Writing, first.
The Christian faith is created and sustained by the oral Word. From the moment that God first spoke light into being, this has been the case. Orality is so central, in fact, that there is no indication that Holy Writing even existed before God Himself first wrote on tablets of stone.From this, I conclude two things:
- Scripture serves a different function than preaching.
- It is not a subordinate function but vital enough to garner God's direct attention.
And this purpose is to keep the preaching true.
Canon, second.
We speak of Holy Scriptures in the plural. Not one book but a collection. Each book was admitted to the canon through examination and consensus. Today I will not defend each of the 66 individual choices. I simply note that these particular writings have been afforded a special place unparalleled by any other Christian writings--past or present.To ignore this distinction is to reject 3500 years of Church history. To embrace it is to receive the fullness of what God has given to His Church.
Divinity, third.
These books are God's books like no others. Theopneustos = God-Spirited. Whatever we can say about the truest and best non-canonical writings, we must say that and something additional about the Holy Scriptures.Filled with God, they are what God is: Creative, most of all. They convey the content of Christianity creatively, not as echo but as source. Pure as God is pure. True as God is true. Unadulterated by the lies and the deceptions of the devil or mired in the misunderstandings of the world.
They are creating. Given as new wine to burst old thought patterns. Given to restructure our thoughts and not simply confirm them...whether those thoughts be about the world's origins, or about popular morality, or about human nature--it's capacities and limitations. All thoughts are captive to the Word of God and these are God's Words. Even while they were undeniably written by men.
Humanity, fourth.
"To err is human." That's the operative axiom. "If we are going to take the humanity of these books seriously, we must allow that they might contain errors. Otherwise we make Scripture non-human, non-incarnational, non-Jesus."Post-enlightenment theologians have stressed this point. But no one prior. Because the major premise is wrong. It is not human to err. Error is not part of our humanity itself but rather a corruption of it. Jesus is without sin while remaining fully human.
So too, human language is not intrinsically flawed. It was, after all, given to mankind before the fall, not afterwards. What is human in the Holy Scriptures has nothing to do with error. It has everything to do with Jesus.
Christ in Everything.
In the man from Nazareth we encounter the fullness of the Godhead bodily. In the Holy Scriptures we encounter the fullness of the Godhead verbally.The words themselves--grammar, syntax, context, culture--reveal God. Personality, perspective, emphasis, mode of speech--reveal God as well. Not just near approximations of God, but the fullness of the Godhead.
There is no more of God to be sought outside of these particular words. Just as there is no additional God to be sought outside of the crucified One. And any so-called wisdom that must deny, alter, ignore or relativize these words is no wisdom at all--merely old wineskins that need bursting.
To extol the humanity of the holy Scriptures is to fix our attention on the actual words. Each one is important. Each one is inspired. None are wrong. This does not imply or assert mechanical inspiration any more than Jesus' sinlessness implies that He is an automaton.
It is simply to stand with the Church of all ages, receiving all that Jesus gives.
P.S. I stumbled across a pretty good essay by Reformed theologian, Harold O. J. Brown (1933-2007), titled: "The Arian Connection: Presuppositions of Errancy" More than any other article, I found, I discussed the Scriptures in terms of the two natures of Christ. It is found in Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological Response, edited by Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest, paperback 414 pp.
