A research paper submitted to Kenneth Radant, Ph. D.

for partial fulfilment of a

Master Of Applied Linguistics And Exegesis

THS 571

Believers Church Theology

Vera Wilhelmsen

December 13th, 2004

Before doing any kind of theology, the question of where to base the investigation has to be addressed. The most common source for theology is the Bible, which is perceived as the Word of God, even though some theologians base their arguments on additional sources, such as philosophy, reason, history, and science. The question at hand is: Does the Bible have authority, and if so, what kind of authority does it have? A good way to start is to look at what the Bible has to say about itself. What exactly does it claim about itself; what kind of text does it claim to be, and what kind of authority does it claim to have? These are the first questions that need to be answered. Only after these questions have been settled can the theologian decide how to use the Bible in the working out of a biblical or systematic theology.

Showing the truthfulness and authority of the Bible based on the Bible itself creates a philosophical and logical problem. Some suggest that you need something outside of the Bible to be able to verify its truthfulness. Wolfhart Pannenberg represents this view, claiming that “the task of theology goes beyond its special theme and includes all truth whatever.”[1] He then went on to describe the chasm that was created between theology and other sciences because of the disassociation of theology from secular sciences, and how their different conclusions about the world demands an answer.[2] He then argued for a historical-critical interpretation of the New Testament (NT), with the historical revelation in Jesus Christ as his starting point:

“History is the most comprehensive horizon of Christian Theology. All theological questions and answers are meaningful only within the framework of history which God has with humanity and through humanity with his whole creation –the history moving toward a future still hidden from the world but already revealed in Jesus Christ.” [3]

This stance places Pannenberg in the liberal camp, viewing the Bible as human witness of revelation, but not as revelation in itself.

Karl Barth similarly pointed to the nature of Christian faith as a solution to the cyclical argument concerning the Bible The focus of our faith is in Jesus Christ, including his death and resurrection. Believing in Jesus means to believe in his resurrection and his words.[4] Barth said that Scripture was a witness of divine revelation, and that the ultimate revelation is Jesus Christ:

“According to Holy Scripture God’s revelation takes place in the fact that God’s Word became a man and that this man has became God’s Word. The incarnation of the eternal Word, Jesus Christ, is God’s revelation.” [5]

Labelled as a neo-orthodox, Barth’s focus was not on the historicity of Jesus Christ, but on the Christian’s personal encounter with God in Scripture. [6]

Charles Pinnock asserts the evangelical position on Scripture, and claimed that the Bible is more than a witness of revelation:

“The Bible is a witness to the divine activity in history, and a record of divine speaking. Indeed, in itself, Scripture is a product of that revealing work. Scripture is the written embodiment, the grammatical residue, as it were, of redemptive revelation.” [7]

The evangelical position is that the Bible not only is a witness of revelation, but is in itself the Word of God, and therefore revelation is it’s own right. J. I Packer states the Evangelical position in his book ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God: “What Scripture says, God says; and what God says in Scripture is to be the rule of faith and life in His Church.” [8]

No matter what view one adheres to, going to the Bible to find out what it says about itself is the first step to answer the question about the authority of Scripture. One need to look at the Old Testament (OT) and what is says about the Word of God and about itself, and then how the NT authors, and Jesus especially, view and use the OT. Also NT claims about its own authority needs to be investigated. All of this in order to better understand how the Church should look at the Bible and what authority it should ascribe to it.

The Word of God is central throughout the OT. The Law is frequently called or referred to as ‘the word of the Lord’ (Num. 15:21; Deut. 5:5; Jos. 22:9; Ps. 199:11). [9] Often when the prophets spoke, it says that “The word of the Lord came to him” (1. Sam. 15:10;2, Sam. 7:4;1. King. 6:11; 1. Chron.17:3). The word of the prophet was equalled with the word of God, and had to be obeyed as if God himself had spoken them (1. Sam. 13:13-14), and in a sense he had.

The word of God obviously is very powerful. By his word God created the heaven and earth (Gen. 1; Hebr. 11:3), and Jesus is his Word made flesh (John 1:14). Many times in the OT God speaks directly to individuals or groups of people, but usually he speaks through specific people (prophets). Examples of directs speech are God speaking to Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:28-30; 3:9-19), Abram/Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-21; 18:1-23), and Moses (Exod. 3: 1-4, 23; Exod. 20:1, and many more). God also spoke directly to many of the prophets, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 3:10-14), Elijah (1 Kings 19:9-18), Isaiah (6:8-13), Jonah (1:1-2), etc.[10] There is no doubt in the testimony of the OT that God spoke to these people in a language they understood, and that the words had to be obeyed and trusted.

