Abstract
In this essay, I suggest a problem of
biblical proportions, and introduce the people of the problem. I define and
investigate the problem of preservation of the Scriptures or the lack thereof,
as it relates to the undergirding of the theology of theological conservatives.
In conclusion, I advise that once theological conservatives capitulate to the
textual authorities, they have in effect “returned to Rome.” Finally, I urge them
to either “go on home to Rome” or stand and fight for the inspiration,
infallibility/inerrancy, and preservation of the Bible. (I hope they will choose the latter.)
A
Fundamental Problem
Fundamentalism in the religious sense
usually has a “connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of
irreducible beliefs.” Often “fundamentalism” is a pejorative used to describe certain
religious beliefs that the accuser does not like. Here I use fundamentalism
(and fundamentalist) broadly to mean holding (and those who hold) the
fundamentals of the Christian faith, including
the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures we call the Holy Bible.[i] “Fundamental,” as used in
this title, is an adjective meaning “of central importance; serving as an
essential part of, a foundation or basis.” The discussion centers on a problem
of central importance, touching an essential part of fundamentalism.[ii]
The Bible is foundational to the beliefs
of Baptists, Fundamentalists, and Confessional Protestants. The fundamental
problem is this:
If the Bible cannot be trusted to speak
inerrantly about itself, how can it be trusted to speak inerrantly on any or
all of the beliefs we hold as true faith and practice? If the Bible in its
inerrancy has not been providentially preserved to this generation, how can we
trust it to speak inerrantly to this generation? And again, if it does not, how shall we accept and believe any of the fundamental points of our faith?
Does
the Bible speak of itself?
“Yes.” Some theologians and Bible students
might answer this in the negative. I pass over this possibility, for I am not
addressing them. Surely Fundamentalists, Bible-believing Baptists, conservative
Evangelicals, Reformed & Confessional Protestants answer “Yes.” Accepting
this answer, we pass on to the next question.
If the Bible is inerrant and infallible (and we so
believe), and if the Bible speaks of itself, then when the Bible speaks of
itself it speaks inerrantly (without error) of itself.
What
does the Bible speak of itself?
Here
are some examples of how or what the Bible speaks of itself.
- The Old and New Testaments are Scripture. For
example, Luke 24:44-45; 2 Timothy 3:15-16; 2 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:16.
- It is God’s word. For example, Mark 7:6-13; 13:31; John 10:35.
- It is eternal. For example, Psalm 119:89;
Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 24:35.
- It is written. For example, Joshua 8:31-35; Jeremiah
25:13; Acts 15:15; Acts 13:15; Revelation 1:3.
- It is perfect. For example, Psalm 18:30; Psalm
19:7-9.
- It is pure. For example, Psalm 12:6;
119:140; Proverbs 30:6.
- It is truth. For example, Psalm 119:160; Ecclesiastes
12:10; John 17:17.
- It is not bound and is unbreakable. For
example, John 10:35; 2 Timothy 2:9.
- It gives light and understanding. For example, Psalm
119:105, 130; Isaiah 8:20; 2 Peter 1:19.
- It is inspired, given by the Spirit of
God. For example, 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21.
- It is complete. For example, Deuteronomy
4:2; Proverbs 30:6; 2 Timothy 3:15-17.
- It is sufficient for faith and practice. For
example, Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3.
- It is preserved for all generations.
For
example, Psalm 33:11; 100:5; 117:2; 119:160; Isaiah 30:8; 40:8; 1 Peter 1:24-25.
From these examples, we draw these
conclusions. The Bible proceeds from God, and therefore is as good, reliable,
truthful, and pure as he is. God gives it to man for the good of his people,
authoritative and complete, for instruction in righteousness. To this end, it
is eternal, proceeding from the mind of God perfectly through his inspired
instrumentality, and preserved, capable of instructing his people past,
present, and future. In contrast to this conclusion, there are those who deny
its guaranteed inerrancy through inspiration. Others deny its guaranteed
utility to the generations through preservation.
In Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous,[iii] Jon Rehurek concludes
that “no explicit indication applies [preservation] directly to written
Scripture or to how and when a promise of general preservation would be
fulfilled.” He further argues that any case for providential preservation must
be made through the historical and manuscript evidence (i.e., no text of
Scripture teaches preservation of the written words). In other words, Rehurek
and others of his ilk (Dan Wallace, W. Edward Glenny, etc.) do not believe that
the Bible promises that God will preserve the words of the Bible. A different
class of theologians (W. W. Combs, for example) posit a slightly different
exegetical view of the preservation of God’s word, but take it out of the realm
of the written word.
“However, a study of this phrase suggests
that, more often than not, God’s written revelation is not in view...in the Old
Testament the expression ‘the word of God’ (or Lord) is used almost universally
of oral communication.”[iv]
Do we miss the irony that it is through
God’s written word that we are even aware of God’s oral communication?[v] If the written revelation
is not reliably preserved, how shall we reliably know the character of God’s
oral communication, and the promises associated with it?
