
GND: 4138504-4
 

  


Categories: Protestant Reformation
Latin religious phrases
Lutheran theology
Christian theology of the Bible
Heresy in Christianity
Christian terminology






















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Čeština
Deutsch
Español
Esperanto
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
Latina
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Suomi
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last modified on 26 May 2015, at 02:46.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura















Sola scriptura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the theological concept. For other uses, see Sola scriptura (disambiguation).


 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2014)

The Five Solae of the
Protestant Reformation

Sola scriptura

Sola fide

Sola gratia

Solus Christus

Soli Deo gloria
v ·
 t ·
 e
   

Protestantism


95Thesen.jpg
(The Ninety-Five Theses)

The Reformation

History

Culture

Major branches
Adventism
Anabaptism
Anglicanism
Baptist churches
Calvinism (Reformed tradition)
Lutheranism
Methodism
Pentecostalism
Evangelicalism
Other Protestants

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God.
Sola scriptura is a formal principle of many Protestant Christian denominations, and one of the five solas. It was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers, who taught that authentication of Scripture is governed by the discernible excellence of the text as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man. Some Evangelical and Baptist denominations state the doctrine of sola scriptura more strongly: Scripture is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
By contrast, the Anglican Communion and the Methodist Church, though generally considered a form of Protestantism, uphold the doctrine of prima scriptura,[1][2] with Sacred Scripture being illumined by tradition, reason, and in Methodism, experience as well, thus completing the four sides of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.[3][4]


Contents  [hide]
1 Overview 1.1 Characteristics in Lutheranism 1.1.1 Inspiration
1.1.2 Divine authority
1.1.3 Clarity
1.1.4 Efficacy
1.1.5 Sufficiency
1.2 Characteristics in the Reformed faith
2 Prima scriptura
3 Singular authority of Scripture
4 Scripture and Sacred Tradition
5 Critiques
6 Legacy
7 See also
8 References
9 External links

Overview[edit]



Sola scriptura was one of the main theological beliefs that Martin Luther proclaimed against the Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation
Sola scriptura is one of the five solas, considered by some Protestant groups to be the theological pillars of the Reformation.[5] The key implication of the principle is that interpretations and applications of the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves; hence, the ecclesiastical authority is viewed as subject to correction by the Scriptures, even by an individual member of the Church.
Luther said, "a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it". The intention of the Reformation was to correct what he asserted to be the errors of the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority and to reject what Catholics considered to be Apostolic Tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible, wherever Tradition did not have Biblical support or where it supposedly contradicted Scripture.[citation needed]
Sola scriptura, however, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible. Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice. As Luther said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so."[6]
Characteristics in Lutheranism[edit]
Part of a series on
Lutheranism
Luther's rose
Luther's rose


Book of Concord[show]


















Theology[show]





















Sacraments ·
 Rites
 [show]









Organization[show]










History[show]













Missionaries[show]






















Bible translators[show]

















































Theologians[show]



























Lutheranism portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Lutheranism teaches that the Bible of the Old and New Testaments is the only divinely inspired book and the only source of divinely revealed knowledge.[7] Scripture alone is the formal principle of the faith in Lutheranism, the final authority for all matters of faith and morals because of its inspiration, authority, clarity, efficacy, and sufficiency.[8]
Inspiration[edit]
Lutheranism teaches that the Bible does not merely contain the Word of God, but every word of it is, because of verbal inspiration, the direct, immediate word of God.[9] As Lutherans confess in the Nicene Creed, the Holy Spirit "spoke through the prophets". The Apology of the Augsburg Confession identifies Holy Scripture with the Word of God[10] and calls the Holy Spirit the author of the Bible.[11] Because of this, Lutherans confess in the Formula of Concord, "we receive and embrace with our whole heart the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel."[12] The apocryphal books were not written by the prophets, by inspiration; they contain errors[13] were never included in the Palestinian Canon that Jesus used,[14] and therefore are not a part of Holy Scripture.[15] The prophetic and apostolic Scriptures are said by the Lutheran church to be authentic as written by the prophets and apostles, and that a correct translation of their writings is God's Word because it has the same meaning as the original Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek.[15] A mistranslation is not God's word, and no human authority can invest it with divine authority.[15]



 "I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach..."[16] This illustration is from the title page of Luther's Bible.
Divine authority[edit]
Holy Scripture, the Word of God, carries the full authority of God in Lutheranism: every single statement of the Bible calls for instant, unqualified and unrestricted acceptance.[17] Every doctrine of the Bible is the teaching of God and therefore requires full agreement.[18] Every promise of the Bible calls for unshakable trust in its fulfillment;[19] every command of the Bible is the directive of God himself and therefore demands willing observance.[20]
What is said here of "every statement of the Bible" does not represent the faith of all Lutherans: a 2001 survey showed that 72 percent of members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America do not accept that everything in the Bible is literal, but that it may contain scientific or historical errors or describe events symbolically.[21]
Clarity[edit]
Main article: Clarity of scripture
Lutheranism teaches that the Bible presents all doctrines and commands of the Christian faith clearly;[22] that God's Word is freely accessible to every reader or hearer of ordinary intelligence, without requiring any special education.[23] It also teaches that readers must understand the language God's Word is presented in, and not be so preoccupied by contrary thoughts so as to prevent understanding.[24] It teaches that, consequently, no one needs to wait for any clergy, and pope, scholar, or ecumenical council to explain the real meaning of any part of the Bible.[25]



Luther's translation of the Bible, from 1534, with four books placed after those Luther considered, "...the true and certain chief books of the New Testament.".[26]
Efficacy[edit]
Lutheranism teaches that Scripture is united with the power of the Holy Spirit and with it, not only demands, but also creates the acceptance of its teaching.[27] This teaching produces faith and obedience. Holy Scripture is not a dead letter, but rather, the power of the Holy Spirit is inherent in it.[28] Scripture does not compel a mere intellectual assent to its doctrine, resting on logical argumentation, but rather it creates the living agreement of faith.[29] The Smalcald Articles affirm, "...in those things which concern the spoken, outward Word, we must firmly hold that God grants His Spirit or grace to no one, except through or with the preceding outward Word."[30]
Sufficiency[edit]
Lutheranism teaches that The Bible contains everything that one needs to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life.[31] There are no deficiencies in Scripture that need to be filled with by tradition, pronouncements of the Pope, new revelations, or present-day development of doctrine.[32]
Characteristics in the Reformed faith[edit]
The Westminster Confession of Faith spoke of the use of "the ordinary means" (such as turning to pastors and teachers) for reaching an understanding of what is contained in Scripture and is necessary to know:

Chapter 1, Section VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
Prima scriptura[edit]



 In the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, experience is an additional source of authority. Pictured is a memorial to John Wesley's own experience of the New Birth and Assurance.
Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Prima scriptura, which holds that, besides canonical Scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he or she should live. Examples of this include the general revelation in creation, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from canonized Scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that Scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the Scriptures.
Two Christian denominations that uphold the position of prima scriptura are the Anglican Communion and the Methodist Church.[1][4] In the Anglican tradition, Sacred Scripture, tradition, and reason form the Anglican triad or "three-legged stool", formulated by the Anglican theologian Richard Hooker.[4][33] "Building on the Anglican theological tradition, Wesley added a fourth emphasis, experience. The resulting four components or "sides" of the [Wesleyan] quadrilateral are (1) Scripture, (2) tradition, (3) reason, and (4) experience. For United Methodists, Scripture is considered the primary source and standard for Christian doctrine. Tradition is experience and the witness of development and growth of the faith through the past centuries and in many nations and cultures. Experience is the individual's understanding and appropriating of the faith in the light of his or her own life. Through reason the individual Christian brings to bear on the Christian faith discerning and cogent thought. These four elements taken together bring the individual Christian to a mature and fulfilling understanding of the Christian faith and the required response of worship and service."[3]
Sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority, other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, biblical commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.
Singular authority of Scripture[edit]
The idea of the singular authority of Scripture is the motivation behind much of the Protestant effort to translate the Bible into vernacular languages and distribute it widely. Protestants generally believe each Christian should read the Bible for themselves and evaluate what they have been taught on the basis of it. In the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church, both of which teach that authoritative doctrine can also come from tradition, have been more active in translating them as well as the Bible into the vernacular languages. Contrary to a common polemic of the Reformation, many German translations of the bible existed before Martin Luther.[34] Traditions of these non-Protestant churches include the Bible, patristic, conciliar, and liturgical texts. Prior to the Protestant movement, hundreds of vernacular translations of the Bible and liturgical materials were translated throughout the preceding sixteen centuries. Some Bible translations such as the Geneva Bible included annotations and commentary that were anti-Roman Catholic. Before the Protestant Reformation, Latin was almost exclusively utilized in Latin Rite Catholic Churches, but was understood by only the most literate.
According to sola scriptura, the Church does not speak infallibly in its traditions, but only in Scripture. John Wesley stated in the 18th century, "In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church."[35] For this reason, sola scriptura is called the formal cause or principle of the Reformation.
Protestants[who?] argue that the Scriptures are guaranteed to remain true to their divine source—and thus, only insofar as the Church retains Scriptural faith is it assured of God's favor. They further assert that, if the Church were to fall away from faith through Scripture (a possibility Roman Catholics deny but Protestants affirm), its authority would be negated. Therefore, early Protestants[who?] argued for eliminating traditions and doctrines they believed were based on distortions of Scripture, or were contrary to the Bible—but that the Roman Catholic Church considered Scripturally-based aspects of the Christian faith, such as transubstantiation, the doctrine of purgatory, the veneration of images or icons, and especially the doctrine that the Pope in Rome is the head of the Church on earth (Papal supremacy). Roman Catholics[who?] point to verses such as John 6:51 (transubstantiation), 1 Cor 3:15 (purgatory), Numbers 21:8 (icons), John 21:17 (Papal supremacy) to argue these are biblical doctrines.[citation needed]
However, the Reformers[who?] believed some tradition to be very seriously in conflict with the Scriptures: especially, with regard to teaching about the Church itself, but also touching on basic principles of the Gospel. They believed that no matter how venerable the traditional source, traditional authority is always open to question by comparison to what the Scriptures say. The individual may be forced to rely on his understanding of Scripture even if the whole tradition were to speak against him. This, they said, had always been implicitly recognized in the Church, and remains a fail-safe against the corruption of the Church by human error and deceit. Corruptions had crept in, they said, which seriously undermined the legitimate authority of the Church, and Tradition had been perverted by wicked men.[citation needed]
Sola scriptura is a doctrine that is not, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 "expressly set down in Scripture". However, it is claimed[by whom?] that it passes the second test of being part of "the whole counsel of God" because it is "deduced from Scripture" "by good and necessary consequence", citing passages such as Isaiah 8:20: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Jesus is also typically understood by Protestants[who?] as expressly nullifying unscriptural traditions in the (Jewish) church, when he says, for example in Mark 7:13: "thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."
Scripture and Sacred Tradition[edit]
The Catholic Church, from which the Protestant Church broke away, and against which they directed these arguments, did not see Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the faith as different sources of authority, but that Scripture was handed down as part of Sacred Tradition (see 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Timothy 2:2). Accepted traditions were also perceived by the Church as cohesive in nature. The proper interpretation of the Scriptures was seen as part of the faith of the Church, and seen indeed as the manner in which Biblical authority was upheld (see Book of Acts 15:28-29). The meaning of Scripture was seen as proven from the Faith universally held in the churches (see Phil 2:1, Acts 4:32), and the correctness of that universal Faith was seen as proven from the Scriptures and apostolic Sacred Tradition (see 2 The 2:15, 2 The 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2). The Biblical canon itself was thus viewed by the Church as part of the Church's Tradition, as defined by its leadership and acknowledged by its laity.[citation needed]
The Catholic Dei verbum and the papal encyclicals Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII and Divino afflante Spiritu by Pope Pius XII set out Catholic teaching on tradition versus individual interpretation.[36][better source needed][37]
The Catholic Church teaches that Christ entrusted the preaching of the Gospel to the apostles, who handed it on orally and in writing, and according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time. This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it."[38] "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches."[39] For the Eastern Orthodox too, "the Holy Bible forms a part of Holy Tradition, but does not lie outside of it. One would be in error to suppose that Scripture and Tradition are two separate and distinct sources of Christian Faith, as some do, since there is, in reality, only one source; and the Holy Bible exists and found its formulation within Tradition."[40]
The 1978 Evangelical declaration Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, conversely, states:

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us. We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.[41]
Critiques[edit]
Following the Protestant Reformation, sola scriptura has come under serious critique by Catholic and Orthodox Christians. In his The Shape of Sola Scriptura, the Reformed Christian writer Keith A. Mathison mentions several recent examples of such critics.[42] In response, Mathison distinguishes what he considers to be the true doctrine of sola scriptura from the "subjective and individualistic version" of the doctrine that most Protestants have adopted.[43]
The American author and television presenter Patrick Madrid wrote that Sola scriptura is self-referentially incoherent, as the Bible itself does not teach sola scriptura, and therefore the belief that the Scriptures are the only source of Christian belief is self-contradicting given that it cannot be supported without extra-scriptural doctrine.[44]
In the 2008 book Catholicism and Science, the authors Peter M.J. Hess and Paul Allen wrote that sola scriptura is "inherently divisive", citing the Marburg Colloquy where Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli debated the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist on scriptural grounds but were unable to reach agreement on Sacramental Union. Hess and Allen argue that, when Scripture is seen as the only source of infallible teaching, its interpretation is subject to fallible interpretation, and without an infallible interpreter, a certainty of Christian belief is not possible.[45]
The Catholic Encyclopedia of Theology notes that, since the 27 books that make up the New Testament canon of Scripture are not based on a Scriptural list that authenticates them to be inspired, their legitimacy would be impossible to distinguish with certainty without appealing to another infallible source, such as the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which assembled and authenticated this list at the Synod of Rome in 382 A.D. Before this, a compiled and authenticated Bible as it is now known did not yet exist.[46]
The American Catholic writer Dave Armstrong wrote that there are several examples of Jesus and his Apostles accepting oral and extrabiblical tradition in the New Testament:[47]
The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matthew 2:23). This prophecy, which is considered to be "God's word", was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses' seat", but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses.
In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul the Apostle refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But, this critic writes, rabbinic tradition does.
"As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Timothy 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (cf. Exodus 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
In 1 Peter 3:19, the Apostle Peter describes Jesus' descent into Hell, drawing directly from a Jewish apocalyptic book, the Book of Enoch, which is not part of the Biblical canon in Catholic or Protestant churches.
In the Epistle of Jude 9, a dispute is mentioned between the Archangel Michael and Satan over Moses' body, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, and is drawn from oral Jewish tradition.
In the Epistle of James 5:17, when recounting the prayers of Elijah described in 1 Kings 17, a lack of rain for three years is mentioned, which is absent from the passage in 1 Kings.
Armstrong argues that since Jesus and the Apostles acknowledge authoritative Jewish oral tradition, Christians can therefore not dispute oral tradition's legitimacy and authority.
Legacy[edit]


 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2014)
Sola scriptura continues to be a doctrinal commitment of conservative branches and offshoots of the Lutheran churches, Reformed churches, and Baptist churches as well as other Protestants, especially where they describe themselves by the slogan "Bible-believing".
See also[edit]

Portal icon Christianity portal
Biblical criticism
Bibliolatry
Cessationism versus Continuationism, where sola scriptura is discussed with regard to the issue of charismatic gifts
Ex cathedra
Fundamentalist Christianity
Ijtihad, the Islamic concept of interpretation of religion and law not limited by tradition
Prima scriptura
Qur'an alone, an Islamic movement influenced in its theory by sola scriptura.
Karaite Judaism
Nichiren Buddhism
Wesleyan Quadrilateral
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b "Methodist Beliefs: In what ways are Lutherans different from United Methodists?". Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. 2014. Retrieved 22 May 2014. "The United Methodists see Scripture as the primary source and criterion for Christian doctrine. They emphasize the importance of tradition, experience, and reason for Christian doctrine. Lutherans teach that the Bible is the sole source for Christian doctrine. The truths of Scripture do not need to be authenticated by tradition, human experience, or reason. Scripture is self authenticating and is true in and of itself."
2.Jump up ^ Humphrey, Edith M. (15 April 2013). Scripture and Tradition. Baker Books. p. 16. ISBN 9781441240484. "historically Anglicans have adopted what could be called a prima Scriptura position."
3.^ Jump up to: a b Waltz, Alan K. (1991). "A Dictionary for United Methodists". Abingdon Press. "The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Building on the Anglican theological tradition, Wesley added a fourth emphasis, experience. The resulting four components or "sides" of the quadrilateral are (1) Scripture, (2) tradition, (3) reason, and (4) experience. For United Methodists, Scripture is considered the primary source and standard for Christian doctrine. Tradition is experience and the witness of development and growth of the faith through the past centuries and in many nations and cultures. Experience is the individual's understanding and appropriating of the faith in the light of his or her own life. Through reason the individual Christian brings to bear on the Christian faith discerning and cogent thought. These four elements taken together bring the individual Christian to a mature and fulfilling understanding of the Christian faith and the required response of worship and service." 
4.^ Jump up to: a b c Schmidt, Richard H. (2002). Glorious Companions: Five Centuries of Anglican Spirituality. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 15. ISBN 9780802822222. "A favorite, if overworked, image among Anglicans is that of the three-legged stool, which stands only when all three legs are in place, as a visual way to think of the Anglican view of authority. We acknowledge three sources of authority, and we manage not to fall down when all three are in place. The first and most important of these is the Bible. The Articles of Religion, a Reformation-era statement of Anglican views on questions of the day, says that the Bible "containeth all things necessary to salvation," so that nothing not found in the Bible is to be required as an article of faith."
5.Jump up ^ Michael Horton (Mar–April 1994). "Reformation Essentials". Modern Reformation. Retrieved 2008-07-10. Check date values in: |date= (help)
6.Jump up ^ Martin Luther, Smalcald Articles II, 15.
7.Jump up ^ For the traditional Lutheran view of the Bible, see Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 3ff. ISBN 0-524-04891-6.. For an overview of the doctrine of verbal inspiration in Lutheranism, see Inspiration, Doctrine of in the Christian Cyclopedia.
8.Jump up ^ Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 7ff. ISBN 0-524-04891-6., Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 29.
9.Jump up ^ 2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Corinthians 2:13, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Romans 3:2, 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Samuel 23:2, Hebrews 1:1, John 10:35, John 16:13, John 17:17, Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 26.
10.Jump up ^ "God's Word, or Holy Scripture" from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article II, of Original Sin
11.Jump up ^ "the Scripture of the Holy Ghost." Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Preface, 9
12.Jump up ^ The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, "Rule and Norm", 3.
13.Jump up ^ (Tobit 6, 71; 2 Macc. 12, 43 f.; 14, 411),
14.Jump up ^ See Bible, Canon in the Christian Cyclopedia[dead link]
15.^ Jump up to: a b c Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 27.
16.Jump up ^ Revelation 14:6
17.Jump up ^ Matthew 4:3, Luke 4:3, Genesis 3:1, John 10:35, Luke 24:25, Psalm 119:140, Psalm 119:167, Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 27., Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–9. ISBN 0-524-04891-6.
18.Jump up ^ 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Luke 24:25-27, Luke 16:29-31, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Jeremiah 8:9, Jeremiah 23:26, Isaiah 8:19-20, 1 Corinthians 14:37, Galatians 1:8, Acts 17:11, Acts 15:14-15, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–10. ISBN 0-524-04891-6.
19.Jump up ^ 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Corinthians 1:20, Titus 1:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Peter 1:19, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–9. ISBN 0-524-04891-6.
20.Jump up ^ Deuteronomy 12:32, Deuteronomy 5:9-10, James 2:10, Joshua 1:8, Luke 16:29, 2 Timothy 3:16, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–11. ISBN 0-524-04891-6.
21.Jump up ^ "Bible: Literal or Inspired". The Lutheran. Retrieved 13 October 2012.
22.Jump up ^ Psalm 19:8, Psalm 119:105, Psalm 119:130, 2 Timothy 3:15, Deuteronomy 30:11, 2 Peter 1:19, Ephesians 3:3-4, John 8:31-32, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, John 8:43-47, 2 Peter 3:15-16, Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 29., Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 11–12. ISBN 0-524-04891-6.
23.Jump up ^ Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 11. ISBN 0-524-04891-6., Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
24.Jump up ^ Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 11. ISBN 0-524-04891-6.
25.Jump up ^ Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
26.Jump up ^ Luther's Treatment of the 'Disputed Books' of the New Testament
27.Jump up ^ Romans 1:16, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 11. ISBN 0-524-04891-6., Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 27.
28.Jump up ^ Romans 1:16, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, Psalm 119:105, 2 Peter 1:19, 2 Timothy 1:16-17,Ephesians 3:3-4, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 11–12. ISBN 0-524-04891-6., Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
29.Jump up ^ John 6:63, Revelation 1:3, Ephesians 3:3-4, John 7:17, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 12. ISBN 0-524-04891-6., Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
30.Jump up ^ Smalcald Articles, part 8, "Of Confession"
31.Jump up ^ 2 Timothy 3:15-17, John 5:39, John 17:20, Psalm 19:7-8, Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
32.Jump up ^ Isaiah 8:20, Luke 16:29-31, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 13. ISBN 0-524-04891-6., Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
33.Jump up ^ Lewis, Harold T. (1 January 2001). Christian Social Witness. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 138. ISBN 9781561011889. "It is Hooker to whom we are indebted for the ”three-legged stool” of scripture, tradition, and reason on which the ethos and identity of Anglicanism rest."
34.Jump up ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_German#Pre-Lutheran_German_Bibles. |first1= missing |last1= in Authors list (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
35.Jump up ^ Popery Calmly Considered (1779) in The works of the Rev. John Wesley, vol. XV, p. 180, London (1812), digitized by Google Books
36.Jump up ^ http://cathapol.blogspot.in/2010/01/sola-scriptura-self-refuting.html
37.Jump up ^ http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Scripture/Articles/SolaScripturasSelf-Refutation.aspx[dead link]
38.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 75-78
39.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 97
40.Jump up ^ Orthodox Outreach, "Holy Tradition"
41.Jump up ^ "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article VII". Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Retrieved 1 November 2014.
42.Jump up ^ Robert A. Sungenis, author of Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing Co., 1997); Mark Shea, author of By What Authority? (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1996); Clark Carlton, The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Catholic Church (Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 1997); Patrick Madrid (editor), Surprised by Truth (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994); Scott Hahn and Kimberley Hahn, Rome, Sweet Home (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993); David Currie, Born Fundamentalist. Born Again Catholic (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993); Peter Gilquist (editor), Coming Home: Why Protestant Clergy Are Becoming Orthodox (Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1992). Cited in Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press & Book Service 2001 ISBN 978-1-88576774-5), p. 13
43.Jump up ^ Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press & Book Service 2001 ISBN 978-1-88576774-5), pp. 13–14
44.Jump up ^ Patrick Madrid (2012). Envoy for Christ: 25 Years as a Catholic Apologist. Servant Books. p. 25.
45.Jump up ^ Peter M.J. Hess and Paul Allen (2008). Catholicism and Science. Greenwood Press. pp. 28–29. ISBN 978-0313331909.
46.Jump up ^ Karl Rahner, ed. (1999). Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi. Burns & Oates. p. 172. ISBN 978-0860120063.
47.Jump up ^ Dave Armstrong (2004). The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants. Sophia Institute Press. pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-1928832737.
External links[edit]
Articles on sola scriptura from a Reformed perspective
Bible verses on sola scriptura from a Catholic perspective
Scripture & Tradition from a Catholic perspective Proving Inspiration refers to "sola scriptura"
Scripture and Tradition and "What's Your Authority?" argues against "sola scriptura"
The Shape of Sola Scriptura (2001) by Keith Mathison (himself a Calvinistic evangelical)
A written debate on sola scriptura between Douglas Jones and Gerald Matatics from Antithesis Magazine
A formal written debate on sola scriptura between Julie Staples and Apolonio Latar
A Catholic assessment of sola scriptura
An Orthodox Christian assessment of sola scriptura
Orthodox Christian Responses to Protestant Apologists on Sola Scriptura
"Paradosis: The Handing On of Divine Revelation" from a Catholic perspective
"A Disputation on Holy Scripture" by Puritan William Whitaker (1588)
Citations from the Early Church Fathers on "Sola Scriptura"
Sola Scriptura - The Sufficient and Final Authority of the Scriptures, from an Anabaptist Brethren perspective