The nature of the word of God is also established repeatedly in the OT. Its reliability and truthfulness is spoken of many places, both in reference to the nature of God and the nature of his word. God can not lie, and his nature is truthfulness and faithfulness (Num. 23:19; 1. Sam. 15:29; Psalm 57:3; 89.35). Therefore his words are also true, pure and eternal (Psalm 12:6; 18:30; 119:89; Prov. 30:5-6). This is a theme that permeates the whole OT, and it what drives it forward; God speaks to people directly and through his prophets, and the people are expected to receive his Words and obey them. A key verse in understanding the importance of God’s Word to Israel is Exodus 19:5: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession.”. [11] As we have seen the Law was called the “word of the Lord”, and his word to them was the foundation of the special covenant relationship between God and Israel.

It is interesting to look at what writings are mentioned in the OT. The verb “to write” has 35 entries in the OT, and many prophets were told to write down what God told them. This includes Moses (Ex. 34:27), Isaiah (8:1), Jeremiah (Jer. 30:2), and Habbakkuk (Hab. 2:2). Samuel also wrote something in a book (1. Sam. 10:25), as did Nathan and Gad, according to 1. Chron. 29:29. Many more records of people writing things down are found in the OT, suggesting for instance that Moses really was the author of the Pentateuch, or at least most of it (Deut. 31:24).

Moving over to the NT, the notion that Scripture was the word of God is still affirmed by the authors. The Scripture the NT authors and Jesus knew, was the OT as we know it today, and they knew it very well.[12] They all used it liberally to show the authenticity of the claim that Jesus was Messiah. Clear statements about the nature of Scripture are also found, as well as some hints that needs closer examination.

Jesus knew the OT very well. He studied well enough to quote from it (Luke 4:1-13), preach from it (Luke 4:16-27) and use it to show that he was Messiah (Luke 24:27). He verified the divinity, the historicity and the authority of the OT.[13] The divinity he verified by quoting the OT as God’s words, as in Matthew19:5, where he quotes Genesis 2:24, attributing the words to God. In Mark. 7, 9-13 the Law is referred to as the commands of God (v. 9) and the word of God (v. 13) respectively, but in verse 10 the command is being attributed to Moses. Jesus views Moses’ words and Moses’ Law as God’s commandment and God’s word; not separating them but treating them as one and the same. It is also clear from these verses that Jesus saw Moses as the author of the Law, the Jewish name for the Pentateuch.[14] The historicity is verified by Jesus referring to OT historical persons as events as real, and use them to illustrate his message.[15] He defended the disciples’ eating grains on the Sabbath by referring to David and how he ate the consecrated bread (Matt. 12:3-4). He referred to Jonah in the whale, that the men of Nineveh repented, and that the Queen of the South came to see Salomon (Matt, 12:42). He reminded people how Abel was killed, and Zechariah was murdered between the temple and the altar (Matt. 23:35). He also talked about Elijah and how he was sent to a widow in Zarephtah, and how Namaan the Syrian were cleansed, as used them as illustrations of how no prophet is accepted in his hometown (Luke 4:25-27). In Luke 17 Jesus talks about Lot on the day he left Sodom, and his wife who turned into a pillar of salt (verse 29 and 32). The historical detail of Moses lifting up the snake in the desert is verified by Jesus in John 3:14, where is uses as an illustration of his own destiny..

The authority of the OT Jesus verifies by stating that he has not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17). He goes on to say that “not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (v. 18). A similar statement is found in Luke 16:17: “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.” The respect and importance of individual letters can be found in Matthew 22:44-45, where Jesus proves that David calls him Lord by quoting Psalm 110:1: “The Lord says to my Lord”. His whole argument rests on the fact that is says “my Lord”, the possessive being marked by only a stroke of a pen in Hebrew.[16] Similarly, in John 10, 34-35, Jesus singles out the phrase “I have said you are gods”, to prove to them that the Scripture cannot be broken, because it is the word of God. Here he relied on the plural form of ‘gods’, to imply that the Jews should accept him as the Son of God.