Some of the “preservation texts” regarding
God’s word admittedly do not state in so
many words, “What is written in print media will be preserved for all
time.” Often God emphasizes something more like this:
“What I say is the truth.
It does not matter what you think or what you say.
Whatever I say will stand. Depend on it!”
How Christian believers, though,
extrapolate from such statements that we cannot and should not depend on what
God has written is mind boggling to me. Psalm 119:89 establishes the
durability, immutability, and trustworthiness of God’s word. Why would we expect
less of God’s word when it is written down? Not every reference to “God’s
words,” “the word of God,” or “the words of God” is a reference to the written
Scriptures. However, when written, God’s words are not less God’s words. Furthermore, how would we presently even know of
God’s spoken words from the past, were they not written down?
Consider
also:
- Psalm 78:5-7 God established his testimony
and appointed his law. One reason this exists is for teaching each generation
to come, “that might know them...that they might set their hope in God, and not
forget the works of God, but keep his commandments.” How can fathers make known
to their children words that they do not have?
- Psalm 119:89 God’s word has been settled,
preserved in heaven, forever. How can the faithfulness of his precepts,
testimonies, and commandments “unto all generations” (vs. 90, 96) be known if
that word is only settled in heaven and is not distributed on the earth? God’s
word is a revelation for the benefit of man. It is man (on earth) that needs
this word, and not God himself in heaven.[vi]
- Matthew 4:4 “Man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” How can man
live by a word of God that he does not have? Either we must have continual oral
revelation, or we must have the written word.
What was the purpose of inspiration? Was
it, at least in part, to produce scripture (which is a written record)? Was it
for the benefit of the writers, or for the readers? Had God not preserved Paul’s
letter to Timothy, for example, until it reached Timothy, to what end is its
inspiration? Without preservation, the purpose of inspiration is undermined and
rendered pointless. The providential preservation of the Bible is a necessary
conclusion from its teachings. God did not write his words only for the moment,
for the immediate recipients of its message, but also for future generations.[vii]
When glorying in the treasure of God’s word,
rather than focused on denying the providential preservation of the written
word, some writers are distracted, and “forget themselves.” They then attribute
values to the written word that they, when debating, reserve to the generic
word. Perhaps there is “Freudian slip” of the unconscious mind that reveals
what they know in their hearts – that God’s word, even when written, is durable,
immutable, and trustworthy. Notice, for example, Matt Smethurst’s nice article
on 8 Things Your Bible Says About Itself. He writes about the Bible as a book and consistently and assuredly attributes the generic
“voided passages” as being statements about and support for the written word.[viii]
What
are the implications of what the Bible speaks of itself?
The Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox view
(and perhaps others) is that there are two sources of authority – the church
& its traditions, and scripture. They teach the Bible is “a standard of truth,” not “the standard of truth.”[ix] Baptists (at least
orthodox believing ones), Fundamentalists, the Reformers, and others hold Sola Scriptura – there is one source of
authority, the inspired scripture.
“Less-than-fundamental” Christians often
hypothesize that the Bible is accurate when it speaks to spiritual, religious,
or moral concepts. They argue that other content – such as science, history, or
geography – cannot be considered reliable. Scripture itself, however, does not
limit itself to which kinds of subjects it speaks truthfully and
authoritatively.
When we look to the authority of God’s
word to discuss whether his word has been preserved, do we not necessarily do
it on the presupposition that it has been preserved?[x] Of course we do. All
doctrines grow out of two basic and foundational truths – that God is and that he
has revealed himself in the sixty-six books that we call the Bible. If there is
not some kind of preservation of that revelation that we currently read and
study, all other points of doctrine become pointless.
How do we know what to believe about the
Bible? We believe what the Bible says about itself. The Bible is the “Supreme
Court” to which every opinion and belief must be brought for resolution
according to its truth.
We “fundamentalist types” – in contrast to
moderates and liberals – often assert that when the Bible speaks on science,
history, or geography, it speaks inerrantly. If the Bible speaks of God
creating the world ex nihilo (from
nothing), we believe the Bible. Evolutionary arguments to the contrary do not
sway us from the truth. If the Bible speaks of miracles outside of nature, we
believe the Bible. Secularist animadversions do not sway us. If the Bible
speaks of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, we believe the Bible. The
geographic relocations of naysayers do not sway us. If the Bible speaks of
David as the king of Israel, we believe the Bible. The archaeologist who can
find no evidence of it does not sway us. If the Bible promises the perpetuity
of the church, we believe the Bible. Historians who can find no evidence of New
Testament Christianity in the intervening years from then until now do
not sway us. Were the Bible to say Jonah swallowed a whale, we would believe
the Bible.
However, prominent textual critics (some believers and some unbelievers) assure us that the Bible has not been preserved pure in all ages. Many “fighting fundamentalists” docilely fall in line, rendered malleable as
little children! If Scripture is not preserved, there is a fundamental problem.