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity











Stained glass at St John's Ashfield, illustrating Jesus' description of himself, "I am the Good Shepherd", from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11.









































































































Category
Portal icon
WikiProject




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
History of Christianity



























The Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea

























































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Anabaptists


























































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Martin Luther




























































































Authority control
GND: 4138504-4
 

  


Categories: Protestant Reformation
Latin religious phrases
Lutheran theology
Christian theology of the Bible
Heresy in Christianity
Christian terminology






















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Čeština
Deutsch
Español
Esperanto
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
Latina
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Suomi
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last modified on 26 May 2015, at 02:46.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura








Biblical hermeneutics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Biblical interpretation)
Jump to: navigation, search

"Biblical interpretation" redirects here. For the journal, see Biblical Interpretation (journal).


 This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (June 2013)
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible


Canons and books
 [show]






















Authorship and development
 [show]












Translations and manuscripts
 [show]














Biblical studies[show]
































Interpretation[show]













Perspectives[show]









Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible. It is part of the broader field of hermeneutics which involves the study of principles of interpretation for all forms of communication, nonverbal and verbal.[1]
While Jewish and Christian Biblical hermeneutics have some overlap and dialogue, they have distinctly separate interpretative traditions, see also Christianity and Judaism.


Contents  [hide]
1 Talmudical hermeneutics
2 Christian biblical hermeneutics 2.1 Diverse interpretations
2.2 Theological hermeneutics as traditional Christian Biblical exegesis
3 Techniques of hermeneutics 3.1 Roman Catholic principles of hermeneutics
3.2 Eastern Orthodox hermeneutical principles
3.3 Trajectory hermeneutics
4 See also
5 References 5.1 Further reading
6 External links

Talmudical hermeneutics[edit]
Main article: Talmudical hermeneutics
Talmudical hermeneutics (Hebrew: approximately, מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן) refers to Jewish methods for the investigation and determination of the meaning of the Hebrew Bible, as well as rules by which Jewish law could be established. One well-known summary of these principles appears in the Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael.
Methods by which the Talmud explores the meaning of scripture:
grammar and exegesis
the interpretation of certain words and letters and apparently superfluous and/or missing words or letters, and prefixes and suffixes
the interpretation of those letters which, in certain words, are provided with points
the interpretation of the letters in a word according to their numerical value (see Gemaṭria)
the interpretation of a word by dividing it into two or more words (see Noṭariḳon)
the interpretation of a word according to its consonantal form or according to its vocalization
the interpretation of a word by transposing its letters or by changing its vowels
the logical deduction of a halakah from a Scriptural text or from another law
The rabbis of the Talmud considered themselves to be the receivers and transmitters of an Oral law as to the meaning of the scriptures. They considered this oral tradition to set forth the precise, original meanings of the words, revealed at the same time and by the same means as the original scriptures themselves. Interpretive methods listed above such as word play and letter counting were never used as logical proof of the meaning or teaching of a scripture. Instead they were considered to be an asmakhta, a validation of a meaning that was already set by tradition or a homiletic backing for rabbinic rulings.
Christian biblical hermeneutics[edit]
Until the Enlightenment, Biblical hermeneutics was usually seen as a form of special hermeneutics (like legal hermeneutics); the status of scripture was thought to necessitate a particular form of understanding and interpretation.
In the nineteenth century it became increasingly common to read Scripture just like any other writing, although the different interpretations were often disputed. Friedrich Schleiermacher argued against a distinction between "general" and "special" hermeneutics, and for a general theory of hermeneutics applicable to all texts, including the Bible. Various methods of higher criticism sought to understand the Bible purely as a human, historical document.
The concept of hermeneutics has acquired at least two different but related meanings which are in use today. Firstly, in the older sense, Biblical hermeneutics may be understood as the theological principles of exegesis which is often virtually synonymous with 'principles of biblical interpretation' or methodology of Biblical exegesis. Secondly, the more recent development is to understand the term 'Biblical hermeneutics' as the broader philosophy and linguistic underpinnings of interpretation. The question is posed: "How is understanding possible?" The rationale of this approach is that, while Scripture is "more than just an ordinary text," it is certainly "no less than an ordinary text." Scripture is in the first analysis "text" which human beings try to understand; in this sense, the principles of understanding any text apply to the Bible as well (regardless of whatever other additional, specifically theological principles are considered).
In this second sense, all aspects of philosophical and linguistic hermeneutics are considered to be applicable to the Biblical texts, as well. There are obvious examples of this in the links between 20th-century philosophy and Christian theology. For example, Rudolf Bultmann's hermeneutical approach was strongly influenced by existentialism, and in particular by the philosophy of Martin Heidegger; and since the 1970s, the philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer have had a wide-ranging influence on Biblical hermeneutics as developed by a wide range of Christian theologians. The French-American philosopher René Girard follows a similar trail.[2]
Diverse interpretations[edit]
Biblical scholars have noted the diversity of interpretations by Protestants and to a lesser extent by Catholics.
Protestants. In his forward to R. C. Sproul’s Knowing Scripture, J. I. Packer observes that Protestant theologians are in conflict about biblical interpretation.[3] To illustrate the diversity of biblical interpretations, William Yarchin[4] pictures a shelf full of religious books saying different things, but all claiming to be faithful interpretations of the Bible. [5] Bernard Ramm observed that such diverse interpretations underlie the “doctrinal variations in Christendom.”[6] A mid-19th century book on biblical interpretation observed that even those who believe the Bible to be “the word of God” hold “the most discordant views” about fundamental doctrines.”[7]
Catholics. The Catholic Church asserts the “capital importance of biblical interpretation” and Catholic scholars recognize some “diversity in the Bible.” This allows for an “openness” of interpretation as long as it stays within the Catholic Church’s theological Tradition.[8] So it is that “theological factors set the parameters” for interpreting the Scripture that Catholics believe to be the “word of God.”[9] Such parameters disallow the “widely differening interpretations” that make it possible for Protestants to prove “almost anything” by the Bible.[10]
Theological hermeneutics as traditional Christian Biblical exegesis[edit]
This form of theological hermeneutics in the mainstream Protestant tradition considers Christian Biblical hermeneutics in the tradition of explication of the text, or exegesis, to deal with various principles that can be applied to the study of Scripture. If the canon of Scripture is considered as an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound. Biblical hermeneutics differs from hermeneutics and within traditional Protestant theology, there are a variety of interpretive formulae. Such formulae are generally not mutually exclusive, and interpreters may adhere to several of these approaches at once. These formulae include:[11]
Theological Group of Principles:
The Historical-grammatical principle based on historical, socio-political, geographical, cultural and linguistic / grammatical context
Alternate, mutually-exclusive, models of history: The Dispensational model or The Chronometrical Principle: "During different periods of time, God has chosen to deal in a particular way with man in respect to sin and man's responsibility."
The Covenantal model: "We differentiate between the various contracts that God has made with his people; specifically their provisions, their parties and their purposes."
The New-Covenantal model: The Old Testament Laws have been fulfilled and abrogated or cancelled with Christ's death, and replaced with the Law of Christ of the New Covenant, although many of the Old Covenant laws are reinstituted under the New Covenant.
The Ethnic Division Principle: "The word of truth is rightly divided in relation to the three classes which it treats, i.e. Jews, Gentiles and the Church."
The Breach Principle: Interpretation of a certain verse or passage in Scripture is aided by a consideration of certain breaches, either breaches of promise or breaches of time.
The Christo-Centric Principle: "The mind of deity is eternally centered in Christ. All angelic thought and ministry are centered in Christ. All Satanic hatred and subtlety are centered at Christ. All human hopes are, and human occupations should be, centered in Christ. The whole material universe in creation is centered in Christ. The entire written word is centered in Christ."
The Moral Principle
The Discriminational Principle: "We should divide the word of truth so as to make a distinction where God makes a difference."
The Predictive Principle
The Application Principle: "An application of truth may be made only after the correct interpretation has been made"
The Principle of Human Willingness in Illumination
The Context Principle: "God gives light upon a subject through either near or remote passages bearing upon the same subject."
Sub-divided Context/Mention Principles:
The First Mention Principle: "God indicates in the first mention of a subject the truth with which that subject stands connected in the mind of God."
The Progressive Mention Principle: "God makes the revelation of any given truth increasingly clear as the word proceeds to its consummation."
The Comparative Mention Principle
The Full Mention Principle or The Complete Mention Principle: "God declares his full mind upon any subject vital to our spiritual life."
The Agreement Principle: "The truthfulness and faithfulness of God become the guarantee that he will not set forth any passage in his word that contradicts any other passage."
The Direct Statement Principle: "God says what he means and means what he says."
The Gap Principle:"God, in the Jewish Scriptures, ignores certain periods of time, leaping over them without comment."
The Threefold Principle:"The word of God sets forth the truths of salvation in a three-fold way: past - justification; present - sanctification/transformation; future - glorification/consummation."
The Repetition Principle:"God repeats some truth or subject already given, generally with the addition of details not before given."
The Synthetic Principle
The Principle of Illustrative Mention
The Double Reference Principle
Figures of Speech Group of Principles:
The Numerical Principle
The Symbolic Principle
The Typical Principle: "Certain people, events, objects and rituals found in the Old Testament may serve as object lessons and pictures by which God teaches us of his grace and saving power."
The Parabolic Principle
The Allegorical Principle
Techniques of hermeneutics[edit]
In the interpretation of a text, hermeneutics considers the original medium[12] as well as what language says, supposes, doesn't say, and implies. The process consists of several steps for best attaining the Scriptural author's intended meaning(s). One such process is taught by Henry A Virkler, in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (1981):
Lexical-syntactical analysis: This step looks at the words used and the way the words are used. Different order of the sentence, the punctuation, the tense of the verse are all aspects that are looked at in the lexical syntactical method. Here, lexicons and grammar aids can help in extracting meaning from the text.
Historical/cultural analysis: The history and culture surrounding the authors is important to understand to aid in interpretation. For instance, understanding the Jewish sects of the Palestine and the government that ruled Palestine in New Testament times increases understanding of Scripture. And, understanding the connotations of positions such as the High Priest and that of the tax collector helps us know what others thought of the people holding these positions.
Contextual analysis: A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book and even biblical context.
Theological analysis: It is often said that a single verse usually doesn't make a theology. This is because Scripture often touches on issues in several books. For instance, gifts of the Spirit are spoken about in Romans, Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. To take a verse from Corinthians without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can cause a poor interpretation.
Special literary analysis: There are several special literary aspects to look at, but the overarching theme is that each genre of Scripture has a different set of rules that applies to it. Of the genres found in Scripture, there are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. In these, there are differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language. For instance, the apocalyptic writings and poetry have more figurative and allegorical language than does the narrative or historical writing. These must be addressed, and the genre recognized to gain a full understanding of the intended meaning.
Howard Hendricks, longtime professor of hermeneutics at Dallas Theological Seminary, set out the method of observing the text, interpreting the text, applying the text in his book, Living By the Book. Other major Christian teachers, such as Charles R. (Chuck) Swindoll, who wrote the foreword, Kay Arthur and David Jeremiah have based their hermeneutics on the principles Howard teaches.
David L. Barr states there are three obstacles that stand in the way of correctly interpreting the biblical writings: We speak a different language, we live approximately two millennia later, and we bring different expectations to the text.[13] Additionally, Barr suggests that we approach the reading of the Bible with significantly different literary expectations than those in reading other forms of literature and writing.
Roman Catholic principles of hermeneutics[edit]
The Catholic Encyclopedia lists a number of principles guiding Roman Catholic hermeneutics in the article on Exegesis (note: the Catholic Encyclopedia was written in 1917 and does not reflect the changes set forth by the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu published by Pius XII in 1943, which opened modern Catholic Biblical scholarship) :
Historico-grammatical interpretation - The meaning of the literary expression of the Bible is best learned by a thorough knowledge of the languages in which the original text of Scripture was written, and by acquaintance with the Scriptural way of speaking, including the various customs, laws, habits and national prejudices which influenced the inspired writers as they composed their respective books. John Paul II said that: "A second conclusion is that the very nature of biblical texts means that interpreting them will require continued use of the historical-critical method, at least in its principal procedures. The Bible, in effect, does not present itself as a direct revelation of timeless truths but as the written testimony to a series of interventions in which God reveals himself in human history. In a way that differs from tenets of other religions [such as Islam, for instance], the message of the Bible is solidly grounded in history.[14]
Catholic interpretation - Because the Catholic Church is, according to Catholics, the official custodian and interpreter of the Bible, Catholicism's teaching concerning the Sacred Scriptures and their genuine sense must be the supreme guide of the commentator. The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly.
Reverence - Since the Bible is God's own book, its study must be begun and prosecuted with a spirit of reverence and prayer.
Inerrancy - Since God is the principal Author of Sacred Scripture, it can be claimed to contain no error, no self-contradiction, nothing contrary to scientific or historical truth (when the original authors intended historical or scientific truth to be portrayed). Minor contradictions are due to copyist errors in the codex or the translation. Catholics believe the Scripture is God's message put in words by men, with the imperfections this very fact necessarily implies. Catholic hermeneutics strongly supports inerrancy when it comes to principles but not, for example, when dealing with Evangelists' orthographic mistakes. According to Pope John Paul II, "Addressing men and women, from the beginnings of the Old Testament onward, God made use of all the possibilities of human language, while at the same time accepting that his word be subject to the constraints caused by the limitations of this language. Proper respect for inspired Scripture requires undertaking all the labors necessary to gain a thorough grasp of its meaning.[14]
Patristics - The Holy Fathers are of supreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith.
Pope Benedict XVI has indicated in Verbum Domini, the post-synodal apostolic exhortation on the Word of God, that "Christianity...perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history". He encourages a “faith-filled interpretation of Sacred Scripture”. He emphasizes that this manner of interpretation, “practiced from antiquity within the Church’s Tradition...recognizes the historical value of the biblical tradition". It "seeks to discover the living meaning of the Sacred Scriptures for the lives of believers today while not ignoring the human mediation of the inspired text and its literary genres". Verbum Domini #44.
Eastern Orthodox hermeneutical principles[edit]
God is real and is incarnated in our Lord Jesus Christ. Everything pertaining to the Scriptures must be understood Christologically. Jesus Christ, the incarnate Second Person of the Holy Trinity, is the center of all that we as Christians do, and being Himself the very Truth, He is the only gate through which we may enter into understanding of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments (though not all that is contained in the Old Testament is directly relevant for Christians). The Bible ultimately is about Christ and assists us in our union with Him.
Only the pure in heart "shall see God." That is, our spiritual state has a direct bearing on our interpretation of the Scriptures. As St. Athanasius said, "One cannot possibly understand the teaching of the saints unless one has a pure mind and is trying to imitate their life." Because the Scripture is a book inspired by the Holy Spirit and given through holy men, one's own holiness is directly relevant to the ability to interpret the book correctly. Unlike any other book, the Bible's words are "spirit and life," and so we must live spiritually in order to drink from this spiritual well. Clearly, prayer and spiritual discipline are necessary in order to understand Scripture properly.
Understanding of the Scripture comes with living its contents. As the quote from St. Athanasius illustrates, one must both have a pure mind and be trying to imitate the saints' lives in order to understand their teaching, a dual principle which applies most of all to the teaching of the saints in the Bible. This life is particularly expressed in terms of living out the commandments and attempting to imitate Christ's life of the Gospel.
The primary end of Scriptural hermeneutics is that of the whole Christian life, theosis (deification/divinization). That is, our purpose in attempting to understand the Bible must not be merely for academic inquiry but rather must be in order to become fully divinized human beings, soaked with the life of God, participating in His divine energies, growing to the fullness of the stature of Christ. We interpret Scripture in order to become by grace what Christ is by nature, to "become god."
Only within the community of the Church can the Bible be understood. It was written by the Church, in the Church and for the Church. Thus, it is a "family document" which is the highest point of Holy Tradition, taken with faith alongside the writings of the Fathers, the Liturgy, the Icons, the Lives of the Saints, and so on.
The Scripture is a witness to the truth, not an exhaustive tome on Christian living. Nowhere in the words of Scripture itself can we find the teaching that it is all-sufficient for Christian life. What we as Orthodox Christians do must always be consonant with the Scriptures, but explicit mention of a practice or teaching in the Scripture is not a requirement for its inclusion in the life of the Church. The Apostle Paul himself mentions the reality of unwritten sources of Church Tradition being equally in force for the believer in II Thessalonians 2:15, that these traditions to which we must "stand fast and hold" may be "by word or by our epistle." Examples of practices not explicit in Scripture are making the Sign of the Cross, triple immersion for baptism, and having monasticism. St. Basil the Great even says that without maintaining the unwritten traditions of the Church, we "mutilate the Gospel" (On the Spirit 66).
We must respect the integrity of the canon of the Bible as given to us in the Church's Tradition. Searches for other texts written by apostles or prophets may be interesting and of scholarly merit, but they are not part of the hermeneutical project within the Church. Or conversely, attempts to debunk the authorship or authenticity of the books in the canon are also outside the Church's life. If we were to find a verifiable "new" work by St. Paul or to discover that Moses did not in fact write Genesis, neither finding would have any bearing on the canon. It is what it is.
We must use every resource at our disposal in interpreting the Scripture to bring ourselves and others to the knowledge of the truth. Certainly, there must be spiritual discernment in knowing how to use those resources, but at least theoretically, anything can be used to come to know the truth better as it is revealed in Holy Writ.
We must have humility when approaching Scripture. Even some of the Church's greatest and most philosophically sophisticated saints stated that some passages were difficult for them. We must therefore be prepared to admit that our interpretations may be wrong, submitting them to the judgment of the Church.
We may make use in a secondary fashion of the resources of academic scholarship, whether logic, archaeology, linguistics, et cetera. These resources can be helpful in terms of illuminating our understanding of Scripture, but they must always be given only secondary prominence in the project and always only in conjunction with all these other hermeneutic principles. Primary must always be our life in the Church, living, studying and knowing the Bible within that vivified and salvific Holy Tradition.[15]
Trajectory hermeneutics[edit]
Trajectory hermeneutics or redemptive-movement hermeneutics (RMH)[16][17][18] is a hermeneutical approach that seeks to locate varying 'voices' in the text and to view this voice as a progressive trajectory through history (or at least through the Biblical witness); often a trajectory that progresses through to the present day. The contemporary reader of Scripture is in some way envisaged by the Biblical text as standing in continuity with a developing theme therein. The reader, then, is left to discern this trajectory and appropriate it accordingly.
William J. Webb employed such a hermeneutic, in his Slaves, Women & Homosexuals. Webb shows how the moral commands of the Old and New Testament were a significant improvement over the surrounding cultural values and practices. Webb identified 18 different ways in how God dealt with his people moving against the current of popular cultural values. While for Webb the use of this hermeneutic moves to highlight the progressive liberation of women and slaves from oppressive male/bourgeois dominance, the prohibition of homosexual acts consistently moves in a more conservative manner than that of the surrounding Ancient Near East or Graeco-Roman societies. While Paul does not explicitly state that slavery should be abolished, the trajectory seen in Scripture is a progressive liberation of slaves. When this is extended to modern times, it implies that the Biblical witness supports the abolition of slavery. The progressive liberation of women from oppressive patriarchalism, traced from Genesis and Exodus through to Paul's own acknowledgement of women as 'co-workers' (Rom. 16:3), sets a precedent that when applied to modern times suggests that women ought to have the same rights and roles afforded as men. Historically, the Biblical witness has become progressively more stringent in its views of homosexual practice and the implications of this are not commented upon by Webb.
See also[edit]
Allegorical interpretation
Apologetics
Biblical accommodation
Biblical law in Christianity
Biblical literalism
Biblical studies
Deconstruction-and-religion
Exegesis
Formulary controversy concerning Jansenius' Augustinus in the 17th century
Gemaṭria
Hermeneutics
Historical-grammatical method
Jewish commentaries on the Bible
Literary criticism
Literary theory
Noṭariḳon
Patternism
Postmodern Christianity
Principles of interpretation
Quranic hermeneutics
Summary of Christian eschatological differences
Syncretism
Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture
Talmudical hermeneutics
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Ferguson, Sinclair B; David F Wright, J. I. (James Innell) Packer (1988). New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1400-0.
2.Jump up ^ Perry, Simon (2005). Resurrecting Interpretation. Bristol Baptist College: University of Bristol.
3.Jump up ^ R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture (Rev. ed., InterVarsity Press, 2009), 10.
4.Jump up ^ http://www.apu.edu/honors/faculty/byarchin/
5.Jump up ^ William Yarchin, History of Biblical Interpretation: a Reader (Hendrickson, 2004), xi.
6.Jump up ^ Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation:A Textbook of Hermeneutics, 3rd rev ed (Baker Academic, 1980), 3.
7.Jump up ^ The Interpretation of the Bible (Boston; Massachusetts Sabbath School Society, 1844), 15-16.
8.Jump up ^ Peter Williamson, Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture: A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” (Gregorian Biblical BookShop, 2001), 23, 121, 254.
9.Jump up ^ David M. Williams, Receiving the Bible in Faith: Historical and Theological Exegesis (CUA Press, 2004), 6-7.
10.Jump up ^ Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (David C. Cook, 1991), 7.
11.Jump up ^ This list of "principles" in conservative evangelical hermeneutics appears to derive from: Hartill, J E 1960. Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
12.Jump up ^ http://www.biblicalperformancecriticism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45:wire-conference&catid=3:newsflash
13.Jump up ^ New Testament Story, Wadsworth Publishing, 1995, pg. 15
14.^ Jump up to: a b Presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (1993-04-23). "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church". Retrieved 2007-05-21.
15.Jump up ^ Archpriest Michael Dahulich. "OrthodoxWiki article on Hermeneutics".
16.Jump up ^ Douglas Brown (July–September 2010). "Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic". Faith Baptist Theological Seminary.
17.Jump up ^ W. W. Klein; C. L. Blomberg; R. L. Hubbard, Jr. (2004). Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Rev. ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. pp. 497–498. ISBN 0785252258, ISBN 978-0-7852-5225-2.
18.Jump up ^ H. A. Virkler; K. Gerber Ayayo (2007). Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group. pp. 202–204. ISBN 978-0-8010-3138-0.
Further reading[edit]
Duvall, J. Scott, and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God's Word: A Hands on Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001.
Kaiser, Walter C., and Moises Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning.Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007.
Klein, William W; Blomberg, Craig L; Hubbard, Robert L (1993), Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Dallas, TX: Word Publishing.
Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Second edition. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1970.
Tate, W. Randolph. Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach. Rev. ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Pub., 1997.
Thistleton, Anthony. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992.
Kim, Yung Suk. Biblical Interpretation: Theory, Process, and Criteria 2013 ISBN 978-1-61097-646-6
De La Torre, Miguel A., "Reading the Bible from the Margins," Orbis Books, 2002.
Webb, William J. (2002). Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Authentic Media. ISBN 1-84227-186-5.
External links[edit]
Biblical Interpretation and Application Reading Room. Extensive online resources for contemporary biblical hermeneutics (Tyndale Seminary)
Issues in Hermeneutics by Prof. Herman C. Hanko
Bibliology and Hermeneutics Course featuring audio and video resources from an Evangelical perspective
Basic Rules for New Testament Exegesis
Rev.Dr. Jose Puthenveed, "Psybible Interpretation of The Bible Passages through tools of Psychology " A Website Interpreting Biblical passages ( Sunday Homlies) using Psychology and Biblical scholarship, Website
BiblicalStudies.org.uk Offers detailed bibliographies and numerous scholarly articles on various aspects of biblical hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics - A Guide To Basic Bible Interpretation, By Darryl M. Erkel (Evangelical)
Exegetical Hermeneutics Methods (Evangelical and Reformed)
Inductive Hermeneutics Methods (Logic based)
The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies
  