Just as striking as the authority Jesus acknowledges the OT to have is the authority he puts behind hid own words. The Jews “were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law” (Matt.. 7:28-29). They wondered how he could teach so well, without having studied (John 7:15). In the next verse he said: “My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me.” (verse 16). He referred to his miraculous acts as a proof of his authority, saying that the Father worked in him and spoke through him (John 14;10-11). He even took it upon himself to forgive the sins of the paraplegic man (Matt. 9,1-8). His statement “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” followed by “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28) is a claim for the highest authority. In Matthew 28:18 we find another bold statement about his authority: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

Jesus claimed to speak the truth, and proved it by his resurrection from the dead. In the Gospels Jesus uses the term “ I tell you the truth” 77 times, a number that speak volumes of his authority as a speaker of Truth.[17] But not only did he claim to speak words of truth, he claimed to be the truth: “ I am the way and the truth and the life.” (John 14:6). It was his claim for absolute authority that made the Jewish religious leaders plot to kill Jesus. His statements about being one with the Father (John 10:30), and the “I am” statements in the Gospel of John, implied that he himself was God, and this was blasphemous to the Jews (John 10:33). Jesus’ authority as the God is the ultimate authority of his words as recorded in the NT. He proved that he spoke the truth by raising from the dead, declaring himself the fulfillment of the OT prophesies (Luke 24: 25 and 44).

The authors of the NT used the OT in a very similarly to Jesus. They saw it as the Word of God and did not doubt the historicity of it. They quoted the OT extensively, and alluded to it even more.[18] Matthew writes about a prophesy made my Isaiah, but attributes it to the Lord (Matt.1:22). Peter, on the day of Pentecost, refers the words of David as the Scripture “which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago” (Acts. 1:16). All through the NT authors attributes words from the OT to the Lord, and notably both to God, The Holy Spirit and Jesus (cf. Hebrews 1:5; 2:12; 3:7). Peter recognized that “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2. Peter 1:21). This is a powerful testimony to the authority the NT authors perceived the OT to have.

They also recognized many prophesies from the OT to be about Jesus, down to small details how he rode on a donkey, the casting of lots, and his bones not being broken (John 12, 14-15, John 19:24; John 19:36). These details are important because they show that they knew Scripture very well, and every detail and even the most obscure Scripture reckoned as the Word of God for a particular situation.[19]

The apostles and other NT authors also treated OT events as historical facts. Both Peter, Paul and Stephen spoke of the history if Israel in their speeches (Acts 3:3-26; 7:2-53; 13:16-41). Details of what Moses said and what God said to Abraham are referenced, as well as details from the lives of Joseph, Moses and David. In the book of Romans Paul referred to many events from the OT history to drive home his message, including Abraham’s faith, circumcision and age (Rom. 4:10; 4:19). The author of Hebrews also referenced the OT copiously, and validated the facts that Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, that Moses sprinkled the people and the tabernacle with blood and water, and that Esau sold his birthright for a meal (Hebr. 7:2; 9:19-21; 12:16-17). In chapter 11 details of the lives of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Rahab and others are taken as historical facts. James also mentions Rahab and how she helped the spies (Jas. 2:25), and Peter affirms that there were eight people in the ark and that Balaam’s donkey spoke (1. Pet. 3:20; 2. Pet. 2:5; 2. Pet. 2:16).

Truth is a very important concept in the NT, and ajlhvqeia (truth) occurs 99 times in the Greek text. In John in occurs 20 times, and in John 1 Jesus is said to be “full of grace and truth”, and that he brought grace and truth, as well (John 1:14:17). In agreement with the nature of God and Jesus as Truth, the gospel of Jesus is called the “word of truth” (Col. 1:5). The Holy Spirit is also called the Spirit of truth, who will guide his disciples into all truth (John 16:13).

The Greek word usually translated ‘Scripture’ is grafhv. It occurs 51 times in the NT, and every time it refers to the OT, either a particular verse from the OT, or a passage from there, or the whole text as a unit.[20] A couple of places it may include some NT writings, most notably in 1. Tim. 5:18: ‘For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”’ The interesting thing here is that the first quote is from Deuteronomy (25:4), whereas the second quote is from Luke (10:7). So Paul here uses the term Scripture, which usually in used only for the OT writings, on a NT text. This might be an indication that the NT authors, as they were aware of each other writings, included them in ‘Scripture’ because they were viewed as holy texts. This is indicated also in 2. Peter 3, there he refers to Paul’s letters:

“He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”( 2. Pet. 3:16).