It removes the Bible as our resource of inerrant truth. It casts doubt on the
reliability of the Bible. “Fundamentalist,” will you recognize and address this
fundamental problem?
If the Bible cannot be trusted to speak
inerrantly about itself, how can it be trusted to speak inerrantly on creation,
miracles, the exodus from Egypt, the kings of Israel, the church – and most
importantly the gospel, how that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the Scriptures? Even if the Bible spoke (past tense) inerrantly
about itself, how can it be trusted if that inerrant word has not been
preserved pure through the ages? Textual critics and theologians work overtime
to convince us there is no problem – nothing to see here. Those who possess a
little spiritual discernment or even an ounce of common sense know better.
In effect, the fundamental problem for the
fundamentalist is that modern textual criticism, as we know it, has slowly and
surely chipped away at the trustworthiness of the Bible.[xi] When all is said and
done, we will no longer have a sole rule of practice – or at least many
Christians will not think they have one. When all is said and done, we will no
longer have Sola Scriptura. When all
is said and done, dissenters from Rome and its “Magisterium” and the Orthodox
and their “Holy Tradition” have no more reason to protest or dissent. Git
along, little dogies, y’all go on home now.[xii]
“As for me and my house,” we will believe
the Bible is verbally inspired, wholly inerrant, and providentially preserved.
[i] In
this article, anyone who believes that the Bible is an inspired and inerrant document
is a fundamentalist. In its simplest form, Christian fundamentalism emphasizes
five fundamental points of faith (as clarified by the 1895 Niagara Bible Conference, in the face of the rise of modernism and liberalism): (1) the
inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures; (2) the deity of Jesus Christ; (3)
the virgin birth of Jesus Christ; (4) the substitutionary blood atonement of
Christ for sins; and (5) the physical resurrection and bodily return to Christ.
I hold these five fundamentals, but “Fundamentalist” is not my preferred
self-descriptor. I am a Bible-believing Baptist. (Baptist born. Baptist bred. When
I die, I’ll be Baptist dead.) Many Fundamentalists are adrift on the sea of bad
ecclesiology, and a fussy fighting faction seem full of a bad spirit. Nevertheless,
number one of the fundamentals, the
inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures, is especially relevant to the
point of this essay.
[ii]
This problem, in fact, is an important consideration not just for those who identify as “Fundamentalist,” but for
all Bible-believing Baptists, and for conservative Christians of any stripe who
claim to hold Sola Scriptura
(scripture alone) – that the Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and
practice of the Christian. Our local church holds the Bible as the sole and
only rule of our faith and practice.
[iii]
This seems to be no longer available for viewing on The Master’s Seminary
website. It currently (12/04/2021) retrieves the message “404 Not Found.” [Note: 12/16/2021, found it at a different url.]
[iv] See
Combs, The Preservation of Scripture,
p. 13.
[v] 1
Thessalonians 2:13. The written word records and reinforces the heard word.
[vi] God
has promised to preserve his word from generation to generation. The
generations for whom God promised to preserve his word are generated here on
earth, across time, and (may we point out) the majority without access to “the
originals.”
[vii] For
example, read Psalm 102:18; Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 9:10; 10:11.
[viii]
Smethurst is a church planter and the managing editor of The Gospel Coalition. He writes, joyously, “The Bible is the most
valuable treasure in the universe. It’s our food (Jer. 15:16), our life (Deut.
32:46–47), our comfort (Ps. 119:50), our strength (Ps. 119:28), our guidance
(Ps. 119:105), our desire (Ps. 119:20), our hope (Ps. 130:5), our love (Ps.
119:97), our joy (John 15:11), and our treasure (Ps. 119:72).” The Gospel
Coalition holds that “the verbally inspired Word of God…is utterly
authoritative and without error in the original writings” – which leaves a
question about the inerrancy of the apographa
(i.e., copies of the first or original writing).
[ix]
The Catholic and Orthodox view results in the autonomy of “the Church” apart
from the Scriptures. Unfortunately, the approach of many modern evangelicals
results in the autonomy of the individual apart from the Scriptures.
[x] Colossians
1:17. God sustains all things. Does this not include his own word?
[xi] The
prevailing current mood of textual criticism (among some who are unbelievers such as Ehrman and some who are believers such as Wallace) is that the text of the New Testament cannot be recovered. The old goal, still held by some, (though misguided) was to recover the original autographs. Perhaps there will be a split between the two fields of criticisms. Or not. What a difference a few years make. In 2009 text critic Daniel Wallace wrote, “If the autographs are inspired, we should not rest until we have done all we can to determine the wording of the original.” (“Challenges in New Testament Textual Criticism for the Twenty-First Century” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Volume 52, No. 1, March 2009, p. 99). Ten years later he wrote, “We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it.” (“Foreword,” in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, Elijah Hixson, Peter J. Gurry, editors, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019, p. xii). About Wallace, Craig Blomberg wrote, “Dan Wallace has clearly become evangelical Christianity’s premier active textual critic today.”
[xii] A dogie is a motherless, stray, or neglected calf.