Categories: Biblical exegesis
Theology
Hermeneutics
Christian terminology






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Esperanto
한국어
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
日本語
Plattdüütsch
Polski
Português
Русский
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 11 May 2015, at 11:38.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics











Biblical hermeneutics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Biblical interpretation)
Jump to: navigation, search

"Biblical interpretation" redirects here. For the journal, see Biblical Interpretation (journal).


 This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (June 2013)
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible


Canons and books
 [show]






















Authorship and development
 [show]












Translations and manuscripts
 [show]














Biblical studies[show]
































Interpretation[show]













Perspectives[show]









Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible. It is part of the broader field of hermeneutics which involves the study of principles of interpretation for all forms of communication, nonverbal and verbal.[1]
While Jewish and Christian Biblical hermeneutics have some overlap and dialogue, they have distinctly separate interpretative traditions, see also Christianity and Judaism.


Contents  [hide]
1 Talmudical hermeneutics
2 Christian biblical hermeneutics 2.1 Diverse interpretations
2.2 Theological hermeneutics as traditional Christian Biblical exegesis
3 Techniques of hermeneutics 3.1 Roman Catholic principles of hermeneutics
3.2 Eastern Orthodox hermeneutical principles
3.3 Trajectory hermeneutics
4 See also
5 References 5.1 Further reading
6 External links

Talmudical hermeneutics[edit]
Main article: Talmudical hermeneutics
Talmudical hermeneutics (Hebrew: approximately, מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן) refers to Jewish methods for the investigation and determination of the meaning of the Hebrew Bible, as well as rules by which Jewish law could be established. One well-known summary of these principles appears in the Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael.
Methods by which the Talmud explores the meaning of scripture:
grammar and exegesis
the interpretation of certain words and letters and apparently superfluous and/or missing words or letters, and prefixes and suffixes
the interpretation of those letters which, in certain words, are provided with points
the interpretation of the letters in a word according to their numerical value (see Gemaṭria)
the interpretation of a word by dividing it into two or more words (see Noṭariḳon)
the interpretation of a word according to its consonantal form or according to its vocalization
the interpretation of a word by transposing its letters or by changing its vowels
the logical deduction of a halakah from a Scriptural text or from another law
The rabbis of the Talmud considered themselves to be the receivers and transmitters of an Oral law as to the meaning of the scriptures. They considered this oral tradition to set forth the precise, original meanings of the words, revealed at the same time and by the same means as the original scriptures themselves. Interpretive methods listed above such as word play and letter counting were never used as logical proof of the meaning or teaching of a scripture. Instead they were considered to be an asmakhta, a validation of a meaning that was already set by tradition or a homiletic backing for rabbinic rulings.
Christian biblical hermeneutics[edit]
Until the Enlightenment, Biblical hermeneutics was usually seen as a form of special hermeneutics (like legal hermeneutics); the status of scripture was thought to necessitate a particular form of understanding and interpretation.
In the nineteenth century it became increasingly common to read Scripture just like any other writing, although the different interpretations were often disputed. Friedrich Schleiermacher argued against a distinction between "general" and "special" hermeneutics, and for a general theory of hermeneutics applicable to all texts, including the Bible. Various methods of higher criticism sought to understand the Bible purely as a human, historical document.
The concept of hermeneutics has acquired at least two different but related meanings which are in use today. Firstly, in the older sense, Biblical hermeneutics may be understood as the theological principles of exegesis which is often virtually synonymous with 'principles of biblical interpretation' or methodology of Biblical exegesis. Secondly, the more recent development is to understand the term 'Biblical hermeneutics' as the broader philosophy and linguistic underpinnings of interpretation. The question is posed: "How is understanding possible?" The rationale of this approach is that, while Scripture is "more than just an ordinary text," it is certainly "no less than an ordinary text." Scripture is in the first analysis "text" which human beings try to understand; in this sense, the principles of understanding any text apply to the Bible as well (regardless of whatever other additional, specifically theological principles are considered).
In this second sense, all aspects of philosophical and linguistic hermeneutics are considered to be applicable to the Biblical texts, as well. There are obvious examples of this in the links between 20th-century philosophy and Christian theology. For example, Rudolf Bultmann's hermeneutical approach was strongly influenced by existentialism, and in particular by the philosophy of Martin Heidegger; and since the 1970s, the philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer have had a wide-ranging influence on Biblical hermeneutics as developed by a wide range of Christian theologians. The French-American philosopher René Girard follows a similar trail.[2]
Diverse interpretations[edit]
Biblical scholars have noted the diversity of interpretations by Protestants and to a lesser extent by Catholics.
Protestants. In his forward to R. C. Sproul’s Knowing Scripture, J. I. Packer observes that Protestant theologians are in conflict about biblical interpretation.[3] To illustrate the diversity of biblical interpretations, William Yarchin[4] pictures a shelf full of religious books saying different things, but all claiming to be faithful interpretations of the Bible. [5] Bernard Ramm observed that such diverse interpretations underlie the “doctrinal variations in Christendom.”[6] A mid-19th century book on biblical interpretation observed that even those who believe the Bible to be “the word of God” hold “the most discordant views” about fundamental doctrines.”[7]
Catholics. The Catholic Church asserts the “capital importance of biblical interpretation” and Catholic scholars recognize some “diversity in the Bible.” This allows for an “openness” of interpretation as long as it stays within the Catholic Church’s theological Tradition.[8] So it is that “theological factors set the parameters” for interpreting the Scripture that Catholics believe to be the “word of God.”[9] Such parameters disallow the “widely differening interpretations” that make it possible for Protestants to prove “almost anything” by the Bible.[10]
Theological hermeneutics as traditional Christian Biblical exegesis[edit]
This form of theological hermeneutics in the mainstream Protestant tradition considers Christian Biblical hermeneutics in the tradition of explication of the text, or exegesis, to deal with various principles that can be applied to the study of Scripture. If the canon of Scripture is considered as an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound. Biblical hermeneutics differs from hermeneutics and within traditional Protestant theology, there are a variety of interpretive formulae. Such formulae are generally not mutually exclusive, and interpreters may adhere to several of these approaches at once. These formulae include:[11]
Theological Group of Principles:
The Historical-grammatical principle based on historical, socio-political, geographical, cultural and linguistic / grammatical context
Alternate, mutually-exclusive, models of history: The Dispensational model or The Chronometrical Principle: "During different periods of time, God has chosen to deal in a particular way with man in respect to sin and man's responsibility."
The Covenantal model: "We differentiate between the various contracts that God has made with his people; specifically their provisions, their parties and their purposes."
The New-Covenantal model: The Old Testament Laws have been fulfilled and abrogated or cancelled with Christ's death, and replaced with the Law of Christ of the New Covenant, although many of the Old Covenant laws are reinstituted under the New Covenant.
The Ethnic Division Principle: "The word of truth is rightly divided in relation to the three classes which it treats, i.e. Jews, Gentiles and the Church."
The Breach Principle: Interpretation of a certain verse or passage in Scripture is aided by a consideration of certain breaches, either breaches of promise or breaches of time.
The Christo-Centric Principle: "The mind of deity is eternally centered in Christ. All angelic thought and ministry are centered in Christ. All Satanic hatred and subtlety are centered at Christ. All human hopes are, and human occupations should be, centered in Christ. The whole material universe in creation is centered in Christ. The entire written word is centered in Christ."
The Moral Principle
The Discriminational Principle: "We should divide the word of truth so as to make a distinction where God makes a difference."
The Predictive Principle
The Application Principle: "An application of truth may be made only after the correct interpretation has been made"
The Principle of Human Willingness in Illumination
The Context Principle: "God gives light upon a subject through either near or remote passages bearing upon the same subject."
Sub-divided Context/Mention Principles:
The First Mention Principle: "God indicates in the first mention of a subject the truth with which that subject stands connected in the mind of God."
The Progressive Mention Principle: "God makes the revelation of any given truth increasingly clear as the word proceeds to its consummation."
The Comparative Mention Principle
The Full Mention Principle or The Complete Mention Principle: "God declares his full mind upon any subject vital to our spiritual life."
The Agreement Principle: "The truthfulness and faithfulness of God become the guarantee that he will not set forth any passage in his word that contradicts any other passage."
The Direct Statement Principle: "God says what he means and means what he says."
The Gap Principle:"God, in the Jewish Scriptures, ignores certain periods of time, leaping over them without comment."
The Threefold Principle:"The word of God sets forth the truths of salvation in a three-fold way: past - justification; present - sanctification/transformation; future - glorification/consummation."
The Repetition Principle:"God repeats some truth or subject already given, generally with the addition of details not before given."
The Synthetic Principle
The Principle of Illustrative Mention
The Double Reference Principle
Figures of Speech Group of Principles:
The Numerical Principle
The Symbolic Principle
The Typical Principle: "Certain people, events, objects and rituals found in the Old Testament may serve as object lessons and pictures by which God teaches us of his grace and saving power."
The Parabolic Principle
The Allegorical Principle
Techniques of hermeneutics[edit]
In the interpretation of a text, hermeneutics considers the original medium[12] as well as what language says, supposes, doesn't say, and implies. The process consists of several steps for best attaining the Scriptural author's intended meaning(s). One such process is taught by Henry A Virkler, in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (1981):
Lexical-syntactical analysis: This step looks at the words used and the way the words are used. Different order of the sentence, the punctuation, the tense of the verse are all aspects that are looked at in the lexical syntactical method. Here, lexicons and grammar aids can help in extracting meaning from the text.
Historical/cultural analysis: The history and culture surrounding the authors is important to understand to aid in interpretation. For instance, understanding the Jewish sects of the Palestine and the government that ruled Palestine in New Testament times increases understanding of Scripture. And, understanding the connotations of positions such as the High Priest and that of the tax collector helps us know what others thought of the people holding these positions.
Contextual analysis: A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book and even biblical context.
Theological analysis: It is often said that a single verse usually doesn't make a theology. This is because Scripture often touches on issues in several books. For instance, gifts of the Spirit are spoken about in Romans, Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. To take a verse from Corinthians without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can cause a poor interpretation.
Special literary analysis: There are several special literary aspects to look at, but the overarching theme is that each genre of Scripture has a different set of rules that applies to it. Of the genres found in Scripture, there are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. In these, there are differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language. For instance, the apocalyptic writings and poetry have more figurative and allegorical language than does the narrative or historical writing. These must be addressed, and the genre recognized to gain a full understanding of the intended meaning.
Howard Hendricks, longtime professor of hermeneutics at Dallas Theological Seminary, set out the method of observing the text, interpreting the text, applying the text in his book, Living By the Book. Other major Christian teachers, such as Charles R. (Chuck) Swindoll, who wrote the foreword, Kay Arthur and David Jeremiah have based their hermeneutics on the principles Howard teaches.
David L. Barr states there are three obstacles that stand in the way of correctly interpreting the biblical writings: We speak a different language, we live approximately two millennia later, and we bring different expectations to the text.[13] Additionally, Barr suggests that we approach the reading of the Bible with significantly different literary expectations than those in reading other forms of literature and writing.
Roman Catholic principles of hermeneutics[edit]
The Catholic Encyclopedia lists a number of principles guiding Roman Catholic hermeneutics in the article on Exegesis (note: the Catholic Encyclopedia was written in 1917 and does not reflect the changes set forth by the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu published by Pius XII in 1943, which opened modern Catholic Biblical scholarship) :
Historico-grammatical interpretation - The meaning of the literary expression of the Bible is best learned by a thorough knowledge of the languages in which the original text of Scripture was written, and by acquaintance with the Scriptural way of speaking, including the various customs, laws, habits and national prejudices which influenced the inspired writers as they composed their respective books. John Paul II said that: "A second conclusion is that the very nature of biblical texts means that interpreting them will require continued use of the historical-critical method, at least in its principal procedures. The Bible, in effect, does not present itself as a direct revelation of timeless truths but as the written testimony to a series of interventions in which God reveals himself in human history. In a way that differs from tenets of other religions [such as Islam, for instance], the message of the Bible is solidly grounded in history.[14]
Catholic interpretation - Because the Catholic Church is, according to Catholics, the official custodian and interpreter of the Bible, Catholicism's teaching concerning the Sacred Scriptures and their genuine sense must be the supreme guide of the commentator. The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly.
Reverence - Since the Bible is God's own book, its study must be begun and prosecuted with a spirit of reverence and prayer.
Inerrancy - Since God is the principal Author of Sacred Scripture, it can be claimed to contain no error, no self-contradiction, nothing contrary to scientific or historical truth (when the original authors intended historical or scientific truth to be portrayed). Minor contradictions are due to copyist errors in the codex or the translation. Catholics believe the Scripture is God's message put in words by men, with the imperfections this very fact necessarily implies. Catholic hermeneutics strongly supports inerrancy when it comes to principles but not, for example, when dealing with Evangelists' orthographic mistakes. According to Pope John Paul II, "Addressing men and women, from the beginnings of the Old Testament onward, God made use of all the possibilities of human language, while at the same time accepting that his word be subject to the constraints caused by the limitations of this language. Proper respect for inspired Scripture requires undertaking all the labors necessary to gain a thorough grasp of its meaning.[14]
Patristics - The Holy Fathers are of supreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith.
Pope Benedict XVI has indicated in Verbum Domini, the post-synodal apostolic exhortation on the Word of God, that "Christianity...perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history". He encourages a “faith-filled interpretation of Sacred Scripture”. He emphasizes that this manner of interpretation, “practiced from antiquity within the Church’s Tradition...recognizes the historical value of the biblical tradition". It "seeks to discover the living meaning of the Sacred Scriptures for the lives of believers today while not ignoring the human mediation of the inspired text and its literary genres". Verbum Domini #44.
Eastern Orthodox hermeneutical principles[edit]
God is real and is incarnated in our Lord Jesus Christ. Everything pertaining to the Scriptures must be understood Christologically. Jesus Christ, the incarnate Second Person of the Holy Trinity, is the center of all that we as Christians do, and being Himself the very Truth, He is the only gate through which we may enter into understanding of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments (though not all that is contained in the Old Testament is directly relevant for Christians). The Bible ultimately is about Christ and assists us in our union with Him.
Only the pure in heart "shall see God." That is, our spiritual state has a direct bearing on our interpretation of the Scriptures. As St. Athanasius said, "One cannot possibly understand the teaching of the saints unless one has a pure mind and is trying to imitate their life." Because the Scripture is a book inspired by the Holy Spirit and given through holy men, one's own holiness is directly relevant to the ability to interpret the book correctly. Unlike any other book, the Bible's words are "spirit and life," and so we must live spiritually in order to drink from this spiritual well. Clearly, prayer and spiritual discipline are necessary in order to understand Scripture properly.
Understanding of the Scripture comes with living its contents. As the quote from St. Athanasius illustrates, one must both have a pure mind and be trying to imitate the saints' lives in order to understand their teaching, a dual principle which applies most of all to the teaching of the saints in the Bible. This life is particularly expressed in terms of living out the commandments and attempting to imitate Christ's life of the Gospel.
The primary end of Scriptural hermeneutics is that of the whole Christian life, theosis (deification/divinization). That is, our purpose in attempting to understand the Bible must not be merely for academic inquiry but rather must be in order to become fully divinized human beings, soaked with the life of God, participating in His divine energies, growing to the fullness of the stature of Christ. We interpret Scripture in order to become by grace what Christ is by nature, to "become god."
Only within the community of the Church can the Bible be understood. It was written by the Church, in the Church and for the Church. Thus, it is a "family document" which is the highest point of Holy Tradition, taken with faith alongside the writings of the Fathers, the Liturgy, the Icons, the Lives of the Saints, and so on.
The Scripture is a witness to the truth, not an exhaustive tome on Christian living. Nowhere in the words of Scripture itself can we find the teaching that it is all-sufficient for Christian life. What we as Orthodox Christians do must always be consonant with the Scriptures, but explicit mention of a practice or teaching in the Scripture is not a requirement for its inclusion in the life of the Church. The Apostle Paul himself mentions the reality of unwritten sources of Church Tradition being equally in force for the believer in II Thessalonians 2:15, that these traditions to which we must "stand fast and hold" may be "by word or by our epistle." Examples of practices not explicit in Scripture are making the Sign of the Cross, triple immersion for baptism, and having monasticism. St. Basil the Great even says that without maintaining the unwritten traditions of the Church, we "mutilate the Gospel" (On the Spirit 66).
We must respect the integrity of the canon of the Bible as given to us in the Church's Tradition. Searches for other texts written by apostles or prophets may be interesting and of scholarly merit, but they are not part of the hermeneutical project within the Church. Or conversely, attempts to debunk the authorship or authenticity of the books in the canon are also outside the Church's life. If we were to find a verifiable "new" work by St. Paul or to discover that Moses did not in fact write Genesis, neither finding would have any bearing on the canon. It is what it is.
We must use every resource at our disposal in interpreting the Scripture to bring ourselves and others to the knowledge of the truth. Certainly, there must be spiritual discernment in knowing how to use those resources, but at least theoretically, anything can be used to come to know the truth better as it is revealed in Holy Writ.
We must have humility when approaching Scripture. Even some of the Church's greatest and most philosophically sophisticated saints stated that some passages were difficult for them. We must therefore be prepared to admit that our interpretations may be wrong, submitting them to the judgment of the Church.
We may make use in a secondary fashion of the resources of academic scholarship, whether logic, archaeology, linguistics, et cetera. These resources can be helpful in terms of illuminating our understanding of Scripture, but they must always be given only secondary prominence in the project and always only in conjunction with all these other hermeneutic principles. Primary must always be our life in the Church, living, studying and knowing the Bible within that vivified and salvific Holy Tradition.[15]
Trajectory hermeneutics[edit]
Trajectory hermeneutics or redemptive-movement hermeneutics (RMH)[16][17][18] is a hermeneutical approach that seeks to locate varying 'voices' in the text and to view this voice as a progressive trajectory through history (or at least through the Biblical witness); often a trajectory that progresses through to the present day. The contemporary reader of Scripture is in some way envisaged by the Biblical text as standing in continuity with a developing theme therein. The reader, then, is left to discern this trajectory and appropriate it accordingly.
William J. Webb employed such a hermeneutic, in his Slaves, Women & Homosexuals. Webb shows how the moral commands of the Old and New Testament were a significant improvement over the surrounding cultural values and practices. Webb identified 18 different ways in how God dealt with his people moving against the current of popular cultural values. While for Webb the use of this hermeneutic moves to highlight the progressive liberation of women and slaves from oppressive male/bourgeois dominance, the prohibition of homosexual acts consistently moves in a more conservative manner than that of the surrounding Ancient Near East or Graeco-Roman societies. While Paul does not explicitly state that slavery should be abolished, the trajectory seen in Scripture is a progressive liberation of slaves. When this is extended to modern times, it implies that the Biblical witness supports the abolition of slavery. The progressive liberation of women from oppressive patriarchalism, traced from Genesis and Exodus through to Paul's own acknowledgement of women as 'co-workers' (Rom. 16:3), sets a precedent that when applied to modern times suggests that women ought to have the same rights and roles afforded as men. Historically, the Biblical witness has become progressively more stringent in its views of homosexual practice and the implications of this are not commented upon by Webb.
See also[edit]
Allegorical interpretation
Apologetics
Biblical accommodation
Biblical law in Christianity
Biblical literalism
Biblical studies
Deconstruction-and-religion
Exegesis
Formulary controversy concerning Jansenius' Augustinus in the 17th century
Gemaṭria
Hermeneutics
Historical-grammatical method
Jewish commentaries on the Bible
Literary criticism
Literary theory
Noṭariḳon
Patternism
Postmodern Christianity
Principles of interpretation
Quranic hermeneutics
Summary of Christian eschatological differences
Syncretism
Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture
Talmudical hermeneutics
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Ferguson, Sinclair B; David F Wright, J. I. (James Innell) Packer (1988). New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1400-0.
2.Jump up ^ Perry, Simon (2005). Resurrecting Interpretation. Bristol Baptist College: University of Bristol.
3.Jump up ^ R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture (Rev. ed., InterVarsity Press, 2009), 10.
4.Jump up ^ http://www.apu.edu/honors/faculty/byarchin/
5.Jump up ^ William Yarchin, History of Biblical Interpretation: a Reader (Hendrickson, 2004), xi.
6.Jump up ^ Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation:A Textbook of Hermeneutics, 3rd rev ed (Baker Academic, 1980), 3.
7.Jump up ^ The Interpretation of the Bible (Boston; Massachusetts Sabbath School Society, 1844), 15-16.
8.Jump up ^ Peter Williamson, Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture: A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” (Gregorian Biblical BookShop, 2001), 23, 121, 254.
9.Jump up ^ David M. Williams, Receiving the Bible in Faith: Historical and Theological Exegesis (CUA Press, 2004), 6-7.
10.Jump up ^ Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (David C. Cook, 1991), 7.
11.Jump up ^ This list of "principles" in conservative evangelical hermeneutics appears to derive from: Hartill, J E 1960. Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
12.Jump up ^ http://www.biblicalperformancecriticism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45:wire-conference&catid=3:newsflash
13.Jump up ^ New Testament Story, Wadsworth Publishing, 1995, pg. 15
14.^ Jump up to: a b Presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (1993-04-23). "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church". Retrieved 2007-05-21.
15.Jump up ^ Archpriest Michael Dahulich. "OrthodoxWiki article on Hermeneutics".
16.Jump up ^ Douglas Brown (July–September 2010). "Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic". Faith Baptist Theological Seminary.
17.Jump up ^ W. W. Klein; C. L. Blomberg; R. L. Hubbard, Jr. (2004). Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Rev. ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. pp. 497–498. ISBN 0785252258, ISBN 978-0-7852-5225-2.
18.Jump up ^ H. A. Virkler; K. Gerber Ayayo (2007). Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group. pp. 202–204. ISBN 978-0-8010-3138-0.
Further reading[edit]
Duvall, J. Scott, and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God's Word: A Hands on Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001.
Kaiser, Walter C., and Moises Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning.Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007.
Klein, William W; Blomberg, Craig L; Hubbard, Robert L (1993), Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Dallas, TX: Word Publishing.
Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Second edition. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1970.
Tate, W. Randolph. Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach. Rev. ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Pub., 1997.
Thistleton, Anthony. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992.
Kim, Yung Suk. Biblical Interpretation: Theory, Process, and Criteria 2013 ISBN 978-1-61097-646-6
De La Torre, Miguel A., "Reading the Bible from the Margins," Orbis Books, 2002.
Webb, William J. (2002). Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Authentic Media. ISBN 1-84227-186-5.
External links[edit]
Biblical Interpretation and Application Reading Room. Extensive online resources for contemporary biblical hermeneutics (Tyndale Seminary)
Issues in Hermeneutics by Prof. Herman C. Hanko
Bibliology and Hermeneutics Course featuring audio and video resources from an Evangelical perspective
Basic Rules for New Testament Exegesis
Rev.Dr. Jose Puthenveed, "Psybible Interpretation of The Bible Passages through tools of Psychology " A Website Interpreting Biblical passages ( Sunday Homlies) using Psychology and Biblical scholarship, Website
BiblicalStudies.org.uk Offers detailed bibliographies and numerous scholarly articles on various aspects of biblical hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics - A Guide To Basic Bible Interpretation, By Darryl M. Erkel (Evangelical)
Exegetical Hermeneutics Methods (Evangelical and Reformed)
Inductive Hermeneutics Methods (Logic based)
The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies
  