“The other Scriptures” could refer to other NT texts (the Gospels, most of the epistles), or to the OT, or both.

Another Greek word is used for any writing, and only once translated as ‘scripture’ in the NT.[21] That is the word gravmma, often referring to a bill or a letter, as in the letter of the law (Luke 16:6; Rom. 2:27). The one time it is translated as ‘scripture’ is in 2. Tim. 3:15, which together with the following verse is a key passage for the understanding of the nature of the Bible. The passage, in context, reads:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2. Tim. 3:14-17).

First of all there is the unique phrase “holy Scriptures”; it is only used one other time in the NT, and then with the Greek grafhv (Rom. 1:2). It refers here clearly to the OT, as Timothy had studied them from he was very young. ‘Scripture’ in verse 16 (grafhv) also logically refers to the OT, but this verse requires further investigation. Referring here to ’all Scripture’, however, he could mean to include the NT writings, as most of them were already written at the time he wrote this letter. As we have seen he included NT writings in the term Scripture in another occation.

The term here translated as ‘Godbreathed’ is the Greek qeovpneustoß, often translated ’inspired by God’. It only occurs this one place in the NT, and some think that Paul coined the term. In has become a central concept for anyone who tries to determine the nature and authority of the Scripture, and volumes have been written on the Inspiration of the Bible. Hogde and Warfield gave a famous definition of the term in their book Inspiration:

“...God’s continued work of superintendence, by which, his providential, gracious and supernatural contributions having been presupposed, he presided over the sacred writers in their entire work of writing, with the design and effect of rendering that writing an errorless record of the matters he designed them to communicate, and hence constituting the entire volume in all its parts the word of God to us.”[22]

They claim that each writer was tuned by God to deliver the perfect work. They put their personal stamp on it, but even more than they knew themselves, they were inspired by God.[23] Going into a doctrine of inspiration is beyond the scope of this paper, because it involves more than just exegesis. But there are a few parallel passages that can shed some light on the term ‘Godbreathed’, qeovpneustoß;.

The breath of God is first mentioned in Genesis 2, where God breathes life into Adam (Gen 2:7). God’s breath is the breath of life, and in Psalm 33 is says that he created heaven’s “starry host by the breath of his mouth” (Psalm 33:6). The breath of God is in the Hebrew parallelism equivalent to his word, and as such the term ‘Godbreathed’ or inspired by God can actually mean that God spoke the Scriptures into being.[24] This reading is concurrent with the numerous places where Scripture is referred to as the Word of God.

Beyond the instances where NT authors refer to other NT texts, the idea that they themselves are inspired by God is present several places. It is inferred that the apostles had authority to speak word from God when Jesus says that he will send his Spirit of truth, and that he will guide them into all truth (John 16:13). His selection of the twelve apostles and subsequent calling of Paul is a part of the authority the apostles can be said to have. Paul states that “...we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.” (1. Cor 2:13). His authority as an apostle is affirmed several places, as he speaks words from the Lord and expects to be obeyed. He mentions this authority twice in 2. Corinthians (10:8; 13:10). He said that Christ spoke through him:

“I already gave you a warning when I was with you the second time. I now repeat it while absent: On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others, since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you.” (2. Cor.13:2-3)

The same can be seen in 1. Corinthians 14, where he says: “If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored” (v. 37-38). In chapter 7 there are some interesting passages when Paul says he does not have a command from the Lord, but still gives advice, but he adds, rather as an understatement; “I think that I too have the Spirit of God” (1. Cor. 7:40). This a curious passage, and could be taken as merely Paul’s opinion, without any binding authority for the Christian. But as Wenham notes, it could be taken to mean that he did not know of any quotes form Jesus on this, but still he claimed to teach with authority. This is more in line with the rest of Paul’s teaching, not to mention the rest of the Bible.[25]

Judging by the Biblical data there is no escape from the fact that it speaks of itself as “The Word of God”, fully trustworthy and reliable. In fact the volume of data is so overwhelming, not even the critics question this fact. The sheer extensiveness of the data is overwhelming, and so it the clarity of the data. The Bible being the Word of God fit logically into the Christian message, in that God has made himself known to humanity, and wants to save them. Many of the verses we have looked at are directly relevant for the question of the authority of the Bible, although some do not answer the same question that we are asking.

