Harold Lindsell’s Battle For the Bible has been widely castigated for troubling Zion. Writing in a recent special issue of the Fuller Seminary alumni magazine, Theology, News, and Notes, Clark Pinnock expostulates: “What a pity to see the admirable unity of the evangelical caucus now being threatened just as it is beginning to bear fruit, and what irony that the editor of Christianity Today, the organ which was founded to facilitate evangelical harmony and cooperation and which more than anything else has symbolized that unity, should be the person responsible for placing it in jeopardy.” But Pinnock gives the editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY too much credit (or discredit). The conflict in evangelicalism over the extent of biblical reliability has been simmering for decades; all The Battle For the Bible did was to make journalistically explicit what has for long been recognized implicitly.
The most recent bend in the river of evangelical thinking on inerrancy is: rather than reject the word “inerrant,” why not simply redefine it so that it no longer poses any threat to biblical interpretation? The Spring, 1976, issue of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal, under the editorship of Ronald Youngblood of Bethel Seminary, offers many examples of this trend. I shall restrict my comments to the lead article by Grant R. Osborne: “Redaction Criticism and the Great Commission: A Case Study Toward a Biblical Understanding of Inerrancy.”
Osborne argues in reference to the trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 that Jesus apparently did not utter it (even though it is preceded by the words, “Jesus came and spoke to them, saying”): “it seems most likely that at some point the tradition or Matthew expanded an original monadic formula.” Such redaction criticism, he assures us, poses no threat to an evangelical understanding of biblical inerrancy; rather, it is “a tremendous, positive tool for understanding the early Church and its theology.” The redaction of Jesus’ words by the biblical writers and the early Church creates no problem, for the redaction was Spirit-led and inerrant! The mere fact that “it is difficult, if not impossible, to trace the exact words that Jesus spoke on the mountain in Galilee” ought not to worry us; after all, “the evangelists did not attempt to give us ipsissima verba but rather sought to interpret Jesus’ words for their audiences. In other words, they wished to make Jesus’ teachings meaningful to their own Sitz im Leben rather than to present them unedited. Relevancy triumphed over verbal exactness.” Thus can “verbal inexactitude” be harmonized hermeneutically with the E. T. S. doctrinal statement, “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”
Some years ago, in the throes of the Lutheran controversy over biblical authority, I wrote: “Whenever we reach the point of affirming on the one hand that the Bible is infallible or inerrant and admitting on the other hand to internal contradictions or factual inaccuracies within it, we not only make a farce of language, promoting ambiguity, confusion, and perhaps even deception in the church; more reprehensible than even these things, we in fact deny the plenary inspiration and authority of Scripture, regardless of the theological formulae we may insist on retaining.”
The doctrine of biblical inerrancy derives from the attitude of Scripture toward itself, and in particular the attitude of Christ toward Scripture. What we must recognize is that Scripture and its Christ do not give us an open concept of inspiration that we can fill in as the extrabiblical methodologies of our time appear to dictate. To the contrary, the total trust that Jesus and the apostles displayed toward Scripture entails a precise and controlled hermeneutic. They subordinated the opinions and traditions of their day to Scripture; so must we. They did not regard Scripture as erroneous or self-contradictory; neither can we. They took its miracles and prophecies as literal fact; so must we. They regarded Scripture not as the product of editors and redactors but as stemming from Moses, David, and other immediately inspired writers; we must follow their lead. They believed that the events recorded in the Bible happened as real history; we can do no less.
With characteristic theological perception, the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has prepared A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles (available in a study edition from Box 201, St. Louis, Mo. 63166) to deal with the inerrancy controversy in Lutheranism. In line with historic Lutheran practice, this document not only sets forth positive affirmations (“theses”) on biblical inerrancy but also declares what will not be tolerated hermeneutically (“antitheses”).
Recognizing that positive creedal affirmations of biblical reliability are no longer sufficient to preserve churches or institutions from the hermeneutic destruction of their bibliology, the Melodyland School of Theology in December became the first theological seminary in the world to adopt a doctrinal statement with built-in hermeneutic commitments, designed to prevent the biblical paragraph of its credo from being evacuated of meaning by unscriptural interpretative methodology. Melodyland’s doctrinal statement does not rest with its declaration that “the Scriptures in all that they affirm are without error, in the whole and in the part, and therefore are completely trustworthy”; it goes on to deal with the specific hermeneutic implications of belief in biblical inerrancy:
All genuine Christian Statements of Doctrine depend upon a proper interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The Melodyland School of Theology, therefore, unreservedly commits itself to the following hermeneutic rules;
1. A passage of Holy Scripture is to be taken as true in its natural, literal sense unless the context of the passage itself indicates otherwise, or unless an article of faith established elsewhere in Scripture requires a broader understanding of the text.
2. The prime article of faith applicable to biblical interpretation is the attitude of Christ and His Apostles toward the Scriptures. Their utter trust in Scripture—in all it teaches—must govern the interpreter’s practice, thus eliminating in principle any interpretation which sees the biblical texts as erroneous or self-contradictory.
3. Extra-biblical linguistic and cultural considerations must never decide the interpretation of a text; and any use of extra-biblical material to arrive at an interpretation inconsistent with the truth of a scriptural passage is to be rejected. Extra-biblical data can and should put critical questions to a text, but only Scripture itself can legitimately answer questions about itself.…
4. Harmonization of apparent scriptural difficulties should be pursued within reasonable limits, and when harmonization would pass beyond such bounds, the interpreter must leave the problem open rather than, by assuming error, impugn the absolute truthfulness of God, who inspires all Holy Scripture for our salvation and learning. We hold with St. Augustine (De Potent., IV, 1, 8): “If you chance upon anything in Scripture that does not seem to be true, you must not conclude that the sacred writer made a mistake; rather your attitude should be; the manuscript is faulty, or the version is not accurate, or you yourself do not understand the matter.”
We are warned that to press a consistent view of biblical inerrancy may divide evangelicalism. This was precisely Melanchthon’s argument at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 relative to the presentation of the Augsburg Confession to Charles V by the believing Protestant princes: “You may divide the Holy Roman Empire—you may even destroy it.” Replied the electors: “We shall nonetheless confess our Christ.”
The question, of course, is simply whether entire scriptural reliability is that important. I believe it is. I would not tolerate for a moment the argument that because the Trinity is nowhere set forth by name in the Bible, evangelicalism mustn’t be divided over that doctrine. Biblical inerrancy, though the expression does not appear in Scripture, is nevertheless Christ’s view; and he must be my Lord in this as in all other areas. If he is not Lord of all, he is not Lord at all.
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod agonized over the loss of some professors, students, and congregations on this very issue, but it has rightly concluded that if unity must be preserved at the cost of sola Scriptura—of the formal principle of all theology—then the price of unity is far too high. The great theologies of Christendom have never been via media theologies, for Scripture and its Christ spew the lukewarm out of the mouth.
I frequently recall the Scottish revival in which the neighboring dominie asked, “And how many souls were added to the kirk?” “None,” came the reply, “but we’ve gotten rid of a few we’ve been tryin’ to get rid o’ for years.” That can also be a revival. Make no mistake: God will not let falter those who are consistently faithful to his Word. Whatever else may occur in Christendom, the ministry of childlike Bible believers will increase geometrically, for faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, and only the Word of God remains forever.