Categories: Biblical exegesis
Theology
Hermeneutics
Christian terminology






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Esperanto
한국어
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
日本語
Plattdüütsch
Polski
Português
Русский
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 11 May 2015, at 11:38.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics












Biblical literalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible


Canons and books
 [show]






















Authorship and development
 [show]












Translations and manuscripts
 [show]














Biblical studies[show]
































Interpretation[hide]
Hermeneutics
Pesher ·
 Midrash ·
 Pardes

Allegorical interpretation ·
 Literalism

Prophecy ·
 Inspiration
 

Perspectives[show]









Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Biblical literalism is a term used differently by different authors concerning biblical interpretation. It can equate to the dictionary definition of literalism: "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense",[1] where literal means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical".[2] This approach often obscures the literary aspects and consequently the primary meaning of the text.
Alternatively, the term can refer to the historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. It emphasizes the referential aspect of the words in the text without denying the relevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).[3] It does not necessarily lead to complete agreement upon one single interpretation of any given passage. This Christian fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture is used extensively by fundamentalist Christians,[4] in contrast to the historical-critical method of liberal Christianity. Those who relate biblical literalism to the historical-grammatical method use the word "letterism" to cover interpreting the Bible according to the dictionary definition of literalism.[5]


Contents  [hide]
1 Background
2 History
3 Clarity of scripture
4 Criticism
5 See also
6 References

Background[edit]
Fundamentalists and evangelicals sometimes refer to themselves as literalists or biblical literalists. Sociologists also use the term in reference to conservative Christian beliefs which include not just literalism but also biblical inerrancy. The term "biblical literalism" is often used as a pejorative to describe or ridicule the interpretative approaches of fundamentalist or evangelical Christians.[6][7][8]
A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man."[9]
History[edit]
See also: Biblical canon
The high regard for religious scriptures in the Judeo-Christian tradition seems to relate in part to a process of canonization of the Hebrew Bible which occurred over the course of a few centuries from approximately 200 BCE to 200 CE. In the Jewish tradition, the highly regarded written word represented a direct conduit to the mind of God, and the later Rabbinical School of Judaism encouraged the attendant scholarship that accompanied a literary religion.[10] Similarly, the canonization of the New Testament by the Early Christian Church became an important aspect in the formation of the separate religious identity for Christianity.[11] Ecclesiastical authorities used the acceptance or rejection of specific scriptural books as a major indicator of group identity, and it played a role in the determination of excommunications in Christianity and in cherem in the Jewish tradition.
Church father Augustine of Hippo (354–430) wrote of the need for reason in interpreting Jewish and Christian scripture, and of much of the Book of Genesis being an extended metaphor.[12] But Augustine also implicitly accepted the literalism of the creation of Adam and Eve, and explicitly accepted the literalism of the virginity of Jesus's mother Mary.[13]
In the Reformation, Martin Luther (1483-1546) separated the biblical apocrypha from the rest of the Old Testament books, and the Westminster Confession of 1646 demoted them to a status that denied their canonicity.[14] American Protestant literalists and biblical inerrantists have adopted this truncated Protestant Bible as a work not merely inspired by God but, in fact, representing the Word of God without possibility of error or contradiction.
Biblical literalism first became an issue in the 18th century,[15] enough so for Diderot to mention it in his Encyclopédie.[16] Karen Armstrong sees "[p]reoccupation with literal truth" as "a product of the scientific revolution".[17]
Clarity of scripture[edit]
The vast majority of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians hold that scripture is clear, that the basic meaning and teachings of scripture may be understood by the average person. It refers to the product (teachings of scripture) rather than the process of interpretation itself (exegesis). Martin Luther distinguished between external and internal aspects within the clarity of scripture. External clarity concerns the principles of hermeneutics (including grammatical aspects) and guidance into understanding through the process of interpretation. The internal clarity concerns illumination of the believer—that is, guidance into understanding by the Holy Spirit.[18]
The doctrine of clarity of scripture does not mean that no interpretative principles are necessary, or that there is no gap between the culture in which the Bible was written and the culture of a modern reader. Instead, exegetical and interpretative principles are utilized as part of the process of closing that cultural gap. The doctrine does deny that the Bible is a code to decipher, or that it cannot be understood apart from complex academic analysis as is typical in the historical-critical method of interpretation.[19]
Biblical literalists believe that, unless a passage is clearly intended as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements by the author. Who may appropriately decide when a passage is allegorical or literal, however, is not defined. Fundamentalists typically treat as simple history, according to its plain sense, such passages as the Genesis account of creation, the deluge and Noah's ark, and the unnaturally long life-spans of the patriarchs given in genealogies of Genesis, as well as the strict historicity of the narrative accounts of Ancient Israel, the supernatural interventions of God in history, and Jesus' miracles.[20][21] Literalism does not deny that parables, metaphors and allegory exist in the Bible, but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author's intention.[22]
As a part of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,[23] conservative Christian scholarship affirms the following:

WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.
Noted inerrantist Norman Geisler, in his commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, states:

The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical-historical sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed.[22]
Criticism[edit]
Steve Falkenberg, professor of religious psychology at Eastern Kentucky University, observes:

I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and sitting on pillars and cannot move (Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26). ...[24]
Conrad Hyers, professor of comparative religion at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minnesota, criticizes biblical literalism as:

... a mentality [that] manifests itself [not] only in conservative churches, private-school enclaves, television programs of the evangelical right, and a considerable amount of Christian bookstore material; one often finds a literalist understanding of Bible and faith being assumed by those who have no religious inclinations, or who are avowedly antireligious in sentiment. Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies... is easily obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism.[25]
See also[edit]
Martin Anstey
Biblical inspiration
Biblical literalist chronology
Science and the Bible
Application of textual criticism to religious documents
Young Earth creationism
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "Literalism". Dictionary.com LLC. Retrieved August 9, 2014.
2.Jump up ^ "Literal". Dictionary.com LLC. Retrieved August 9, 2014.
3.Jump up ^ Ryrie, Charles Caldwell (1995). Dispensationalism (Rev. and expanded ed.). Chicago: Moody Press. p. 224. ISBN 0-8024-2187-3. p. 81
4.Jump up ^ Bartkowski, John (1996). "Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants and the Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture" (PDF). Sociology of Religion 57 (3): 259–272. doi:10.2307/3712156
5.Jump up ^ Ramm, Bernard (1970). Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Baker Book House. ISBN 0-8010-7600-5. p.48
6.Jump up ^ Laurence Wood, 'Theology as History and Hermeneutics', (2005)
7.Jump up ^ George Regas, 'Take Another Look At Your Good Book', Los Angeles Times, February 3, 2000
8.Jump up ^ Dhyanchand Carr, 'Christian Council of Asia: Partnership in Mission, Conference on World Mission and the Role of Korean Churches, November 1995
9.Jump up ^ Jones, Jeffrey M. (July 8, 2011). "In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally". Gallup.
10.Jump up ^ McDonald & Sanders, ed., The Canon Debate, page 4.
11.Jump up ^ A Van Der Kooij, et al. Canonization and Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (Lisor), Held at Leiden 9–10 January 1997. p. 141.
12.Jump up ^ De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408], De Genesi ad literam, 2:9
13.Jump up ^ De Sacra Virginitate, 6,6, 18, 191.
14.Jump up ^ "III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings." - See https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Confession_of_Faith_of_the_Assembly_of_Divines_at_Westminster
15.Jump up ^ Wood, Laurence W. (2005). Theology as History and Hermeneutics: A Post-critical Conversation with Contemporary Theology. Emeth Press. p. 27. ISBN 9780975543559. Retrieved 2013-12-15. "Before the eighteenth century ecclesiastical writers were unaware of the critical historical problems of the biblical text. [...] After the Enlightenment, the question arose if a serious theologian can believe that the Bible reports real history."
16.Jump up ^ Diderot, Denis (1752). Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers. Paris. pp. Vol. 2, p. 241.
17.Jump up ^ "biblical Literalism History". Retrieved 2013-12-15. "Karen Armstrong, the most popular living historian of religion writes, 'Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge.'"
18.Jump up ^ Osborne, Grant R (2006). The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-2826-5. p. 27
19.Jump up ^ Zuck, Roy B (1991). Basic Bible Interpretation. Wheaton, Ill: Victor Books. p. 324. ISBN 0-89693-819-0. p. 26
20.Jump up ^ Lewis on Miracles, Art Lindsley, Knowing & Doing; A Teaching Quarterly for Discipleship of Heart and Mind: C.S. LEWIS INSTITUTE, Fall 2004
21.Jump up ^ The History and Impact of the Book, The Genesis Flood, John C. Whitcomb, Impact, Number 395, May 2006
22.^ Jump up to: a b Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics With commentary by Norman L. Geisler, Reproduced from Explaining Hermeneutics: A Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Oakland, California: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1983.
23.Jump up ^ The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1997)
24.Jump up ^ Falkenberg, Steve (2002). "Biblical Literalism". New Reformation. Retrieved 9 November 2012.
25.Jump up ^ Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Retrieved 9 November 2012.
  