The Biblical data suggest that the Bible must be taken as the Word of God. Any theological school that do not hold to this view in some ways diminish the authority of the Bible. The question is what that means for the Church, and what the Church does with this material. This is where one has to leave the exegesis and start using hermeneutic methods to interpret the Bible. Some choose to use hermeneutical tools that open for critique of the Bible, leading to liberalism and a ‘deconstruction’ of faith. Others choose to take the Biblical data as face value and work out a theology based on a hermeneutic method that limits itself to the material. There are some ditches on each side of the road, as is usually the case.

There are some valid questions that needs to be asked about the credibility of the Bible. Not only are there historical-critical issues that can be raised, but (apparent) internal inconsistencies and irregularities. There are also the questions that textual criticism raises regarding the autographs and text delivery through time. Most of these questions are beyond the scope of this paper, and libraries are filled with books on these subjects. One question that is closer to our task, is the author intent in several of the Scriptures used in this paper.

In the case of Jesus’ words, one might more accurately speak of ‘speaker intent’. When he referred to OT people and places, he was not giving a lecture in history. This was not his primary intent, according to the text. His intent was usually to get a point across to his (largely Jewish) listeners, and teach a Spiritual truth. The same goes for the other NT authors and speakers. But does that mean that they were not right? Could they have recounted events that were not in fact true, but a part of the common Jewish heritage?[26] The focus on Truth that is found in the NT speaks against that, but there is an even higher question involved, namely that of Jesus’ omniscience. While these questions are beyond the scope of this paper, they need to be thought through in order to give justice to the Bible.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the theological terms infallibility and inerrancy are negative terms that actually seem to not convey their meaning very clearly. The fact that they have to be explained in terms of what they do and do not mean indicated that they are not really ideal terms for what they are meant to refer to.[27] The terms might have to be reconsidered, as they are misleading to most people who are not scholars. Older notions of dictation or mechanical inspiration, inerrancy taken as accuracy of the Bible and infallibility as literal meaning have caused problems for those who wants to keep these terms.[28] Fundamentalism becomes unsound when the interpretation of the Bible is divorced from reason and sound historical-grammatical exegesis.[29]

Taking cues from Pannenberg, Barth and Wenham alike, the centrality of Jesus Christ needs to be addressed when relating to the Bible.[30] The belief that Jesus is God is presupposed for a Christian, and rests on the historical life and resurrection of Jesus (1. Cor. 15:14-19). I agree with Pannenberg that Jesus’ resurrection as a historical fact proves his divinity, and therefore that his words were true. Against Pannenberg I would argue that consequently the rest of the Bible can be tried based on the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels and the rest of the NT, and be treated as divine revelation, not merely a human record of revelation. Against Barth I would argue that the Bible is the revelation even before it meets the reader, and again, that the historicity of Jesus Christ is a central point. We have seen that he affirmed the OT as the word of God, and gave his apostles also an authority to speak his Words. The basic attitude of the Church should therefore be that the Bible is the Word of God, and when read in context and with right understanding of language and culture it is completely true and reliable. That way Christian faith can work together with reason, and tackle criticism and problems when faced with them, one by one.

Bibliography

Barth, Karl. The Doctrine of the Word of God. Vol. 1, 2 of Church Dogmatics. Translated by G.T. Thomson and Harold Knight. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. 1956. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 1983. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 2003.

Feinberg, Paul. F. “The Meaning of Inerrancy”. In Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980

Grudem, Wayne. “Scripture’s self-attestation and the problem of formulating a doctrine of Scripture.” In Scripture and Truth, edited by D. A. Carson and John D. Woolbridge. Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan Corporation, 1983.

Henry, C. F. H. Inspriation of the Bible [article online]. From Elwell Evangelical Dictionary. Accessed Dec. 11th 2004. Available from: mb-soft.com/believe/txw/bibleaut.htm

Hodge, Archibald A. and Benjamin B. Warfield. Inspiration. 1881. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979.

McDonald, H. D. Authority of the Bible [article online]. From Elwell Evangelical Dictionary. Accessed Dec. 11th 2004. Available from: mb-soft.com/believe/txw/bibleaut.htm

____________ . What the Bible teaches about the Bible. 1979. Wheaten, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1980.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Basic Questions in Theology. Vol. 1. Translated by George H. Kehm. 1970. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1983.

_________________. Systematic Theology Vol. 1. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 1988. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1991.