Categories: Christian theology of the Bible
Bible-related controversies
Christian fundamentalism
Christian terminology




Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
Polski
Português
Svenska
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 1 April 2015, at 15:17.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism











Biblical literalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible


Canons and books
 [show]






















Authorship and development
 [show]












Translations and manuscripts
 [show]














Biblical studies[show]
































Interpretation[hide]
Hermeneutics
Pesher ·
 Midrash ·
 Pardes

Allegorical interpretation ·
 Literalism

Prophecy ·
 Inspiration
 

Perspectives[show]









Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Biblical literalism is a term used differently by different authors concerning biblical interpretation. It can equate to the dictionary definition of literalism: "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense",[1] where literal means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical".[2] This approach often obscures the literary aspects and consequently the primary meaning of the text.
Alternatively, the term can refer to the historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. It emphasizes the referential aspect of the words in the text without denying the relevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).[3] It does not necessarily lead to complete agreement upon one single interpretation of any given passage. This Christian fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture is used extensively by fundamentalist Christians,[4] in contrast to the historical-critical method of liberal Christianity. Those who relate biblical literalism to the historical-grammatical method use the word "letterism" to cover interpreting the Bible according to the dictionary definition of literalism.[5]


Contents  [hide]
1 Background
2 History
3 Clarity of scripture
4 Criticism
5 See also
6 References

Background[edit]
Fundamentalists and evangelicals sometimes refer to themselves as literalists or biblical literalists. Sociologists also use the term in reference to conservative Christian beliefs which include not just literalism but also biblical inerrancy. The term "biblical literalism" is often used as a pejorative to describe or ridicule the interpretative approaches of fundamentalist or evangelical Christians.[6][7][8]
A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man."[9]
History[edit]
See also: Biblical canon
The high regard for religious scriptures in the Judeo-Christian tradition seems to relate in part to a process of canonization of the Hebrew Bible which occurred over the course of a few centuries from approximately 200 BCE to 200 CE. In the Jewish tradition, the highly regarded written word represented a direct conduit to the mind of God, and the later Rabbinical School of Judaism encouraged the attendant scholarship that accompanied a literary religion.[10] Similarly, the canonization of the New Testament by the Early Christian Church became an important aspect in the formation of the separate religious identity for Christianity.[11] Ecclesiastical authorities used the acceptance or rejection of specific scriptural books as a major indicator of group identity, and it played a role in the determination of excommunications in Christianity and in cherem in the Jewish tradition.
Church father Augustine of Hippo (354–430) wrote of the need for reason in interpreting Jewish and Christian scripture, and of much of the Book of Genesis being an extended metaphor.[12] But Augustine also implicitly accepted the literalism of the creation of Adam and Eve, and explicitly accepted the literalism of the virginity of Jesus's mother Mary.[13]
In the Reformation, Martin Luther (1483-1546) separated the biblical apocrypha from the rest of the Old Testament books, and the Westminster Confession of 1646 demoted them to a status that denied their canonicity.[14] American Protestant literalists and biblical inerrantists have adopted this truncated Protestant Bible as a work not merely inspired by God but, in fact, representing the Word of God without possibility of error or contradiction.
Biblical literalism first became an issue in the 18th century,[15] enough so for Diderot to mention it in his Encyclopédie.[16] Karen Armstrong sees "[p]reoccupation with literal truth" as "a product of the scientific revolution".[17]
Clarity of scripture[edit]
The vast majority of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians hold that scripture is clear, that the basic meaning and teachings of scripture may be understood by the average person. It refers to the product (teachings of scripture) rather than the process of interpretation itself (exegesis). Martin Luther distinguished between external and internal aspects within the clarity of scripture. External clarity concerns the principles of hermeneutics (including grammatical aspects) and guidance into understanding through the process of interpretation. The internal clarity concerns illumination of the believer—that is, guidance into understanding by the Holy Spirit.[18]
The doctrine of clarity of scripture does not mean that no interpretative principles are necessary, or that there is no gap between the culture in which the Bible was written and the culture of a modern reader. Instead, exegetical and interpretative principles are utilized as part of the process of closing that cultural gap. The doctrine does deny that the Bible is a code to decipher, or that it cannot be understood apart from complex academic analysis as is typical in the historical-critical method of interpretation.[19]
Biblical literalists believe that, unless a passage is clearly intended as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements by the author. Who may appropriately decide when a passage is allegorical or literal, however, is not defined. Fundamentalists typically treat as simple history, according to its plain sense, such passages as the Genesis account of creation, the deluge and Noah's ark, and the unnaturally long life-spans of the patriarchs given in genealogies of Genesis, as well as the strict historicity of the narrative accounts of Ancient Israel, the supernatural interventions of God in history, and Jesus' miracles.[20][21] Literalism does not deny that parables, metaphors and allegory exist in the Bible, but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author's intention.[22]
As a part of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,[23] conservative Christian scholarship affirms the following:

WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.
Noted inerrantist Norman Geisler, in his commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, states:

The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical-historical sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed.[22]
Criticism[edit]
Steve Falkenberg, professor of religious psychology at Eastern Kentucky University, observes:

I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and sitting on pillars and cannot move (Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26). ...[24]
Conrad Hyers, professor of comparative religion at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minnesota, criticizes biblical literalism as:

... a mentality [that] manifests itself [not] only in conservative churches, private-school enclaves, television programs of the evangelical right, and a considerable amount of Christian bookstore material; one often finds a literalist understanding of Bible and faith being assumed by those who have no religious inclinations, or who are avowedly antireligious in sentiment. Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies... is easily obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism.[25]
See also[edit]
Martin Anstey
Biblical inspiration
Biblical literalist chronology
Science and the Bible
Application of textual criticism to religious documents
Young Earth creationism
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "Literalism". Dictionary.com LLC. Retrieved August 9, 2014.
2.Jump up ^ "Literal". Dictionary.com LLC. Retrieved August 9, 2014.
3.Jump up ^ Ryrie, Charles Caldwell (1995). Dispensationalism (Rev. and expanded ed.). Chicago: Moody Press. p. 224. ISBN 0-8024-2187-3. p. 81
4.Jump up ^ Bartkowski, John (1996). "Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants and the Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture" (PDF). Sociology of Religion 57 (3): 259–272. doi:10.2307/3712156
5.Jump up ^ Ramm, Bernard (1970). Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Baker Book House. ISBN 0-8010-7600-5. p.48
6.Jump up ^ Laurence Wood, 'Theology as History and Hermeneutics', (2005)
7.Jump up ^ George Regas, 'Take Another Look At Your Good Book', Los Angeles Times, February 3, 2000
8.Jump up ^ Dhyanchand Carr, 'Christian Council of Asia: Partnership in Mission, Conference on World Mission and the Role of Korean Churches, November 1995
9.Jump up ^ Jones, Jeffrey M. (July 8, 2011). "In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally". Gallup.
10.Jump up ^ McDonald & Sanders, ed., The Canon Debate, page 4.
11.Jump up ^ A Van Der Kooij, et al. Canonization and Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (Lisor), Held at Leiden 9–10 January 1997. p. 141.
12.Jump up ^ De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408], De Genesi ad literam, 2:9
13.Jump up ^ De Sacra Virginitate, 6,6, 18, 191.
14.Jump up ^ "III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings." - See https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Confession_of_Faith_of_the_Assembly_of_Divines_at_Westminster
15.Jump up ^ Wood, Laurence W. (2005). Theology as History and Hermeneutics: A Post-critical Conversation with Contemporary Theology. Emeth Press. p. 27. ISBN 9780975543559. Retrieved 2013-12-15. "Before the eighteenth century ecclesiastical writers were unaware of the critical historical problems of the biblical text. [...] After the Enlightenment, the question arose if a serious theologian can believe that the Bible reports real history."
16.Jump up ^ Diderot, Denis (1752). Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers. Paris. pp. Vol. 2, p. 241.
17.Jump up ^ "biblical Literalism History". Retrieved 2013-12-15. "Karen Armstrong, the most popular living historian of religion writes, 'Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge.'"
18.Jump up ^ Osborne, Grant R (2006). The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-2826-5. p. 27
19.Jump up ^ Zuck, Roy B (1991). Basic Bible Interpretation. Wheaton, Ill: Victor Books. p. 324. ISBN 0-89693-819-0. p. 26
20.Jump up ^ Lewis on Miracles, Art Lindsley, Knowing & Doing; A Teaching Quarterly for Discipleship of Heart and Mind: C.S. LEWIS INSTITUTE, Fall 2004
21.Jump up ^ The History and Impact of the Book, The Genesis Flood, John C. Whitcomb, Impact, Number 395, May 2006
22.^ Jump up to: a b Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics With commentary by Norman L. Geisler, Reproduced from Explaining Hermeneutics: A Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Oakland, California: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1983.
23.Jump up ^ The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1997)
24.Jump up ^ Falkenberg, Steve (2002). "Biblical Literalism". New Reformation. Retrieved 9 November 2012.
25.Jump up ^ Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Retrieved 9 November 2012.
  


Categories: Christian theology of the Bible
Bible-related controversies
Christian fundamentalism
Christian terminology




Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
Polski
Português
Svenska
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 1 April 2015, at 15:17.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism








Biblical inerrancy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the Christian doctrinal position. For Jewish doctrinal positions, see Rabbinic literature.
Not to be confused with Biblical infallibility.
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible


Canons and books
 [show]






















Authorship and development
 [show]












Translations and manuscripts
 [show]














Biblical studies[show]
































Interpretation[show]













Perspectives[show]









Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching";[1] or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".[2]
A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1978.[3] The signatories to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" admit that "inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, even though there may be no extant original manuscripts of the Bible, those which exist can be considered inerrant, because, as the statement reads: "the autographic text of Scripture, ... in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy".[4]
Some equate inerrancy with infallibility; others do not.[5][6] Biblical inerrancy should not be confused with Biblical literalism.
There are a minority of biblical inerrantists who go further than the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", arguing that the original text has been perfectly preserved and passed down through time.
The copies of the original language texts that are used by modern translators as the source for translations of the books of the Bible are reconstructions of the original text. Today's versions are based upon scholarly comparison of thousands of biblical manuscripts (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) and thousands of biblical citations in the writings of the early Church Fathers.[7]
The "doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture"[8] held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."[9]


Contents  [hide]
1 Terms and opinions
2 History
3 Inerrancy in autographic texts and modern versions
4 Textual tradition of the New Testament 4.1 Inerrantist response 4.1.1 Evangelical inerrantists
4.1.2 King James Only Inerrantists
4.1.3 Textus Receptus

5 Justifications 5.1 Deductive justifications
5.2 Inductive justifications 5.2.1 Inspiration
5.2.2 Divine authority
5.2.3 Sufficiency

6 Clarifications 6.1 Accuracy
6.2 Limitations
6.3 Metaphor and literalism
7 Criticism 7.1 Scientific and historical criticism
7.2 Theological criticism 7.2.1 Meaning of "Word of God"
7.3 Translation 7.3.1 The Virgin Birth

8 See also
9 Notes
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links

Terms and opinions[edit]
See also: Biblical inspiration, Biblical infallibility, Biblical literalism, Biblical authority, Criticism of the Bible, Internal consistency of the Bible, Science and the Bible and The Bible and history
The word inerrancy is formed from the word inerrant, from the Latin inerrāntem, (being in- + errāntem the present participle of errāre to err or wander). It is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "That does not err; free from error; unerring."[10] Another word often used to characterize the Bible is "infallible". From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that this is a stronger term than "inerrant". "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors".[11] Yet he agrees that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy. '" Lindsell (1978) states that "The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective".[12]
According to H. Chaim Schimmel, Judaism had never promulgated a belief in the literal word of the Hebrew Bible, hence the co-existence of the Oral Torah.[13] Within Christianity, some mainstream Evangelical and Protestant groups adhere to the current inerrancy of Scripture as it reads today. However, some note that "Evangelical scholars ... doubt that accepting the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is the best way to assert their belief in biblical authority".[14]
The Catholic Church's view was authoritatively expressed by the Second Vatican Council, citing earlier declarations, in the following terms: "Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation".[9] The Council added: "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words."[15]
Some literalist or conservative Christians teach that the Bible lacks error in every way in all matters: chronology, history, biology, sociology, psychology, politics, physics, math, art, and so on.[16] Other Christians believe that the Scriptures are always right (do not err) only in fulfilling their primary purpose: revealing God, God's vision, God's purposes, and God's good news to humanity.[17]
Mainstream Judaism and Christian traditions hold that the Torah or Pentateuch of the Hebrew Bible was physically written by Moses—not by God himself, although in the process of transcription many thousands of times copyists have allowed errors, or (some suggest) even forgeries in the text to accumulate.[18] According to this position, God originally spoke through a select person to reveal his purpose, character and plan for humanity. However, the Bible does record some direct statements from God (i.e.,"Thus says the Lord ..". , "And God said ..". , etc.). The significance of most phrases, their parts, grammar, and occasionally individual words, letters and even pronunciation in the Hebrew Bible are the subject of many rabbinic discussions in the Talmud.
History[edit]
During the 18th and 19th centuries, various episodes of the Bible (for example the Noahide worldwide flood,[19] the creation in six days, and the creation of women from a man's rib) began increasingly to be seen as legendary. This led to further questioning of the veracity of Biblical texts. According to an article in Theology Today published in 1975, "There have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy. The arguments pro and con have filled many books, and almost anyone can join in the debate".[20]
In the 1970s and '80s, however, the debate in theological circles, which centered on the issue of whether or not the Bible was infallible or both infallible and inerrant, came into the spotlight. Some notable Christian seminaries, such as Princeton Theological Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary, were formally adopting the doctrine of infallibility while rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy.
The other side of this debate focused largely around the magazine Christianity Today and the book entitled The Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell.[21] The author asserted that losing the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture was the thread that would unravel the church and Conservative Christians rallied behind this idea.
Inerrancy in autographic texts and modern versions[edit]
Those who hold the inerrancy of the Bible can disagree as to whether inerrancy refers to modern Bibles or only to the original, autographic texts. There are also disagreements about whether, because the autographic texts no longer survive, modern texts can be claimed to be inerrant.[22] Article X of the Chicago statement agrees that the inspiration for the words of the Bible can only strictly be applied to the autographs. However, the same article asserts that the original text "can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy", so that the lack of the originals does not affect the claim of Biblical inerrancy of such recovered, modern texts.[4] Robert Saucy, for instance, reports that writers have argued that "99 percent of the original words in the New Testament are recoverable with a high degree of certainty."[23]
Textual tradition of the New Testament[edit]
See also: Biblical canon, Bible translations and Textual criticism
There are over 5,600 Greek manuscripts containing all or part of the New Testament, as well as over 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and perhaps 500 other manuscripts of various other languages. Additionally, there are the Patristic writings which contain copious quotes, across the early centuries, of the scriptures.
Most of these manuscripts date to the Middle Ages. The oldest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, which includes two other books[24] not now included in the accepted NT canon, dates to the 4th century. The earliest fragment of a New Testament book is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which dates to the mid 2nd century and is the size of a business card. Very early manuscripts are rare.
The average NT manuscript is about 200 pages, and in all, there are about 1.3 million pages of text. No two manuscripts are identical, except in the smallest fragments, and the many manuscripts which preserve New Testament texts differ among themselves in many respects, with some estimates of 200,000 to 300,000 differences among the various manuscripts.[25] According to Bart Ehrman:

Most changes are careless errors that are easily recognized and corrected. Christian scribes often made mistakes simply because they were tired or inattentive or, sometimes, inept. Indeed, the single most common mistake in our manuscripts involves "orthography", significant for little more than showing that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most of us can today. In addition, we have numerous manuscripts in which scribes have left out entire words, verses, or even pages of a book, presumably by accident. Sometimes scribes rearranged the words on the page, for example, by leaving out a word and then reinserting it later in the sentence.[26]
In the 2008 Greer-Heard debate series, noted New Testament scholars Bart Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace discussed these variances in detail. Wallace mentioned that understanding the meaning of the number of variances is not as simple as looking at the number of variances, but one must consider also the number of manuscripts, the types of errors, and among the more serious discrepancies, what impact they do or do not have.[27]
For hundreds of years, biblical and textual scholars have examined the manuscripts extensively. Since the eighteenth century, they have employed the techniques of textual criticism to reconstruct how the extant manuscripts of the New Testament texts might have descended, and to recover earlier recensions of the texts. However, King James Version (KJV)-only inerrantists often prefer the traditional texts (i.e., Textus Receptus which is the basis of KJV) used in their churches to modern attempts of reconstruction (i.e., Nestle-Aland Greek Text which is the basis of modern translations), arguing that the Holy Spirit is just as active in the preservation of the scriptures as in their creation.[28]
KJV-only inerrantist Jack Moorman says that at least 356 doctrinal passages are affected by the differences between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text.[29]
Some familiar examples of Gospel passages in the Textus Receptus thought to have been added by later interpolaters and omitted in the Nestle Aland Greek Text include the Pericope Adulteræ, [Jn 7:53-8:11] the Comma Johanneum, [1 Jn 5:7–8] and the longer ending in Mark 16. [Mk 16:9-20]
Many modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate areas where there is disagreement between source documents. Bible commentaries offer discussions of these.[30][31]
Inerrantist response[edit]
Evangelical inerrantists[edit]
Evangelical Christians generally accept the findings of textual criticism,[32] and nearly all modern translations, including the New Testament of the New International Version, are based on "the widely accepted principles of ... textual criticism".[33]
Since textual criticism suggests that the manuscript copies are not perfect, strict inerrancy is only applied to the original autographs (the manuscripts written by the original authors) rather than the copies. However, challenging this view, evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem writes:

For most practical purposes, then, the current published scholarly texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the same as the original manuscripts. Thus, when we say that the original manuscripts were inerrant, we are also implying that over 99 percent of the words in our present manuscripts are also inerrant, for they are exact copies of the originals.[2]
The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" says, "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, it also reads: "We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant." [34]
Less commonly, more conservative views are held by some groups:
King James Only Inerrantists[edit]
A faction of those in the "King James Only movement" rejects the whole discipline of textual criticism and holds that the translators of the King James Version English Bible were guided by God and that the KJV thus is to be taken as the authoritative English Bible. However, those who hold this opinion do not extend it to the KJV translation into English of the Apocryphal books, which were produced along with the rest of the Authorized Version. Modern translations differ from the KJV on numerous points, sometimes resulting from access to different early texts, largely as a result of work in the field of textual criticism. Upholders of the KJV-only position nevertheless hold that the Protestant canon of KJV is itself an inspired text and therefore remains authoritative. The King James Only movement declares that the KJV is the sole English translation free from error.
Textus Receptus[edit]
Similar to the King James Only view is the view that translations must be derived from the Textus Receptus of the late Middle Ages or early Renaissance in order to be considered inerrant. As the King James Version is an English translation, this leaves speakers of other languages in a difficult position, hence the belief in the Textus Receptus as the inerrant source text for translations to modern languages. For example, in Spanish-speaking cultures the commonly accepted "KJV-equivalent" is the Reina-Valera 1909 revision (with different groups accepting, in addition to the 1909 or in its place, the revisions of 1862 or 1960). The New King James Version was also translated from the Textus Receptus.
Justifications[edit]
A number of reasons are offered by Christian theologians to justify Biblical inerrancy.
Norman Geisler and William Nix (1986) claim that scriptural inerrancy is established by a number of observations and processes, which include:[16]
The historical accuracy of the Bible
The Bible's claims of its own inerrancy
Church history and tradition
One's individual experience with God
Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, divides the various evidences into two approaches: deductive and inductive approaches.[35]
Deductive justifications[edit]
The first deductive justification is that the Bible claims to be inspired by God (for instance "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness"[2 Tim 3:16]) and because God is perfect, the Bible must also be perfect and, hence, free from error. For instance, the statement of faith of the Evangelical Theological Society says, "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs".[36]
Supportive of this is the idea that God cannot lie. W J Mcrea writes:

The Bible then makes two basic claims: it asserts unequivocally that God cannot lie and that the Bible is the Word of God. It is primarily from a combination of these facts that the argument for inerrancy comes.[37]
And Grenz has:

Because God cannot lie and because Scripture is inspired by God, the Bible must be wholly true. This syllogism may be valid for establishing inerrancy, but it cannot define the concept.[38]
Also, from Geisler:

Those who defend inerrancy are deductivists pure and simple. They begin with certain assumptions about God and the Scriptures, namely, that God cannot lie and the Scriptures are the Word of God. From these assumptions, inerrantists deduce that the Bible is without error.[39]
A second reason offered is that Jesus and the apostles used the Old Testament in a way that assumes it is inerrant. For instance, in Galatians 3:16, Paul bases his argument on the fact that the word "seed" in the Genesis reference to "Abraham and his seed" is singular rather than plural. This (as claimed) sets a precedent for inerrant interpretation down to the individual letters of the words.[40]

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds", as (referring) to many, but (rather) to one, "And to your seed", that is, Christ.[Gal 3:16]
Similarly, Jesus said that every minute detail of the Old Testament Law must be fulfilled,[Mt 5:18] indicating (it is claimed) that every detail must be correct.[40]

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
— [Mt. 5:18 (KJV)]
Although in these verses, Jesus and the apostles are only referring to the Old Testament, the argument is considered by some to extend to the New Testament writings, because 2 Peter 3:16 accords the status of Scripture to New Testament writings also: "He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters...which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures".[2 Pet. 3:16] [41]
Inductive justifications[edit]
Wallace describes the inductive approach by enlisting the Presbyterian theologian Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield:

In his Inspiration and Authority of the Bible,[42] Warfield lays out an argument for inerrancy that has been virtually ignored by today's evangelicals. Essentially, he makes a case for inerrancy on the basis of inductive evidence, rather than deductive reasoning. Most evangelicals today follow E.J. Young's deductive approach toward bibliology, forgetting the great articulator of inerrancy. But Warfield starts with the evidence that the Bible is a historical document, rather than with the presupposition that it is inspired.[43]
Inspiration[edit]
In the Nicene Creed Christians confess their belief that the Holy Spirit "has spoken through the prophets". This creed has been normative for Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and all mainline Protestant denominations except for those descended from the non-credal Stone-Campbell movement. As noted by Alister E. McGrath, "An important element in any discussion of the manner in which Scripture is inspired, and the significance which is attached to this, is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which speaks of Scripture as 'God-breathed' (theopneustos)". According to McGrath, "the reformers did not see the issue of inspiration as linked with the absolute historical reliability or factual inerrancy of the biblical texts". He says, "The development of ideas of 'biblical infallibility' or 'inerrancy' within Protestantism can be traced to the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century".[44]
People who believe in inerrancy think that the Bible does not merely contain the Word of God, but every word of it is, because of verbal inspiration, the direct, immediate word of God.[45] The Lutheran Apology of the Augsburg Confession identifies Holy Scripture with the Word of God[46] and calls the Holy Spirit the author of the Bible.[47] Because of this, Lutherans confess in the Formula of Concord, "we receive and embrace with our whole heart the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel".[48] Lutherans (and other Protestants) believe apocryphal books are neither inspired nor written by prophets, and that they contain errors and were never included in the "Palestinian Canon" that Jesus and the Apostles are said to have used,[49] and therefore are not a part of Holy Scripture.[50] The prophetic and apostolic Scriptures are authentic as written by the prophets and apostles. A correct translation of their writings is God's Word because it has the same meaning as the original Hebrew and Greek.[50] A mistranslation is not God's word, and no human authority can invest it with divine authority.[50]
However, the 19th century Anglican biblical scholar S. R. Driver held a contrary view, saying that, "as inspiration does not suppress the individuality of the biblical writers, so it does not altogether neutralise their human infirmities or confer upon them immunity from error".[51] Similarly, J.K. Mozley, an early 20th-century Anglican theologian has argued:

That the Bible is inspired is, indeed, a primary Christian conviction; it is from this that certain consequences have been drawn, such as infallibility and inerrancy, which retain their place in Christian thought because they are held to be bound up with the affirmation of inspiration. But the deductions can be rejected without any ambiguity as to the fact of inspiration. Neither 'fundamentalists' nor sceptics are to be followed at this point... the Bible is inspired because it is the adequate and indispensable vehicle of revelation; but inspiration does not amount to dictation by God.[52]
Divine authority[edit]
For a believer in biblical inerrancy, Holy Scripture is the Word of God, and carries the full authority of God. Every single statement of the Bible calls for instant and unqualified acceptance.[53] Every doctrine of the Bible is the teaching of God and therefore requires full agreement.[54] Every promise of the Bible calls for unshakable trust in its fulfillment.[55] Every command of the Bible is the directive of God himself and therefore demands willing observance.[56]
Sufficiency[edit]
According to some believers, the Bible contains everything that they need to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life,[57] and there are no deficiencies in Scripture that need to be filled with by tradition, pronouncements of the Pope, new revelations, or present-day development of doctrine.[58]
Clarifications[edit]
Accuracy[edit]
Harold Lindsell points out that it is a "gross distortion" to state that people who believe in inerrancy suppose every statement made in the Bible is true (as opposed to accurate).[59] He indicates there are expressly false statements in the Bible which are reported accurately.[59] He notes that "All the Bible does, for example in the case of Satan, is to report what Satan actually said. Whether what he said was true or false is another matter. Christ stated that the devil is a liar".[59]
Limitations[edit]
Many who believe in the Inspiration of scripture teach that it is infallible but not inerrant. Those who subscribe to infallibility believe that what the scriptures say regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors. Those who believe in inerrancy hold that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of its phenomenological nature, not just with strict, clinical literality, which was foreign to historical narratives.[16]
Proponents of biblical inerrancy generally do not teach that the Bible was dictated directly by God, but that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture and that God's inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality.[60]
Infallibility and inerrancy refer to the original texts of the Bible. Scholars who are proponents of biblical inerrancy acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation, and therefore only affirm as the Word of God translations that "faithfully represent the original".[61]
Metaphor and literalism[edit]
Even if the bible is inerrant, it may need to be interpreted to distinguish between what statements are metaphorical and which are literally true. Jeffrey Russell writes that "Metaphor is a valid way to interpret reality. The 'literal' meaning of words - which I call the overt reading - is insufficient for understanding reality because it never exhausts reality." He adds:

Originating in Evangelicalism, the Fundamentalists affirmed that the Bible is to be read "literally" or overtly, leading some to reject not only physicalist evolution but even evolution science and to deny that life developed over billions of years. Evangelicals tended to believe in the "inerrancy" of the Bible (though they defined that term variously), a view that sometimes could unhelpfully turn the Bible into an authority on science and history.[62]
Also, figures such as Scot McKnight have argued that the Bible clearly transcends multiple genres and Hebrew prose poems cannot be evaluated by a reader the same as a science textbook.[63]
Criticism[edit]
Scientific and historical criticism[edit]
See also: Criticism of the Bible, Internal consistency of the Bible, Science and the Bible and The Bible and history
Biblical inerrancy has been criticized on the grounds that many statements that are found in Scripture, if taken literally, rather than phenomenologically, are untenable or contradictory. Many (although not all) of these instances, involve the Bible's relationship with history or science.
Theological criticism[edit]
Proponents of biblical inerrancy often cite 2 Timothy 3:16 as evidence that scripture is inerrant. For this argument, they prefer translations which render the verse as "all scripture is given by inspiration of God", and they interpret this to mean that the whole Bible must therefore be inerrant. However, critics of this doctrine think that the Bible makes no direct claim to be inerrant or infallible. C. H. Dodd argues the same sentence can also be translated "Every inspired scripture is also useful..." nor does the verse define the Biblical canon to which "scripture" refers.[64]
In addition, Michael T. Griffith, the Mormon apologist, writes

Nowhere within its pages does the Bible teach or logically imply the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. [Concerning] 2 Timothy 3:16 ... this passage merely says that "all scripture" is profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc. It says nothing about scripture being "perfect," or "inerrant," or "infallible," or "all-sufficient." If anything, Paul's words constitute a refutation of the idea of scriptural inerrancy ... What it does say is that scripture is useful, profitable, for the needs Of the pastoral ministry. The only "holy scriptures" Timothy could have known from childhood were the Hebrew scriptures, the Old Testament. And yet, would any Christian assert that in Paul's view the Old Testament was the final and complete word of God to man? Of course not. In any event, verse 15 makes it clear that in speaking of "all scripture" Paul was referring to the Jewish scriptures and perhaps to some of his own epistles. The New Testament as we know it simply did not exist yet. Furthermore, it is fairly certain that Paul's canon included some Jewish scriptures which are no longer found in the Old Testament, such as the book of Enoch. [65]
The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible also has a note that this passage refers only to the Old Testament writings understood to be scripture at the time it was written.[66] Furthermore, the Catholic Veritas Bible website notes that "Rather than characterizing the Old Testament scriptures as required reading, Paul is simply promoting them as something useful or advantageous to learn. ... it falls far short of a salvational requirement or theological system. Moreover, the four purposes (to teach, correct, etc.) for which Scripture is declared to be "profitable" are solely the functions of the ministry. After all, Paul is addressing one of his new bishops (the "man of God"). Not a word addresses the use of Scripture by the laity."[67] Another note in the Bible suggests that there are indications that Paul's writings were being considered, at least by the author of the Second Epistle of Peter, [2 Pet 3:16] as comparable to the Old Testament.[68]
The view that Biblical inerrancy can be justified by an appeal to prooftexts that refer to its divine inspiration has been criticized as circular reasoning, because these statements are only considered to be true if the Bible is already thought to be inerrant. None of these texts say that because a text is inspired, it is therefore always correct in its historical statements.[69]
In the introduction to his book Credible Christianity, Anglican Bishop Hugh Montefiore, makes this comment:
The doctrine of biblical inerrancy seems inherently improbable, for two reasons. Firstly, the Scriptures contain what seem to be evident errors and contradictions (although great ingenuity has been applied to explain these away). Secondly, the books of the Old and New Testaments did not gain their place within the "canon", or list of approved books, as soon as they were written. The Old Testament canon was not closed until late in the Apostolic age, and the New Testament canon was not finally closed until the fourth century. If all the Bible's contents were inerrant, one would have thought that this would have become apparent within a much shorter period.[70]
Meaning of "Word of God"[edit]
Much debate over the kind of authority that should be accorded biblical texts centers on what is meant by the "Word of God". The term can refer to Christ himself as well as to the proclamation of his ministry as kerygma. However, biblical inerrancy differs from this orthodoxy in viewing the Word of God to mean the entire text of the Bible when interpreted didactically as God's teaching.[71] The idea of the Bible itself as Word of God, as being itself God's revelation, is criticized in neo-orthodoxy. Here the Bible is seen as a unique witness to the people and deeds that do make up the Word of God. However, it is a wholly human witness.[72] All books of the Bible were written by human beings. Thus, whether the Bible is—in whole or in part[73]—the Word of God is not clear. However, some argue that the Bible can still be construed as the "Word of God" in the sense that these authors' statements may have been representative of, and perhaps even directly influenced by, God's own knowledge.[74]
There is only one instance in the Bible where the phrase "the Word of God" refers to something "written". The reference is to the Decalogue. However, most of the other references are to reported speech that is preserved in the Bible. The New Testament also contains a number of statements which refer to passages from the Old Testament as God's words, for instance Romans 3:2 (which says that the Jews have been "entrusted with the very words of God"), or the book of Hebrews, which often prefaces Old Testament quotations with words such as "God says". The Bible also contains words spoken by human beings about God, such as Eliphaz (Job 42:7) and the prayers and songs of the Psalter. That these are God's words addressed to us was at the root of a lively medieval controversy.[75] The idea of the word of God is more that God is encountered in scripture, than that every line of scripture is a statement made by God.[76]
While the phrase "the Word of God" is never applied to the modern Bible within the Bible itself, supporters of inerrancy argue that this is because the Biblical canon was not closed. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul wrote to the church in Thessalonica "when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God".[77]
Translation[edit]
See also: Bible errata, Bible translations and English translations of the Bible
Translation has given rise to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar as well as word meaning. Some believers trust their own translation to be the accurate one. One such group of believers is known as the King James Only movement. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages. Because some of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over the correct interpretation occur.[78]
Criticisms are also sometimes raised because of inconsistencies arising between different translations of the Hebrew or Greek text, as in the case of the virgin birth.
The Virgin Birth[edit]
See also: Virgin birth of Jesus
One translation problem concerns the New Testament assertion that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. If the Bible were inerrant, then this would be true. However, critics have suggested that the use of the word virgin may have been merely a translation error.
Matthew 1:22-1:23 reads: "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel'—which means, 'God with us.'" Here Matthew quotes the prophet Isaiah, but the Septuagint, the Greek text of the Hebrew Bible he was using, was mistaken in its translation of the word almah ("עלמה") in Isaiah 7:14:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin [(almah)] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
On this point, Browning's A Dictionary of the Bible states that in the Septuagint (dated as early as the late 2nd century BCE), "the Greek parthenos was used to translate the Hebrew almah, which means a 'young woman'".[79] The dictionary also notes that "the earliest writers of the [New Testament] (Mark and Paul) show no knowledge of such a virginal conception". Furthermore, the Encyclopedia Judaica calls this "a two-millennium misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14", which "indicates nothing concerning the chastity of the woman in question".[80]
Another writer, David Strauss in The Life of Jesus, writes: "...  [the question] ought to be decided by the fact that the word does not signify an immaculate, but a marriageable young woman". He suggests that Isaiah was referring to events of his own time, and that the young woman in question may have been "perhaps the prophet's own wife".[81]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Christianity portal
An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture
Biblical hermeneutics
Biblical infallibility
Biblical literalism
Bibliolatry
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Christ myth theory
Divine providence
Historical criticism
Internal consistency of the Bible
John Calvin's view of Scripture
Religious skepticism
Textual criticism
What the Bible Really Teaches: A Challenge for Fundamentalists
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Geisler, NL. and Roach, B., Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation, Baker Books, 2012.
2.^ Jump up to: a b Grudem, Wayne A. (1994). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-85110-652-6. OCLC 29952151.
3.Jump up ^ "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society vol. 21 no. 4 (December 1978), 289-296.[1]
4.^ Jump up to: a b Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: "Article X. We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant."
5.Jump up ^ McKim, DK, Westminster dictionary of theological terms, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
6.Jump up ^ Geisler, N. L. (ed), Inerrancy, Zondervan, 1980, p. 22. "The trouble is that such a distinction is nowhere to be found in Jesus' own teaching, and seems to be precluded by His testimony both to the unqualified historical accuracy and the inspiration of the Old Testament.... The attempt to discriminate...seems to be a product of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries".
7.Jump up ^ McCann, Vincent. The Bible: Inerrant and Infallible? Spotlight Ministries, 2001. [2]
8.Jump up ^ Cardinal Augustin Bea, "Vatican II and the Truth of Sacred Scripture"
9.^ Jump up to: a b Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation), 11
10.Jump up ^ Oxford English Dictionary.
11.Jump up ^ Frame, John M. "Is the Bible Inerrant?" IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 4, Number 19, May 13 to May 20, 2002 [3]
12.Jump up ^ Lindsell, Harold. The Battle for the Bible. Zondervan, 1978, p.31. ISBN 978-0-310-27681-4
13.Jump up ^ Schimmel, H. Chaim, The Oral Law: The rabbinic contribution to Torah Shebe'al Peh, 2nd, revised ed., Feldheim Publishers, Jerusalem, 1996, pp.19-21
14.Jump up ^ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Evangelicalism".
15.Jump up ^ Dei Verbum, 12
16.^ Jump up to: a b c Geisler & Nix (1986). A General Introduction to the Bible. Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5.
17.Jump up ^ Robinson, B.A. "Inerrancy: Is the Bible free of error? All points of view". Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 2008-SEP-01. Web: 25 January 2010. Inerrancy: Is the Bible free of error?'
18.Jump up ^ Tov, Emanuel, Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, 2001, p.213
19.Jump up ^ Plimer, Ian (1994), Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism, Random House
20.Jump up ^ Coleman, R. J. (1975). "Biblical Inerrancy: Are We Going Anywhere?". Theology Today 31 (4): 295. doi:10.1177/004057367503100404.
21.Jump up ^ Lindsell, Harold. The Battle for the Bible. Zondervan, 1978. ISBN 978-0-310-27681-4
22.Jump up ^ Cowan, SB. and Wilder, TL., In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture, B&H Publishing Group, 2013, p. 55.[4]
23.Jump up ^ Saucy, R., Scripture, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2001
24.Jump up ^ The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas
25.Jump up ^ See Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, p. 219
26.Jump up ^ See Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, p. 220
27.Jump up ^ Stewart, Robert B., ed. (2011). The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press. ISBN 978-0-8006-9773-0. OCLC 646121910
28.Jump up ^ White, JR., The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, Baker Books, 2009, p. 24.
29.Jump up ^ Moorman, Jack, Missing In Modern Bibles – Is the Full Story Being Told?, Bible for Today, 1989, 83 pages
30.Jump up ^ See e.g. The HCSB Student Bible, B&H Publishing Group, 2007, p. iv.
31.Jump up ^ Mays, James, ed. (2000). Harper Collins Bible Commentary (Revised Edition ed.). Harper Collins. ISBN 0-06-065548-8.
32.Jump up ^ Bacote, VE., Miguélez, LC. and Okholm, DL., Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, InterVarsity Press, 2009.
33.Jump up ^ Today's new International Version: New Testament, Introduction.
34.Jump up ^ "Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerancy" (PDF).
35.Jump up ^ My Take on Inerrancy, bible.org website
36.Jump up ^ About the ETS, Evangelical Theological Society web site
37.Jump up ^ McRea, WJ, A book to die for, Clements publishing, 2002.
38.Jump up ^ Grenz, SJ, Theology for the community of God, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000
39.Jump up ^ Geisler, N.L., Inerrancy, Zondervan, 1980, p271.
40.^ Jump up to: a b "Bible, Inerrancy and Infallibility of", by P.D. Feinberg, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker, 1984, Ed. W. Elwell)
41.Jump up ^ Bible, Inspiration of, by Nigel M. de S. Cameron, in "Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology", Edited by Walter A. Elwell, Baker, 1996
42.Jump up ^ Warfield, Benjamin (1948). Craig, Samuel, ed. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. with introduction by Cornelius Van Til (1st ed.). Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-87552-527-3. OCLC 223791198.
43.Jump up ^ Daniel B. Wallace. "My Take on Inerrancy". bible.com. Archived from the original on 20 November 2010. Retrieved 17 November 2010.
44.Jump up ^ McGrath, Alister E., Christian Theology: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994; 3rd ed. 2001. p. 176.
45.Jump up ^ 2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Corinthians 2:13, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Romans 3:2, 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Samuel 23:2, Hebrews 1:1, John 10:35, John, John, Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 26.
46.Jump up ^ "God's Word, or Holy Scripture" from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article II, of Original Sin
47.Jump up ^ "the Scripture of the Holy Ghost". Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Preface, 9
48.Jump up ^ The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, "Rule and Norm", 3.
49.Jump up ^ See BIBLE Bible, Canon in the Christian Cyclopedia[dead link]
50.^ Jump up to: a b c Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 27.
51.Jump up ^ Driver, S.R., Church Congress speech, cited in F.W. Farrar, The Bible: Its Meaning and Supremacy, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1897.
52.Jump up ^ Mozley, J.K., "The Bible: Its Unity, Inspiration, and Authority", in W.R. Matthews, ed., The Christian Faith: Essays in Explanation and Defense, Harper and Bros., 1936. pp. 58-59.
53.Jump up ^ Matthew 4:3, Luke 4:3, Genesis 3:1, John 10:35, Luke 24:25, Psalm 119:140, Psalm 119:167, Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 27., Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–9.[dead link]
54.Jump up ^ 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Luke 24:25-27, Luke 16:29-31, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Jeremiah 8:9, Jeremiah 23:26, Isaiah 8:19-20, 1 Corinthians 14:37, Galatians 1:8, Acts 17:11, Acts 15:14-15, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–10.[dead link]
55.Jump up ^ 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Corinthians 1:20, Titus 1:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Peter 1:19, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–9.[dead link]
56.Jump up ^ Deuteronomy 12:32, 5:9-10, James 2:10, Joshua 1:8, Luke 16:29, 2 Timothy 3:16, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–11.[dead link]
57.Jump up ^ 2 Timothy 3:15-17, John 5:39, 17:20, Psalm 19:7-8, Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
58.Jump up ^ Isaiah 8:20, Luke 16:29-31, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 13.[dead link], Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
59.^ Jump up to: a b c Lindsell, Harold. "The Battle for the Bible", Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA (1976), pg. 38.
60.Jump up ^ "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", Article VIII
61.Jump up ^ "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", Article X (Archive)
62.Jump up ^ Russell, J.B., Paradise Mislaid: How We Lost Heaven--and How We Can Regain It, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 14 & 129.
63.Jump up ^ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/05/05/how-do-we-know-when/
64.Jump up ^ Dodd, C. H. The Authority of the Bible, London, 1960. p. 25.
65.Jump up ^ Griffith, MT, Refuting the Critics: Evidences of the Book of Mormon's Authenticity, Cedar Fort, 1993, p. 129.
66.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, study edition, page 1967, DLT 1994
67.Jump up ^ Veritas Bible Sacred Tradition.
68.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, page 2010, footnote (i) DLT 1985
69.Jump up ^ Holman Bible Editorial, If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?: 130 Arguments for Christian Faith, B&H Publishing Group, 2012, p. 51.
70.Jump up ^ Montefiore, Hugh. Credible Christianity: The Gospel in Contemporary Society, London: Mowbray, 1993; Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1994. p. 5. ISBN 0-8028-3768-9
71.Jump up ^ James Barr, Fundamentalism p.72ff, SCM 1977.
72.Jump up ^ James Barr, Fundamentalism pp.218-219 SCM 1977
73.Jump up ^ Exodus claims of the Ethical Decalogue and Ritual Decalogue that these are God's word.
74.Jump up ^ Brown, RE., The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Paulist Press, 1981.
75.Jump up ^ Uriel Simon, "Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms" chap. 1
76.Jump up ^ Alexander Ryrie, "Deliver Us From Evil", DLT 2004
77.Jump up ^ Nürnberger, K., Biblical Theology in Outline: The Vitality of the Word of God, Cluster Publications, 2004, p. 65.
78.Jump up ^ See Encyclical Letter of 1893 quoted in Schwarz, W., Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation: Some Reformation Controversies and Their Background, CUP Archive, 1955, p. 11.
79.Jump up ^ Browning, WRF, A dictionary of the Bible, Oxford University Press, 2004. Entry for virgin birth.
80.Jump up ^ Skolnik, F., Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd Edition, 2006, Volume 20, p. 540.
81.Jump up ^ Strauss, D.F. The life of Jesus, Calvin Blanchard, NY, 1860, p. 114.
References[edit]
Bart D. Ehrman, 2003. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press, Inc. ISBN 0-19-518249-9
Charles Caldwell Ryrie (1981). What you should know about inerrancy. ISBN 0-8024-8785-8
Dei Verbum Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (1965)
Ethelbert W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1970.
Gleason Archer, 2001. New Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. ISBN 0-310-24146-4
Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2001). "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts". New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-2338-1..
Herzog, Ze'ev. "Deconstructing the walls of Jericho". Ha'aretz October 29, 1999. Web: Deconstructing the walls of Jericho.
John Walvoord (1990). What We Believe: Understanding and Applying the Basics of Christian Life. ISBN 0-929239-31-8
Kathleen C. Boone: The Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamentalism, State Univ of New York Press 1989, ISBN 0-88706-895-2
N. T. Wright, The Last Word: Beyond Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture. Harper-San Francisco, 2005. ISBN 0-06-081609-0
Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, (1999) When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties.
Norman Geisler and William E. Nix., A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody Publishers; Rev&Expndd edition (August 1986), ISBN 0-8024-2916-5
Norman Geisler, ed. (1980). Inerrancy. ISBN 0-310-39281-0.
Sproul, R. C.. Hath God Said? (video series).
Walter C. Kaiser, Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch. (1996). Hard Sayings of the Bible
Warfield, B. B. (1977 reprint). Inspiration and Authority of Bible, with a lengthy introductory essay by Cornelius Van Til. ISBN 0-8010-9586-7.
Further reading[edit]
J. Benton White (1993). Taking the Bible Seriously: Honest Differences about Biblical Interpretation. First ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press. xii, 177 p. ISBN 0-664-25452-7
External links[edit]
Presbyterian Church beliefs of the Bible
Roman Catholic Church beliefs of the Bible
Supportive
Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels by Gary R. Habermas
Why I Believe in the Inerrancy of the Scriptures by Dave Miller (see Farrell Till below)
Scholarly articles on Inerrancy from the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Library
Ten reasons why I believe the Bible is The Word of God by R. A. Torrey
How Can The Bible be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright
On the Inerrancy of Scripture by Thomas Bolin
Critical
Dissolving the Inerrancy Debate (a postmodern view)
Bible Inerrancy: A Belief Without Evidence Farrell Till's rebuttal to Dave Miller's defense (see above)
Isaac Newton's Views on the Corruption of Scripture
The Two Most Notable Corruptions of Scripture, by Isaac Newton