Packer, J. I. ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God. 1958. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1974.

______________. “Infallible Scripture and the role of Hermeneutics”. In Scripture and Truth, edited by D. A. Carson and John D. Woolbridge. Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan Corporation, 1983.

Pinnock, Clark H. Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology. Chicago, Illinois: The Moody Bible Institute, 1971.

Wenham, John W. Christ and the Bible. London: Tydale Press, 1972.

[1] Wolfhart Pannenberg. Basic Questions in Theology. Vol. 1. Translated by George H. Kehm. 1970. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1983, 1

[2]Ibid, 3-4

[3] Ibid, 15

[4] Karl Barth. The Doctrine of the Word of God. Vol. 1, 2 of Church Dogmatics. Translated by G.T. Thomson and Harold Knight. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. 1956. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963, 485-486

[5] Ibid., 1. For a critique of Barth see Wolfhart Pannenberg. Systematic Theology Vol. 1. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 1988. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1991, 235-237.

[6] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. 1983. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 2003, p. 209-210

[7] Clark H. Pinnock. Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology. Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute, 1971, 21

[8] J. I. Packer. ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God. 1958. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House,

1974.

[9] In this investigation the Biblical data will not be exhausted, but central examples of the points that are discussed are given as references. The Biblical references are not meant to be exhaustive.

[10] Selection based on Wayne Grudem. . “Scripture’s self-attestation and the problem of formulating a doctrine of Scripture.” In Scripture and Truth, edited by D. A. Carson and John D. Woolbridge. Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan Corporation, 1983, 19-20

[11] Where the Bible is quoted in this paper, the NIV translation is used, unless stated otherwise.

[12] Easton’s Revised Bible Dictionary, Online Bible (computer program)

[13] H. D. McDonald. What the Bible teaches about the Bible. 1979. Wheaten, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers,

1980, 86-92

[14] Hebrew: Torah. Easton’s Bible dictionary

[15] The following selection is based on Wayne Grudem. “Scripture’s self-attestation and the problem of

formulating a doctrine of Scripture.” In Scripture and Truth, edited by D. A. Carson and John D. Woolbridge.

Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan Corporation, 1983, 42-43

[16] Ibid, 41

[17] Literal Greek: “Verily (ajmhvn) I say to you”, 74 times, and ”I say the truth (ajlhqhvß) to you”, 3 times

[18] For a summary of estimated numbers of quotes and allusions, see H. D. McDonald. What the

Bible teaches about the Bible. 1979. Wheaten, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, 92-93.

[19] Wayne Grudem. “Scripture’s self-attestation and the problem of formulating a doctrine of Scripture.” In

Scripture and Truth, edited by D. A. Carson and John D. Woolbridge. Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan

Corporation, 1983, 41

[20] From The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon and my own word study

[21] According to Strong’s dictionary, and therefore the KJV

[22] Hodge, Archibald A. and Benjamin B. Warfield. Inspiration. 1881. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979, 15-16

[23] Ibid., 14-15

[24] H. D. McDonald. What the Bible teaches about the Bible. 1979. Wheaten, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers,

1980.

[25] John W. Wenham. Christ and the Bible. London: Tydale Press, 1972, 39

[26] For a discussion on this, see John W. Wenham. Christ and the Bible. London: Tydale Press, 1972, 13-16 and

Wayne Grudem. “Scripture’s self-attestation and the problem of formulating a doctrine of Scripture.” In

Scripture and Truth, edited by D. A. Carson and John D. Woolbridge. Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan

Corporation, 1983, 53-57

[27] See for instance Paul D. Feinberg. “The Meaning of Inerrancy”. In Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1980, 295-302.

[28] Clark H. Pinnock. Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology. Chicago, Illinois: The Moody

Bible Institute, 1971, 75

[29]J. I. Packer. “Infallible Scripture and the role of Hermeneutics”. In Scripture and Truth, edited by D. A. Carson

and John D. Woolbridge. Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan Corporation,

1983, 349-350

[30] Wolfhart Pannenberg. Basic Questions in Theology. Vol. 1. Translated by George H. Kehm. 1970.Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1983

Karl Barth. The Doctrine of the Word of God. Vol. 1, 2 of Church Dogmatics. Translated by G.T. Thomson and Harold Knight. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. 1956. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963

Wenham: John W. Wenham. Christ and the Bible. London: Tydale Press, 1972