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christian theology




































































































































































































































































































































P christianity.svg


  


Categories: Evangelicalism
Christian fundamentalism
Christian theology of the Bible
Christian terminology






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Català
Deutsch
Español
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
日本語
Português
Simple English
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 24 May 2015, at 19:48.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy











Biblical inerrancy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the Christian doctrinal position. For Jewish doctrinal positions, see Rabbinic literature.
Not to be confused with Biblical infallibility.
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible


Canons and books
 [show]






















Authorship and development
 [show]












Translations and manuscripts
 [show]














Biblical studies[show]
































Interpretation[show]













Perspectives[show]









Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching";[1] or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".[2]
A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1978.[3] The signatories to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" admit that "inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, even though there may be no extant original manuscripts of the Bible, those which exist can be considered inerrant, because, as the statement reads: "the autographic text of Scripture, ... in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy".[4]
Some equate inerrancy with infallibility; others do not.[5][6] Biblical inerrancy should not be confused with Biblical literalism.
There are a minority of biblical inerrantists who go further than the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", arguing that the original text has been perfectly preserved and passed down through time.
The copies of the original language texts that are used by modern translators as the source for translations of the books of the Bible are reconstructions of the original text. Today's versions are based upon scholarly comparison of thousands of biblical manuscripts (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) and thousands of biblical citations in the writings of the early Church Fathers.[7]
The "doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture"[8] held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."[9]


Contents  [hide]
1 Terms and opinions
2 History
3 Inerrancy in autographic texts and modern versions
4 Textual tradition of the New Testament 4.1 Inerrantist response 4.1.1 Evangelical inerrantists
4.1.2 King James Only Inerrantists
4.1.3 Textus Receptus

5 Justifications 5.1 Deductive justifications
5.2 Inductive justifications 5.2.1 Inspiration
5.2.2 Divine authority
5.2.3 Sufficiency

6 Clarifications 6.1 Accuracy
6.2 Limitations
6.3 Metaphor and literalism
7 Criticism 7.1 Scientific and historical criticism
7.2 Theological criticism 7.2.1 Meaning of "Word of God"
7.3 Translation 7.3.1 The Virgin Birth

8 See also
9 Notes
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links

Terms and opinions[edit]
See also: Biblical inspiration, Biblical infallibility, Biblical literalism, Biblical authority, Criticism of the Bible, Internal consistency of the Bible, Science and the Bible and The Bible and history
The word inerrancy is formed from the word inerrant, from the Latin inerrāntem, (being in- + errāntem the present participle of errāre to err or wander). It is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "That does not err; free from error; unerring."[10] Another word often used to characterize the Bible is "infallible". From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that this is a stronger term than "inerrant". "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors".[11] Yet he agrees that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy. '" Lindsell (1978) states that "The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective".[12]
According to H. Chaim Schimmel, Judaism had never promulgated a belief in the literal word of the Hebrew Bible, hence the co-existence of the Oral Torah.[13] Within Christianity, some mainstream Evangelical and Protestant groups adhere to the current inerrancy of Scripture as it reads today. However, some note that "Evangelical scholars ... doubt that accepting the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is the best way to assert their belief in biblical authority".[14]
The Catholic Church's view was authoritatively expressed by the Second Vatican Council, citing earlier declarations, in the following terms: "Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation".[9] The Council added: "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words."[15]
Some literalist or conservative Christians teach that the Bible lacks error in every way in all matters: chronology, history, biology, sociology, psychology, politics, physics, math, art, and so on.[16] Other Christians believe that the Scriptures are always right (do not err) only in fulfilling their primary purpose: revealing God, God's vision, God's purposes, and God's good news to humanity.[17]
Mainstream Judaism and Christian traditions hold that the Torah or Pentateuch of the Hebrew Bible was physically written by Moses—not by God himself, although in the process of transcription many thousands of times copyists have allowed errors, or (some suggest) even forgeries in the text to accumulate.[18] According to this position, God originally spoke through a select person to reveal his purpose, character and plan for humanity. However, the Bible does record some direct statements from God (i.e.,"Thus says the Lord ..". , "And God said ..". , etc.). The significance of most phrases, their parts, grammar, and occasionally individual words, letters and even pronunciation in the Hebrew Bible are the subject of many rabbinic discussions in the Talmud.
History[edit]
During the 18th and 19th centuries, various episodes of the Bible (for example the Noahide worldwide flood,[19] the creation in six days, and the creation of women from a man's rib) began increasingly to be seen as legendary. This led to further questioning of the veracity of Biblical texts. According to an article in Theology Today published in 1975, "There have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy. The arguments pro and con have filled many books, and almost anyone can join in the debate".[20]
In the 1970s and '80s, however, the debate in theological circles, which centered on the issue of whether or not the Bible was infallible or both infallible and inerrant, came into the spotlight. Some notable Christian seminaries, such as Princeton Theological Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary, were formally adopting the doctrine of infallibility while rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy.
The other side of this debate focused largely around the magazine Christianity Today and the book entitled The Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell.[21] The author asserted that losing the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture was the thread that would unravel the church and Conservative Christians rallied behind this idea.
Inerrancy in autographic texts and modern versions[edit]
Those who hold the inerrancy of the Bible can disagree as to whether inerrancy refers to modern Bibles or only to the original, autographic texts. There are also disagreements about whether, because the autographic texts no longer survive, modern texts can be claimed to be inerrant.[22] Article X of the Chicago statement agrees that the inspiration for the words of the Bible can only strictly be applied to the autographs. However, the same article asserts that the original text "can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy", so that the lack of the originals does not affect the claim of Biblical inerrancy of such recovered, modern texts.[4] Robert Saucy, for instance, reports that writers have argued that "99 percent of the original words in the New Testament are recoverable with a high degree of certainty."[23]
Textual tradition of the New Testament[edit]
See also: Biblical canon, Bible translations and Textual criticism
There are over 5,600 Greek manuscripts containing all or part of the New Testament, as well as over 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and perhaps 500 other manuscripts of various other languages. Additionally, there are the Patristic writings which contain copious quotes, across the early centuries, of the scriptures.
Most of these manuscripts date to the Middle Ages. The oldest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, which includes two other books[24] not now included in the accepted NT canon, dates to the 4th century. The earliest fragment of a New Testament book is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which dates to the mid 2nd century and is the size of a business card. Very early manuscripts are rare.
The average NT manuscript is about 200 pages, and in all, there are about 1.3 million pages of text. No two manuscripts are identical, except in the smallest fragments, and the many manuscripts which preserve New Testament texts differ among themselves in many respects, with some estimates of 200,000 to 300,000 differences among the various manuscripts.[25] According to Bart Ehrman:

Most changes are careless errors that are easily recognized and corrected. Christian scribes often made mistakes simply because they were tired or inattentive or, sometimes, inept. Indeed, the single most common mistake in our manuscripts involves "orthography", significant for little more than showing that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most of us can today. In addition, we have numerous manuscripts in which scribes have left out entire words, verses, or even pages of a book, presumably by accident. Sometimes scribes rearranged the words on the page, for example, by leaving out a word and then reinserting it later in the sentence.[26]
In the 2008 Greer-Heard debate series, noted New Testament scholars Bart Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace discussed these variances in detail. Wallace mentioned that understanding the meaning of the number of variances is not as simple as looking at the number of variances, but one must consider also the number of manuscripts, the types of errors, and among the more serious discrepancies, what impact they do or do not have.[27]
For hundreds of years, biblical and textual scholars have examined the manuscripts extensively. Since the eighteenth century, they have employed the techniques of textual criticism to reconstruct how the extant manuscripts of the New Testament texts might have descended, and to recover earlier recensions of the texts. However, King James Version (KJV)-only inerrantists often prefer the traditional texts (i.e., Textus Receptus which is the basis of KJV) used in their churches to modern attempts of reconstruction (i.e., Nestle-Aland Greek Text which is the basis of modern translations), arguing that the Holy Spirit is just as active in the preservation of the scriptures as in their creation.[28]
KJV-only inerrantist Jack Moorman says that at least 356 doctrinal passages are affected by the differences between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text.[29]
Some familiar examples of Gospel passages in the Textus Receptus thought to have been added by later interpolaters and omitted in the Nestle Aland Greek Text include the Pericope Adulteræ, [Jn 7:53-8:11] the Comma Johanneum, [1 Jn 5:7–8] and the longer ending in Mark 16. [Mk 16:9-20]
Many modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate areas where there is disagreement between source documents. Bible commentaries offer discussions of these.[30][31]
Inerrantist response[edit]
Evangelical inerrantists[edit]
Evangelical Christians generally accept the findings of textual criticism,[32] and nearly all modern translations, including the New Testament of the New International Version, are based on "the widely accepted principles of ... textual criticism".[33]
Since textual criticism suggests that the manuscript copies are not perfect, strict inerrancy is only applied to the original autographs (the manuscripts written by the original authors) rather than the copies. However, challenging this view, evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem writes:

For most practical purposes, then, the current published scholarly texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the same as the original manuscripts. Thus, when we say that the original manuscripts were inerrant, we are also implying that over 99 percent of the words in our present manuscripts are also inerrant, for they are exact copies of the originals.[2]
The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" says, "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, it also reads: "We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant." [34]
Less commonly, more conservative views are held by some groups:
King James Only Inerrantists[edit]
A faction of those in the "King James Only movement" rejects the whole discipline of textual criticism and holds that the translators of the King James Version English Bible were guided by God and that the KJV thus is to be taken as the authoritative English Bible. However, those who hold this opinion do not extend it to the KJV translation into English of the Apocryphal books, which were produced along with the rest of the Authorized Version. Modern translations differ from the KJV on numerous points, sometimes resulting from access to different early texts, largely as a result of work in the field of textual criticism. Upholders of the KJV-only position nevertheless hold that the Protestant canon of KJV is itself an inspired text and therefore remains authoritative. The King James Only movement declares that the KJV is the sole English translation free from error.
Textus Receptus[edit]
Similar to the King James Only view is the view that translations must be derived from the Textus Receptus of the late Middle Ages or early Renaissance in order to be considered inerrant. As the King James Version is an English translation, this leaves speakers of other languages in a difficult position, hence the belief in the Textus Receptus as the inerrant source text for translations to modern languages. For example, in Spanish-speaking cultures the commonly accepted "KJV-equivalent" is the Reina-Valera 1909 revision (with different groups accepting, in addition to the 1909 or in its place, the revisions of 1862 or 1960). The New King James Version was also translated from the Textus Receptus.
Justifications[edit]
A number of reasons are offered by Christian theologians to justify Biblical inerrancy.
Norman Geisler and William Nix (1986) claim that scriptural inerrancy is established by a number of observations and processes, which include:[16]
The historical accuracy of the Bible
The Bible's claims of its own inerrancy
Church history and tradition
One's individual experience with God
Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, divides the various evidences into two approaches: deductive and inductive approaches.[35]
Deductive justifications[edit]
The first deductive justification is that the Bible claims to be inspired by God (for instance "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness"[2 Tim 3:16]) and because God is perfect, the Bible must also be perfect and, hence, free from error. For instance, the statement of faith of the Evangelical Theological Society says, "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs".[36]
Supportive of this is the idea that God cannot lie. W J Mcrea writes:

The Bible then makes two basic claims: it asserts unequivocally that God cannot lie and that the Bible is the Word of God. It is primarily from a combination of these facts that the argument for inerrancy comes.[37]
And Grenz has:

Because God cannot lie and because Scripture is inspired by God, the Bible must be wholly true. This syllogism may be valid for establishing inerrancy, but it cannot define the concept.[38]
Also, from Geisler:

Those who defend inerrancy are deductivists pure and simple. They begin with certain assumptions about God and the Scriptures, namely, that God cannot lie and the Scriptures are the Word of God. From these assumptions, inerrantists deduce that the Bible is without error.[39]
A second reason offered is that Jesus and the apostles used the Old Testament in a way that assumes it is inerrant. For instance, in Galatians 3:16, Paul bases his argument on the fact that the word "seed" in the Genesis reference to "Abraham and his seed" is singular rather than plural. This (as claimed) sets a precedent for inerrant interpretation down to the individual letters of the words.[40]

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds", as (referring) to many, but (rather) to one, "And to your seed", that is, Christ.[Gal 3:16]
Similarly, Jesus said that every minute detail of the Old Testament Law must be fulfilled,[Mt 5:18] indicating (it is claimed) that every detail must be correct.[40]

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
— [Mt. 5:18 (KJV)]
Although in these verses, Jesus and the apostles are only referring to the Old Testament, the argument is considered by some to extend to the New Testament writings, because 2 Peter 3:16 accords the status of Scripture to New Testament writings also: "He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters...which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures".[2 Pet. 3:16] [41]
Inductive justifications[edit]
Wallace describes the inductive approach by enlisting the Presbyterian theologian Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield:

In his Inspiration and Authority of the Bible,[42] Warfield lays out an argument for inerrancy that has been virtually ignored by today's evangelicals. Essentially, he makes a case for inerrancy on the basis of inductive evidence, rather than deductive reasoning. Most evangelicals today follow E.J. Young's deductive approach toward bibliology, forgetting the great articulator of inerrancy. But Warfield starts with the evidence that the Bible is a historical document, rather than with the presupposition that it is inspired.[43]
Inspiration[edit]
In the Nicene Creed Christians confess their belief that the Holy Spirit "has spoken through the prophets". This creed has been normative for Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and all mainline Protestant denominations except for those descended from the non-credal Stone-Campbell movement. As noted by Alister E. McGrath, "An important element in any discussion of the manner in which Scripture is inspired, and the significance which is attached to this, is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which speaks of Scripture as 'God-breathed' (theopneustos)". According to McGrath, "the reformers did not see the issue of inspiration as linked with the absolute historical reliability or factual inerrancy of the biblical texts". He says, "The development of ideas of 'biblical infallibility' or 'inerrancy' within Protestantism can be traced to the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century".[44]
People who believe in inerrancy think that the Bible does not merely contain the Word of God, but every word of it is, because of verbal inspiration, the direct, immediate word of God.[45] The Lutheran Apology of the Augsburg Confession identifies Holy Scripture with the Word of God[46] and calls the Holy Spirit the author of the Bible.[47] Because of this, Lutherans confess in the Formula of Concord, "we receive and embrace with our whole heart the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel".[48] Lutherans (and other Protestants) believe apocryphal books are neither inspired nor written by prophets, and that they contain errors and were never included in the "Palestinian Canon" that Jesus and the Apostles are said to have used,[49] and therefore are not a part of Holy Scripture.[50] The prophetic and apostolic Scriptures are authentic as written by the prophets and apostles. A correct translation of their writings is God's Word because it has the same meaning as the original Hebrew and Greek.[50] A mistranslation is not God's word, and no human authority can invest it with divine authority.[50]
However, the 19th century Anglican biblical scholar S. R. Driver held a contrary view, saying that, "as inspiration does not suppress the individuality of the biblical writers, so it does not altogether neutralise their human infirmities or confer upon them immunity from error".[51] Similarly, J.K. Mozley, an early 20th-century Anglican theologian has argued:

That the Bible is inspired is, indeed, a primary Christian conviction; it is from this that certain consequences have been drawn, such as infallibility and inerrancy, which retain their place in Christian thought because they are held to be bound up with the affirmation of inspiration. But the deductions can be rejected without any ambiguity as to the fact of inspiration. Neither 'fundamentalists' nor sceptics are to be followed at this point... the Bible is inspired because it is the adequate and indispensable vehicle of revelation; but inspiration does not amount to dictation by God.[52]
Divine authority[edit]
For a believer in biblical inerrancy, Holy Scripture is the Word of God, and carries the full authority of God. Every single statement of the Bible calls for instant and unqualified acceptance.[53] Every doctrine of the Bible is the teaching of God and therefore requires full agreement.[54] Every promise of the Bible calls for unshakable trust in its fulfillment.[55] Every command of the Bible is the directive of God himself and therefore demands willing observance.[56]
Sufficiency[edit]
According to some believers, the Bible contains everything that they need to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life,[57] and there are no deficiencies in Scripture that need to be filled with by tradition, pronouncements of the Pope, new revelations, or present-day development of doctrine.[58]
Clarifications[edit]
Accuracy[edit]
Harold Lindsell points out that it is a "gross distortion" to state that people who believe in inerrancy suppose every statement made in the Bible is true (as opposed to accurate).[59] He indicates there are expressly false statements in the Bible which are reported accurately.[59] He notes that "All the Bible does, for example in the case of Satan, is to report what Satan actually said. Whether what he said was true or false is another matter. Christ stated that the devil is a liar".[59]
Limitations[edit]
Many who believe in the Inspiration of scripture teach that it is infallible but not inerrant. Those who subscribe to infallibility believe that what the scriptures say regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors. Those who believe in inerrancy hold that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of its phenomenological nature, not just with strict, clinical literality, which was foreign to historical narratives.[16]
Proponents of biblical inerrancy generally do not teach that the Bible was dictated directly by God, but that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture and that God's inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality.[60]
Infallibility and inerrancy refer to the original texts of the Bible. Scholars who are proponents of biblical inerrancy acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation, and therefore only affirm as the Word of God translations that "faithfully represent the original".[61]
Metaphor and literalism[edit]
Even if the bible is inerrant, it may need to be interpreted to distinguish between what statements are metaphorical and which are literally true. Jeffrey Russell writes that "Metaphor is a valid way to interpret reality. The 'literal' meaning of words - which I call the overt reading - is insufficient for understanding reality because it never exhausts reality." He adds:

Originating in Evangelicalism, the Fundamentalists affirmed that the Bible is to be read "literally" or overtly, leading some to reject not only physicalist evolution but even evolution science and to deny that life developed over billions of years. Evangelicals tended to believe in the "inerrancy" of the Bible (though they defined that term variously), a view that sometimes could unhelpfully turn the Bible into an authority on science and history.[62]
Also, figures such as Scot McKnight have argued that the Bible clearly transcends multiple genres and Hebrew prose poems cannot be evaluated by a reader the same as a science textbook.[63]
Criticism[edit]
Scientific and historical criticism[edit]
See also: Criticism of the Bible, Internal consistency of the Bible, Science and the Bible and The Bible and history
Biblical inerrancy has been criticized on the grounds that many statements that are found in Scripture, if taken literally, rather than phenomenologically, are untenable or contradictory. Many (although not all) of these instances, involve the Bible's relationship with history or science.
Theological criticism[edit]
Proponents of biblical inerrancy often cite 2 Timothy 3:16 as evidence that scripture is inerrant. For this argument, they prefer translations which render the verse as "all scripture is given by inspiration of God", and they interpret this to mean that the whole Bible must therefore be inerrant. However, critics of this doctrine think that the Bible makes no direct claim to be inerrant or infallible. C. H. Dodd argues the same sentence can also be translated "Every inspired scripture is also useful..." nor does the verse define the Biblical canon to which "scripture" refers.[64]
In addition, Michael T. Griffith, the Mormon apologist, writes

Nowhere within its pages does the Bible teach or logically imply the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. [Concerning] 2 Timothy 3:16 ... this passage merely says that "all scripture" is profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc. It says nothing about scripture being "perfect," or "inerrant," or "infallible," or "all-sufficient." If anything, Paul's words constitute a refutation of the idea of scriptural inerrancy ... What it does say is that scripture is useful, profitable, for the needs Of the pastoral ministry. The only "holy scriptures" Timothy could have known from childhood were the Hebrew scriptures, the Old Testament. And yet, would any Christian assert that in Paul's view the Old Testament was the final and complete word of God to man? Of course not. In any event, verse 15 makes it clear that in speaking of "all scripture" Paul was referring to the Jewish scriptures and perhaps to some of his own epistles. The New Testament as we know it simply did not exist yet. Furthermore, it is fairly certain that Paul's canon included some Jewish scriptures which are no longer found in the Old Testament, such as the book of Enoch. [65]
The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible also has a note that this passage refers only to the Old Testament writings understood to be scripture at the time it was written.[66] Furthermore, the Catholic Veritas Bible website notes that "Rather than characterizing the Old Testament scriptures as required reading, Paul is simply promoting them as something useful or advantageous to learn. ... it falls far short of a salvational requirement or theological system. Moreover, the four purposes (to teach, correct, etc.) for which Scripture is declared to be "profitable" are solely the functions of the ministry. After all, Paul is addressing one of his new bishops (the "man of God"). Not a word addresses the use of Scripture by the laity."[67] Another note in the Bible suggests that there are indications that Paul's writings were being considered, at least by the author of the Second Epistle of Peter, [2 Pet 3:16] as comparable to the Old Testament.[68]
The view that Biblical inerrancy can be justified by an appeal to prooftexts that refer to its divine inspiration has been criticized as circular reasoning, because these statements are only considered to be true if the Bible is already thought to be inerrant. None of these texts say that because a text is inspired, it is therefore always correct in its historical statements.[69]
In the introduction to his book Credible Christianity, Anglican Bishop Hugh Montefiore, makes this comment:
The doctrine of biblical inerrancy seems inherently improbable, for two reasons. Firstly, the Scriptures contain what seem to be evident errors and contradictions (although great ingenuity has been applied to explain these away). Secondly, the books of the Old and New Testaments did not gain their place within the "canon", or list of approved books, as soon as they were written. The Old Testament canon was not closed until late in the Apostolic age, and the New Testament canon was not finally closed until the fourth century. If all the Bible's contents were inerrant, one would have thought that this would have become apparent within a much shorter period.[70]
Meaning of "Word of God"[edit]
Much debate over the kind of authority that should be accorded biblical texts centers on what is meant by the "Word of God". The term can refer to Christ himself as well as to the proclamation of his ministry as kerygma. However, biblical inerrancy differs from this orthodoxy in viewing the Word of God to mean the entire text of the Bible when interpreted didactically as God's teaching.[71] The idea of the Bible itself as Word of God, as being itself God's revelation, is criticized in neo-orthodoxy. Here the Bible is seen as a unique witness to the people and deeds that do make up the Word of God. However, it is a wholly human witness.[72] All books of the Bible were written by human beings. Thus, whether the Bible is—in whole or in part[73]—the Word of God is not clear. However, some argue that the Bible can still be construed as the "Word of God" in the sense that these authors' statements may have been representative of, and perhaps even directly influenced by, God's own knowledge.[74]
There is only one instance in the Bible where the phrase "the Word of God" refers to something "written". The reference is to the Decalogue. However, most of the other references are to reported speech that is preserved in the Bible. The New Testament also contains a number of statements which refer to passages from the Old Testament as God's words, for instance Romans 3:2 (which says that the Jews have been "entrusted with the very words of God"), or the book of Hebrews, which often prefaces Old Testament quotations with words such as "God says". The Bible also contains words spoken by human beings about God, such as Eliphaz (Job 42:7) and the prayers and songs of the Psalter. That these are God's words addressed to us was at the root of a lively medieval controversy.[75] The idea of the word of God is more that God is encountered in scripture, than that every line of scripture is a statement made by God.[76]
While the phrase "the Word of God" is never applied to the modern Bible within the Bible itself, supporters of inerrancy argue that this is because the Biblical canon was not closed. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul wrote to the church in Thessalonica "when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God".[77]
Translation[edit]
See also: Bible errata, Bible translations and English translations of the Bible
Translation has given rise to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar as well as word meaning. Some believers trust their own translation to be the accurate one. One such group of believers is known as the King James Only movement. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages. Because some of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over the correct interpretation occur.[78]
Criticisms are also sometimes raised because of inconsistencies arising between different translations of the Hebrew or Greek text, as in the case of the virgin birth.
The Virgin Birth[edit]
See also: Virgin birth of Jesus
One translation problem concerns the New Testament assertion that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. If the Bible were inerrant, then this would be true. However, critics have suggested that the use of the word virgin may have been merely a translation error.
Matthew 1:22-1:23 reads: "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel'—which means, 'God with us.'" Here Matthew quotes the prophet Isaiah, but the Septuagint, the Greek text of the Hebrew Bible he was using, was mistaken in its translation of the word almah ("עלמה") in Isaiah 7:14:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin [(almah)] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
On this point, Browning's A Dictionary of the Bible states that in the Septuagint (dated as early as the late 2nd century BCE), "the Greek parthenos was used to translate the Hebrew almah, which means a 'young woman'".[79] The dictionary also notes that "the earliest writers of the [New Testament] (Mark and Paul) show no knowledge of such a virginal conception". Furthermore, the Encyclopedia Judaica calls this "a two-millennium misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14", which "indicates nothing concerning the chastity of the woman in question".[80]
Another writer, David Strauss in The Life of Jesus, writes: "...  [the question] ought to be decided by the fact that the word does not signify an immaculate, but a marriageable young woman". He suggests that Isaiah was referring to events of his own time, and that the young woman in question may have been "perhaps the prophet's own wife".[81]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Christianity portal
An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture
Biblical hermeneutics
Biblical infallibility
Biblical literalism
Bibliolatry
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Christ myth theory
Divine providence
Historical criticism
Internal consistency of the Bible
John Calvin's view of Scripture
Religious skepticism
Textual criticism
What the Bible Really Teaches: A Challenge for Fundamentalists
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Geisler, NL. and Roach, B., Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation, Baker Books, 2012.
2.^ Jump up to: a b Grudem, Wayne A. (1994). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-85110-652-6. OCLC 29952151.
3.Jump up ^ "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society vol. 21 no. 4 (December 1978), 289-296.[1]
4.^ Jump up to: a b Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: "Article X. We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant."
5.Jump up ^ McKim, DK, Westminster dictionary of theological terms, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
6.Jump up ^ Geisler, N. L. (ed), Inerrancy, Zondervan, 1980, p. 22. "The trouble is that such a distinction is nowhere to be found in Jesus' own teaching, and seems to be precluded by His testimony both to the unqualified historical accuracy and the inspiration of the Old Testament.... The attempt to discriminate...seems to be a product of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries".
7.Jump up ^ McCann, Vincent. The Bible: Inerrant and Infallible? Spotlight Ministries, 2001. [2]
8.Jump up ^ Cardinal Augustin Bea, "Vatican II and the Truth of Sacred Scripture"
9.^ Jump up to: a b Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation), 11
10.Jump up ^ Oxford English Dictionary.
11.Jump up ^ Frame, John M. "Is the Bible Inerrant?" IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 4, Number 19, May 13 to May 20, 2002 [3]
12.Jump up ^ Lindsell, Harold. The Battle for the Bible. Zondervan, 1978, p.31. ISBN 978-0-310-27681-4
13.Jump up ^ Schimmel, H. Chaim, The Oral Law: The rabbinic contribution to Torah Shebe'al Peh, 2nd, revised ed., Feldheim Publishers, Jerusalem, 1996, pp.19-21
14.Jump up ^ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Evangelicalism".
15.Jump up ^ Dei Verbum, 12
16.^ Jump up to: a b c Geisler & Nix (1986). A General Introduction to the Bible. Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5.
17.Jump up ^ Robinson, B.A. "Inerrancy: Is the Bible free of error? All points of view". Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 2008-SEP-01. Web: 25 January 2010. Inerrancy: Is the Bible free of error?'
18.Jump up ^ Tov, Emanuel, Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, 2001, p.213
19.Jump up ^ Plimer, Ian (1994), Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism, Random House
20.Jump up ^ Coleman, R. J. (1975). "Biblical Inerrancy: Are We Going Anywhere?". Theology Today 31 (4): 295. doi:10.1177/004057367503100404.
21.Jump up ^ Lindsell, Harold. The Battle for the Bible. Zondervan, 1978. ISBN 978-0-310-27681-4
22.Jump up ^ Cowan, SB. and Wilder, TL., In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture, B&H Publishing Group, 2013, p. 55.[4]
23.Jump up ^ Saucy, R., Scripture, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2001
24.Jump up ^ The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas
25.Jump up ^ See Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, p. 219
26.Jump up ^ See Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, p. 220
27.Jump up ^ Stewart, Robert B., ed. (2011). The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press. ISBN 978-0-8006-9773-0. OCLC 646121910
28.Jump up ^ White, JR., The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, Baker Books, 2009, p. 24.
29.Jump up ^ Moorman, Jack, Missing In Modern Bibles – Is the Full Story Being Told?, Bible for Today, 1989, 83 pages
30.Jump up ^ See e.g. The HCSB Student Bible, B&H Publishing Group, 2007, p. iv.
31.Jump up ^ Mays, James, ed. (2000). Harper Collins Bible Commentary (Revised Edition ed.). Harper Collins. ISBN 0-06-065548-8.
32.Jump up ^ Bacote, VE., Miguélez, LC. and Okholm, DL., Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, InterVarsity Press, 2009.
33.Jump up ^ Today's new International Version: New Testament, Introduction.
34.Jump up ^ "Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerancy" (PDF).
35.Jump up ^ My Take on Inerrancy, bible.org website
36.Jump up ^ About the ETS, Evangelical Theological Society web site
37.Jump up ^ McRea, WJ, A book to die for, Clements publishing, 2002.
38.Jump up ^ Grenz, SJ, Theology for the community of God, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000
39.Jump up ^ Geisler, N.L., Inerrancy, Zondervan, 1980, p271.
40.^ Jump up to: a b "Bible, Inerrancy and Infallibility of", by P.D. Feinberg, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker, 1984, Ed. W. Elwell)
41.Jump up ^ Bible, Inspiration of, by Nigel M. de S. Cameron, in "Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology", Edited by Walter A. Elwell, Baker, 1996
42.Jump up ^ Warfield, Benjamin (1948). Craig, Samuel, ed. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. with introduction by Cornelius Van Til (1st ed.). Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-87552-527-3. OCLC 223791198.
43.Jump up ^ Daniel B. Wallace. "My Take on Inerrancy". bible.com. Archived from the original on 20 November 2010. Retrieved 17 November 2010.
44.Jump up ^ McGrath, Alister E., Christian Theology: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994; 3rd ed. 2001. p. 176.
45.Jump up ^ 2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Corinthians 2:13, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Romans 3:2, 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Samuel 23:2, Hebrews 1:1, John 10:35, John, John, Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 26.
46.Jump up ^ "God's Word, or Holy Scripture" from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article II, of Original Sin
47.Jump up ^ "the Scripture of the Holy Ghost". Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Preface, 9
48.Jump up ^ The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, "Rule and Norm", 3.
49.Jump up ^ See BIBLE Bible, Canon in the Christian Cyclopedia[dead link]
50.^ Jump up to: a b c Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 27.
51.Jump up ^ Driver, S.R., Church Congress speech, cited in F.W. Farrar, The Bible: Its Meaning and Supremacy, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1897.
52.Jump up ^ Mozley, J.K., "The Bible: Its Unity, Inspiration, and Authority", in W.R. Matthews, ed., The Christian Faith: Essays in Explanation and Defense, Harper and Bros., 1936. pp. 58-59.
53.Jump up ^ Matthew 4:3, Luke 4:3, Genesis 3:1, John 10:35, Luke 24:25, Psalm 119:140, Psalm 119:167, Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 27., Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–9.[dead link]
54.Jump up ^ 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Luke 24:25-27, Luke 16:29-31, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Jeremiah 8:9, Jeremiah 23:26, Isaiah 8:19-20, 1 Corinthians 14:37, Galatians 1:8, Acts 17:11, Acts 15:14-15, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–10.[dead link]
55.Jump up ^ 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Corinthians 1:20, Titus 1:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Peter 1:19, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–9.[dead link]
56.Jump up ^ Deuteronomy 12:32, 5:9-10, James 2:10, Joshua 1:8, Luke 16:29, 2 Timothy 3:16, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 8–11.[dead link]
57.Jump up ^ 2 Timothy 3:15-17, John 5:39, 17:20, Psalm 19:7-8, Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
58.Jump up ^ Isaiah 8:20, Luke 16:29-31, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910). Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 13.[dead link], Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 28.
59.^ Jump up to: a b c Lindsell, Harold. "The Battle for the Bible", Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA (1976), pg. 38.
60.Jump up ^ "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", Article VIII
61.Jump up ^ "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", Article X (Archive)
62.Jump up ^ Russell, J.B., Paradise Mislaid: How We Lost Heaven--and How We Can Regain It, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 14 & 129.
63.Jump up ^ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/05/05/how-do-we-know-when/
64.Jump up ^ Dodd, C. H. The Authority of the Bible, London, 1960. p. 25.
65.Jump up ^ Griffith, MT, Refuting the Critics: Evidences of the Book of Mormon's Authenticity, Cedar Fort, 1993, p. 129.
66.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, study edition, page 1967, DLT 1994
67.Jump up ^ Veritas Bible Sacred Tradition.
68.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, page 2010, footnote (i) DLT 1985
69.Jump up ^ Holman Bible Editorial, If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?: 130 Arguments for Christian Faith, B&H Publishing Group, 2012, p. 51.
70.Jump up ^ Montefiore, Hugh. Credible Christianity: The Gospel in Contemporary Society, London: Mowbray, 1993; Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1994. p. 5. ISBN 0-8028-3768-9
71.Jump up ^ James Barr, Fundamentalism p.72ff, SCM 1977.
72.Jump up ^ James Barr, Fundamentalism pp.218-219 SCM 1977
73.Jump up ^ Exodus claims of the Ethical Decalogue and Ritual Decalogue that these are God's word.
74.Jump up ^ Brown, RE., The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Paulist Press, 1981.
75.Jump up ^ Uriel Simon, "Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms" chap. 1
76.Jump up ^ Alexander Ryrie, "Deliver Us From Evil", DLT 2004
77.Jump up ^ Nürnberger, K., Biblical Theology in Outline: The Vitality of the Word of God, Cluster Publications, 2004, p. 65.
78.Jump up ^ See Encyclical Letter of 1893 quoted in Schwarz, W., Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation: Some Reformation Controversies and Their Background, CUP Archive, 1955, p. 11.
79.Jump up ^ Browning, WRF, A dictionary of the Bible, Oxford University Press, 2004. Entry for virgin birth.
80.Jump up ^ Skolnik, F., Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd Edition, 2006, Volume 20, p. 540.
81.Jump up ^ Strauss, D.F. The life of Jesus, Calvin Blanchard, NY, 1860, p. 114.
References[edit]
Bart D. Ehrman, 2003. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press, Inc. ISBN 0-19-518249-9
Charles Caldwell Ryrie (1981). What you should know about inerrancy. ISBN 0-8024-8785-8
Dei Verbum Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (1965)
Ethelbert W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1970.
Gleason Archer, 2001. New Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. ISBN 0-310-24146-4
Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2001). "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts". New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-2338-1..
Herzog, Ze'ev. "Deconstructing the walls of Jericho". Ha'aretz October 29, 1999. Web: Deconstructing the walls of Jericho.
John Walvoord (1990). What We Believe: Understanding and Applying the Basics of Christian Life. ISBN 0-929239-31-8
Kathleen C. Boone: The Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamentalism, State Univ of New York Press 1989, ISBN 0-88706-895-2
N. T. Wright, The Last Word: Beyond Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture. Harper-San Francisco, 2005. ISBN 0-06-081609-0
Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, (1999) When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties.
Norman Geisler and William E. Nix., A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody Publishers; Rev&Expndd edition (August 1986), ISBN 0-8024-2916-5
Norman Geisler, ed. (1980). Inerrancy. ISBN 0-310-39281-0.
Sproul, R. C.. Hath God Said? (video series).
Walter C. Kaiser, Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch. (1996). Hard Sayings of the Bible
Warfield, B. B. (1977 reprint). Inspiration and Authority of Bible, with a lengthy introductory essay by Cornelius Van Til. ISBN 0-8010-9586-7.
Further reading[edit]
J. Benton White (1993). Taking the Bible Seriously: Honest Differences about Biblical Interpretation. First ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press. xii, 177 p. ISBN 0-664-25452-7
External links[edit]
Presbyterian Church beliefs of the Bible
Roman Catholic Church beliefs of the Bible
Supportive
Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels by Gary R. Habermas
Why I Believe in the Inerrancy of the Scriptures by Dave Miller (see Farrell Till below)
Scholarly articles on Inerrancy from the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Library
Ten reasons why I believe the Bible is The Word of God by R. A. Torrey
How Can The Bible be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright
On the Inerrancy of Scripture by Thomas Bolin
Critical
Dissolving the Inerrancy Debate (a postmodern view)
Bible Inerrancy: A Belief Without Evidence Farrell Till's rebuttal to Dave Miller's defense (see above)
Isaac Newton's Views on the Corruption of Scripture
The Two Most Notable Corruptions of Scripture, by Isaac Newton


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christian theology




































































































































































































































































































































P christianity.svg


  


Categories: Evangelicalism
Christian fundamentalism
Christian theology of the Bible
Christian terminology






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Català
Deutsch
Español
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
日本語
Português
Simple English
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 24 May 2015, at 19:48.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy