bible word god

8/6/2019 Bible Word God

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bible-word-god 1/186



Gospel Publishing HouseSpringfield, Missouri

02-0683



All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are takenfrom the HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®;NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.

Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rightsreserved.©2003 by Gospel Publishing House, Springfield, Missouri 65802-

1894. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by anymeans—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or other-wise—without prior written permission of the copyright owner,except brief quotations used in connection with reviews in maga-zines or newspapers.

ISBN 0-88243-787-9

Chapter 6 is from God, Revelation, and Authority, Volume 4, byCarl F. H. Henry, copyright © 1999, pages 211-219. Used by permis-sion of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers,Wheaton, Illinois 60187, www.crosswaybooks.org.



Table of Contents

Contributors / 4Preface / 5

Introduction / 11

1. The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture

John W. Wyckoff / 17

2. Pentecostal Proclamation in a Liberal, Postmodern

World

Wave E. Nunnally, Jr. / 53

3. Inerrancy and Interpretation

Edgar R. Lee / 95

4. Preaching the Bible as the Word of God

Randy Hurst / 126

5. The Word: The Foundation of All Preaching

Charles T. Crabtree / 1516. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy / 169



Contributors

James K. Bridges, General Treasurer, The General

Council of the Assemblies of God, Springfield,Missouri

Charles T. Crabtree, Assistant General Superintendent,

The General Council of the Assemblies of God,

Springfield, Missouri

Randy Hurst, Assemblies of God World Missions,

Media, Fund-Raising, Commission on

Evangelism

Edgar R. Lee, S.T.D., Senior Professor of Spiritual

Formation and Pastoral Theology, Assemblies of

God Theological Seminary

Wave E. Nunnally, Jr., Ph.D., Professor of Biblical

Studies, Evangel University

John W. Wyckoff, Ph.D., Professor of Bible andTheology, Southwestern University

4



5

Preface

A unique setting for ministering to the needs of those

called to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ was created

in March 2002. The vision of General Superintendent

Thomas E. Trask was to encourage and enhance the

ministry of God-called men and women, credentialed

primarily with the Assemblies of God, yet open to other

ministers who might wish to benefit from it as well.

With the full support of the Executive Presbytery, the

first Pentecostal Preachers Week was launched in

Springfield, Missouri. So successful was this initial con-ference that it has been placed on the General Council

calendar as an annual event.

The purpose of Pentecostal Preachers Week is to

serve as a Pentecostal “Keswick convention” for our

Fellowship, with priority being given to anointed bibli-

cal preaching and teaching by Spirit-filled men and

women of God whose lives and ministries have beensteeped in the exposition of the Scriptures. The 2002

conference met this criteria in a most remarkable man-

ner, sending the attendees home with a commitment to

the Word of God similar to that of John Wesley when he



cried, “Let me be homo unius libri”—a man of one Book!

Like Wesley, though we may know many books, there

is one Book that we must know above all others, the

Bible—the Word of God!

Pentecostal Preachers Week for 2003 has an added

feature that will strengthen the teaching aspect of the

conference. The addition of a panel of seasoned

brethren will discuss the topic “The Bible as the Word

of God.” In 1926 Donald Gee wrote: “Very few realizethe incalculable havoc wrought by the so-called Higher

Criticism. We are just beginning to reap the harvest in

every sphere—religious, moral, and political. The great

denominations of Christendom are spiritually power-

less because their pulpits and training schools have

thoroughly inculcated a more or less modified unbelief

in God’s Word. The supreme authority of the Bible iswell nigh destroyed among all classes of people,

including church members and ministers.”

Gee stated further: “Once the Bible’s unique authori-

ty as a divine revelation from God to man is denied, we

have absolutely no alternative but the ever-changing

theories of human philosophy with all their hopeless

uncertainty…the absolute necessity of belief in theinspiration of the Bible is more and more appar-

ent….[W]e must have some final authority by which

we can discern between truth and error. Belief in the

divine inspiration of the Bible liberates among men that

tremendous power hidden within the Word that makes

it one of the greatest forces in the universe. The

Scriptures are alive with the very power of God…and

are surely unavailable to the man who does not believe

in their divine inspiration.”

More than three-quarters of a century have elapsed

since these prophetic words were written, and higher

6 THE BIBLE—THE WORD OF GOD



criticism’s assault on the Scriptures continues undimin-

ished, leaving the Pentecostal movement and the

Evangelical movement primary contenders for biblical

faith. It is imperative that the Fellowship of the

Assemblies of God come to grips with the severity of this

attack on the Word of God. We must review our historic

position and study the issues facing the church in the

twenty-first century. We must not allow this tide of skep-

ticism and unbelief to reach the shores of our Church andsubtly infiltrate our ranks. We must protect and preserve

our pulpits and schools from this ungodly invasion.

The panel selected by the Board of Administration to

address this crucial topic are

Dr. Warren Bullock, Dean, School of Ministry,

Northwest College

Dr. Charles T. Crabtree, Assistant General Superin-tendent, General Council of the Assemblies of God

Reverend Randy Hurst, Assemblies of God World

Missions, Media, Fund-Raising, Commission on

Evangelism

Dr. Edgar R. Lee, Chairman, General Council

Commission on Doctrinal Purity

Dr. Wave E. Nunnally, Jr., Professor of BiblicalStudies, Evangel University

Dr. John W. Wyckoff, Professor of Bible and

Theology, Southwestern Assemblies of God University

Dr. James K. Bridges, General Treasurer, General

Council of the Assemblies of God, panel chairman

Reverend John Lindell, Pastor, James River

Assembly, panel moderator

Several of the panelists have been asked to prepare a

paper on an assigned subject within the scope of the

project (and on behalf of them may I acknowledge all

those who helped in that preparation). We believe that

PREFACE 7



together these papers will provide an adequate

overview of the subject at hand. The papers compiled

in this volume will serve as the basis for the panelists’

discussion and the congregational response. An abbre-

viated form of each paper will be presented verbally by

each author followed by a question-and-answer time

with the panel. The papers and the order of their pres-

entation are as follows:

1. “The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture,” JohnW. Wyckoff

2. “Pentecostal Proclamation in a Liberal,

Postmodern World,” Wave E. Nunnally, Jr.

3. “Inerrancy and Interpretation,” Edgar R. Lee

4. “Preaching the Bible as the Word of God,” Randy

Hurst

5. “The Word: The Foundation of All Preaching,”Charles T. Crabtree

Because of its appropriateness to the theme of the

panel, Brother Crabtree has consented to allow us to

include in this volume “The Word: The Foundation of

All Preaching,” chapter 3 of his new book entitled

Pentecostal Preaching. While he will not be making a ver-

bal presentation during the panel’s session, any ques-tions concerning the work are welcome during the

question-and-answer period. Brother Crabtree’s new

release is available during this conference at the book-

stand in the foyer.

Also, included at the conclusion of this volume is the

1978 “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” which

is the position of most conservative Christians regard-

ing the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. Because of our

commitment to the Word of God as inspired, inerrant,

infallible, and the authoritative rule of faith and con-

duct, we, too, find agreement with this statement. It

8 THE BIBLE—THE WORD OF GOD



will make excellent reference material when studying

the subject of inerrancy.

Because of the importance of this subject and the

material which has been prepared for this event, the

Executive Presbytery has made this volume available

free to all who register for this year’s conference.

The goal of this panel and its presentations is to chal-

lenge each minister to renew a commitment to the

authority of the Holy Scriptures—to its inerrancy, to itsinfallibility, and to its divine inspiration. With this

foundation, the minister can then build an appropriate

hermeneutical and homiletical superstructure.

J. K. B.

9



Historically, the Assemblies of God has tenaciously

held to the belief that the Bible is the Word of God. In

its formation meeting in 1914 in Hot Springs, Arkansas,

the brethren unanimously adopted a “Preamble and

Resolution of Constitution” to guide the fledgling

movement for the first two years of its existence. The

first “whereas” of the document declared our alle-

giance to God, our Heavenly Father, and His only

begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, sent to be our

Savior. The second “whereas” declared our allegianceto the “Holy Inspired Scriptures” given by God as our

all-sufficient rule for faith and practice.

In the 1916 General Council, a “Statement of

Fundamental Truths” was adopted to strengthen and

clarify the doctrinal position of the Fellowship. With

few modifications, this statement continues to serve as

the official position of the church to this day. Ourfounding fathers placed first on the list: “The Scriptures

Inspired.” It presently reads as follows: “The

Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are ver-

bally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to

11

Introduction

James K. Bridges James K. Bridges



man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and con-

duct (2 Tim. 3:15-17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21).

Prior to the turn of the twentieth century, most of the

protestant denominations in the United States held to

the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture.

However, the influx of higher criticism, so-called, from

Germany infecting the pulpits of the churches and the

classrooms of the seminaries, robbed the historic

denominations of this truth. Liberalism and mod-ernism, as it is termed, has so captured the churches

which have emerged out of the Reformation that only a

few, such as the Southern Baptists and the Lutheran

Church Missouri Synod, remain faithful to the doctrine

of Inspiration.

But the Assemblies of God stands in good company

with those who have held to the Scripture as the Word ofGod. Our Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles, the authors

of the Old and New Testaments, along with the Early

Church, are unanimous in their attitude toward the

Scriptures: They not only accepted it as the very Word of

God, but they submitted to its authority without reser-

vation. For the first eight centuries of the Christian era,

the doctrine of Inspiration was unquestioned.Among the church fathers who spoke strongly of the

Scriptures as the Word of God are Clement of

Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, John

Chrysostom, Athanasius, Origin, Jerome, and Irenaeus.

“According to Louis Gaussen, except for Theodore of

Mopsuestia (condemned by the Fifth Council at

Constantinople in 553), not one authority could be cited

throughout all the first eight centuries of Christianity

who failed to acknowledge the full inspiration of the

Scriptures except for the heretical enemies of the

Christian faith.”

12 JAMES K. BRIDGES



Gregory wrote: “Even the smallest lines in Scripture

are due to the minute care of the Holy Spirit so that we

must pay careful attention to every slightest shade of

meaning.” Athanasius wrote: “They [the Scriptures]

were spoken and written by God, through men who

spoke of God…these are the fountains of salvation, that

they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words

they contain. Let no man add to these, neither let him

take aught from these.” Origin wrote: “The sacredScriptures come from the fullness of the Spirit, so that

there is nothing in the prophets, or the law, or the

gospel, or the apostles which descends not from the

fullness of the Divine Majesty.”

The great reformers Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, and

the great confessions of Protestantism such as The

French Confession of Faith, 1559; The Thirty-NineArticles of the Church of England; The Westminster

Confession of Faith, 1647; the Second Helvetic

Confession, 1566; and the Belgic Confession, 1561—all

attest to the Bible as the Word of God. Luther said, “The

preacher must preach only the Word of Holy Scripture,

for the Bible is the very Scripture of the Spirit…It can-

not be otherwise, for the Scriptures are divine; in themGod speaks, and they are His Word. To hear or to read

the Scriptures is nothing else than to hear God.”

Added to the reformers are the Huguenots, Puritans,

Covenanters, and Evangelicals. Names such as Baxter,

Owen, Wesley, Whitefield, and Edwards have loudly

proclaimed the truth of divine inspiration. John Wesley

wrote: “I beg leave to propose a short, clear, and strong

argument to prove the divine inspiration of the Holy

Scriptures. The Bible must be the invention either of

good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God.

1. It could not be the invention of good men or

INTRODUCTION 13



angels…for they neither would nor could make a book,

and tell lies all the time they were writing it, saying,

‘Thus saith the Lord,’ when it was their own invention.

2. It could not be the invention of bad men or devils;

for they would not make a book which commands all

duty, forbids all sin, and condemns their souls to hell to

all eternity.

3. Therefore, I draw this conclusion, that the Bible

must be given by divine inspiration.”Other great men, such as Hudson Taylor, William

Carey, Charles Finney, D. L. Moody, George Muller,

Charles Spurgeon, J. C. Ryle, and currently Billy

Graham, have held firmly to the inspiration and

authority of the Bible. Spurgeon said: “We contend for

every word of the Bible and believe in the verbal, liter-

al inspiration of Holy Scripture. Indeed, we believethere can be no other kind of inspiration. If the words

are taken from us, the exact meaning is of itself lost.”

Bishop Ryle pointed out the danger of assuming any-

thing less than full inspiration: “We corrupt the Word of

God most dangerously when we throw any doubt on

the plenary inspiration of any part of the Holy

Scriptures. This is not merely corrupting the cup, butthe whole fountain. This is not merely corrupting the

bucket of living water, but poisoning the whole well.”

In his early ministry Billy Graham confessed to his

doubts about the inspiration and authority of the Bible.

He spent time in the high Sierra Nevada mountains in

prayer where he came to a firm conviction that the

Bible was indeed the authoritative, inspired Word of

the living God. After that experience he testified that

the Bible became a sword in his hand.

As a young seminarian attending an extremely lib-

eral seminary back in the late 1950s, I endured the

14 JAMES K. BRIDGES



liberal theology of Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, Emil

Brunner, and Rudolf Bultmann whose teachings had

“liberated” the church from the Bible. Using King

Jehoiakim’s penknife, they stripped, gutted, and

demythologized the Bible until there was very little

that could be trusted as true and accurate. I am so glad

I have lived to see the Bible survive these massive

assaults. The teachings of these theologians—repre-

senting the very best of the skeptical, unbelievingmind—are encased in dusty old textbooks which have

given way to a new generation of humanistic theolo-

gians who, like their predecessors having rejected the

authority of Scripture, are also at the mercy of ever-

changing theories of human philosophy. But the Bible,

as the Word of God, continues to traverse the world,

crossing religious, geographical, language and political barriers, bringing life and hope to Adam’s fallen race.

Some have likened the Bible to the Lord Jesus Christ.

As He was both human and divine, so the Bible has

both a divine and human side. Some theologians use

this analogy to imply that it is the human side of

Scripture wherein error can reside. But, the Bible, in its

original autographs, is without error. As has beenpointed out, “just as the Word of God incarnate was

without sin, even so, the Word of God ‘inscripturated’

is without error. The humanity of Jesus is like our own

in all things except sin. The humanity of the Bible is like

that of every human book except for error.” The incar-

nate Word was without sin in His humanity and the

written Word is, like the humanity of our Lord Jesus,

without error.

As our founding fathers understood, this doctrine is

fundamental to all other of our doctrines. As we study

the materials in this volume, let us do so with prayer,

INTRODUCTION 15



requesting the Spirit of Truth to reaffirm in our hearts

the attitude which our Lord Jesus Christ exemplified

toward the Scriptures. Let us recommit ourselves to the

inspiration and authority of the Bible so that we, as the

Thessalonian believers, may “receive it, not as the word

of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God, which

effectually worketh also in you that believe”

(1 Thess. 2:13).

16 JAMES K. BRIDGES

(Sources for the material in the Introduction may be found in The

Works of John Wesley, Volume 11; Wesley’s preface to his Sermons on

Several Occasions; The Divine Inspiration of the Bible, Louis Gaussen;

and The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, Rene Pache.)



17

The Inspirationand Authorityof Scripture

1

John W. Wyckoff

INTRODUCTION

During the first century Apostolic Church and the

Early Church periods, the Bible was the final authorityfor Christian doctrine and practice. Since then, this has

not always been the case, at least not in the highest

sense of the idea. Often, this principle has been at least

compromised in practice, if not seriously qualified by

additions or openly repudiated.

An alteration of the principle of Scripture as final

authority that developed by the time of the Middle

Ages proved widely influential. Following the first cen-

tury, as the Church grew and moved into new situa-

tions it endeavored to make the eternal truths of

Scripture relevant and applicable by formulating

appropriate doctrines and practices. Eventually these

grew into a large body of teachings that may be termed“church traditions.” The endeavor of making the eter-

nal truths of Scripture relevant and applicable was nec-

essary, but eventually church traditions gained author-

ity over Scripture. Although Scripture was still held in



high regard, it was reinterpreted in such a way as to

support and reaffirm established church doctrines. In

actuality, Scripture was no longer the supreme

authority.

Near the beginning of the sixteenth century, Martin

Luther recognized this as a problem and enunciated the

principle of sola scriptura—Scripture alone. He declared

that the Church and its teachings are not the final

authority, but rather Scripture is the authority that tellsthe Church what to teach and practice. In this way, dur-

ing the Reformation, Protestantism was established

upon the earlier principle of Scripture having final

authority.

Unfortunately, following the sixteenth century,

Protestantism did not hold strongly to its ideal of

Scripture as the final authority. During this post-Reformation era (1600-1700), Protestantism became

woefully divided into various creedal groups. All too

often, so-called biblical exegesis degenerated into noth-

ing more than a handmaiden to varying dogmas.1 Not

unlike pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism, Protestant

“proof-texting” had the effect of elevating its own tra-

ditions, subordinating the authority of Scripture onceagain to the Church.

Such subordination of Scripture to Church traditions

is serious and the problem will be considered more

closely later in this paper. But during both pre-

Reformation Catholicism and post-Reformation

Protestantism, Scripture was at least still held in very

high regard. In fact, many who engaged in the practice

of proof-texting continued to hold to the ideal of

Scripture’s final authority. They simply did not realize

that their practice was not in keeping with their ideal.

Thus, Clark Pinnock contends: “Theology in the pre-

18 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



modern period was always done on the assumption

that the Bible was the written Word of God.”2 That is,

until the end of the seventeenth century, the ideal, if not

always the practice, of Scripture’s final authority was

still intact throughout Christendom. The next century,

however, would change all of this.

The impact of the eighteenth century Enlightenment

upon all areas of life simply cannot be overstated.

Immanuel Kant called it “man’s emergence from imma-turity.”3 Stunning advances in the natural sciences, with

an emphasis upon empiricism, and the philosophical

shift toward extreme rationalism profoundly changed

all areas of thought. Humankind’s so-called maturing

moved on to the questioning of all external authorities.4

The Bible and God himself were not off limits. The

Enlightenment challenged Scriptural authority in waysfar more profound and complex than it had ever been

challenged.

One could wish that these challenges would never

have arisen or that they could be dispelled with simple

answers. However, that is not reality. In these modern

times the full range of challenges to the final authority

of Scripture—compromising practices, altering addi-tions, and open denials—must be dealt with directly by

the Church. Such times call for a reexamination of the

Bible as the Word of God.

This chapter will first simply state some basics: the

grounds for holding Scripture to be the final rule for

faith and practice, and why this position is essential.

Next, it will briefly review the modern challenges to

Scripture’s authority that have come out of the

Enlightenment. Then, it will move on to deal with some

contemporary, practical issues related to the applica-

tion of this principle.

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE 19



THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

Inspiration of Scripture

Discussion of the principle of Scripture’s authority

must begin with the premise of divine inspiration. The

following is a contemporary, evangelical definition of

inspiration: Inspiration was that miraculous process in

which the Holy Spirit influenced divinely chosen

human authors to produce the infallible and authorita-tive writings which include only those books common-

ly recognized to be in the canon of Scripture.5

This definition provides only the elements essential

to the idea of inspiration. Given the profundity of this

doctrine, further elaboration is in order. All wise elabo-

rations on the inspiration of Scripture, however, will

begin by noting that this was a “miraculous process.” A

level of mystery regarding the exactness of this process

will always remain. Like any miracle, it can never be

fully explained from the human perspective, no matter

how much one elaborates upon it.

Also, since inspiration of Scripture was a mysterious

process, it cannot be proven in the rationalistic sense.Rather, it is ultimately one’s affirmation of faith made

certain by the convincing work of the Holy Spirit. He

“proves” its reality in the hearts and minds of believers.

Evangelicals, however, contend that this view is also

supported by reason, which many scholars have ade-

quately set forth. The allotted length of this chapter

does not allow it to be restated here.6

Let’s just say thatfor believers the ultimate evidence of Scripture’s inspi-

ration and authority is its matchless power. The mes-

sage of its writings, when properly understood and

responded to in faith, produces unparalleled results.

20 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



That is, Scripture has the ability to uniquely revolution-

ize the believer’s life and provide definitive, spiritual

guidance.

Pinnock rhetorically asks: “Why, in the last analysis,

do Christian people believe the Bible is God’s Word?”

His answer: “Not because they have all studied up on

Christian evidences and apologetics, however useful

these may prove to some. Christians believe the Bible

because it has been able to do for them exactly whatPaul promised it would: introduce them to a saving

and transforming knowledge of Christ.”7

Inspiration of Scripture was a divine-human cooper-

ative project. On the one hand, the writings of the Bible

are not merely human writings, as some contend.

Rather, the divine agency of the Holy Spirit mysteri-

ously worked in and through the human writers insuch a way that the product is properly termed “the

Word of God.” Consequently, the Bible is the final,

infallible, trustworthy authority on all matters pertain-

ing to God. On the other hand, the human authors were

not overpowered mantic ecstatics, nor even mere pas-

sive amanuenses. The Holy Spirit did not violate their

wills nor work aside from their human individualities.Rather, as Carl F. H. Henry notes: “The Spirit of God

made full use of the human capacities of the human

writers so that their writings reflect psychological,

biographical, and even sociohistorical differences.”8

Their unique styles are apparent throughout the canon.

Also, “full use of the human capacities” means that the

contributions of the human writers were not illusionary

or meaningless but real and substantive.9

Finally, in relationship to the above definition, the

inspiration that pertains to the canonical books of the

Bible was ultimately and absolutely unique. One may




speak of other kinds of inspiration. But the inspiration

of Scripture was of a totally supernatural quality such

that only these particular writings possess this unique,

divinely authoritative character. There are no other

writings like these writings.

That is to say, the canonical writings of Scripture are

uniquely authoritative precisely because they are

uniquely inspired by the Holy Spirit. Henry notes: “The

evangelical view believes that God revealed information beyond the reach of the natural resources of all human

beings, including prophets and apostles. Biblical

doctrine has an authoritative basis only because of

communication of specially revealed truths to chosen

messengers.”10 Therefore, Scripture is properly recog-

nized to be “special revelation.”

Scripture’s Authority in Relationship to Jesus Christ

Scripture is only one aspect of special revelation;

Jesus Christ is another aspect. Further, evangelicals cor-

rectly recognize that the person of Jesus Christ is the

ultimate of God’s special revelation to mankind. The

following questions, then, should be asked: What is the

relationship of the “final authority of faith and prac-tice” to the “ultimate of God’s special revelation”? And

what are the implications of this relationship?

Millard J. Erickson notes: “The most complete

modality of revelation is the incarnation.”11 The writer

of Hebrews observes: “In the past God spoke to our

forefathers through the prophets at many times and in

various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us

by his Son….The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and

the exact representation of his being” (Hebrews 1:1-3,

NIV).12 The apostle John explains that the “Word,” who

was God, “became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we

22 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the

Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1,14). Likewise,

the apostle Paul states: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image

of the invisible God….For in Him all the fullness of

Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 1:15 and 2:9).

Evangelicals contend that the Bible is the Word of

God. At the same time, as noted above, we affirm

Jesus Christ to be the ultimate of God’s revelation.

That is, on the one hand, what is provided inScripture by inspiration of the Holy Spirit is God’s

Word to us. Also, as special revelation it is complete

and fully adequate in providing all that is necessary

to human redemption. On the other hand, God’s ulti-

mate revelation of himself could not be contained in

any number of books.13 He is infinite! Therefore,

Donald Bloesch’s observation must be acknowl-edged: “The word of the prophets and apostles in the

Bible corresponds to . . . the truth embodied in Jesus

Christ, but it is not identical with it.”14

If Jesus Christ is the ultimate of God’s special revela-

tion, can Scripture be the final rule for faith and prac-

tice? Evangelicals see this as an epistemological ques-

tion. Therefore, they contend that the two ideas are nei-ther mutually exclusive nor contradictory, but comple-

mentary. Jesus Christ is the ultimate of God’s special

revelation, but this should not “cloud the epistemic sig-

nificance of Scripture as the word of God,” Henry

declares. He adds that “for man in his fallen state,

Scripture is the decisive and normative source of all

doctrine about God.”15 Pinnock concurs: “Inspired

Scripture constitutes a term in the rich pattern of reve-

lation given to humanity in Jesus Christ. It is a capstone

and…it conveys in a reliable manner the freight and

burden of revelation secured in an appropriate form by




God’s own action….In no way does this fact affect the

sheer centrality of Jesus Christ in revelation.”16 Bloesch

explains it this way: “The biblical witness is binding

because the prophets and apostles were ear- and eye-

witnesses to what God did for us in the sacred history

culminating in Jesus Christ. Moreover, these persons

were guided by the Holy Spirit…and their writings

now function as the vehicle of the Holy Spirit.”17

The Importance of Scriptural Authority

Christianity would be completely true even if there

were no such thing as an inspired, written record of its

development and content. That is, transcendent God

providing redemption for fallen humanity by sending

His Son to die for them does not seem to be logically

dependent upon the existence of a written account. Allof the developments leading up to the Christ event

could have happened without any written record of

them. Jesus’ teachings and activities and all that hap-

pened to Him could have occurred whether a written

report or interpretation was provided. Likewise, fol-

lowing Christ’s ascension, the Church could have

developed even if no written description had beenmade of it. However, it is difficult to imagine what the

present state of Christianity would be, or even if it

would exist today, had there been no written account of

God’s redemptive activities.

The fact is that the Bible is such an account. At special

times, God singled out certain prophets and apostles to

record and write about His redemptive activities. This

account provides not only a truly accurate, and there-

fore official, record of God’s redemptive activities, it is

also the official interpretation of those activities.18 “The

necessity of the Scripture principle [i.e., as final author-

24 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



ity] is,” Pinnock admits, “practical rather than absolute,

but a practical necessity of the greatest importance.”19

That God intends for Scripture to serve in a special

role of authority is, then, an idea that is inherent in the

concept of divine inspiration itself. As Henry says:

“Precisely because of its written form as inspired

Scripture, the Bible is the permanent standard and norm

by which all the church’s doctrine is to be validated.”20

Without Scripture the Church would have no objec-tive standard for knowing and understanding God and

His redemptive plan. “At stake,” Henry declares, is the

“far-reaching controversy over the real nature of man

and his destiny.” Because, “for man in his fallen state,

Scripture is the decisive and normative source of all

doctrine about God.”21 Inspired Scripture—the “offi-

cial” account of God’s redemptive activities and the“official” interpretation of them—is the only objective-

ly sound epistemological foundation for authentic

Christianity. Pinnock concludes: “The reason Christians

have felt historically that the authority of the Bible is a

crucial conviction is that they have realized the Bible is

needed to give us a reliable knowledge of the truth,

without which we cannot exist long as Christians.”22

MODERN CHALLENGES

As already noted, developments coming out of the

Enlightenment resulted in serious challenges to the

above conviction about Scripture’s authority. In fact,

the whole discipline of biblical criticism, consisting of

various forms of and approaches to the study of the

Bible, emerged from the Enlightenment milieu.

Some ultraconservative evangelicals have viewed

biblical criticism negatively, concluding that it is




always destructive. But criticism, wherever it is

applied, is not inherently negative. It can be positive

and constructive. As Ladd suggests, it “is not an enemy

of evangelical faith, but a necessary method of studying

God’s Word.”23 On the other hand, “[t]here is also a

kind of biblical criticism that,” as Pinnock points out,

“has played a disastrous role” in biblical studies. It is

“biblical criticism of the kind that treats Scripture as a

merely human document.” In this negative criticalapproach to Scripture, the Bible is considered to be

ancient but otherwise ordinary human literature, not

the inspired Scripture of the Church. Pinnock provides

a thorough discussion of both the positive and the neg-

ative aspects of biblical criticism.24

Other evangelical scholars have also addressed the

issue. For example, Millard Erickson provides an excel-lent presentation of the modern challenges to biblical

authority. Following a brief description of the various

kinds of biblical criticism, he presents some of their

contributions and liabilities.25 Here it is sufficient to

note that such challenges to biblical authority have a

common element. They share the view that the Bible is

fallible, human literature rather than the inspired Wordof God. However, when the Bible is lowered to this sta-

tus, human criticism itself assumes the position of final

authority.

Scripture is special revelation, and as such, it provides

knowledge, understanding, and wisdom beyond that

normally accessible through human reasoning. And

since criticism is a function of human reason, the

authority of Scripture stands above it. By means of nor-

mal human scholarship, biblical criticism provides

valuable knowledge and understanding of and about

Scripture. But it can neither supercede nor judge

26 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



Scripture’s authority. Therefore, evangelicals affirm

that the canonical writings of Scripture, rather than

human criticism, are the final authority because they

are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

CONTEMPORARY, PRACTICAL ISSUES

Beyond the challenges to Scripture’s authority are the

more immediate, pragmatic issues of how Scripture

actually functions as authority for doctrine and practice

in the Church today. Two questions especially need

attention in this present discussion. The first one is:

What is the relationship of Church tradition to

Scripture? The second one is similar: What is the rela-

tionship of experience to Scripture?

Church Tradition and the Authority of Scripture

The question of tradition’s role and function as

authority in relationship to Scripture is certainly not

new. The two have always been related, even if that

relationship has sometimes been misunderstood,

improperly maintained, or even unrecognized.

Whatever one may think, in practice, tradition alwaysplays some role in the development of Christian doc-

trine and practice. Pinnock acknowledges, “For all our

talk about ‘sola scriptura,’ the Bible is seldom left

‘alone’.”26 Elsewhere, he more specifically observes that

“biblical faith is never found apart from tradition.”27

When properly understood and maintained in rela-

tionship to Scripture, tradition plays a necessary, posi-tive role in the development and service of doctrine

and practice. John Van Engen defines tradition as: “The

entire process by which normative religious truths are

passed on from one generation to another.”28 Edward J.




Yarnold offers this description: “Tradition is the process

by which the revelation made by Jesus Christ is passed

on and interpreted from age to age.” He adds that it

consists of “the particular beliefs and practices which

are handed down in this way.”29 Tradition is the prod-

uct of the Church’s continuing endeavor to interpret

and apply Scripture in an appropriate way in every

generation of the Church. That is, tradition is how the

Church in each age attempts to make Scripture cultur-ally relevant and thereby authoritative everywhere in

the world. “Tradition in this sense can be recognized as

a viable authority in the life of the church so long as it

is appraised in the light of the written Scriptures.”30

Thus, when their relationship is properly understood,

Scripture and Church tradition should not be viewed as

opposed to each other.Church tradition began with the apostles in the first

century. In fact, the Old Testament was their

“Scriptures,” and what we have in the New Testament

was their “Church tradition” or “doctrine and prac-

tice.” Church tradition continued to develop following

the close of the first century as the Church continued its

effort to translate the eternal truths of Scripture into rel-evant doctrine and practice wherever the Spirit led.

As necessary and as valuable as tradition is, it is not

inspired in the same sense as Scripture. Thus, tradition

is not infallible. Pinnock notes that “the essence and the

forms [of Scripture and tradition] are not identical and

must not be equated.”31 Bloesch also cautions concern-

ing the necessity to “distinguish between the prophetic

and apostolic traditions out of which Scripture

emerged and the ecclesiastical traditions, which inter-

prets Scripture in every generation after apostolic

times.”32 Therefore, tradition should never be viewed as

28 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



a source or criterion of final truth over or beside

Scripture.

In view of this, tradition must always be monitored

by Scripture. This is the primary idea of the Protestant

Reformation. During the Middle Ages prior to the six-

teenth century, the conflict between Scripture and tra-

dition became extreme. Luther and the other Reformers

recognized this and asserted that Scripture must be the

standard against which all tradition is tested.Fortunately, the “Protestant Reformation did not jetti-

son church tradition,” but it “definitely relegated it to

secondary status on the grounds that Scripture has pri-

macy (sola Scriptura).” Thus, Protestants insist that

when the relationship between Scripture and tradition

functions in the proper manner, “Scripture judges and

corrects tradition and in this way keeps tradition faith-ful to the gospel.”33

The idea of Scripture’s primacy as the final rule of

faith and practice seems straightforward enough. But

always allowing Scripture to properly monitor tradi-

tion in such a way as to keep it truly faithful to

Scripture is not easily done. Church groups are often

quite unaware of the authoritative status their tradi-tions have gained. Protestants, who are quick to chide

Roman Catholics for subordinating Scripture to their

traditions, are sometimes unconsciously guilty of the

same.34 Bloesch suggests that “[i]n modern

Protestantism there seems to be a movement away

from sola scriptura to a view that coincides with a sec-

tarian Catholicism that denigrates Scripture by elevat-

ing church authority.”35

The problem is that tradition can be a two-edged

sword. On the one hand, tradition serves a necessary

function. Without it the Church cannot fulfill its God-




ordained purpose of making the truths of Scripture rel-

evant and applicable in each generation. Usually,

Church groups deem it necessary to write down the

fundamental essence of at least their most essential

doctrines and practices. The purpose is to provide clear

communication of these doctrines and practices both in

the present and to future generations. In Protestant cir-

cles, the purpose also includes having these in a form in

which they can supposedly be evaluated in light ofScripture.

On the other hand, tradition may become problemat-

ic. As Pinnock says, “Tradition never mirrors purely

and perfectly the truth of the gospel.” Inevitably there

are conflicts between the two.36 Tradition may develop

in such a way that it seriously distorts the pure, infalli-

ble truth set forth in Scripture. When traditions arewritten down, in the form of doctrines and practices

(even for the positive reasons noted above), they tend

to become fixed and viewed with increasingly high

regard and reverence. Often, such creedal statements

are defended as if they provide the ultimate way to

state the particular truth.37 Without realizing what is

happening, Church groups may even proof-text orinterpret Scripture in such a way as to guard their

traditions. Whether it is realized or not, in this manner

tradition is venerated above Scripture.

Perhaps we Pentecostals would like to think that we

could not, or at least would not, be guilty of venerating

our doctrine and practice statements above Scripture. If

so, we would not be as wise as our founding fathers.

The Pentecostal leaders who came together in 1914 to

form the Assemblies of God were keenly aware of the

problem. They were greatly concerned about the poten-

tial of their own beloved Fellowship allowing creeds to

30 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



gain authoritative stature. William Menzies observes

that at Hot Springs, Arkansas, in 1914, “[o]ut of fear of

‘creedalism’ the Founding Fathers…assiduously avoid-

ed any attempt at articulating precise doctrinal state-

ments as a test of faith.”38 In fact, the “Preamble and

Resolution on Constitution” adopted at that founding

Council declared: “We recognize ourselves as members

of said General Assembly of God…and do not believe

in identifying ourselves as, or establishing ourselvesinto, a sect, that is a human organization that legislates

or forms laws and articles of faith.”39

However, as Menzies also notes, “In spite of the

solemn vow expressed at Hot Springs that the

Assemblies of God would never adopt a formal creed,”

two years later, out of the necessity created by doctrinal

controversy, such action was taken.40 The leaders of thenew Fellowship recognized the wisdom of clearly artic-

ulating “a set of fundamental beliefs”—a “creed.”41 But

this was done only after heated debate over the advisa-

bility of taking such action. The Fourth General Council

of the Assemblies of God in 1916, then, formulated and

adopted a set of 17 doctrinal statements in a document

entitled “A Statement of Fundamental Truths Approved by the Assemblies of God.” Their continuing concern

about “creedalism”42 was evidenced not only by the

heated debate that preceded this action but also by the

wording of the preamble paragraph in this document:

“This Statement of Fundamental Truths is not intended

as a creed for the Church….The human phraseology

employed in such statement is not inspired nor contend-

ed for.”43 Later General Council action further strength-

ened their resolve to guard against creedalism by

adding, “The Bible is our all-sufficient rule for faith and

practice” at the beginning of the preamble paragraph.44




Also, their desire to give priority to Scripture was

evidenced by the very order of the doctrinal statements

that they included. They might have started with their

doctrine of God, since all that they believed was about

Him, and especially since the nature of God was the

focus of their doctrinal controversy at that time. Or,

they might have been tempted to begin with their dis-

tinctive doctrine of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Nevertheless, first in the list is their statement on theauthority of Scripture.45

Strictly speaking, they did adopt a creed. Of course,

all Christian groups have them, whether or not they are

stated. The Assemblies of God simply found it neces-

sary to state theirs in order to resolve controversies. To

their credit, their hearts and intentions were right. In

effect, they came to believe that they could be creedalwithout succumbing to creedalism.

Heretofore, our “Statement of Fundamental Truths”

has served us well. We have usually managed to wield

the two-edged sword of our creeds in such a way that

it has provided positive results. However, being now

100 years into the Pentecostal Movement, we, even

more than our founding fathers, must be aware of thepossible dangers of creedalism. As noted in the intro-

duction, by about 100 years into the Reformation,

Protestantism was all too often subordinating Scripture

to its creeds. Like our Protestant forerunners, we have

now had our creeds long enough that we hold them

with very high regard (as we should). Therefore, we

must heed Bloesch’s admonition: “Tradition as the

amplification and interpretation of the Word in the

community of faith is to be respected and honored, but

it is not to be accepted uncritically.” All “church tradi-

tions must be measured in the light of the transcendent

32 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



meaning of the gospel of God that shines through Holy

Scripture.”46

We must guard against the very attitude, as well as

the practice, of venerating our doctrine and practice

statements above Scripture. Creedalism begins as a

subtle attitude before it issues into a practice. If we

develop the attitude that our Pentecostal beliefs are so

special and so well stated that we should guard them

against any change, then without even realizing it, weopen ourselves up to the problem of using Scripture in

a proof-texting manner to preserve them.

All aspects of our traditions must remain open to dis-

cussion and be genuinely amenable to Scripture. For

example, this was the intent of our Pentecostal forefa-

thers who first developed and adopted our statements

of faith. Consequently, they preceded their doctrinalstatements with “[t]he phraseology employed in this

Statement is not inspired or contended for, but the truth

set forth in such phraseology is held to be essential to a

full gospel ministry.” Likewise, we must never “con-

tend for” the phraseology as though it is sacred and

non-amendable. If we do, we are subtly subordinating

the authority of Scripture to human expressions.Rather, however, we should strongly hold to “the truth

set forth” in our doctrines. Finally, with our Pentecostal

forefathers, we affirm and hold to “[t]he Bible [as] our

all-sufficient rule for faith and practice.”47 Despite hav-

ing a creed, let us nevertheless continue to avoid

creedalism.

Experience and the Authority of Scripture

Besides the question of the authority of Church tra-

dition, what is the authority of the believer’s experi-

ence? That is, what is the relationship of experience to




Scripture in the process of developing and maintaining

proper Christian doctrine and practice?

Like the question of Church tradition, the question of

experience’s role in this endeavor is not new. Especially

in view of the Pentecostal emphasis upon spiritual

experiences, it has contemporary significance for us.

Also, this question has further significance in light of

the current focus in some segments of evangelicalism

on a rationalistic view of Scripture’s authority. Anappropriate position must be found somewhere

between an extreme subjectivism related to experience

and an extreme objectivism related to rationalism.

In his excellent article “Of Tidy Doctrine and

Truncated Experience,” Robert K. Johnston, himself an

evangelical, highlights the problems associated with an

imbalanced rationalistic view of Scripture. “Evangelicalintellectualism based on a rationalistic and idealistic

philosophy has so abstracted the Christian faith that it

risks missing the heart of the Gospel. In their desire for

precision, evangelicals have become so analytical, so

mired in contrived conceptual schemas, that correct

doctrine has superseded faith and life as the focal point

of Christianity.”48 As Scott A. Ellington points out, alltoo often the “Evangelical movement has chosen large-

ly to defend its notion of biblical authority with the lim-

its of modern rationalism.”49 Such a rationalistic

approach to sola scriptura leaves the Church with a

“straight-jacketed epistemology.”50

The problem does indeed have to do with an ade-

quate epistemology—how one comes to know and

understand truth. In our case, the issue is how we come

to know and understand divine, revelational truth.

Bloesch notes the problem in his discussion of how

“rationalistic orthodoxy fails to grasp the dynamic,

34 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



inaccessible nature of revelation.” He explains that

Protestant orthodoxy has recently leaned too heavily

toward a “scholastic model” of biblical authority in

which “faith is basically an intellectual assent to propo-

sitional truth.”51 This model is not wrong, but it needs

to be complemented with a model that understands

revelation as a present, dynamic work of the Spirit.

The special illuminating work of the Spirit is

absolutely essential. Scripture is given to be the contextin which we encounter God’s presence and therein not

only learn about God, but also truly come to know Him

and His will through the miraculous work of the Spirit.

We understand and know the ultimate, God-intended

meaning of Scripture only when, by the Spirit, we

encounter God’s presence therein. Scripture, then, is

recognized to be authoritative and it is made the finalauthority by the present, miraculous work of the Spirit.

Bloesch is among an increasing number of evangeli-

cals who join some Pentecostals in insisting that to have

an adequate method of developing useful doctrine, sola

scriptura must be coupled with an appropriate “pneu-

matic epistemology.” “Surely, the Spirit is the key to the

proper functioning of biblical authority,” Pinnockdeclares. He adds: “Both religious liberals and conser-

vative evangelicals have conspired to leave the Spirit

out of hermeneutics, and this must come to an end.”52

We must allow the Spirit to show us how to recognize

and adequately respond to Him in this process and yet

not be swept into the eddy of subjectivity.

Bloesch and Pinnock join other scholars such as

James B. Shelton in insisting upon “the continued activ-

ity of the Holy Spirit as epistemologically essential.”53

They, along with Johnston, recognize that “if the

Church is ever again to set forth a relevant and ade-




quate theology, it must begin . . . with reflection on our

experience with him [Jesus Christ] through the Holy

Spirit.”54 As Ellington observes, “This has clear implica-

tions for a doctrine of the authority of Scripture. The

Bible is not simply a text about whose propositions we

can debate, it is the authoritative word of God because

the same Holy Spirit who inspired its writers meets us

today in its pages.”55

The clear implication is that spiritual experiences doaffect doctrine and practice. That is, when the Holy

Spirit’s role of being “epistemologically essential” is

properly recognized, then spiritual experiences are

allowed to function in a dynamic relationship with sola

scriptura. Those who recognize this “utilize doctrine to

describe and verbalize lived experience,” Ellington says.

Their understanding of the authority of Scripture isinfluenced by “their experiences of encountering a liv-

ing God, directly and personally.”56

Again, the notion of spiritual experiences playing a

role in understanding truth and developing doctrine is

obviously not a new or strange idea to authentic

Christianity. With all of its focus on sola scriptura, the

Reformation started with the dynamic relationship between Scripture and experience in proper perspec-

tive. “The ‘sola scriptura, sola fides’ of Luther included a

focus on personal experience of divine grace,” as James

Martin notes.57 James Atkinson also shows this in a

quote from Luther: “When I had realized this I felt

myself absolutely born again. The gates of paradise had

been flung open and I had entered. There and then the

whole of Scripture took on another look to me.”58

For good reasons, serious concerns are raised by the

notion that experiences play a role in understanding

truth and developing doctrine and practice.59 How can

36 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



excesses, extremes, and erroneous teachings be avoid-

ed? Experiences are subjective and their role in rela-

tionship to sola scriptura may be uncertain. Ellington,

who strongly advocates the epistemological role of

spiritual experiences, acknowledges this. “Personal

and communal experience is quite obviously, a precari-

ous basis for faith, being more open to subjectivity and

self-deception.”60 Some are tempted in their religious

enthusiasm to formulate inappropriate doctrines andfollow extraneous practices by appealing to their own

experiences. But there is a corrective. “To stress one’s

experience, which is an experience of the Spirit, is not,

according to evangelicals, to ignore the Word as mani-

fest both in Scripture and in Christ himself.”61 When the

epistemological role of the Spirit is advocated, the

proper function of Scripture as the final rule of faith andpractice is especially important. In the dynamic rela-

tionship between sola scriptura and experience, the

importance of sola scriptura simply cannot be overstat-

ed. Ultimately, as Ellington points out, “the Bible is the

basic rule of faith and practice and supplies the correc-

tive and interpretive authority for all religious experi-

ence.”62 Again, we especially emphasize that all experi-ences of the Spirit must be judged by their faithfulness

to the whole Word of God.

Thus far I have made a case for the idea that to have

relevant and adequate doctrines and practices, spiritu-

al experiences must be coupled with the principle of

sola scriptura. That is, I contend that Scripture and expe-

rience, Word and Spirit, function in dynamic union,

with neither violating the other. Without this, as

Ellington says, “Scripture becomes a place where we go

to acquire information about God and not a place

where we go to meet the person of God in a direct




encounter through the words of the text.” In this

dynamic union of Word and Spirit “the Bible is experi-

enced as authoritative as the Holy Spirit is found to be

at work in and through Scripture in the lives of each

member of the church community.”63

The next question is: How do such experiences func-

tion epistemologically in relation to Scripture? To begin

with, all interpretation is affected by personal experi-

ences. The old Enlightenment Age notion that one canapproach the study of Scripture with absolute objectiv-

ity, as a “clean slate,” simply is not tenable.64 As Gordon

Anderson points out, “All interpreters intentionally or

inadvertently incorporate personal experience in their

hermeneutics.”65 The result may be either positive or

negative. The negative side is part of the reason for the

concerns discussed in this paper.On the positive side, many students of the Bible are

realizing the significance of personal experiences in

understanding Scripture. For example, at age 20, when

I read Paul’s great discussion about the resurrection of

believers in the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians, I

understood it very well. But when I read it 30 years

later following the death of my godly mother, myunderstanding rose to a new level. I did not obtain

some “new” revelation; the text simply took on differ-

ent nuances of meaning because of the experience I

then brought to it. Similarly, Roger Stronstad notes that

“the Christian who has been healed will understand

the record of Jesus’ healing ministry or that of the apos-

tles better than the one who has never experienced it.”66

Experiences, including those distinctive moments

when the Holy Spirit illuminates the text, are a special

part of what Anthony Thiselton and others call the

“hermeneutical spiral” of understanding Scripture.67

38 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



The hermeneutical spiral begins with certain “preun-

derstandings” every student of the Bible brings to the

task of understanding Scripture. Preunderstandings

include all of the information, attitudes, and ideas that

the reader already has about the Scripture when he or

she begins the study. As the reader studies the text, the

understanding he or she gains is affected by these pre-

understandings. The reader’s new understanding of

the text, in turn, changes his or her preunderstandings,if not fundamentally at least by adding new under-

standings to them. When the reader returns to the text

with these new understandings, they in turn enable the

student to gain yet new understandings. And the “spi-

ral” continues with ever-increasing understanding.68

Experiences are only one of many constituent ele-

ments in this hermeneutical spiral; however, they add adistinctive dimension and a special dynamic to the

process of understanding Scripture. Without the

dimension that experiences provide, we simply do not

have the phenomenological context necessary to gain

the level and kind of understanding that the Spirit

desires. Stronstad cites German theologian Hermann

Gunkel of a century ago to make this point. “What wastrue of the primitive church’s daily experience of the

Spirit was not true of the church in Gunkel’s own day.”

Stronstad uses a quote from Gunkel to show that he

considered “the church of his day to be handicapped in

its ability to understand the apostolic witness to the

Holy Spirit because it lacked any analogous experience

of the Spirit.”69 This is the reason the discussion on

rationalism above is so important. Because again, as

Bloesch says, “The knowledge of God’s Word is never

merely conceptual knowledge but also existential

knowledge.”70 That is, ultimately “knowing” revela-




tional truth is experiential. As Ellington points out, “for

the Bible to be truly ‘authoritative’ in the life of an indi-

vidual and the community, God must be experienced

and encountered by that person and community in and

through Scripture.”71

The idea here is profound yet plain. Certainly the Bible

is authoritative in one sense, whether it is ever recog-

nized or experienced as such. However, for a truth to be

actually authoritative, it must be “known.” And whatone does not “know” will not be practically authoritative.

That is, the authority of the text is affected positively or

negatively by one’s experiential preunderstandings. For

example, as Stronstad points out, “Pentecostals bring a

valid experiential presupposition to the interpretation of

Acts…which enables them to understand the charismat-

ic life of the Apostolic Church…better than those con-temporary Christians who lack this experience.” They

“bring positive and sympathetic experiential presuppo-

sitions” to the interpretation of the biblical data on the

charismatic activity of the Holy Spirit. At the same time,

non-Pentecostal evangelicals often “bring negative and

hostile experiential presuppositions” to the interpreta-

tion of those same texts.72 The typical doctrinal positionof a non-Pentecostal is stated by Morris, “[W]e must

regard them [the charismata] as the gift of God for the

time of the Church’s infancy.”73 In effect, these biblical

materials are not “authoritative” to non-Pentecostals as

they are to Pentecostals. Pentecostals are prepared to

affirm the doctrine that the charismata are for the Church

today as a biblical truth because they have—by the

Spirit—experienced these gifts. Also, Pentecostals con-

tend that this doctrine is correct because the Bible does

not teach “cessationism,” that the charismata ceased at

the end of the New Testament writing period.

40 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



Besides the influence of one’s experiences at the

beginning of the interpretative process, they bring still

another dimension to the process of developing doc-

trine and practice. Menzies identifies it as the “verifica-

tion level.” “If a biblical truth is to be promulgated,

then it ought to be demonstrable in life.” That is, in the

development of theology or doctrine, there is a connec-

tion between revelation and experience. Menzies gives

this example: “It was the inductive study of the Biblethat led the students at Bethel Bible School in Topeka,

Kansas, in 1900-01 to expect a baptism in the Spirit with

the accompanying sign of speaking in tongues. When

they in fact experienced precisely what they thought

the Bible was teaching, they were then able to affirm

the continuity between biblical concept and experien-

tial reality.”74

Note that in talking about “biblical truth” being

“promulgated,” Menzies is talking about the idea of

biblical truth being passed on as authoritative. Thus,

here he is discussing how experience functions in rela-

tionship to the principle of Scriptural authority. Though

experience does not establish doctrine, it does verify

the authoritative truth derived from Scripture.In the case of the students at Bethel Bible School in

Topeka, Kansas, the students first came to believe, on

the basis of their study of Scripture, that speaking in

tongues accompanied the baptism in the Holy Spirit. In

a similar way, a person may, because of experience,

change his or her mind about a biblical teaching or

practice. Jack Deere, former professor at Dallas

Theological Seminary, tells how he knew of the biblical

accounts of healings and other spiritual gifts but did

not believe they were for the Church today. His doc-

trine was this: “I knew that God no longer gave the




miraculous gifts of the Spirit.” Then he began to have

experiences which convinced him that in fact the charis-

mata are for the Church today. In his words, he was

“surprised by the Holy Spirit.”75 For Deere, experience

verified the contemporary validity of this particular

doctrine and practice.

Besides verification, there is yet another dimension

that experience brings to the hermeneutical spiral. At

the verification level, the reader has at least already been exposed to a truth in Scripture. Experience then

follows as an affirmation, a verification. Both the

students at Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas, in

1900-01 and Jack Deere serve as examples. But some-

times we may not be aware of any specific teaching in

Scripture that relates to our experience. We experience

something dynamic that we are not expecting. It isunusual, fresh, and transforming. Here we are referring

to what should be termed “extrabiblical” experiences,

experiences not clearly found in Scripture. Although

these experiences may not have clear biblical prece-

dents, nevertheless, if we believe they are authentic

experiences of the Spirit, we may conclude that what

we have learned from them should influence ourunderstanding of doctrine and practice.

In practice Pentecostals have held to this notion from

the beginning of the Pentecostal movement. For exam-

ple, Pentecostals believe in (doctrine) and experience

(practice) what they term being “slain in the Spirit,”

“dancing in the Spirit,” and “laughing in the Spirit.”

These are extrabiblical in that they are not plainly

taught in the New Testament. Yet, many hold them to

be acceptable, contemporary Pentecostal practices.

Pentecostals believe that even though these experiences

are extrabiblical, that does not mean they are “contra-

42 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



biblical.”76 Certainly if such extrabiblical experiences

are also contrabiblical, then obviously they are not

authentic and should not be allowed to continue. But if

extrabiblical experiences are not contrabiblical,

Pentecostals believe they are worthy spiritual experi-

ences in which God is doing special supernatural

works in the lives of believers. There are broad

Scriptural principles, norms, and truths by which these

and other experiences must be judged.These events occur and they have this impact pre-

cisely because God cannot be confined to the theologi-

cal boxes framed by human dogma or limited to even

the historical examples He himself has provided in the

Bible. He is so infinite and His ways of relating to

humankind are so dynamic, we must always be open to

being surprised by the Spirit’s activity. Thomas F.Torrance suggests that “a theology faithful to what God

has revealed and done in Jesus Christ must involve a

powerful element of apocalyptic, that is epistemologi-

cally speaking, an eschatological suspension of logical

form in order to keep our thought ever open to what is

radically new.”77 As God promised, He is pouring out

His Spirit in these last days! Therefore, we must always be open to the Spirit revealing God to us in wonderful-

ly fresh and dynamic ways.

So again I submit that there is another important

dimension that spiritual experiences add to the

hermeneutical spiral. In that this dimension of under-

standing is grounded in the experiences of our spiritu-

al existence as God’s people, we might term it the exis-

tential level. Here we are not suggesting or implying

that God is adding any uniquely new revelation

beyond that revealed in the Bible and the person of

Jesus Christ. The canon of Scripture is closed, but God,




in keeping with His inherent character, certainly is still

actively revealing himself in the personal and corporate

experiences of those who respond positively to His

Spirit. And Pentecostals affirm that Scripture is the final

rule for faith and practice. But Pentecostals also agree

with Bloesch who discusses how that often in our pres-

ent situation “the creative, transforming power of

God…seizes us and points us in a new direction.” We

agree that “[r]evelation happened in a final and defini-tive form in the apostolic encounter with Jesus Christ.”

And the inspired record and interpretation of that is

provided for us in the New Testament. However, “rev-

elation happens again and again in the experience of

the Spirit of Christ.”78

Certainly we recognize that the idea of allowing such

extrabiblical experiences to influence doctrine andpractice raises serious concerns. As already noted, all

experiences are subjective and open to personal inter-

pretation and application. Certainly these extrabiblical

experiences could, and admittedly sometimes do, lend

themselves to generating excessive, extreme, and even

totally erroneous teachings.

When this happens, remedies must be sought andimplemented. No matter what experiences may indi-

cate, doctrines and practices that are contrary to biblical

principles, norms, and truths must not be allowed. The

Bible must continue to be the final rule for faith and

practice. Further, any and all teachings and practices

that are derived from extrabiblical experiences must

also be controlled. That is, even if they do not seem to

be contrary to biblical teachings, if they are excessive or

extreme, they must be guarded against. The apostle

Paul provides principles for this in 1 Corinthians 12–14.

A detailed discussion of them in this paper is not pos-

44 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



sible. Here it must be sufficient to note that, for exam-

ple, Paul insists that even utterances in tongues, which

are inspired by the Spirit and are clearly biblical mani-

festations, must be controlled. Certainly, then, he

would likewise insist that extrabiblical practices be

properly controlled. Also, phenomena that are associat-

ed with extrabiblical experiences, even if one believes

they are of the Spirit, must never be set forth as norms

and should never be developed into standard doctrinesand practices for the Church.

There must be safeguards. But Pentecostals hold that

sola scriptura does not mean that authentic extrabiblical

spiritual experiences have no role in influencing doc-

trine and practice. Rather, to have adequate and rele-

vant doctrines and practices, we must allow the Spirit’s

dynamic work among believers in the Church to influ-ence our understanding. Pentecostals consider the

emphasis on personal, existential experiences with God

to be a strength. As Anderson notes, they are “not

unnerved by the search for a theological explanation

for a divine act that has been experienced but not

understood.” Pentecostals hold that the potential of

experiences leading to extreme, excessive, and erro-neous doctrines and practices should not result in our

restricting the dynamic work of the Spirit. They recog-

nize that allowing experiences to influence doctrines

and practices can lead into existential subjectivism.

However, they contend that this does not have to be the

case. The solution is a balanced relationship between

the influence of experience and sola scriptura. The safe-

guard with regard to experiences, as Anderson discuss-

es, is a continued “commitment to the truth and author-

ity of the Bible.”79




CONCLUSION

The doctrine of the inspiration and authority ofScripture is vitally important to the contemporary

Church. In Scripture, God has given to humanity the

official account of His redemptive activities along with

their official interpretation through uniquely inspired

prophets and apostles. Scripture is special revelation in

that it provides divine knowledge, understanding, and

wisdom beyond that normally accessible by human rea-

soning. Without Scripture the Church would have no

objective standard for knowing and understanding God

and His will. In Scripture, believers both individually

and collectively (as the Church) find divine direction for

life and ministry—how to fulfill God’s purposes.

Since the beginning of the Church the principle of

Scripture’s authority has often been compromised and

challenged, bringing serious threat to the vitality and

effectiveness of the Church. By the Middle Ages,

Scripture’s final authority was largely compromised by

the place given to Church traditions. But by far the

most significant threat has evolved from the eigh-

teenth-century Enlightenment milieu. Although com-petent Bible-believing scholars have provided well-

developed responses to this threat, the continuing neg-

ative effect remains substantial throughout much of

modern society. Therefore, the Church must continue

uncompromisingly to reaffirm and properly apply the

principle of sola scriptura recovered during the six-

teenth-century Reformation.The principle of sola scriptura has to do with how

Scripture functions in the Church’s endeavor of devel-

oping and maintaining contemporary doctrine and

practice. In modern times, this is usually stated simply

46 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



as “Scripture is the final rule of faith and practice.”

Scripture never stands totally and absolutely alone.

That is, when sola scriptura is properly understood and

applied, both Church tradition and experience function

in a dynamic relationship with Scripture. Each one of

the three has an influence upon and is influenced by the

other two. Scripture, however, is the final rule of faith

and practice in that all Church traditions and all expe-

riences must be judged and monitored by Scripture.Church traditions and experiences are all a part of the

preunderstandings that affect our understanding of

Scripture. Also, the eternal truths of Scripture become

practically and effectively authoritative in contempo-

rary culture through the doctrines and practices of the

Church and in the experiences of God’s people.

Church tradition is valid and worthy only when it istrue to the teachings of Scripture and when it makes

those teachings effectively relevant and applicable in

contemporary culture. Therefore, Church tradition

must remain genuinely amenable to Scripture and open

to modification in view of contemporary needs. Church

tradition must not be allowed to become rigid in form

and dominate over Scripture.Experience also has an important function relative to

the authority of Scripture. Experience influences the

Church’s understanding of Scripture. Also, the Bible is

experienced as authoritative as the Holy Spirit works in

and through Scripture in the lives of individuals and the

Church collectively. Thus, the authority of Scripture issues

forth in relevant and vital doctrines and practices when

these describe current, lived experiences of God’s people.

We must especially always remain open to the supernatu-

ral dimension of the Scripture’s authoritative message

when the Spirit does something surprisingly transform-




ing, opening our hearts and minds to unique and fresh

works of an infinitely creative and dynamic God.

Endnotes1Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Grand

Rapids: Baker, 1952), 29.2Clark H. Pinnock, The Scripture Principle (San Francisco:

Harper and Row, 1984), ix.3Colin Brown, “Kant, Immanuel,” in Evangelical Dictionary

of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984),599-600.

4Colin Brown, “Enlightenment, The,” in EvangelicalDictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids:Baker, 1984), 355-356.

5This definition of inspiration is intended to state the evan-gelical position commonly called “verbal-plenary.” Thisposition means that inspiration includes the thoughts and

words of Scripture; all parts of Scripture are equally inspired.See Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A GeneralIntroduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1968), 26-36; and

John R. Higgins, “God’s Inspired Word,” in SystematicTheology, Revised Edition, ed. Stanley M. Horton(Springfield, Mo.: Logion, 1995), 93-101.

6For an excellent articulation of the reasonableness of theverbal-plenary inspiration position, the reader could see

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker,1985), 200-203; or Carl F. H. Henry, “Bible, Inspiration of,” inEvangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (GrandRapids: Baker, 1984), 145-147. Henry’s article is the mostextensive. Also, see Higgins, 81-101, in Systematic Theology.

7Pinnock, Scripture Principle, xix.8Carl F. H. Henry, God Who Speaks and Shows, vol. 4 of God,

Revelation and Authority (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1970), 148-149.9In other words, “verbal-plenary inspiration” does not

mean or imply verbal dictation.10Henry, God Who Speaks, 155 (my emphasis).11Erickson, Christian Theology, 190.12Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from

the New American Standard Bible (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1977).

48 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



13What the apostle John says concerning the works of Jesusis also true concerning any attempt to write a full revelation

of God: “I suppose that even the world itself would not con-tain the books which were written” (John 21:25).

14Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture (Downers Grove, Ill.:InterVarsity, 1994), 26.

15Henry, God Who Speaks, 37, 42.16Pinnock, Scripture Principle, 16.17Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 56.18See David M. Howard, An Introduction to the Old

Testament Historical Books (Chicago: Moody, 1993), 37-38,where he emphasizes that Scripture is special revelation notonly in that it provides the inspired record of God’s redemp-tive activities but also in that it provides the inspired inter-pretation of those activities, revealing their divine meaningand significance.

19Pinnock, Scripture Principle, xv.20Henry, God Who Speaks, 75.21Ibid., 12, 42.22Pinnock, Scripture Principle, x-xi.23George E. Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 53.24Pinnock, Scripture Principle, 130-152.25Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 81-104. A more

thorough discussion of the various kinds of biblical criticismis provided by F. F. Bruce, “Biblical Criticism,” in NewDictionary of Theology, ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F.

Wright, and J. I. Packer (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter Varsity,1988), 93-96. Also, Carl F. H. Henry, God Who Speaks andShows, vol. 4 of God, Revelation and Authority (Waco, Tex.:Word, 1970), provides a good general discussion of the chal-lenge to biblical authority in the chapter “The Modern Revoltagainst Authority,” 7-23.

26Pinnock, Scripture Principle, 80.27Clark H. Pinnock, “How I Use the Bible in Doing

Theology,” in The Use of the Bible in Theology/EvangelicalOptions, ed. Robert K. Johnston (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 34.

28 John Van Engen, “Tradition,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984),1104.

29Edward J. Yarnold, “Tradition,” in The BlackwellEncyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought, ed. Alister E.




McGrath (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 1995), 643-644.30Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 142.31Pinnock, “Doing Theology,” 34.32Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 142.33Ibid., 145, 148.34Van Engen, “Tradition,” 1104; Pinnock, Scripture Principle,

79.35Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 146.36Pinnock, “Doing Theology,” 34; also, see Paul Valliere,

“Tradition,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 15, ed. Mircea

Eliade (New York: Macmillian, 1987), 4.37Bromiley notes: “The dangers of creed-making are obvi-ous. Creeds can become formal, complex, and abstract….Theycan be superimposed on Scripture.” Geoffrey W. Bromiley,“Creed, Creeds,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed.Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 284.

38William W. Menzies, Anointed to Serve (Springfield, Mo.:Gospel Publishing House, 1971), 116.

39Minutes, First General Council of the Assemblies of God,

1914, 4.40W. Menzies, Anointed, 118.41 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition

(Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 1994).42By creedalism I mean “undue insistence upon traditional

statements of belief.” Webster’s Third New InternationalDictionary, s.v. “creedalism.” More specifically, “creedalism”is the practice of allowing creedal statements to gain an

authoritative stature either beside or above Scripture.43Minutes, Fourth General Council of the Assemblies ofGod, 1916, 10-13.

44This sentence was added as early as 1920. Combinedminutes of the General Council of the Assemblies of God,1914-1920, 12.

45Minutes, Fourth General Council of the Assemblies ofGod, 1916, 10.

46Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 151.47Preamble paragraph of the Assemblies of God

“Statement of Fundamental Truths.”48Robert K. Johnston, “Of Tidy Doctrine and Truncated

Experience,” Christianity Today (February 18, 1977): 11.49Scott A. Ellington, “Pentecostalism and the Authority of

Scripture,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology (9:1996): 22.

50 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



50A term borrowed from James B. Shelton, “Epistemologyand Authority in the Acts of the Apostles” (Springfield, Mo.:

unpublished paper presented at the Society for PentecostalStudies, 11–13 March 1999), 6. Shelton’s discussion of theproblems related to extreme rationalism is very helpful. Imust, however, disagree with his overly negative view of solascriptura. He seems to believe it is inherently rationalistic. Butthe problem is not with the concept itself but rather with therationalistic approach that has been imposed upon it sincethe turn of the twentieth century. Shelton’s solution to the

problem of extreme rationalism, which is discussed later,does not necessitate discarding sola scriptura.51Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 40-45, 67.52Pinnock, Scripture Principle, 156-157, 174.53Shelton, Epistemology and Authority, 11.54 Johnston, “Of Tidy Doctrine,” 11.55Ellington, “Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture,”

24.56Ibid., 17-18.57 James Alfred Martin, Jr., “Religious Experience,” in The

Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 12, ed. Mircea Eliade (New York:Macmillian, 1987), 328.

58 James Atkinson, Martin Luther: Prophet to the ChurchCatholic (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 84 (my emphasis).

59Pinnock, Scripture Principle, 156.60Ellington, “Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture,”

21.61

Johnston, “Of Tidy Doctrine,” 11.62Ellington, “Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture,”21.

63Ibid., 25, 27.64A. Berkely Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 44-47.65Gordon L. Anderson, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics, Part

1,” Paraclete (Winter 1994): 2.66Roger Stronstad, “Pentecostal Experience and

Hermeneutics,” Paraclete (Winter 1988): 19.67Anthony C. Thiselton, The Two Horizons (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1980), 104.68William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L.

Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word,1993), 114. For a complete discussion of this, see pages 87-115.




69Stronstad, “Pentecostal Experience and Hermeneutics,”14.

70Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 53.71Ellington, “Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture,”

30.72Stronstad, “Pentecostal Experience and Hermeneutics,”

17, 21.73Leon Morris, Spirit of the Living God: The Bible’s Teaching on

the Holy Spirit (London: InterVarsity, 1960), 64-65.74William W. Menzies, “The Methodology of Pentecostal

Theology: An Essay on Hermeneutics,” in Essays on ApostolicThemes, ed. Paul Elbert (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1985),12-14.

75 Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1993), 14-32.

76See Russell P. Spittler, “Spirituality, Pentecostal andCharismatic,” in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic

Movements, ed. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 804-809, where Spittler

discusses other similar Pentecostal and Charismatic practicesthat are based upon extrabiblical experiences. Concerning“proxy prayer” he says: “There is no biblical precedent forthe action, nor any injunction against it” (p. 806). The same istrue for the other extrabiblical practices noted above.

77Thomas F. Torrance, Theological Science (London: OxfordUniversity, 1969), 280.

78Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 50, 53.79

Anderson, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics, Part I,” 1, 4, 10.

52 JOHN W. WYCKOFF



Introduction

Historically, the responses of Pentecostalism to the

challenges of liberalism, modernism, and postmod-ernism have been minimal and ineffective. Pentecostals

have seldom taken the time to understand the origins

and presuppositions of these movements. Their pre-

suppositions, methodologies, and conclusions have

usually been the objects of our derision and polemics,

but we have yet to engage them where the battle can

truly be won: the battlefield of ideas.

In the past, we have reacted to liberalism in three

ways. We have ignored it (“Rudolf who?”); we have

made light of it (“And they want us to believe the

whole Egyptian army drowned in six inches of water—

right!”); and we have responded to their substantive

challenges with simplistic sound bites (“God said it; I believe it; that settles it!”).

The results of these approaches have been negligible.

Because we have not won the war of ideas, the other

side continues to set the agenda. They control the col-

53

PentecostalProclamation in a

Liberal, PostmodernWorld

2

Wave E. Nunnally, Jr.



leges and universities. They are the darlings of the print

and visual media. They educate our sons and daugh-

ters. They write the majority of the textbooks, commen-

taries, and reference works.

Recently, matters have only become worse. In previ-

ous generations, the liberal approach to Scripture “was

in full display largely in their rarefied and theologically

correct atmosphere of seminaries and elite universi-

ties.”1

Now, after decades of success in the absence ofeffective conservative rebuttal, liberals have become

emboldened. John Dominic Crosson has noted: “[There

was an] implicit deal—you scholars can go off to the

universities and write in the journals and say anything

you want. [But now] the scholars are coming out of the

closet.”2 Richard Ostling has observed that liberal

scholars are now in the midst of an all-out offensive,demanding that the general public pay attention to the

way they think.3

This new offensive has taken many forms. A flurry of

books such as Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography

(Crosson), The Lost Gospel, and The Five Gospels (both by

Burton Mack) are popularizing a revised version of

Jesus no orthodox reader of Scripture would recognize.When the major TV networks do “human interest” seg-

ments on Christianity (usually around Christmas and

Easter), the reporters instinctively run to liberal schol-

ars such as members of the Jesus Seminar (see below).

On June 26, 2000, Peter Jennings (ABC) did a two-hour,

prime-time “documentary” entitled “The Search for

Jesus.” All but two of the scholars interviewed were of

the liberal persuasion. Popular magazines such as Time

and Newsweek regularly feature articles such as “A

Lesser Child of God: The Radical Jesus Seminar Sees a

Different Christ.”4 Even an average daily newspaper

54 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.



may lead with an article headlined “A Controversial

Work Rethinks the Gospels.” In this case, the subtitle

was really no subtitle at all, for in bold, oversized print,

the title continued, “Did Early Christians Put Words in

Jesus’ Mouth?”5 Popular TV shows such as The View,

Oprah, Seventh Heaven, and Touched by an Angel bom-

bard the public daily with the worldviews of liberalism

and postmodernism.6 On a recent episode of a prime-

time show a Christian Science couple was on trial forfailure to seek medical help for their child, who died as

a result. At one point in the investigation, one of the

lead characters stated, “One guy’s faith is no more right

than the next guy’s.”7

The point is this: A threshold has been crossed. Your

deacons now have this on their coffee tables. Your

Sunday School teachers read this in their newspapers.Your Junior Bible quizzers watch this on their TVs. It’s

on the Internet, sitcoms, the radio. Worse yet, it has

struck a nerve with the public. Not only does all this

attention to “spiritual things” fit perfectly with the

public’s heightened interest in spirituality; a non-

authoritative, non-exclusive gospel is considerably

more comfortable to the nature of fallen humanity andthe current “politically correct” cultural climate.

As pastors, proclaimers, and parents, our work is cut

out for us. The liberal worldview is dominant,

entrenched, and strident. Ignoring it will not make it go

away. Making light of it risks making us look like fools.

And trite sermons with three points which all begin

with the letter c no longer impress anyone because they

often fail to effectively engage the issues.

Our pews are now filled with parishioners who have

adopted a postmodern mentality. Most are not even

aware of it, but it is there. The average person on the

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD 55



street, who may scoff at philosophy as irrelevant and

vote Republican, is postmodern to the core with respect

to how he or she understands the world and the nature

of truth.

Things have changed. We no longer have the luxury

of a congregation that accepts what we say because we

are who we are or because we have a Bible verse to

hang it on. (Maybe this is a good thing!) Gone are the

days when people in our community respond with aninherent sense of respect for us, our church, or the

Bible. People inside and outside the church are a hard-

er sell, and those of us who wish to communicate effec-

tively to them will have to be better versed in what we

offer. Admittedly, this was not our choice: The change

was made without consulting us. How we respond,

however, is our choice.How, then, should we respond? First, we must

respond with sensitivity. We can no longer simply shrug

off this movement with statements such as, “It’ll pass.”

“That’s their problem, not mine.” “Whatsoever a man

soweth, that shall he also reap.” And “I never signed on

for this—I’m just a simple pastor with a simple gospel.”

Instead, we have to adopt the attitude that motivated Jesus and Paul (Luke 19:10; 1 Cor. 9:22): to pursue peo-

ple where they are and to care enough to refine our

method without changing our message. Looking at lib-

erals and postmoderns as the enemy will be as self-

defeating as our previous indifference. They are not the

enemy: They are the mission field!

Second, we must respond with substance. In this new

environment, clichés, sounds bites, and bumper-sticker

theology will not suffice. No amount of stomping, spit-

ting, and shouting will tip the balance back in our

favor. Flights of hermeneutical fancy relabeled “revela-




tion knowledge” will not win the battle. We must begin

to articulate a clear message backed by substance and

the ring of biblical reality. We will also have to care

enough about people to educate ourselves as to what

they have come to believe and learn how to counter

with life-giving truth.

LIBERALISM

The following is a sketch of the history and basic

tenets of classical liberalism. (A more comprehensive

treatment of these subjects may of course be found in

libraries and on the Internet.) Some may question why

as conservative Christians they should even waste their

time. Graham Johnston answers: “Understanding the

assumptions, beliefs, and values of your listeners willenable communicators to connect in areas of common

ground and shared interest….[B]iblical communication

to [this] culture should be approached in the same way

that a missionary goes into a foreign culture. No mis-

sionary worth his salt would enter a field without first

doing an exhaustive study of the culture he or she seeks

to reach.”8

Therefore, we must educate ourselves about liberal-

ism and postmodernism before we attempt to formu-

late responses to them.

The liberalism we see today in science, politics, eco-

nomics, morality, and religion has its roots in the

Renaissance and the Enlightenment.9 These movements

awakened in man a renewed desire to understand his

world. There were many positive results of these move-

ments, such as modern science, democracy, and

increased literacy. As with most movements, however,

there was a downside. One downside was the tenden-




cy toward rationalism. The tendency was to “eliminate

all irrational and disorderly aspects of life.”10 Human

reason became the highest authority. Descartes taught

that the primary aspects of human nature are autono-

my and rationality. Sir Isaac Newton believed that the

natural world functioned like a machine, governed by

laws and perfect regularity; he believed it was possible

to understand everything in the world through human

reason. The next logical step was for man to see himselfas the master of the world, able to improve both him-

self and his environment through technology.11 In this

way man becomes the center of his world and his

reality.12

These radical shifts in the way humanity, the natural

world, and reality were viewed were inevitably applied

to faith. David Hume and Immanuel Kant maintainedthat any part of Scripture which could not be upheld by

human reason was invalid. Human reason eventually

came to be seen as independent of and superior to

divine revelation. The authority of Scripture soon

began to suffer when human reason became the pri-

mary criterion for determining its legitimacy. After

Scripture was demoted from its place of primaryauthority, its position was eventually given to “ongoing

religious experience.”13

By 1799, Friedrich Schleiermacher was describing the

essence of religion as “a certain sort of feeling or aware-

ness.” He insisted that all legitimate doctrine ultimate-

ly rests on experience. Nancey Murphy notes that

“[l]iberal theologians since Schleiermacher have fol-

lowed him in taking human religious experience as a

starting point for theology…[and thus] doctrine is to be

evaluated in light of experience, never the reverse.”14

Existentialism is in large measure a reassertion of this




emphasis. Gene Edward Veith summarizes the three

major developmental stages of classical liberalism in

this way: “During the Age of Reason of the eighteenth

century Enlightenment, many theologians jettisoned

the supernatural teachings of Scripture in an effort to

turn Christianity into a ‘rational’ religion. When the

rationalistic vogue gave way to the emotional focus of

the nineteenth century Romanticism, the liberal theolo-

gians changed their tune and taught that Christianity isa matter of religious feelings [and in this respect

Schleiermacher was a pioneer]. After Darwin,

Romanticism gave way to a trust in utopian social

progress, and the liberal theologians said that’s what

Christianity is all about.”15 In other words, liberalism is

not entirely objective. Nor is it entirely static and

detached from popular cultural shifts. Rather, itderived from, and has continued to morph in response

to, trends that have come and gone in the culture at

large. Protestantism in general and Pentecostalism in

particular have seldom shown a discernable difference

from classical liberalism in this respect.

It should be noted that at this point, liberalism had

made a radical departure from historic orthodoxy. TheChristian church had always maintained that primacy

of Scripture, and with the Reformation, Protestantism

had asserted the cardinal doctrine of sola scriptura (mat-

ters of doctrine and practice are to be determined by

Scripture alone). It should also be noted that throughout

its history Pentecostalism has flirted with the tendency

to determine matters of faith and practice on the basis

of experience and personal revelation. This is clearly

the trend in certain quarters today as well. The official

position of the Assemblies of God, however, is articu-

lated in the first of the Statement of Fundamental




Truths and reflects the position of historic orthodoxy

and sola scriptura. The current trend should be cause for

real alarm; history indicates that abandonment of belief

in the primacy of Scripture was the first step toward

theological liberalism.16

In this context, the historical-critical approach to

Scripture was developed. Since human reason could

not account for the supernatural, then divine revelation

as the origin of Scripture could no longer be main-tained. Soon Reuss, Graf, and Wellhausen were advo-

cating a Pentateuch of purely human origin. Next, this

approach was applied to the New Testament when

Gotthold Lessing’s New Hypotheses Concerning the

Evangelists Regarded as Merely Human Historians was

published posthumously in 1784. His stated goal was

to destroy “this hateful edifice of nonsense[Christianity]…on the pretense of furnishing new bases

for it.”17

Once liberals made the claim of possessing the scien-

tific, rational approach to Scripture, “Anyone who

declined to play along with this game of hypothesis

building, preferring instead to ground his thinking in

the clear and reliable Word of God, was denounced asunscientific.”18

Eta Linnemann has noted, however, that the liberal

approach to Scripture is more ideology (presupposi-

tions) than scientific methodology. In Is There a Synoptic

Problem? she catalogs the major figures involved in the

beginning of the historical-critical movement and

demonstrates that the vast majority consisted of

philosophers and poets who were not trained in theol-

ogy, biblical languages, and the like. Instead, they

appear to have been motivated by a desire to avoid the

obligation to adhere to the clear teachings of Scripture.19




BULTMANNIANISM

Perhaps the best-known form of liberalism isBultmannianism. Rudolf Bultmann was most active in

the middle of the last century. He insisted that the New

Testament documents consist not of reliable reports of

what actually happened or was said; rather, the New

Testament reflects the message of the later church.

Entire books, like the Gospel of John, were summarily

dismissed as “unreliable.” The other Gospels were also

suspect because they were all products of Hellenistic

Christianity, which was chronologically, geographical-

ly, and linguistically far removed from the original

events.20

For Bultmann, as for many liberals before him, the

Jesus of the Scriptures “was mythologized from the

very beginnings of earliest Christianity….[T]he early

Christian community thus regarded him as a mytho-

logical figure….His person is viewed in the light of

mythology when he is said to have been begotten of the

Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, and this becomes

clearer still in Hellenistic Christian communities where

he is understood to be the Son of God in a metaphysi-cal sense, a great pre-existent heavenly being who

became man for the sake of our redemption and took

on himself suffering, even the suffering of the cross. It

is evident that such conceptions are mythological, for

they were widespread in the historical person of Jesus.

[This] is part of the Gnostic doctrine of redemption and

nobody hesitates to call this doctrine mythological.”21

Since the assertions of the New Testament about the

person and work of Jesus cannot be taken seriously by

rational, modern men, Bultmann raises this question:

“What is the importance of the preaching of Jesus and




the preaching of the New Testament as a whole for

modern man?” He answers his own question decisive-

ly: “For modern man the mythological conception of

the world, the conceptions of eschatology, of redeemer,

and of redemption, are over and done with. Is it possi-

ble to expect that we shall make a…sacrificium intellec-

tus [a sacrifice of the intellect, or reason] in order to

accept what we cannot sincerely consider true—merely

because such conceptions are suggested by the Bible?Or ought we to pass over those sayings of the New

Testament which contain such mythological concep-

tions and to select other sayings which are not stum-

bling-blocks to modern man?…[T]he worldview of

Scripture is mythological and is therefore unacceptable

to modern man whose thinking is shaped by science

and is therefore no longer mythological….Nobodyreckons with direct intervention by transcendent

powers….The science of today is no longer the same as

it was in the nineteenth century, and to be sure, all the

results of science are relative, and no world-

view of yesterday or today or tomorrow is

definitive….Therefore, modern man acknowledges as

reality only such phenomena or events as are compre-hensible within the framework of the rational order of

the universe. He does not acknowledge miracles

because they do not fit into this lawful order.”22

Therefore, Bultmann suggests that passages which

attribute divinity and the supernatural to Christ be de-

emphasized in favor of Jesus’ high ethical and moral

teachings. This process of sorting out that which is of

eternal moral and ethical significance from religions

and cultural overlays of a superstitious, pre-scientific

world he calls “de-mythologizing.”23

Problems associated with this methodology are man-




ifold. One can easily note the connection to the exalta-

tion of human reason (over divine revelation) and anti-

supernaturalism first observed in the Enlightenment

and the Renaissance. Humanity and human intellectu-

al ability become the center. The foundations of the

faith are fluid, not fixed, and are subject to the

“progress of man.” The methodology is subjective.

Because there are no controls and all scholars are free to

discard and keep what they wish, there is seldom uni-versal agreement among them on any conclusion.24

The methodology is often arbitrary. For example, the

presupposition is that the testimony of the New

Testament is suspect. In addition, one of Bultmann’s

primary criteria for rejecting a passage as “inauthentic”

was the criterion of “dissimilarity.” If a passage is too

similar to Judaism or too similar to practice or theologythat emerged in the Early Church, it can’t be original

and should be ignored. Darrell L. Bock has appropri-

ately criticized this approach, noting, “Then Jesus

becomes a decidedly odd figure, totally detached from

his cultural heritage and ideologically estranged from

the movement he is responsible for founding.”25 In this

way, however, modern man had set up his own criteriato determine which parts of the testimony will be

accepted and which will not. In the end, the version of

the gospel that emerged bore a distinct resemblance to

post-Enlightenment, liberal Christianity. Liberalism

had refashioned Christianity in its own image.

Conservative Pentecostalism, however, has often

been guilty of the same transgressions. We have accul-

turated the gospel; we have used essentially the same

hermeneutics; we have exercised a pick-and-choose

approach to what we will emphasize. Worse yet, in

many quarters, there has been a decided de-emphasis




on the person and work of Jesus in favor of His teach-

ing. Moralistic, self-help, and how-to messages abound

in our circles, while little time is devoted to the person

and work of Jesus. One Assemblies of God scholar

recently analyzed almost two hundred sermons

preached from our pulpits. In 85 percent of these mes-

sages, there was absolutely nothing of substance about

who Jesus was and what He did. It would seem that we

have been as heavily affected by the culture at large asthe liberals. They would have been happy with that sta-

tus quo, and the drift toward greater and greater liber-

alization has continued. Are we willing to live with our

status quo? If so, we will have to be willing to live with

the fallout.

THE JESUS SEMINAR

Among the movements spawned by Bultmann’s

approach is the Jesus Seminar (see “Introduction”). Scot

McKnight has observed that the modern-day “Jesus

Seminar is heavily indebted to the scholarship [that is,

the presuppositions, methodology, and conclusions] of

the post-Bultmannian[s].”26 These scholars are makingmany of the same claims originally heard from

Bultmann himself. They see most of the material as

deriving from the later gentile, Hellenistic church.

Thus, they insist that the Gospels contain little eyewit-

ness testimony, if any. The same anti-supernatural ten-

dencies can also be found, such as the denial of true

predictive prophecy.27 For Dominic Crosson, “Jesus’

deification was akin to the worship of Augustus

Caesar—a mixture of myth, propaganda and social

convention.” The virgin birth in Bethlehem and Jesus’

Davidic ancestry is “retrospective mythmaking.”




Luke’s birth narratives are “pure fiction, a creation of

[his] own imagination.” For Crosson, the demon pos-

session Jesus encountered was actually a metaphor for

“Roman imperialism.” Crosson considers the

Resurrection to be “latter-day wishful thinking.” In

reality, he says, the body was probably consumed by

dogs. Fellow Jesus Seminar member Burton Mack con-

curs. He states, “The narrative Gospels have no claim

as historical accounts. The Gospels are imaginative cre-ations.” For the Jesus Seminar, eighty-two percent of

Jesus’ words are inauthentic,28 based on the application

of criteria suspiciously similar to that employed by

Bultmann.

So what is it that the Jesus Seminar actually accepts?

Teachings about “the holiness of the simple life.” They

accept verses such as “Turn the other cheek,” “Loveyour enemies,” and “Rejoice when reproached.”29 In

other words, the Jesus Seminar, much like their liberal

predecessors, has latched exclusively onto the moral

and ethical aspects of New Testament revelation.

Before we dismiss the Jesus Seminar and their con-

clusions as too far out to be taken seriously, let’s

remember the information discussed in the introduc-tion. They have gone public, dominating most media

outlets. Their message is now available for general con-

sumption twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

They are not limited to 30 to 45 minutes each Sunday

morning, and their audience numbers not in the hun-

dreds or even thousands, but in the millions. Perhaps

most importantly, their message “comports perfectly

with the tendencies of what the apostle Paul describes

as the old man.”30 The vigor with which members of the

Jesus Seminar press their message requires that we take

their challenges seriously. If we fail to engage them on




the issues, their opinions will win the day and, worse,

the minds in the marketplace.

POSTMODERNISM

It cannot be claimed that postmodernism is the direct

spiritual descendent of liberalism, Bultmannianism,

and the Jesus Seminar. However, it can be said that

these movements prepared the cultural soil in which

postmodernism currently flourishes. Further, like its

predecessors, postmodernism is not limited to elite

intellectual and philosophical circles of our world. D.

Lyon has noted that this worldview has affected “the

earthy realities of everyday life…what people actually

do at home, at work, at play.” It has touched every area

of our lives: “the cultural, aesthetic and intellectualdimensions…[as well] as the social, political and eco-

nomic ones.”31

How does postmodernism compare to its predeces-

sors in terms of influence? Diogenes Allen states, “A

massive intellectual revolution is taking place that is

perhaps as great as that which marked off the modern

world from the Middle Ages. The foundations of themodern world are collapsing, and we are entering a

post-modern world. The principles forged during the

Enlightenment (c. 1600-1780), which formed the foun-

dations of the modern mentality, are crumbling.”32

David Buttrick describes the situation in similar

terms, “[We are] in the midst of a cultural breakdown

not dissimilar to the collapse of the Greco-Roman world

or the fragmentation of the Medieval synthesis.”33 The

changes underway are so drastic and the challenges are

so great that Johnston notes that postmodern thought

“is the main battleground for this century.”34




Stanley J. Grenz explains the origins of postmod-

ernism as “the quest to move beyond modernism.

Specifically, it involves a rejection of the modern mind-

set, but launched [was birthed] under the conditions of

modernity.”35 Craig A. Loscalzo has observed that the

worldview of the Enlightenment was captured by

Descarte’s famous dictum, “I think, therefore I am”

(actually plagiarized from St. Augustine!). The world-

view of postmodernism, however, could well be char-acterized by a slight but significant revision, “I doubt,

therefore I am.”36

Further, Loscalzo notes that, reflecting the spirit of

the times, postmodern thought is dominated by skepti-

cism, pessimism, and suspicion.37 Postmodernism is

skeptical of the faith which modernity and liberalism

have placed in the fundamental goodness, reason,rationality, and objectivity of humanity. Having

observed the continued wars and pollution of the earth,

it is not convinced of the inevitability of human

progress. Postmodernism is skeptical about the powers

of empirical observation and the promise of unlimited

technological progress.38

On the positive side, postmodernism enthusiasticallyembraces the subjective, the spiritual, and the super-

natural—which modernism and liberalism summarily

dismissed as “irrational” and “unscientific.”39 D.

Howell has identified some of the primary characteris-

tics of the postmodern movement: the value of self,

importance of relationships, desire for community, con-

cern for the world, tolerance, and commitment to spir-

itual pursuits.40

Thus far, it would appear that postmodernism is the

perfect antidote to the excesses of modernism and lib-

eralism. A closer look, however, reveals the problemat-




ic philosophical presuppositions which underlie the

movement. Howell states that the emphasis on the

value of self has led to poor choices in the area of

morals and ethics in general and sexuality in particular.

Concerning the importance of relationships, emphasis

on image and greater peer pressure have also been a

negative factor. While concern for the world can lead

and has led to positive expressions such as advocacy

for equality, fairness, and human rights, it has alsofueled extremist animal rights and environmental

movements. “Tolerance” is not merely allowing com-

peting views to exist and be heard; it is insistence that

no view is any better than another. To the postmodern

mind, all positions must be accepted as equally valid.

This is nowhere more evident than in spiritual matters,

where it is just as legitimate to seek answers in astrolo-gy, native religions, shamanism, or Wicca as in western

religious expressions.41

What would cause such an overthrow of the philo-

sophical underpinnings of western civilization? The

basic premise of postmodernism is that “relativism

rules.”42 The concept of absolute truth is completely

rejected.43 Truth is relative. Instead of truth being anobjective, external reality, it is merely a belief in the

mind of its holder. Therefore, one person’s opinion is as

valid as another’s,44 and each person becomes his or her

own authority.45 This is not only the case with respect to

the details; it is also true with respect to the big picture,

the “metanarrative” (that is, the story that “makes

sense out of it all”).46 To postmoderns, the metanarra-

tive is merely the view of those in power used to keep

those out of power in check.47

All these characteristics and beliefs directly influence

how our culture has come to understand the church,




the Scriptures, and the faith. With respect to the influ-

ence on the church, pollster George Barna recently

reported that sixty-two percent of “born-again

Christians” no longer believe in objective truth.48 Lyon

has observed that “modern outlooks and lifestyles are

now taken so much for granted that many religious

people do not even realize that they are influenced by

or colluding with a system that may in some important

ways be inimical to their faith commitments.”49

Similarly, Loscalzo has noted, “[I]t’s obvious that

church people have not escaped the effects of rela-

tivism….Our current context is permeated by the post-

modern worldview.”50

According to the Barna poll cited above, the percent-

ages of those who accept postmodern views show little

difference between those who claim to be “born again”and those who don’t.51

Confronted by these realities we are forced to agree

with D.A. Carson that most Christians have been so

heavily influenced by postmodern culture that no

thoughtful preacher can afford to ignore the problem.52

Johnston sounds the same note: “[T]he postmodern

mindset is not exclusive to the unchurched. It’s shared by those folks who fill church sanctuaries each

Sunday….[M]any pastors would be surprised at how

postmodern some longstanding members seem.

Postmodern thinking creeps into our lives not neces-

sarily through conscious choices but through a steady

bombardment via movies, magazines, song, and televi-

sion. Our congregations gather each Sunday and nod at

the appropriate spots in the sermon, but in their hearts

many parishioners hold deep-seated beliefs and values

more in keeping with a postmodern worldview than

with a biblical one.”53




As for the Scriptures, postmodernism has been less

kind than modernism and liberalism. Previous move-

ments were simply selective; postmodern thought

questions the legitimacy of the whole. Further, this has

nothing to do with liberal objections on historical or

text-critical grounds. Rather, postmodern rejection of

Scriptures’ authority rests on dismissing the very con-

cept of absolute truth itself.54

To the postmodern, the message of Scripture is nomore eternal than a fleeting e-mail message. Further, it

must compete with a plethora of other messages, hav-

ing no more right to be heard than the next.55 The Bible

is often placed on equal footing with other sacred

books such as the Koran and the Hindu Vedas. Even

those who tentatively accept biblical authority quickly

fall back on “That’s your interpretation, not mine,”when the message of Scripture runs contrary to the

postmodern worldview.56 This can be seen in Christian

and non-Christian circles, among laity and clergy alike.

Loscalzo has observed that “people subjectively inter-

pret Jesus according to their immediate personal needs

and presuppositions. If your bent is psychology, then

Jesus looks like the great therapist. If you lean towardsocial action, Jesus becomes the divine social activist. If

you are a feminist, Jesus sounds like the keynote speak-

er for the National Organization for Women. If you are

an evangelical, Jesus becomes the local director of

Promise Keepers.”57

In other words, postmodern thought has so affected

proclamation in the church that some pulpits are actu-

ally promoting, rather than confronting, the movement

in its rejection of absolutes. We fear sounding “judg-

mental,” “doctrinaire,” “divisive,” “fundamentalist,”

and “irrelevant,” so in the words of Loscalzo, “our ser-




mons become mundane chatter about raising self-actu-

alized children or coping with the latest midlife crisis or

providing five easy steps for managing anxiety.”58

Thomas C. Oden notes that evangelicals are looking

more and more like the old liberals. Less and less is

being heard from our pulpits about the incarnation, the

atonement, the resurrection, the sinful human nature,

and the need for redemption. We hear more about the

goodness of God than we hear about God’s willingnessto judge mankind in its rebellion against Him. He

observes, “We have peeled the onion almost down to

nothing. We have cheated our young people out of the

hard but necessary Christian word about human sin

and divine redemption.”59 Loscalzo reports a conversa-

tion with the pastor of a “fairly successful seeker-based

congregation” who explained: “We never mention thecrucifixion of Christ. It’s too gruesome for a lot of our

folk. If we talked about that, many would stop coming,

so we focus on the resurrection instead. The resurrec-

tion of Jesus is a positive hopeful message.”60

Loscalzo’s commentary on this conversation hits the

nail squarely on the head: “[W]hen we allow the sub-

jectivism of our hearers to undermine the objective real-ities of Christian faith, haven’t we violated the integri-

ty of the gospel? We’d be better off staying quiet and

letting the rocks preach than to offer a version of

Christianity so diluted that it becomes unrecogniz-

able.”61

In this general trend toward the subjective, Johnston

has detected a particularly large shift in the way sin

and self are discussed. He states, “[The] shift from sin

to self-image reflects a move not just in society but in

the church. We have replaced a fundamentally theolog-

ical perspective with a psychological approach to life




and the world. Sadly, much of what passes as biblical

preaching is nothing more than pop psychology

wrapped in poor exegesis.”62

He concludes that the church desperately needs to

help its people develop a truly biblical view of self and

a truly biblical worldview.63

Further, Johnston rightly observes that this subjec-

tivist approach to the Scriptures has generated a slip in

the morality of the church. He cites the example of for-mer President Bill Clinton, who was asked in an inter-

view how he reconciles his acceptance of the authority

of Scripture with his acceptance of the homosexual

lifestyle. His response was predictable: It’s all a matter

of personal interpretation!64 Another example of this

same mentality is seen in a recent front-page story of a

newspaper in the Midwest (some would say the BibleBelt). The story begins, “Louie Keen says it’s possible to

be a good Christian and operate a porn store and a strip

club.” Despite owning and operating “an exotic dance

club, adult novelty shop, tattoo salon, and package-

liquor store,” the owner declares, “I’m saved! I’m

washed in the blood of Jesus Christ.” How does he rec-

oncile this disparity between his belief system and his behavior? In perfect postmodern form: “[M]y personal

relationship with Jesus has nothing to do with this here

[referring to his multi-acre complex].”65 Unfortunately,

he is another victim of a worldview which facilitates

“cognitive dissonance” (simultaneously holding two

contradictory positions), dichotomizing thought and

action, belief and behavior. Johnston predicts continued

problems in the areas of morality and justice should

these trends continue unchecked. He appropriately

warns that any sense of community, indeed, society,

cannot survive without some commonly held sense of




decency and right and wrong.66 Lyon concurs, stating

that the lack of universals causes even the most basic

and time-tested virtues (such as heterosexual monoga-

mous marriage) to suffer.67

Because the Scriptures have been abandoned as

either the source or a source of authority, postmoderns

look for that authority elsewhere. A. H. Anderson has

observed, “[Postmodernity has] rejected both moderni-

ty’s scientific objectivity and premodernity’s traditions[including the authority of the Bible] and have empha-

sized the validity of subjective religious experience.”68

Grenz agrees, noting that truth is not certain, objec-

tivity is not possible. There are paths to knowledge bet-

ter than reason, namely, “the emotions and the intu-

ition….[R]eality is relative.”69

The situation described above indeed appears bleak;unfortunately, a further element renders it dire. At the

very time when society at large has abandoned objec-

tive, absolute truth and is in need of the prophetic voice

of the church to call it back to its senses, the church has

run headlong into the same error. Time and again we

hear preachers make their own subjective spiritual

experiences normative. Our home Bible studies oftendevolve into “this is what the Bible means to me” ses-

sions. A colleague once asked me, “How can I deny my

own experience?” I told him, “Do what Joseph Smith

and Charles Taze Russell should have done—hold up

your experience to the scrutiny of Scripture.” A few

years back at the height of Rodney Howard-Browne’s

popularity, a pastor told me, “On the basis of my expe-

rience, I will never read Acts 2:4 and Ephesians 5:18 the

same.” The statement of Jack Deere, former Dallas

Theological Seminary professor-turned-Charismatic-

preacher—”God is bypassing the mind to get to the




heart”—has been embraced in many Pentecostal and

Charismatic circles. Just a few years ago, speakers in

national forums were saying that there were certain

teachings and experiences that were not to be judged

according to Scripture.

These few examples are classic cases of putting the

cart before the horse. If the checkered histories of the

Gnostics, the Montanists, the medieval mystics, and

some other groups tell us anything, it is that experienceis to be understood in light of Scripture and not vice

versa. They also suggest the degree to which believers

can be shaped by the very culture they should be shap-

ing. A healthy emphasis on experience becomes

unhealthy when it comes to function as an unques-

tioned source of authority, equal, and sometimes supe-

rior, to the authority of the Bible. In this is it possible fora Spirit-baptized believer to commit the same error

made by the liberal and postmodernist?

RESPONSES

In light of the state of the culture and the church, how

will we as Pentecostal proclaimers respond to these chal-lenges? Indeed, will we respond, or will our response be

to continue with business as usual? C. Trueman has

observed that “the future of the various movements

which constitute Protestantism will be determined by their

response to the issues raised by postmodernity.”70 Chuck

Colson calls for action: “We cannot content ourselves

with business as usual, preaching soothing sermons to

a shrinking number of true believers.”71 Loscalzo states

the matter even more emphatically: “For Christians to

assume they can do business as usual and remain a

player in the world of multiple religious options bor-




ders on the ridiculous.”72 Johnston therefore offers this

challenge: “The church can choose to bury its head in

the sand or, equally disastrous, attempt to turn back the

clock to the good old days. Neither option works. The

former is unadvisable and the latter impossible….The

way forward for the Christian faith will be for evangel-

ical Christians to stop shrugging or twitching at the

mention of postmodernism, and get on with engaging

the culture with God’s timeless message in a critical andthoughtful manner.”73

If we are to accept Johnston’s challenge and if we are

serious about influencing our world, it will require a

number of adjustments and a considerable amount of

hard work. The following list of changes that will have

to take place provides only a starting point. If these

foundational (and therefore more difficult) changes aremade, then the other related issues that surface will be

more easily dealt with.

Reestablish the Primacy of Scripture

Johnston has noted that a primary responsibility of

the proclaimer today is simply to compel people to take

the Bible seriously again.74 According to author Michael J. Hostettler, the modern preacher can no longer pre-

sume that his hearers accept the Bible as relevant; rather,

now they must be able to demonstrate it.75 Once the

minds of hearers are convinced that the Bible is impor-

tant and relevant, Loscalzo states that the next step is to

convince the hearers that the Bible is the basis for faith.76

In order to make these claims, we ourselves must

first be convinced of the reliability, sufficiency, and pri-

macy of Scriptures.77 We must recall that Pentecost

began as a back-to-the-Bible movement that took bibli-

cal revelation seriously enough to believe that it




describes what God still does. As recent, numerous res-

olutions and Spiritual Life Committee reports have

called for, we must do more than give mental assent to

the first of our Statement of Fundamental Truths. We

must actively place the Word of God at the center of

who we are, what we say, and what we do. The

Scriptures as our eternal, objective authority is the anti-

dote to the subjectivism, relativism, and existentialism

of this age.As stated above, it will require that we return to our

original Pentecostal roots and reject the idea that expe-

rience trumps Scripture in matters of faith and practice.

In the official publication of the Azusa Street revival,

William J. Seymour stated, “We are measuring every-

thing by the Word, every experience must measure up

with the Bible. Some say that is going too far, but if wehave lived too close to the Word, we will settle that with

the Lord when we meet him in the air.”78 Besides emu-

lating Seymour, we will have to shift emphasis away

from ourselves as authority figures and back onto

Scripture, where it belongs.79 When we show ourselves

as human, fallible, and transparent, we become role

models of total dependence on the Word of God, andpeople quickly get the picture. To do otherwise will

continue to alienate a postmodern culture, which

“despises the arrogance of [pastoral] infallibility.”80

Further, we will have to renounce our faith in “the

Gospel of Pragmatism.” Loscalzo states that many

preachers have toned down their messages to suit the

new sensitivities of their hearers, hoping to avoid run-

ning them off to mega churches.81 Another side of the

tendency toward pragmatism is discussed by Johnston:

“When you know the right switches to flip, you may be

tempted to preach in order to garner a response. But




just because something works doesn’t make it right or

biblical. A preacher may completely mishandle a text,

close with a heart-wrenching story of a boy and his

dog, and have people repenting up and down the

aisles. [However,] effectiveness must be understood in

terms of bringing the listeners to a clear appreciation of

the biblical message.”82

Therefore, the issue is not what works or what gets

results; rather, our first priority must be what pleasesGod and what honors His Word.83

I attended a national conference in the mid-90s. One

seminar was begun by a nationally known authority on

youth ministry with this question, “Do you want to

know what really works in youth ministry?” This is

exactly the right question for corporate America, but

runs exactly in the opposite direction of biblicalChristianity. For the Christian minister, when evaluat-

ing a priority, a plan, or an emphasis, the question to be

asked is, “What will please God, reflect His character,

honor His Word, respect His people?”

Too often we have taken on the modus operandi of

the business world, reflected in statements such as, “If

it works, use it,” and “With these results, God’s blessing must be on it.” If this attitude is correct, then it

must also apply to slavery, herding Native Americans

off their lands and onto reservations, and to Nazism.

All of these approaches to dealing with people suc-

ceeded…for a while. All, however, dishonored the

character and will of God as expressed in His Word.

While each seemed to work, they all violated eternal

principles, and eventually fell under their own weight,

leaving only destruction. We must recommit ourselves

to do God’s will God’s way, and this can happen only

when God’s Word is the center of who we are, what we




do, and how we do it.

Another sacrifice that will have to be made to

reestablish the Scriptures as the center of who we are is

our emphasis on entertainment. Howell has observed

that in an attempt to address the problem of declining

attendance, many churches have resorted to an enter-

tainment-oriented format to attract more people. With

this approach, however, comes “the risk…of following

the culture, elevating style over content, and providingyet another ‘experience.’”84 Trueman has noticed the

same trend: “The shift away from pulpit-centered

worship, with its emphasis on words…to more corpo-

rate and experiential emphases can itself be seen as a

part of the more general shift away from verbal-literary

to a visual orientation in contemporary western

culture….Th[is] change in emphasis upon the word inProtestantism has also affected the position of the

Bible.”85

Throughout the course of the last quarter of a century

in which I have been involved in Pentecost, there has

been an overall decrease in the amount of time devoted

to the preaching of the Word in church services. In the

1970s, it was not unusual to hear 45- to 60-minute ser-mons. In critique of mainline denominations,

Pentecostal preachers would often say, “Sermonettes

produce Christianettes,” and the like. Interestingly,

such statements are no longer heard in our circles.

The primary reason for this is that our sermons are

often as short as those we used to critique, if not short-

er. We have opted for a plethora of other emphases,

including extended and often repetitious song services,

drama, skits, human videos, and interpretive dance.

Not content with a special at offertory, churches often

feature an array of vocal and/or instrumental solos that




rival many variety shows. In such contexts we as lead-

ers are often the most to blame for promoting a per-

formance or entertainment mentality. To be sure, this is

unintentional, but when we encourage clapping in

response to ministry instead of a verbal, biblical

response such as “Amen” or “Praise the Name of the

Lord,” hearers naturally connect this to the typical

response to live entertainment. Likewise, use of termi-

nology such as “stage” (versus “platform”) and “audi-ence” (versus “congregation”) sends messages to our

hearers that frame us as “actors,” them as “spectators,”

and church as “entertainment.” All these expressions of

worship are fine in and of themselves. In the current

environment, however, the proclamation of the Word of

God has suffered as a result, and this has in turn result-

ed in a weakened church and a diminished view ofScripture.

Johnston alerts us to an unfortunate development:

People in the postmodern world “tend to confuse truth

and entertainment.”86 Therefore, we should not construct

our services in such a way that they exacerbate that con-

fusion. And why further abbreviate the already limited

time we have to influence our hearers with the Word ofGod? Our culture gets the other 167 hours of each week

to influence them. It is incumbent upon us to make the

very most of this one hour that is allotted to us.

In determining what we will prioritize in our servic-

es, we should keep in mind the concerns of Doug

Webster that “while marketers seek popularity…[w]e

are becoming secularized by the culture we are trying

to reach with the gospel….Loss of…popularity should

not concern a church that ought to be more worried

about losing its soul than about gaining the whole

world.”87 To reach our culture with the liberating mes-




to be properly furrowed and prepared by effective apologet-

ics….For the third millennium, apologetics and evangelism

must go hand in hand.”97

This is because “[a]pologetic preaching unashamed-

ly takes on rival meaning systems and helps address

obstacles to faith. The smorgasbord of religious options

open to postmodernists rivals the array at any cafeteria.

Other religious systems—Islam, New Age, varieties of

Eastern cultic religions—unapologetically vie for post-modern people’s attention and allegiance. Apologetic

preaching equips Christians, intellectually and spiritu-

ally, to intelligently present and defend the Christian

faith. [For the unbeliever,]…apologetics creates a cli-

mate favorable to faith.”98

As noted above, however, “[f]or Christians to assume

they can do business as usual and remain a player inthe world of multiple religious options borders on the

ridiculous.”99 We are reminded by the apostle Peter that

this is not an option: “Always be ready to make a

defense to everyone who asks you to give an account

for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and rev-

erence” (1 Peter 3:15).100

Emphasize Education

Apologetics and thoughtful, substantive sermons are

rare today, perhaps because they require hard work. We

preachers often object that we are not theologians or

apologists—but we will have to be if we want to engage

today’s audience. Citing George Hunter III, Johnston

relates that most people today “doubt the intelligence,

relevance, and credibility of the church and its advo-

cates.”101 Fifty years ago ministers were usually the

most educated people in their community. This is not

the case today. In many communities they are below




the average educational level. In any event, people are

reading and thinking for themselves. They are influ-

enced by far more voices claiming authority than the

voice of the minister alone. It is time we preachers

upped our game.

Modern listeners expect and demand that communi-

cators be widely informed.102 It is no longer enough to

simply know one’s Bible. We must also be familiar with

the issues and concerns confronting us in this culture. Johnston notes, “It’s a shame when fellow preachers

write off even the attempt to engage our culture and

state, ‘Why bother?’ It’s deemed a waste [of time] to [do

outside reading].”103 The unsaved world, however, does

not limit itself to TBN and Charisma magazine. As com-

municators of the gospel we must keep up with what is

going into the minds of our congregants, our children,and the unsaved we want to reach. We have to be

informed so we can reach the world at the level of

ideas. This is what Jesus and Paul did so well. It is their

role model we need to follow, not the Christian version

of “What’s Hot and What’s Not.”

How do we handle the Word with sensitivity, become

apologists and theologians, and get to know our worldas well as a missionary does his prospective field of

ministry? We discipline ourselves to read. We do seri-

ous study. We take courses in “continuing ed” pro-

grams. In other words, we commit ourselves to the task

of being life-long learners. Loscalzo suggests that to do

less amounts to “ministerial malpractice and should

not be tolerated by churches.”104

The time has come to apply ourselves. Our world is

wallowing in subjectivity and relativism, and at the

same time crying out for reality. We must take it as our

responsibility to give exactly that. I have visited many




churches where copies of Charisma magazine are

prominently displayed in the waiting room. In only one

instance did I come across Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not surprisingly, therefore, some of the most astound-

ing archeological discoveries in history, making recent

news, have received little or no notice in our pulpits.

Examples of this are myriad, but simply think back and

see if you can remember any mention of the Jesus Boat,

the Tel Dan Inscription (which proved once and for allthat David was a historical figure), or the discovery of

the Tomb of Caiaphas. Since the story of the ossuary of

James broke in October 2002, I have been following it

closely. It has been publicized as the most significant

New Testament archeological discovery in history.

Having asked students from all over the country about

it in the last few months, however, I have had only onesay it was mentioned from the pulpit of her church.

Why not take such events as opportunities to proclaim

a historically- and factually-based gospel to a world that

questions the existence of absolutes? We do not have to

continue in the current mode of creating stories to sup-

port what we believe. For example, when Kathleen

Kenyon excavated Jericho from 1952 to 1966 she pro-claimed it an unwalled village in the time of Joshua.

Pentecostal “apologists” quickly rebutted, “Of course

you found no walls—the angels pushed them straight

down into the ground!” Not only did we sound foolish;

we also rewrote Scripture, for Joshua 6:20 indicates “the

wall fell down flat” (NASB). Instead, why did we not

train and fund individuals to reinvestigate this liberal’s

claim? Eventually, this is what Bryant Wood did, and he

found the wall exactly where it was supposed to be.105

The point is this: There are enough objective, histori-

cal, factual realities available to support our positions




“help [parishioners] rediscover truth for themselves as

opposed to having ideas dropped into their lap.”106 He

also notes that by helping our laity develop their criti-

cal thinking skills, they “can increase their awareness;

in time, they’ll become critically discerning of the mes-

sages they receive….You can also educate people to

evaluate the underlying, inherent messages [of liberal

and postmodern thought].”107 In so doing, the pastor

will be following Paul’s defensive, preventive advicefor steadying the believer (Ephesians 4:14).

But what about the offensive, evangelistic aspects of

Paul’s injunction (verse 12)? Loscalzo issues both a

warning and a challenge to those of us who wish to

“equip the saints for the work of ministry, for the

building up of the Body of Christ”: “[A] survey of

contemporary Christianity would be a churchmembership with little reflection on or understanding

of the implications of Christian faith. If the typical con-

gregant were asked to make a defense for the hope they

hold, I’m afraid the results would be less than

admirable….Christianity will not survive into the third

millennium with believers who cannot articulate and

make defense of their faith. Aloof, apathetic, comfort-able Christianity will not survive the twenty-first cen-

tury….A key role of apologetic preaching is to provide

believers with the wherewithal to make that

defense….[A]pologetic preaching becomes basic train-

ing for church members to present and defend their

Christian faith. It could be argued that the pulpit is not

the proper venue for such instruction….However, the

gathering of folk in worship remains the best venue to

allow a congregation as a whole to know and be

exposed to the issues facing them as believers.”108




CONCLUSION

I have sought to convey the most basic aspects of lib-eral and postmodern thought, to candidly discuss some

of the ways Pentecostalism has responded to and been

affected by these movements, and to lay out a more

effective strategy for the future. I hope this chapter has

not only educated, but also challenged you to take

action. The situation is not hopeless, but I think it’s

close to that.

God raised up the Pentecostal movement to be a wit-

ness. Although today the world looks significantly dif-

ferent from those early days, we are still to be His wit-

nesses. In Nero’s day, the need was for faithful wit-

nesses willing to suffer martyrdom. In William J.

Seymour’s day, the need was for men and women open

to the power of God and willing to suffer humiliation.

In today’s world, we need the resolve of these previous

generations, plus the courage to suffer…education!

Today, the flashpoint is not the executioner’s sword or

tar and feathers; rather, it is the world of ideas, and we

must be equipped to engage and affect our culture.

Today we must shift our focus to Jesus and Paul asmodels. Both were well-equipped to deal with the com-

peting worldviews of their day, and both were men of

the Spirit and of power. The premium would not seem

to rest on being either “unschooled” or educated—but

on being devoted and obedient. Yet today, fullness of

the Spirit combined with excellence in education means

a more powerful and effective Pentecostal witness toour liberal, postmodern world. May we display our

love and devotion to God “with all [our] heart and with

all [our] soul and with all [our] strength and with all

[our] mind (Luke 10:27; cf. Matt. 22:37 and Mark 12:30).




Stott, John R. W. Basic Christianity. Downers Grove, Ill.:

InterVarsity, 1988.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1998.

_____. The Case for Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

2000.

Veith, Gene Edward. Postmodern Times: A Christian

Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture.Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1994.

Zacharias, Ravi. Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute

Claims of the Christian Message. Nashville: W

Publishing Group (Thomas Nelson), 2002.

Endnotes1Richard Ostling, “Jesus Christ, Plain and Simple: A Trinity

of New, Scholarly Books Tries to Strip Away the TraditionalGospel Accounts of the Man from Nazareth,” Time (January10, 1994), 38.

2Ibid.3Ibid.4

Russell Watson, “A Lesser Child of God: The Radical JesusSeminar Sees a Different Christ,” Newsweek (April 4, 1994),53-54.

5Dawn Peterson, “A Controversial Work Rethinks theGospels: Did Early Christians Put Words in Jesus’ Mouth?”Springfield (Mo.) News-Leader (February 8, 1994), 1A, 6A.

6See the list given by Graham Johnston in Preaching to aPostmodern World: A Guide to Reaching Twenty-first-CenturyListeners (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 17.

7The Practice (ABC, October 20, 2002).8 Johnston, 9-10 (my emphasis).9D. Lyon, “Modern and Postmodern Culture,” in

Dictionary of Contemporary Religion in the Western World(henceforth referred to as DCR), ed. Christopher Partridge(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002), 31.




10Ibid., 32.11Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 3.12Ibid., 2.13Nancey Murphy, Anglo-American Postmodernity:

Philosophical Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Ethics(Boulder, CO: Westview, 1997), 93-94.

14Ibid., 94-95; cf. also 89.15”Christianity and Culture: God’s Double Sovereignty”

posted at http://www.issuesetc.com/resource/archives/

veith2.htm, p.2, cited 28 December 2002.16An excellent example of this is the case study presented by Bradley J. Longfield in The Presbyterian Controversy:Fundamentalists, Modernists, and Moderates (New York:Oxford, 1991).

17This quote and the survey of the rise of the higher criti-cism (the historical-critical method) taken from EtaLinnemann’s Is There a Synoptic Problem? (Grand Rapids:Baker, 1992), 12. This text, and even more so her earlier

Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology?(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990) are devastating critiques of theliberal presuppositions and methodological approach toScripture. Unfortunately, I have never once heard or seen herwork referred to by Pentecostal preachers or writers. Wehave long held back from engaging the issues raised by lib-eralism. One of the primary reasons for this is evidently afeeling of inferiority in the areas of methodology and evi-

dence. Linnemann has placed before us a mighty sword, butthus far we have failed to use it.18Linnemann, 12.19Linnemann, 9-12, 19-42.20Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (New York: Charles

Scribner’s Sons, 1958), 12-13.21Ibid., 16-17.22Ibid., 17, 36, 37 (all emphases his).23Ibid., 17-18.24Cf. Linnemann, 39, for a surprising example.25Darrell L. Bock, “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live,

Jive, or Memorex?”, in Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkinsand J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 90-91.

26Scot McKnight, “Who is Jesus? An Introduction to JesusStudies,” in Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P.




Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 54.27Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, “Introduction: The

Furor Surrounding Jesus,” in Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J.Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 4.

28Ostling, 38-39.29Ibid., 39.30Linnemann, 36. Here, she is describing the message of

liberalism; the same, however, can be said of the message ofthe Jesus Seminar.

31Lyon, 31-32.32

Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1989), 2.33David Buttrick, “Speaking Between Times: Homiletics in

a Postmodern World.” (paper presented at the Academy ofHomiletics, Durham, N. C., 1–3 December 1994), 2.

34 Johnston, 96.35Grenz, 2.36Craig A. Loscalzo, Apologetic Preaching: Proclaiming Christ

to a Postmodern World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000),

18-19.37Ibid., 19.38Ibid., 14.39 Johnston, 31; Lyon, 34.40D. Howell, “Religion and Youth Culture,” in DCR, 133;

Johnston, 24.41Ibid.42Lyon, 31; Loscalzo, 68.43

Loscalzo, 16, 68; Howell, 133.44Ibid., 18, 84.45 Johnston, 24.46Howell, 133; Grenz, 6.47 Johnston, 32-33.48Cited by Johnston, 16.49Lyon, 31.50Loscalzo, 85.51Cited by Johnston, 8, 16.52D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts

Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 47.53 Johnston, 9, 15.54Cf. C. Trueman, “Christianity (Protestant),” in DCR, 203;

Murphy, 110.55Lyon, 33.




88Ravi Zacharias, “Reaching the Happy Thinking Pagan,”Leadership (Spring, 1995), 27.

89 Johnston, 61.90Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans 1989), 152.91Loscalzo, 68.92Ibid., 120.93Ibid., 119 (Loscalzo’s emphasis). You will recall the high

percentage of this phenomenon in sermons surveyed in ourcircles, which indicates that this has become a problem in our

Fellowship as well. I am aware of at least one instance inwhich one of our pastors stated for a local newspaper, “Wedon’t have crosses in our building, because the cross is asymbol of defeat. Here, we preach victory!” Johnston appro-priately comments on such license with the gospel,“Distortions of God’s message, for whatever reason, are adisservice to the Lord; genuine concern for biblical integrityand one’s listeners will demand that they come to under-stand [all] God’s truth” (62).

94 Johnston, 69.95Cited in Johnston, 145.96Loscalzo, 22.97Ibid., 125 (my emphasis).98Ibid., 27-28.99Ibid., 126.100Cf. Loscalzo’s comments on this text on pp. 9, 126.101 Johnston, 66.102

Ibid., 79.103Ibid.104Loscalzo, 26.105Bryant G. Wood, “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A

New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,” Biblical Archaeology Review (March-April 1990), 44-58.

106 Johnston, 75107Ibid., 165.108Loscalzo, 128-130.




power and presence of God as Jesus had promised,

“You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on

you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in

all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth”

(Acts 1:8).

A GOD-BREATHED BOOK

Both the Old Testament community, and the New

Testament community after it, associated the word of

God with a book. From the time of Moses onward, the

word began to be written down, or “inscripturated”

(Exodus 17:14; 24:4,7; 34:27; Numbers 33:1,2;

Deuteronomy 31:9,11, et al.).14

It is not surprising that before Paul charged Timothy

to “preach the Word” (2 Timothy 4:2), he first pointedhim to the Scriptures: “All Scripture [graphe]15 is God-

breathed [theopneustos—theos (God) + pneo (to

breathe)]16 and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correct-

ing and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Note the paradoxical connection—that which is “God-

breathed” can also be written down and communicated

in and through a book.The “Scriptures” in this context would have referred

to the Old Testament, which Paul and Timothy, with his

Jewish maternal heritage (2 Timothy 1:5; Acts 16:1), had

in common. Very quickly, however, the Early Church

expanded its understanding of the Scriptures to include

the New Testament writings we now regard as canoni-

cal.17 Certainly by the time 2 Peter was written, Paul’s

letters were regarded by the church to be among the

Scriptures: “His letters contain some things that are

hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable peo-

ple distort, as they do the other Scriptures [graphas]”

INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION 99



(2 Peter 3:15,16). The very position in the canon of

Paul’s statement about the nature of Scripture in

2 Timothy 3:16 has been taken to be providential and

the church has come to understand it to apply to the

entire canon.18 In any event, it is obvious that the writ-

ten texts of the New Testament letters became more and

more important in the spread of the young church (cf.

Colossians 4:16).

But our primary focus here is on the God-breathed[theopneustos] quality of Scripture. Addressing theop-

neustos, B. B. Warfield pointed out long ago that the

Scriptures are “the product of the creative breath of

God” and “[t]he ‘breath of God’ is in Scripture just the

symbol of His almighty power, the bearer of His cre-

ative word.” Warfield went on to cite Psalm 33:6, “By

the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their star-ry host by the breath of his mouth.”19 While Warfield

attempted to build a strong lexical case to restrict the

effect of theopneustos to the origin of Scripture and

strongly rejected Hermann Cremer’s lexical “reinter-

pretation” of the term to mean “breathing God’s

Spirit,”20 it nonetheless remains true that the Spirit is

frequently seen as speaking or empowering the wordsof Scripture. Jesus prefaced one Scripture quotation

with the assertion, “David himself, speaking by the

Holy Spirit, declared…” (Mark 12:36; cf. Matthew

22:43). In citing Isaiah, Paul said, “The Holy Spirit

spoke the truth to your forefathers…” (Acts 28:25). The

writer to the Hebrews wrote, “The word of God is liv-

ing and active” (4:12) and regarded it not only as what

God says (1:5,8,12,13; 4:3; et al.) but also what “the Holy

Spirit says” (3:7).

Rather than being merely a deposit of propositional

truth about God and eternal life that people may rational-

100 EDGAR R. LEE



Scriptures, historic Christianity has, in effect, always

proclaimed the Bible to be “infallible,” thereby mean-

ing it is completely truthful and without error. “While

there has not been a fully enunciated theory until mod-

ern times, nonetheless there was, down through the

years of church history, a general belief in the complete

dependability of the Bible.”28 As the Bible in the modern

era was subjected to more intense scientific scrutiny, the

commonly used term “infallibility” became increasing-ly elastic among theologians and came to be under-

stood in some quarters as applying only to the soterio-

logical purposes of Scripture. The historical and scien-

tific details under attack were not considered to be nec-

essarily infallible. As a result, “inerrancy” has gradual-

ly come to be a more definitive term for evangelicals

who wish to contend for the truthfulness of both theredemptive and historical details in Scripture.

It should be remembered, of course, that the two

terms “infallibility” and “inerrancy” are synonyms.

“Infallibility” is derived from the Latin fallere, “to

deceive, err,” and has as the first meaning “not fallible;

not capable of error; never wrong.” Similarly,

“inerrant” derives from the Latin errare, “to wander,err,” and has as its meaning “not erring; making no

mistake; infallible.”29 The problem with the two terms is

not in their lexical meanings; the problem is how dif-

ferent writers choose to define them.

For its statement on Scripture, the Assemblies of God

adopted the term “infallibility,” which was current and

sufficiently definitive at the time, and, strictly speaking,

remains so: “The Scriptures, both the Old and New

Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the

revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative

rule of faith and conduct (2 Timothy 3:15-17;

104 EDGAR R. LEE



1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21).”—Statement of

Fundamental Truths, No. 130.

While “inerrancy” is among evangelicals the more

popular term to describe Scripture accuracy today,

there are still different meanings attached to it in

opposing theological quarters. The watershed issue

between them remains whether or not the Bible is true

in just redemptive content (faith and practice) or

whether it is true in all the facts that it affirms, includ-ing scientific and historical matters. While fine lines of

distinction can be drawn between various scholars on

both sides of the issue, this paper briefly will contrast

two views:

Full Inerrancy. Millard Erickson, an influential evan-

gelical of Baptist persuasion, in his popular seminary

textbook Christian Theology, uses this term. By “fullinerrancy” Erickson affirms that the Bible in the origi-

nal manuscripts (the “autographa”) is completely true

even in historical and scientific details. He does, how-

ever, allow for what seems obvious in Scripture, that

these details are often stated as “general references or

approximations.”31

Doctrine and Practice Inerrancy. This term is used byNazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider, who writes

“Wesleyan-holiness evangelicals hold the confidence

that Scripture is inerrant on doctrine and practice but

that it might contain error on matters relating to mathe-

matics, science, geography, or such like.”32 This view

would be typical of others who might identify their posi-

tions by such terms as “limited inerrancy” or “inerrancy

of purpose.”33 These positions are characterized by a

general indifference to the historical and scientific accu-

racy of Scripture with regard to non-salvific details.

There are many theologians, of course, for whom the




whole infallibility/inerrancy debate is irrelevant to

their understanding of divine revelation. Dealing with

those positions is beyond the purview of this paper.34

At the height of the inerrancy debate in 1978, a group

of prominent evangelical scholars under the auspices of

the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy came

together to frame The Chicago Statement on Biblical

Inerrancy. With that statement, the inerrancy debate

has largely receded into the background of contempo-rary theological discussion (though different camps

have retained their distinctive views). The Chicago

Statement reflects what may be termed a centrist evan-

gelical understanding of inerrancy. Item four of the

summary statement reads as follows: “Being wholly

and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or

fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states aboutGod’s acts in creation and the events of world history,

and about its own literary origins under God, than in

its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.”35

This understanding is essentially the “full inerrancy”

position of Millard Erickson expressed above. It is the

position I have adopted for the following four reasons:

1. The didactic teachings of the Bible, that is, what theBible teaches about its own nature, declare it to be a

trustworthy message from God accepted as such by

Jesus and the New Testament writers. These teachings,

some of which are spelled out in this paper, should be

definitive in one’s doctrine of Scripture. No New

Testament writer ever suggested that Scripture errs.

(There is nothing in the biblical text, however, to suggest

that all subsequent copyists are protected from error,

and the science of textual criticism does in fact recognize

and correct errors of copyists, establishing the original

text of ancient Scripture to an amazingly high degree.)

106 EDGAR R. LEE



2. God who speaks truth and cannot lie is the final

author of Scripture. Repeatedly all through the Bible

there are attestations of God’s truthfulness. In Jesus’ high

priestly prayer, He affirms to God, “Your word is truth

[aletheia, not alethes; that is, “truth,” not “true”]” (John

17:17). Paul, writing to Titus, spoke of “God, who does

not lie” (Titus 1:2). The writer to the Hebrews mentions

things in which “it is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews

6:18). “Every word of God is flawless” (Proverbs 30:5).“Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heav-

ens” (Psalm 119:89). “O Sovereign Lord, you are God!

Your words are trustworthy, and you have promised

these good things to your servant” (2 Samuel 7:28). “God

is not a man, that he should lie” (Numbers 23:19).

Numerous other passages bear the same message. Truth

is an attribute of God; it is manifested in Scripture.36

3. The Bible is a historical book that purports to give

correct historical information. The trustworthiness of the

Bible hinges on the accuracy of vital historical details.

Grudem, for example, cites about 25 passages in the

New Testament that refer to the historical details in the

Old Testament, ranging from Jesus’ reference to Jonah

and the great fish (Matthew 12:40) to Peter’s reference toBaalam’s donkey (2 Peter 2:16). “This list indicates that

the New Testament writers were willing to rely on the

truthfulness of any part of the historical narratives of the

Old Testament. No detail was too insignificant to be

used for the instruction of New Testament Christians.

There is no indication that they thought of a certain cat-

egory of scriptural statements that were unreliable and

untrustworthy (such as ‘historical and scientific’ state-

ments opposed to doctrinal and moral passages).”37

The church has never rested its case for the authority of

Scripture on its ability to prove every historical or scien-




tific detail, feeling that theopneustic Scripture is self-

authenticating; nonetheless, the demonstrable historical

accuracy of the Bible, written and compiled by many

authors in a span of time well over 1,000 years, is truly

amazing. Bruce Lewis and Gordon Demarest cite the fol-

lowing concession from Time magazine: “After more than

two centuries of facing the heaviest guns that could be

brought to bear, the Bible has survived, and is perhaps

better for the siege. Even on the critics’ own terms—his-torical fact—the Scriptures seem more acceptable now

than they did when the rationalists began the attack.”38

Donald Bloesch voices similar convictions. “It should

be noted that both archaeology and historical science

tend for the most part to support rather than call into

question the biblical accounts of historical events.”39

Hostile critics have not given up the fight, but in thelight of historical and archaeological research they

speak with less and less authority.

4. If the Bible is proven to be in error in its historical

and scientific details which humans can often verify,

how can it be assumed to be reliable in matters of faith

which they cannot verify? “If the truth claims of a pur-

ported revelation can be shown to be false on a factuallevel, we can hardly claim it to represent the truth

about God and man on any other level.”40

Devout scholars have acknowledged throughout the

history of the Church that there are some inconsisten-

cies in the text of Scripture for which completely satis-

fying answers are not always immediately available.41

Some of those problem passages may be explained in

terms of copyists’ errors. Others may be somewhat

more difficult, but plausible solutions exist for all.

Grudem observes, “But while we must allow the

possibility of being unable to solve a particular problem,

108 EDGAR R. LEE



tions to every single Bible “inconsistency” that may be

raised. As the late Kenneth Kantzer so aptly put it,

“Evangelicals do not try to prove that the Bible has no

mistakes so that they can be sure the Bible is the Word of

God. One might prove that a newspaper article is free

from all mistakes, but that would not prove that the news-

paper article is the Word of God. Christians hold the Bible

to be the Word of God (and inerrant) because they are con-

vinced that Jesus, the Lord of the church, believed it andtaught His disciples to believe it. And ultimately their con-

viction of its truth rests on the witness of the Holy Spirit.”44

It goes without saying that an effective preacher must

have confidence in the truthfulness and dependability of

the word of God written. The preacher must approach the

text with the attitude of Jesus and the apostles that it is

theopneustos, vibrant with the breath of God and utterlydependable. In the final analysis, that has everything to do

with a personal knowledge of the Living Word.

AN INDWELLING WORD

With intense emphasis currently being on the theo-

logical, homiletical, and pastoral competence of theminister in preparation for a shifting postmodern envi-

ronment, it is easy to forget that the Scriptures not only

are to be learned and defended intellectually but also

are to be internalized in a transformational way. As the

Bible is engaged, the Spirit illuminates and quickens it

to the hearts of willing and eager disciples. To be a

believer in Christ is already to have received the

indwelling Spirit, the very Spirit who inspired and

breathed out the Word in the first place. “And if the

Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living

[oikeo] in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will

110 EDGAR R. LEE



also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit,

who lives [enoikeo—en “in” + oikeo “lives”] in you”

(Romans 8:11).

Colossians 3:16, for example, has special import: “Let

the word of Christ richly dwell [enoikeo] within you,

with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one anoth-

er with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing

with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (NASB). The

“within you”45

of this passage is addressed to all thepeople of God and has particular relevance to their

meeting together and ministering to each other in the

context of joyous worship. However, the pastor-preach-

er of the Word is a gifted leader of the congregation, in

no small measure responsible for their teaching and

admonition, and a leader and guide for their worship,

which is a time of wise teaching and admonition, evenin the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs! The pastor-

preacher ministers through the illuminating and

transforming Word that literally comes alive in him or

her. F. F. Bruce suggests, “It would ‘dwell richly’ in their

fellowship and in their hearts if they paid heed to what

they heard, bowed to its authority, assimilated its les-

sons, and translated them into daily living.”46 Similarly, John wrote, “The word of God lives [meno] in you, and

you have overcome the evil one” (1 John 2:14).

Paul told Timothy, “Guard the good deposit [the

Word of God] that was entrusted to you—guard it with

the help of the Holy Spirit who lives [enoikeo] in us”

(2 Timothy 1:14). The foregoing texts show that the

theopneustic word has to be welcomed and cultivated in

one’s personal life. Therefore, the first responsibility for

preachers is to ensure the vibrancy of the word for their

own spiritual growth and that of their congregation.

Preachers are not biblical technicians. The Bible is not to




be superficially mined for clever sermons to tickle post-

modern ears or to advance ambitious pastoral agendas.

It is to be cultivated as the Living Word of God trans-

forming both preacher and parishioner in the service of

the kingdom of God.

INTERPRETING THE SCRIPTURES

The acid test for the preacher is the actual use of

Scripture in ministry. The way Jesus used the Scriptures

to address the crucial issues of His times is instructive.

Most of the religious establishment came to despise

Jesus because His preaching and miracles among the

masses spoke to their needs and, in effect, challenged

the establishment and the status quo. The Jerusalem

religious leaders constantly spied on Him and madeevery effort to discredit both His teaching and His mir-

acles—and shortly concluded that the only way to limit

His influence was to kill Him. His teaching and preach-

ing were always under scrutiny, and it was crucial for

Him to accurately interpret and expound the Scriptures

in very trying times. Several examples follow:

Divorce (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). The Phariseeschallenged Jesus to respond to a common Jewish contro-

versy over divorce: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his

wife for any and every reason?” (19:3). In posing the

question, the Pharisees were reflecting their own divided

opinions on the issue and wanted Jesus on the record.

The school of Shammai taught that divorce was permit-

ted only for marital unfaithfulness on the part of the wife.

The school of Hillel taught that a wife could be divorced

for any cause.47 Rather than overtly identify with either

school (He seems to have been more in sympathy with

the teaching of Shammai), Jesus turned directly to His

112 EDGAR R. LEE



knowledge of the Scriptures and countered with the

Genesis mandate of marriage as a permanent union

under God, which humankind were not to fracture

(Genesis 2:24). Then pressed for an explanation for

Moses’ divorce law (Deuteronomy 24:1-4), Jesus went on

to explain, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives

because your hearts were hard” (19:8), and asserted that

anyone who inappropriately divorced his wife was guilty

of adultery (19:9). Jesus did not simply offer a technicalexplanation of the divorce law that would make divorce

more or less difficult. He set the law within its larger con-

text of God’s affirmation and protection of the marriage

covenant and made unjustified divorce a moral issue at a

time when divorce was a social problem.

Taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22). As a part of their

continuing efforts to trap Jesus, the Pharisees teamed upwith the Herodians (apparently a political party sup-

portive of Herodian leadership) and devised a doubled-

edged plot—to portray Jesus as either a Roman rebel or

a Roman sympathizer. Their question: “Is it right to pay

taxes to Caesar or not?” (v. 17). There was no one text for

Jesus to appeal to, so He called for a coin used for pay-

ing the tax. Presented with a Roman denarius, Jesusasked them about the identity of the portrait and the

inscription. “‘Caesar’s,’ they replied” (v. 21). Despite

their supposed aversion to images of Caesar, the Jews

carried coins that bore his image and inscriptions of his

divine claims.48 Aware of their hypocrisy, Jesus

answered adroitly but in keeping with wider biblical

revelation (cf. Romans 13:1-7; Jeremiah 29:4-7), “Give to

Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (v.

21). Jesus upheld the legitimacy of government on the

one hand without approving its sins on the other.

The Greatest Commandment (Matthew 22:34-40). The




The lessons to be drawn here are several: (1) The devil

quotes out-of-context Scripture verses to preachers to

turn them from the high road of an ethical and disci-

plined ministry of the gospel. (2) The temptations to

twist Scripture for one’s own selfish agendas are great.

(3) Preachers who truly love God and reverence the

God-breathed Scriptures will carefully evaluate those

self-serving impulses to ensure accurate and responsi-

ble interpretation. “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we

who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1).

THE HOLY SPIRIT IN INTERPRETATION

“The Blessed Spirit is not only the true Author of the

Written Word but also its supreme and true Expositor,”said H. G. C. Moule.51 In the person and activity of the

Holy Spirit, the Triune God sends divine assistance to

the preacher of His Word who reverently and sincerely

seeks His guidance. Jesus promised His followers,

“‘The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will

send in my name, will teach you all things and will

remind you of everything I have said to you’” (John14:26). This was first a promise of what has been called

“total recall” for the apostles. But it correctly represents

the ministry of the Spirit to all believers as they strug-

gle to deliver the Word of God. Jesus did not promise

that the Holy Spirit would make the preacher’s work

easy, but it is clear that God sends His Spirit to faithful

ministers of the gospel to quicken and illuminate them

as they diligently and prayerfully interpret and apply

the Scriptures in preaching.

But the promise must not become a pretension of

mystical insight to justify some esoteric, allegorical, or




Greidanus, Sidney. The Modern Preacher and the Ancient

Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to

Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Henry, Carl F. H. God, Revelation, and Authority.

Vol. 4, God Who Speaks and Shows. Waco, Tex: Word,

1979.

Johnson, Alan F., and Robert E. Webber. What Christians

Believe: A Biblical & Historical Summary. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Keener, Craig. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew.


Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark (NICNT).Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Lewis, Gordon R., and Bruce A. Demarest. Integrative

Theology. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

Academie, 1987.

Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids, eds. Dictionary of

the Later New Testament & Its Developments.Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1997.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John (NICNT).


Mounce, Robert H. The Essential Nature of New Testament

Preaching. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.

Mounce, William D. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 46,

Pastoral Epistles. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000.

O’Brien, Peter T. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 44,

Colossians and Philemon. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982.




(Winter 1982): 486.22Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 129.23Otto Weber, Foundations of Dogmatics, trans. Darrell L.

Guder (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 1:245.24BDAG, s.v. phero.25See Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (NAC) (Nashville:

Broadman, 1992), 104, n. 26.26Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT)

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 527.27R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale,

1971), 27.28Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d. ed. (GrandRapids: Baker, 1998), 251. For a review of historic Christianteaching on the nature of Scripture see John D. Woodbridge,Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).

29Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage. 2d. ed. (Collins World, 1978).

30Minutes, 49th General Council of the Assemblies of God(7-10 August 2001), 89.

31Erickson, Christian Theology, 248. For a helpful discussionsee Roger Nicole, “The Nature of Inerrancy,” in Roger R.Nicole and J. Ramsey Michaels, eds., Inerrancy and CommonSense (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 71-95.

32 J. Kenneth Grider, A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology (KansasCity, Mo.: Beacon Hill, 1994), 75.

33See Erickson, Christian Theology, 248-250, for discussion ofvarious positions and supporting bibliographies.

34

The works of Bloesch, Erickson, Grudem, and Henrycited in this paper may serve as good guides into that litera-ture.

35The Chicago Statement may be found in a number of sys-tematic theologies and journals. This citation is from Carl F.H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority. Vol 4, God WhoSpeaks and Shows (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1979), 212.

36See the discussion in Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England/GrandRapids: InterVarsity/Zondervan, 1994), 82-84.

37Grudem, Systematic Theology, 94.38Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis, Integrative Theology,

Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Academie/Zondervan, 1987), 164, cit-ing “The Bible: The Believers Gain,” Time Magazine (30December 1974), 41.

124 EDGAR R. LEE



39Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration& Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 323

n. 88. See the bibliography on the subject that Bloesch hasincluded.

40Brown, NIDNTT , 334, s.v. “Revelation in ContemporaryTheology.”

41Donald Bloesch discusses some of these alleged inconsis-tencies in Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration &Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 109-110, as does Erickson, Christian Theology, 255. For a more

exhaustive treatment, see Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).42Grudem, Systematic Theology, 99.43Erickson, Christian Theology, 259-263.44Kenneth S. Kantzer, foreword to Encyclopedia of Bible

Difficulties, by Gleason L. Archer (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1982), 7.

45”Within you” in this context must be interpreted not onlyindividually but also and primarily corporately, with the entire

congregation in view. For exegetical comment see Gordon D.Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 649. See also F. F.Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to theEphesians (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 157-158,and Peter T. O’Brien, Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 44,Colossians and Philemon (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 210.

46F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to

the Ephesians (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 157-158.47Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 463.48Keener, Matthew, 523-526.49Ibid., 530-532.50BDAG, s.v. pterugion. See also Bromiley, ISBE, s.v.

“Pinnacle.”51Cited by Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton,

IL: Wheaton Books, 1991), 23.52Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, 24.53”Barna Identifies Seven Paradoxes Regarding America’s

Faith,” http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/home.asp (accessed12/18/02).




leave their churches and move to rented halls and

storefronts. It was their hunger for the Word of God—

”the whole counsel of God.”2 In crude and poor sur-

roundings faithful servants used the Word as more

than a source of quotations to season their oratory.

Instead, they offered up Scripture as the main course.

This is why early Pentecostal churches often were

referred to as “full gospel churches.” In fact, the largest

church in the world, a Pentecostal church in Seoul,Korea, still calls itself Yoido Full Gospel Church.

The apostle Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica:

“We…constantly thank God that when you received

from us the Word of God’s message, you accepted it not

as the word of men, but for what it really is, the Word

of God, which also performs its work in you who

believe.”3

Notice that Paul states that the Word of God “per-

forms its work” in those who believe. The preacher

must clearly understand the nature and power of God’s

Word. The Word is not merely a resource for sermons

but is “living and active and sharper than any two-

edged sword…piercing as far as the division of soul

and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judgethe thoughts and intentions of the heart.”4

Every Pentecostal preacher should be of the same

mind as the apostle Peter when he wrote, “As each one

has received a special gift, employ it in serving one

another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

Whoever speaks is to do so as one who is speaking the

utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one

who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so

that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus

Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion for-

ever and forever.”5

128 RANDY HURST



witness in court, the witness is required to pledge to

“tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

truth.” Preachers and teachers of God’s Word should

subscribe to the same pledge.

For this reason the apostle Paul could say, “I testify to

you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men.

For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole pur-

pose of God.”10

As Paul mentored young Timothy, he told him, “Bediligent to present yourself approved to God as a work-

man who does not need to be ashamed, accurately han-

dling the word of truth.”11 For “accurately handling”

the word of truth—preaching the Bible as it requires—

we examine three issues: inspiration, illumination, and

application.

INSPIRATION

God used human writers as His messengers, but it is

His message they have left us. The Holy Spirit moved

them to write, “breathing” (God’s word choice) the

truth of God through what they said. The writers did

not pen God’s Word simply from their own initiative orfrom their own natural knowledge and wisdom. The

apostle Peter said, “No prophecy was ever made by an

act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit

spoke from God.”12

The Assemblies of God doctrinal statement makes

this clear in its first fundamental truth: “The Scriptures,

both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally

inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man,

the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct.”

God used the experiences, thoughts, and vocabulary

of the prophets and apostles. Furthermore, He directed

PREACHING THE BIBLE AS THE WORD OF GOD 131



their thoughts. When we study God’s Word to

understand what the writers’ inspired meaning was,

we must recognize that they were writing beyond

themselves.

The unique nature of God’s inspired Word brings

another dimension to this process. A great help in accu-

rately interpreting the Bible in recent decades has been

the focus upon the issue of “author’s intent.”

Unfortunately, this principle has been considered andutilized far more concerning the intent of the human

authors than the intent of the divine author—the Holy

Spirit. As the primary author, sometimes the Holy

Spirit’s intent transcended that of the human author.

This is the case when a prophet delivered a word he did

not fully comprehend, even though he was the vehicle

of its delivery.The Bible is a collection of books, and each has a basic

literary form: historical/narrative, didactic/doctrinal,

poetic, or prophetic. The Holy Spirit is not limited by that

literary form. Sometimes approaching the Bible from a

perspective of analyzing literary style is helpful, but it

can also be a hindrance if taken to an extreme or applied

only in a limited sense. In recent years an argument has been put forward that would disallow narrative Scripture

for doctrinal application. For example, because Acts is a

narrative (history) rather than a didactic (doctrinal) book,

so the argument goes, chapters 2, 10, and 19 do not sup-

port our doctrine of initial evidence. However, most pro-

ponents of such an argument would accept the text “All

Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,

for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”13

as valid for supporting doctrine, since the nature of

Paul’s epistle to Timothy is didactic. But Paul states that

“all Scripture is…profitable for teaching”14—doctrine!

132 RANDY HURST



This obviously seems to include narrative Scripture such

as the Gospels and Acts.

The writer of Hebrews says: “We must pay much

closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do

not drift away from it.”15 Drifting takes no conscious

effort or strategy. The currents and winds of social

trend and fad—in the church as well as in the world—

are always in motion. As preachers, we are challenged

to accommodate those who view the Word of God asmerely the words of men. But we must keep a straight

course and not drift from our positioning on that Word,

regardless of the trend or fad.

Although God used human writers, His Spirit is the

author of the Bible. We must be cognizant of that fact

not only generally but also specifically when we preach

and teach its content.

ILLUMINATION

To fully and accurately proclaim the truth of the

Bible, the preacher needs the illumination of the Spirit

as the authors needed His inspiration when commit-

ting God’s message to writing. Jesus promised the HolySpirit would guide us “into all truth.”16 In prayer, Jesus

said, “Thy word is truth.”17 The Holy Spirit helps us

beyond our natural ability to understand the truth. The

apostle John said, “You have an anointing from the

Holy One, and all of you know the truth.”18

The Bible itself provides abundant evidence that it is

truly God’s Word. But a person is thoroughly persuad-

ed of the Bible’s divine authority through an inward

work of the Holy Spirit, who convinces one’s heart of

the truth. A wonderful thing happens when a regener-

ated believer reads God’s Word. The same Holy Spirit




thousands devoted themselves to their teaching. Even

the finely robed rabbis sat and listened to these com-

mon men who spoke as prophets because they had

been baptized, as John the Baptist had prophesied, by

their Lord with the Holy Ghost and fire.

APPLICATION

Inspired Scripture is “God-breathed.” The purpose of

breath is to create and sustain life. Genesis 2:7 records

that when God breathed into man, he became a living

soul. Of all preachers, Pentecostals should continually

be aware that God’s Word proclaimed by the enabling

of the Spirit produces and sustains life in its hearers.

Preaching the Bible as the Word of God requires that

the message the Holy Spirit intends be communicatedeffectively, without compromise or distortion. The chal-

lenge to the preacher is to do this with vocabulary, con-

cepts, and symbols that are relevant to the culture and

generation of the receiving audience.

In Pentecostal circles, speaking of the Holy Spirit’s

“anointing” on preaching is common. However, many

inaccurately equate such an anointing with volume,demonstrative emotion, or even perspiration. But our

popular use of the term is extrabiblical. It describes a

divine phenomenon in which we preach beyond our-

selves—outdoing ourselves because of the Spirit’s

touch, presence, and activity in our preaching. I believe

two other words in the New Testament better describe

this activity: energeo, which describes God’s “working”

in His human agents, and zoopoieo, which is translated

“quicken,” “give life,” or “make alive.”

The anointing has as much to do with what is happen-

ing to the hearer as to the speaker. Pentecostal preaching




with the energizing touch of the Spirit should produce

the results we read about in Acts 2. When Peter preached

after the Spirit’s empowering on the Day of Pentecost,

Luke records, “Now when they heard this they were

pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the

apostles, ‘Brethren, what shall we do?’ and Peter said to

them, ‘Repent and let each of you be baptized in the

name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and

you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”22

Spirit-ener-gized preaching pierces to the heart and results in repen-

tance, forgiveness, and transformed lives.

Many preachers believe the most critical issue in

preaching is knowing what to say, when in fact know-

ing what to say is not enough.

Proclaiming the Word of God is not merely an issue of

content. Our message is not only what we say, but alsohow we say it and who we are. In 1 Thessalonians, Paul

speaks of all three aspects: “Our gospel did not come to

you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit

and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of

men we proved to be among you for your sake.”23

Our emotions, attitudes, and actions are just as much

a part of our message as our words. How we say thingsand who we are will not be determined merely by study.

These elements of our message come from our character.

Effective preaching must be rooted in spiritual life. This

has always been true. But in a culture that is increasing-

ly skeptical of Christianity, it is even more critical. Our

personal credibility as God’s messengers will signifi-

cantly determine our effectiveness. We must declare the

message of Christ with clarity and boldness, but the con-

tent of our message will be greatly hindered if our

manner and lives are not consistent with our words.

The apostle Peter also said it well: “In your hearts set

136 RANDY HURST



apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an

answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for

the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and

respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who

speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ

may be ashamed of their slander.”24 Peter advocates

here the same three points that Paul makes: what we

say, how we say it, and who we are.

Among a population rapidly losing faith in theintegrity of government and business leaders, the

integrity of God’s messengers is not an option; it’s a

requirement.

Although homiletics speaks of the “art” of preaching,

the calling of the preacher is not as an artist, displaying

his own creative capacities. The apostle Paul’s term of

choice in 2 Timothy 2:15 was “workman,” a laborer. Toaccurately convey God’s message, the laborer—the ser-

vant of the text—must accurately handle the revelation

God has provided. The Bible is not merely a well of

truth; it is the water itself. Paul admonished Timothy

that as God’s messengers, we must be wholehearted

and diligent in our right handling of the “word of truth”

that has already been delivered to us.25 The archaicmeaning of “study” used in the King James Version is

not misleading; however, it falls short of the strength of

Paul’s call to devotion and diligence in the task.

The application of God’s inspired and illumined Word

cannot be dealt with exhaustively in this chapter, but

these five points will be briefly considered: exposition,

simplification, organization, illustration, and invitation.

Exposition

Most preachers are familiar with stories of biblical

texts being misinterpreted. While these may appear




humorous on the surface, they are tragic when we

remember that what is being abused is God’s sacred

revelation. Spin is defined in the dictionary as “a special

point of view, emphasis, or interpretation.” More than

in any other context, biblical interpretation should be a

“no spin zone.” Jesus addressed the Pharisees, “Rightly

did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart

is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me,teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ Neglecting

the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of

men…you are experts at setting aside the command-

ment of God in order to keep your tradition.”26

Exposition requires both what it meant (exegesis) and

what it means (hermeneutics). Neither of these can be

dealt with in this chapter to any significant degree. But both require disciplined study and a commitment of

time on the preacher’s part. It is likely that in many if

not most cases where a preacher does not preach expos-

itory messages, the reason is not that the preacher is

incapable of learning how to do effective exposition,

but is unwilling to commit the time required. That com-

mitment will come only from a personal love of God’sWord or an understanding of the necessity of

expository preaching (ideally, both).

Simplification

Expository preaching encompasses much more than

merely a style. Unfortunately, many well-meaning pro-

ponents narrowly define expository preaching as a sort

of “running commentary” on the text without going

the second mile: working diligently to organize and

illustrate the content of the text in a way that applies

the truth in a fresh, relevant, and provocative way to a

138 RANDY HURST



part of the text. The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible to be

written a book at a time, so it should be studied a book

at a time. Structure that is discovered within the text

will naturally serve to explain the text.

The preacher who is a conscientious “laborer” will

not obscure the structure of the text with his own. The

structure of a message should be discovered in the text.

This can’t always be done, but when it can, it will be

especially effective, since in those instances the struc-ture is part of the inspired content. For example, in

three passages from the Pauline epistles concerning

spiritual gifts, Paul structured the content in each pas-

sage along the same pattern.

Paul’s “Spiritual Gifts” Passages

1 Corinthians Romans EphesiansUnity 12:1-13 12:1-5 4:1-6

Variety 12:14-31 12:6-8 4:7-12

Maturity 13:1-13 12:9-21 4:13-16

Similarly, the apostle Peter’s gospel preaching in the

Book of Acts follows the same simple pattern. In his

four presentations about Jesus in Acts (2:14-36, espe-cially verses 20-24; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; and 10:34-43, his wit-

ness to Cornelius), Peter establishes the same basic two

points in each presentation: (1) who Jesus is and (2)

why He gave His life. This pattern is a very simple and

effective way of sharing Christ with an unbeliever,

because all people need to be confronted with the deci-

sion concerning who Jesus is and what His sacrifice

means for them personally.

This same pattern is followed by Mark in his Gospel,

which was based on Peter’s apostolic preaching. The

structure of the Gospel of Mark also illustrates the dan-

140 RANDY HURST



ger of simplistic and rigid literary analysis of Scripture

(see “Inspiration”).

Not only does a rigid application of a certain literary

form limit understanding what the Holy Spirit

intended, it can also limit understanding what the

human writer intended. The general assumption con-

cerning narrative or historical material is that the

author’s intention was merely to record events as they

happened, much like a journalist. An examination ofthe Gospel of Mark, perhaps the earliest history in the

New Testament of our Lord’s life, offers a telling

example. The “gospel form” was really defined by

Mark. He begins the book sounding like a journalist as

he opens with “This is the beginning of the good news

about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”28

Early church history informs us that Mark’s”history” was taken from Peter’s apostolic preaching.

Irenaeus wrote in A.D. 175, “Mark, the disciple and

interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing the

things preached by Peter.” Not coincidentally, the

Gospel of Mark is structured somewhat like a sermon.

Like Peter’s sermons about Jesus in the Book of Acts,

the Gospel of Mark answers the same two simple butcritical questions: Almost equally divided, the first half

presents who Jesus is and the second half presents why

He gave His life.

From the earliest part of chapter 1 through the end of

chapter 8, Mark records seventeen miracles of Jesus and

repeatedly draws attention to the significance of who

He is. That is why in the first half of Mark’s gospel the

word “who” occurs so often.

In the first chapter, Mark clearly declares that Jesus is

the Son of God. Even demons gave this testimony: “I

know who you are—the Holy One of God!”29




(However, Jesus did not permit them to speak.30)

In chapter 2, the scribes said, “Who can forgive sins

but God alone?”31 In chapter 4, after Jesus miraculously

calmed the storm, the disciples said to one another,

“Who then is this that even the wind and the sea obey

Him?”32

The climax of Mark’s presentation of who Jesus is in

the first half of the book comes at the close of chapter 8:

“Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the vil-lages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He ques-

tioned His disciples, saying to them, ‘Who do people

say that I am?’ And they told Him, saying, ‘John the

Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the

prophets.’ And He continued by questioning them, ‘But

who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered and said to

Him, ‘You are the Christ.’”33

The second half of Mark describes the final week of

Jesus’ life on earth: His suffering, death, and resurrec-

tion. In a series of statements Jesus reveals why He was

sent into the world: “He then began to teach them that

the Son of Man must suffer many things and be reject-

ed by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law,

and that he must be killed and after three days riseagain.”34 “He said to them [His disciples], ‘The Son of

Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men.

They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.’”35

“‘We are going up to Jerusalem,’ he said, ‘and the Son

of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teach-

ers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will

hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and

spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he

will rise.’”36

Also contained in Mark are three dramatic “confes-

sions.” In the first verse, Mark himself confesses Jesus

142 RANDY HURST



as the Son of God.37 This is followed by Peter’s confes-

sion at the turning point in the middle of the book,

“You are the Christ,”38 and builds to the Roman centu-

rion’s confession almost at the end of the book, “Truly

this man was the Son of God!”39

Illustration

Both in preaching and teaching, illustrations have

great value in a variety of ways. They bring clarity and

make a lesson or truth memorable. Whenever possible,

illustrations should be found from Scripture. Augustine

said, “The New Testament is in the Old Testament con-

cealed and the Old Testament is in the New Testament

revealed.” Often Old Testament narrative stories offer

appropriate and powerful illustrations of New

Testament truths. The Gospels illustrate the Epistles,and the Epistles amplify the lessons taught in the

Gospels.

In Great Britain early in the last century, much

preaching leaned to the typological and, unfortunately,

created typologies where the Scriptures do not clearly

define or even seem to intend them. However, I have

often found that some typological applications makegood illustrations for enhancing exposition. When they

are used, however, it should be stated that a particular

application is an illustration rather than an exposition.

For example, I read a sermon by an old British preach-

er in which his text was taken from the marriage in

Cana of Galilee: “And [he] said to him, ‘Every man

serves the good wine first, and when the people have

drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you

have kept the good wine until now.’”40 The sermon

basically proposed a principle that God always saves

the best until last in everything in life. That is not what




that text is saying, of course. However, many other pas-

sages do teach that principle, and I believe it is not

inappropriate to lift that example out of the story of the

marriage in Cana to illustrate a principle that is the

intent of a text elsewhere.

Invitation

The purpose of preaching is not only to instruct, but

also to incite to decision.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote, “My

message and my preaching were not in persuasive

words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit

and of power.”41 Though Paul certainly had persuasive

ability, he understood that earthly wisdom and human

persuasion were inadequate to reach the Corinthians

with the gospel of Christ.The reason human persuasion alone will not lead

someone to a decision for Christ is found in the nature

of persuasion itself. For persuasion to be effective, it

must appeal to desires that already exist in a person.

People essentially do what they want to do. To move

people to a decision, they must see that the decision

will result in gratifying a desire they already have. Thisis the fundamental objective of all advertising.

People who are living in sin do not naturally have the

desire to deny themselves, follow Christ, and do God’s

will. It requires a special work of the Holy Spirit in their

minds and hearts to bring people to understanding and

move them to a willingness to obey the truth.

People are not naturally inclined to believe the

gospel, because sin blinds them to the truth. Paul says,

“The god of this world has blinded the minds of the

unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the

gospel of the glory of Christ.”42 Minds that have been

144 RANDY HURST



supernaturally blinded must have their spiritual eyes

supernaturally opened. Jesus said, “If anyone is willing

to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is

of God or whether I speak from Myself.”43 The heart

inclines the mind.

Paul also says, “A natural man does not accept the

things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to

him; and he cannot understand them, because they are

spiritually appraised.”44

Without God’s help, a personcan’t understand or respond to the truth. That is why

no one can come to Christ through human persuasion

alone.

After teaching His parable concerning the sower and

soils, Jesus explained to His disciples that the seed in

the spiritual harvest is “the word of God”45—the mes-

sage. The Holy Spirit prepares the soil (people’s hearts)to receive the message. The messenger’s role is to enter

into the Holy Spirit’s work in people’s lives. As Jesus

said to His disciples, “The saying is true, ‘One sows and

another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which you

have not labored; others have labored and you have

entered into their labor.”46

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul describessharing the gospel in terms of planting and watering

seed: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing

the growth.”47 In this statement, God’s work in the spir-

itual harvest is clearly distinguished from that of His

human servants. The time factors Paul describes in this

process are different. When Paul and Apollos planted

and watered the seed (the message), the tense in the

Greek verbs used indicates specific time frames: For a

period of time, Paul planted the seed; for another peri-

od of time, Apollos watered it. But when Paul describes

God’s activity in this process, the verb clearly reveals




that God did not merely work after the seed was

planted and watered, but all along God was causing the

growth.

The preacher is “planting” and “watering” the mes-

sage. God is causing the growth. We are dependent on

God to open doors of opportunity,48 to bring under-

standing to hearers’ minds, and to move their hearts to

decision.

A revealing example of the necessity of the HolySpirit’s work in the proclamation of the Word is found

in Acts 16. When Paul and his companions went to a

riverbank outside Philippi to pray on the Sabbath Day,

they sat down and began speaking to a group of

women: “A woman named Lydia, from the city of

Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God,

was listening; and the Lord opened her heart torespond to the things spoken by Paul.”49 Paul spoke the

message, but the “Lord opened [Lydia’s] heart.”

As I walked through the Billy Graham Center in

Wheaton, Illinois, I read quotations by Billy Graham

displayed on the walls. One of them caught my atten-

tion. It said, “If God should take His hand off me, I

would have no more spiritual power. The whole secretof the success of our meetings is spiritual—it is God

answering prayer. I cannot take credit for any of it.”

Anyone who has been involved in evangelism for

any period of time knows that it is a spiritual activity,

and human persuasion alone cannot accomplish the

task. We can do our part, but unless God works in peo-

ple’s hearts, we will not see lives changed. Billy

Graham knows that and so should every person who

answers our Lord’s call to preach the Word. We have

the privilege and responsibility of sharing the message,

but only God can open a heart.

146 RANDY HURST



Endnotes1

Rom. 11:33 (my emphasis). All Scripture quotations arefrom the New American Standard Bible unless otherwisenoted.

2Acts 20:27, NKJV31 Thess. 2:134Heb. 4:1251 Peter 4:10,116Prov. 29:18, NIV7 John 14:8,98See John 1:1-14; Phil. 2:6,79Heb. 1:1,2, NIV10Acts 20:26,27 (my emphasis)112 Tim. 2:15122 Peter 1:21132 Tim. 3:1614My emphasis15Heb. 2:116

John 16:1317 John 17:17, KJV181 John 2:20, NIV19See John 16:1420”More About Jesus,” Sing His Praise (Springfield, Mo.:

Gospel Publishing House, 1991), 10221Acts 4:1322Acts 2:37,38 (my emphasis)231 Thess. 1:5241 Peter 3:15,16, NIV252 Tim. 2:1526Mark 7:6-9271 Cor. 14:12, KJV, NIV, et al.28Mark 1:129Mark 1:2430Mark 1:3431Mark 2:732Mark 4:4133Mark 8:27-2934Mark 8:3135Mark 9:31, NIV36Mark 10:33,34, NIV37Mark 1:1




38Mark 8:2939Mark 15:3940 John 2:10411 Cor. 2:4422 Cor. 4:443 John 7:17 (my emphasis)441 Cor. 2:1445Luke 8:1146 John 4:37,38471 Cor. 3:648

Col. 4:349Acts 16:1450See Gen. 3:1-5.51Isa. 40:852Paul Edwards, ed. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New

York: Macmillan & The Free Press, 1967), s.v. “Descartes,René.”

53Ps. 119:99541 Cor. 2:4,555Col. 1:23561 Thess. 2:13

150 RANDY HURST



fits. The majority of early leaders were so afraid of what

could happen to the highly trained mind they unwit-

tingly missed an opportunity to teach a new generation

how to maintain a powerful Pentecostal pulpit while

producing a large number of respected scholars.

In the second half of the twentieth century, the

Pentecostal world in America has opened its doors

wider and wider to Christian higher education.

Institutions of higher learning have multiplied, and thestandard of education for ministry has been generally

rising in almost all Pentecostal denominations. The

challenge now facing the Pentecostal preacher is how to

use scholarship properly within the arena of faith. Will

he look to scholars for his authority, or will he use

scholarship to articulate more clearly the inerrant,

inspired authority of God’s Holy Word? This challengeis a matter of spiritual life and death, for both the min-

ister and those ministered to.

No scholar on earth is educated enough to question

the divinity of Jesus Christ and the infallibility of

Scripture. Doing so automatically disqualifies one as an

authority in divine truth. One has moved from a spiritu-

al paradigm to a carnal paradigm. The carnal mind can-not know the things of God. The source of a carnal mind

is rebellion against divine truth and authority. Scholars

who question the incarnate Word of God are like stu-

dents in math who decide the subject is not real and its

teacher merely builds lessons on false assumptions. If

such a group of students persisted, several negative

things would happen. Soon after dismissing math as a

true science, they would begin to think it was not worth

their time to learn it. Other math students would call

them fools, and mathematicians would call them igno-

rant. Good students of math have questions about math,

152 CHARLES T. CRABTREE



ment is unqualified; it is total and conclusive.

Otherwise, the Scripture would not be authoritative; at

any given time it would be subject to the best opinion.

Scripture would not be “settled” because nothing can

be settled in the world of changing human opinion.

Each opinion could be successively broken by further

study and argument.

The preacher of God’s Word is not doomed to sorting

out what part of the Bible is inspired. He has beengiven the canon of Scripture, which is not composed of

just a number of disconnected books but a cohesive rev-

elation of divine quality whose source is recognized as

that which could only be “God-breathed.”

THE INCARNATE WORD

Some argue the Bible cannot be the Word of God

because of human instrumentality. Such an argument

fails to take into account the incarnate Word used a

human vessel yet remained divine, without sin or error.

Furthermore, if human fallibility rules on infallible

Scripture, then it follows by simple logic we cannot

have any Scripture that is infallible and inerrant.In Milan, Italy, stands one of the most breathtaking

cathedrals in the world. One of the remarkable facts

about it is that it took five centuries to complete—

through war, famine, and the death of many workers.

Yet the cathedral is obviously the design of one mind

because of its symmetry and perfection. The designer

was the architect—long dead; nevertheless, workers for

centuries stayed true to his “inspired” drawings. The

Bible was written by forty writers over hundreds of

years, but the writers were only instruments in the

hand of a single Architect—still alive—who breathed




His Word through them and created divine perfection.

In his book The Infallible Word John Murray makes a

powerful observation about Paul’s claim in 2 Timothy

3:16:

Paul was, of course, well aware God used human

instruments in giving us these Scriptures. In his epistles

he makes repeated allusion to the human authors of the

sacred books. But the recognition of human instrumen-

tality did not in the least inhibit Paul from making thestupendous affirmation that all scripture of God is

God-breathed, which means the Scripture is of divine

origin and authorship and therefore of divine character

and authority (The Presbyterian Guardian Publishing

Corp., Philadelphia, 1946, p. 30).

Paul’s claim is nothing less than the high doctrine of

plenary inspiration, for Paul is not speaking of aninbreathing into the writer of the Holy Scripture by

God nor even into Holy Scripture itself. The term Paul

uses represents the concept of “breathing out,” rather

than that of “breathing in” and is far removed from the

notion a human product or witness is so interpenetrat-

ed with truth or influence that it becomes the Word of

God. The whole emphasis is upon the fact all Scriptureproceeds from God and is therefore invested with

divinity that makes it as authoritative and efficient as a

word orally spoken by God directly to us.

When it comes to the Word of God, Pentecostal

preachers should be convinced in their own minds; that

is the area of truth in which God has especially

equipped them and ordained them to study, “correctly

handle” (2 Timothy 2:15), and declare. Therefore,

Pentecostal preachers should embrace constant learn-

ing and take advantage of every opportunity to better

themselves through higher education.

THE WORD: THE FOUNDATION OF ALL PREACHING 155



THE WRITTEN WORD

The written Word comes to us in the form of lan-guage. It follows that the person who wrote it intends

for someone to read it. That takes literacy, a founda-

tional aspect of education. Furthermore, if the writer

authorizes another to teach the writing, then the writer

must naturally desire that those who so teach under-

stand it. That means the teacher has a responsibility to

be faithful not only to what the writer wrote but also to

what the writer means.

Spirit-filled scholars love God’s Word so much they

want not only to study texts but also to understand

contexts. They want to study every uncial, phrase, sen-

tence, and paragraph. They want to compare as many

ancient manuscripts in the original languages as

possible. They study customs, demographics, and

archeology. Every preacher of God’s Word needs to

take advantage of the rich resources and products of

good scholarship, not for the purpose of questioning

God’s Word but to be more effective in clarifying what

God’s Word says.

Not only should preachers have a trained mind forGod to use, but they should also be trained communi-

cators in order to proclaim God’s Word more effectively

to the culture and the contemporary church; thus, the

need for hermeneutics, homiletics, and public

speaking.

Any preacher who does not want to become more

proficient, to have greater clarity, in declaring the Wordstands under self-indictment. Some of the hue and cry

against Christian higher education is not motivated by

a legitimate fear of undermining inerrancy but an

antipathy to disciplined study.




MISUSING FAITH

In some cases, higher education has led to heresy. Buta great danger also lies in using faith as a substitute for

scholarship. The same Bible that contains “‘Not by

might nor by power, but by my Spirit’” (Zechariah 4:6)

also contains “Study to show thyself approved unto

God” (2 Timothy 2:15, KJV) and “My people are

destroyed from lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).

Pentecostals should not fear scholarship in and of itself

any more than they should fear encouraging the gifts of

the Spirit. But like all good things, higher education

and criticism can be and have been misused.

It is a bit amusing to hear Pentecostals admonish the

critics of speaking with tongues not to “throw out the

baby with the bathwater” and then turn do that very

thing with higher education. This does not mean

Pentecostals should be indifferent to error in affirming

scholarship or unmindful higher education tends to

build pride instead of humility. Education can lead to a

questioning of God rather than a questing for God; it

can move us from “God has said” to “Has God said?”

And if inerrancy and inspiration can be questioned,then the Scriptures are not really settled in heaven but

actually subject to the educated guesses of earth.

There is no question scholars such as Renan, Strauss,

and Barth had great minds and were very educated.

However, they made the fatal error of sitting in judg-

ment on the Scriptures, misusing higher criticism to

support their theories instead of seeking to bringgreater clarity to, and building faith in, the veracity of

God’s Word. For instance, Karl Barth could not under-

stand the inspiration of Scripture by reason and logic,

so he decided to make biblical inspiration conditional




and subjective as opposed to authoritative and objec-

tive. The result of his struggle is a theory of logic that

happens to be untrue. In his opinion, the Bible could

speak an inspired word and become the Word of God

as the medium of truth, but the Scripture is not inher-

ently inspired. Barth did not accept God’s Word, so he

preached his own error. If the Word of God can only be

such for a particular person at a particular time, then

the character of Scripture is dependent upon the cir-cumstances of mind and environment. The results are

disastrous.

THE UNDERLYING BATTLE:

FAITH VS. REASON

The underlying battle waged against inspiration andinerrancy is not higher education against the uneducat-

ed but the tension between faith and reason. The ulti-

mate authority in the mind of a Pentecostal preacher is

one’s faith in the Word of God, accepting the fact that

there will always be unresolved mysteries in matters of

faith.

The proud heart will not accept God as the ultimateauthority, so God himself is a mystery; consequently

His words and works remain unknowable, unable to be

understood. The darkened mind is at enmity with the

revelation of God. When people do not accept authori-

ty, they do everything in their power to discredit and

question it. A rebellious child will go to great lengths in

resisting a parent’s word, using its childish mind to

point out perceived unfairness. Adults do the same

with God; however, those who do not want to retain

God in their knowledge may find themselves given

over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28).




The true scholar does not seek to prove the Bible

wrong by studying perceived inconsistencies and prob-

lems. Rather, the true scholar seeks to understand the

Scripture more clearly through correctly handling it,

examining manuscripts, understanding custom, and

appreciating archeology. In other words, the true schol-

ar believes the limitation resides in finite minds and

perceptions, not the text.

No one knows why the original autographs of HolyScripture were not protected and retained. Perhaps in

God’s wisdom He knew the Church would make them

objects of worship, leading to superstitious veneration.

What God did protect was the perfection of His text.

One of the greatest miracles in history is the way God

preserved His Word. He did not leave transference to

chance. In spite of all the translations from one lan-guage to another, in spite of the various theories of

translation, scholarly translations of the Scripture are

amazingly consistent. Variant readings account for a

very small percentage of the Scripture and in that very

small percentage, not one major doctrine is negated or

seriously affected.

THE ISSUE OF TRANSLATION

In recent years, a multitude of Bible translations have

come to the church. Great controversy has surrounded

the shift away from the King James Version as the most

popular text. Pentecostal preachers can take comfort in

the fact that major translations (i.e., those done with a

large number of recognized scholars carefully studying

the most newly discovered ancient texts along with the

rich depository of manuscripts gathered through cen-

turies) have in no way weakened the great doctrines.




THE CONFIRMATION OF SCRIPTURE

The Pentecostal preacher can expound the Scripturesas the Word of God because the Lord of the Church

Himself confirmed them in His ministry while on the

earth. When confronting the devil, He pled the ultimate

authority: “It is written.” End of argument. He proved

the Sadducees in error and then gave the reason for their

problem: “You are in error because you do not know the

Scriptures or the power of God” (Matt 22:29, NIV). And

if He had never said anything about the Word except His

declaration in Luke 21:33, it would be enough to main-

tain faith in the Scriptures: “Heaven and earth will pass

away, but my words will never pass away.”

Hundreds of references in the Bible assure us we are

in possession of the inerrant, inspired Word of God.

The New Testament church was built upon the Word.

The apostles declared the incarnate Word and appealed

to the written Word as their authority. Some complain

the Bible cannot prove itself by itself, using the argu-

ment you cannot accept the validity of an author based

upon His own words; but in the case of the Bible, He is

the only one who can validate what is inspired andinfallible. In other words, God alone is the adequate

witness to Himself and His Word.

THE WITNESS OF CONVERSION

Not only does God validate His Word by the witness

of Christ and the internal witness of Scriptures them-selves, but He also does so through the witness of

changed lives: those who have read and believed the

Word. No other book in the world can boast such

results. The Complete Works of Shakespeare are recog-




nized as one of the greatest examples of English litera-

ture, but all the reading and studying of Shakespeare

cannot bring a sense of soul-cleansing and healing like

the Bible does.

The preacher must never neglect the study of God’s

Word by replacing it with other great writings, even

books based upon the Scriptures. Because the

Scriptures are inspired and God-breathed, they alone

can satisfy the needs of the soul and spirit. They arealive with divine inspiration.

In the classic face-off between Jesus and the devil in

the wilderness, the Son of God as the Son of Man

revealed the vital relationship between human beings

and God’s Word. Satan began his tempting of Christ

with a challenge to use miracle power to meet the

necessities of physical life. The devil knew the Lord had been fasting for forty days and nights and had to be

famished. “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones

to become bread” (Matthew 4:3). Satan tempts every

preacher with similar words. “If you are full of God

and called of God, then use your faith to meet the

necessities of physical life and gain material posses-

sions.” Christ replied with a revelation far exceedingany insight of modern psychology: “Man [made in the

image of God] does not live on bread [physical nour-

ishment] alone, but on every word that comes from the

mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).

Pentecostal preachers need to understand that when

they enter the pulpit filled with the Spirit—Word of God in

hand and its message in their hearts—they are the ordained

authority of God to speak life into the soul and spirit of

their listeners. What a responsibility! What a privilege!

Paul’s admonition to Timothy to “preach the Word”

(2 Timothy 4:2) was not spoken neutrally, matter-of-




factly. Paul had been the religious fanatic who minis-

tered death before he met Christ; out of his Damascus

experience came an apostle who ministered life. The

hallmark of his ministry thereafter was Christ crucified

and risen, based upon fulfillment of the Scriptures (1

Corinthians 15:3). So when Paul commanded Timothy

what to preach, he was telling his “son in the gospel” to

minister life, not death, by preaching the authoritative,

life-giving Word of God.

THE QUESTION OF RELEVANCY

One of the buzzwords in the contemporary church is

“relevant.” Is the church relevant? Is the Bible relevant?

Is the pulpit relevant? The answer to that question is

conditional. The church, the Bible, and the pulpit arerelevant only if they are ministering spiritual life

through the power of the Spirit. They are relevant only

if they are fulfilling their divine purpose.

Is the church relevant? If it is seeking to minister pri-

marily to the physical and psychological needs of its

members, it is not relevant in the eyes of God. If its first

concern is to attract young people to the physicalchurch, prepare people to be successful in the world,

and minister to the social and material needs of the com-

munity, it may be relevant to people but not to God.

Is the Bible relevant? If it is used as a textbook of tra-

dition, a resource of wise sayings, a reinforcement for

prejudice, a proof text for legalism, or a reading pro-

gram, it is not relevant. As a matter of fact, it can be a

tool for spiritual death rather than life.

Is the pulpit relevant? If it uses the Bible simply to find

a text to support a sermon outline or speaks only to pop-

ular themes and avoids “all the counsel of God” (Acts




20:27, KJV), if it is used as a hobbyhorse for an angry

preacher, if it is seeking to make sinners and carnal

Christians feel comfortable in the light of eternity—then

the pulpit may be relevant to people but not to God.

The preacher’s relevance, authority, purpose, and

power are all kingdom based. In other words, his rele-

vance is to be what is relevant to Christ. His authority

is not “what people think” but “what the Lord says.”

His purpose is to please God first, the people second—not the other way around. His power is in the Holy

Spirit, not church politics or human ability.

The living Word of God is always relevant to men

and women constitutionally. One of the most poignant

longings of the human heart is for authoritative guid-

ance. Proof of this is seen by the ever-increasing popu-

larity of the occult. Nearly every secular newspaperand magazine offers horoscopes. Books and charts on

astrology are being written and promoted by a growing

number of fortune-tellers, warlocks, and witches.

However, the preacher has a “more sure word of

prophecy” (2 Peter 1:19, KJV), which will hold up

under scrutiny and lead men and women to the saving

truth of Christ.The Bible contains all the truth needed to set forth the

way of salvation and Christian growth and develop-

ment. It is a textbook on eternal truth but uses knowl-

edge to underscore, illustrate, and apply divine truth for

human understanding. The Bible is not a textbook on sci-

ence, history, psychology, or any other educational disci-

pline, but everything it says about these subjects is true.

The preacher must not fall into the trap of trying to

defend the faith by spending an inordinate amount of

time studying false religions and attacking human the-

ories. T. F. Zimmerman, the former general superin-




tendent of the Assemblies of God, loved to tell about a

banker from the Midwest who was invited to the U. S.

Mint for a weeklong seminar on how to detect counter-

feit money. Upon his return, he told his friends he had

never studied harder with such intensity for a week.

However, they never studied one piece of counterfeit

money. After a week of living with and studying the

genuine, they did not need to do so. They knew the real

so well the false could not deceive them.

LIFELONG LEARNING

Preachers must be lifelong students of the Word of

God for at least two reasons. First, to gain approval

from God, because God is serious about the integrity of

His Word. He does not want His ministers misrepre-senting or mishandling the truth of the Scriptures.

Second, to avoid losing integrity as interpreters of the

Word. Ministers who are not serious students of the

Bible eventually bring shame to themselves and a

reproach to their calling.

The goal of biblical study is to bring the truth of God

to the human race. That is accomplished by “accurate-ly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). The

proper use of hermeneutics is of great value in guard-

ing against improper interpretation, especially in appli-

cation. For instance, a good hermeneutic will help the

preacher divide illustrative truth from absolute truth.

It is quite clear the absolute truth of spiritual humili-

ty is illustrated by washing feet. Jesus was teaching His

disciples they were not above menial tasks. Some have

focused on the statement “You also should wash one

another’s feet” (John 13:14) as not only the truth being

set forth by Jesus but also an ordinance to be practiced




by the church. The greater application, however, was

love, not law. The disciples of that day of open sandals

and dusty feet were to routinely wash feet. In our day,

the illustration itself does not apply; it is not a custom

of hospitality. However, having the loving and humble

heart of a servant remains as the absolute truth, in our

day translating perhaps into a willingness to cut the

grass, serve tables, pick up people for church, straight-

en up the sanctuary after communion, and so forth.In the culture where Paul was ministering, braided

hair on women was a symbol of great pride; it was

often used by the wealthy to display jewels and expen-

sive ornaments. In writing Timothy, Paul taught against

ostentatious display (1 Timothy 2:9). Today, however,

the illustration referring to braided hair makes very lit-

tle sense. If Paul were alive today, he would still preachthe truth of modesty and temperance but would use

other illustrations. The same would hold true regarding

women keeping silence in the church. We know from

correctly handling the Word of truth women were filled

with the Spirit, prophesied, and taught. Paul was using

an illustrative truth or circumstance to teach order and

respect in corporate worship.Much care must be taken under the supervision of

the Holy Spirit by any proclaimer of the Word of God.

It is the greatest of all responsibilities to be “stewards of

the mysteries of God” (1 Corinthians 4:1, KJV); let us

not be guilty of preaching “self” but faithfully preach

Christ and His Word.

THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD

Thank God, the preacher is not without divine help

in discharging the grave responsibility of proclaiming




the gospel. The reign of the Holy Spirit and the preach-

ing of God’s Word are providentially linked in order to

reveal, illuminate, and apply the Word through God’s

called ones.

By being open to the Spirit’s anointing upon their

minds and hearts, Pentecostal preachers can be greatly

benefited in both study and proclamation. The same

Spirit who raised Christ from the dead quickens our

mortal bodies, and the same Spirit who breathed inspi-ration and divine truth through the writers of the Word

is available to reveal to the preacher what God is saying

in and through His Scriptures.

Pentecostals are not exempt from error and should be

especially careful not to stray from the Word of God.

For example, if left unchecked and not brought under

the authority of the Word of God, vocal gifts can openthe door to a false interpretation of truth.

For some time, the charismatic/Pentecostal world

has used the term “rhema word.” In the purest sense,

the Holy Scripture is the rhema word, but can God and

does God give the church an inspired Word not in the

language of the Bible? Certainly! But in its meaning and

purpose that Word is subject to the inerrant Word. Thedanger comes in elevating a rhema word to the level of

Scripture. Be assured, all the dreams, visions, rhema

words, and prophetic utterances will never add to or

change the Word of God. Under the anointing of the

Holy Spirit, they will simply bring revelational truth to

what is written.

The Word of the Lord is to be proclaimed by men and

women ordained by God and filled with the Holy

Spirit. The results of being faithful to that Word fill

many books with glorious testimonies in the library of

Pentecost. May we again believe that as the Word is




preached, wonderful signs and wonders will follow.

May again the Pentecostal pulpit believe sin’s power is

broken by the truth of salvation even as the Word is

declared. May again the Pentecostal pulpit believe the

Lord will send His Word in healing as the preacher

delivers the good news in the authority of Jesus’ name

and the anointing of the Holy Spirit.


This chapter was originally published in Pentecostal Preaching by

Charles T. Crabtree and is used by permission.



6

169

The ChicagoStatement on

Biblical Inerrancy

NOTE: This was the statement that launched the

International Congress on Biblical Inerrancy, an inter-

denominational joint effort by hundreds of evangelical

scholars and leaders to defend biblical inerrancy

against the trend toward liberal and neo-orthodox con-

ceptions of Scripture.

The Statement was produced at the Hyatt Regency

O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978, during an interna-

tional summit conference of concerned evangelical lead-

ers. It was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical schol-ars, including [James Montgomery] Boice, Norman L.

Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth

Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery,

Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher,

Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.

The ICBI disbanded in 1988, its work complete. The

congress ultimately produced three major statements:this one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical

hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in

1986. A published copy of the statement may be found

in Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation and Authority, vol.



be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening

of our own convictions through our discussions togeth-

er, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may

be used to the glory of our God toward a new reforma-

tion of the Church in its faith, life, and mission.

We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention,

but of humility and love, which we propose by God’s

grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of

what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that manywho deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the

consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and

behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess

this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our

thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true

subjection to the divine Word.

We invite response to this Statement from any whosee reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by

the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible

authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal

infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help

that enables us to strengthen this testimony to God’s

Word we shall be grateful.

I. SUMMARY STATEMENT

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only,

has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal

Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as

Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture

is God’s witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by

men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infal-

lible divine authority in all matters upon which it touch-

es: It is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it

THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY 171



affirms; obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires;

embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both

authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens

our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is

without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what

it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events

of world history, and about its own literary originsunder God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in

individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired

if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or

disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth con-

trary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious

loss to both the individual and the Church.

II. ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND

DENIAL

Article I.

We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be receivedas the authoritative Word of God.

We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority

from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II.

We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written

norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the

authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.

We deny that church creeds, councils, or declarations

have authority greater than or equal to the authority of

the Bible.

172 THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY



Article III.

We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is rev-elation given by God.

We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revela-

tion, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or

depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV.

We affirm that God who made mankind in His imagehas used language as a means of revelation.

We deny that human language is so limited by our

creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehi-

cle for divine revelation. We further deny that the cor-

ruption of human culture and language through sin has

thwarted God’s work of inspiration.

Article V.

We affirm that God’s revelation in the Holy

Scriptures was progressive.

We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earli-

er revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further

deny that any normative revelation has been given

since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI.

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts,

down to the very words of the original, were given by

divine inspiration.

We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly

be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some

parts but not the whole.

Article VII.

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.

Article VIII.

We affirm that God in His work of inspiration uti-

lized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of

the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the

very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX.

We affirm that inspiration, though not conferringomniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utter-

ance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were

moved to speak and write.

We deny that the finitude or falseness of these writ-

ers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or

falsehood into God’s Word.

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.




Article XI.

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divineinspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us,

it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same

time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and

inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated.

Article XII.

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant,

being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are

limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes,

exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and sci-

ence. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about

earth history may properly be used to overturn theteaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII.

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theo-

logical term with reference to the complete truthfulness

of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture accord-

ing to standards of truth and error that are alien to its

usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is

negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern

technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling,

observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of

falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the

topical arrangement of metrical, variant selections ofmaterial in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV.

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of

Scripture.




We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that

have not yet been resolved violate the truth claims of

the Bible.

Article XV.

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded

in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

We deny that Jesus’ teaching about Scripture may be

dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any nat-

ural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI.

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been

integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by

scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary positionpostulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII.

We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the

Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of

God’s written Word.

We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operatesin isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII.

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpret-

ed by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of

its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to

interpret Scripture.We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text

or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to rela-

tivizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or

rejecting its claims of authorship.




Article XIX.

We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infal-libility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound

understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We

further affirm that such confession should lead to

increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

We deny that such confession is necessary for salva-

tion. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be

rejected without grave consequences, both to the indi-vidual and to the Church.

III. EXPOSITION

Our understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy must

be set in the context of the broader teachings of

Scripture concerning itself. This exposition gives anaccount of the outline of doctrine from which our

Summary Statement and Articles are drawn.

A. Creation, Revelation and Inspiration

The God, who formed all things by his creative utter-

ances and governs all things by His Word of decree,

made mankind in His own image for a life of commun-ion with Himself, on the model of the eternal fellowship

of loving communication within the Godhead. As God’s

image-bearer, man was to hear God’s Word addressed

to him and to respond in the joy of adoring obedience.

Over and above God’s self-disclosure in the created

order and the sequence of events within it, human

beings from Adam on have received verbal messages

from Him, either directly, as stated in Scripture, or indi-

rectly in the form of part or all of Scripture itself.

When Adam fell, the Creator did not abandon

mankind to final judgement, but promised salvation and




began to reveal Himself as Redeemer in a sequence of

historical events centering on Abraham’s family and cul-

minating in the life, death, resurrection, present heaven-

ly ministry, and promised return of Jesus Christ. Within

this frame God has from time to time spoken specific

words of judgement and mercy, promise and command,

to sinful human beings, so drawing them into a covenant

relation of mutual commitment between Him and them

in which He blesses them with gifts of grace and they bless Him in responsive adoration. Moses, whom God

used as mediator to carry his words to His people at the

time of the exodus, stands at the head of a long line of

prophets in whose mouths and writings God put His

words for delivery to Israel. God’s purpose in this suc-

cession of messages was to maintain His covenant by

causing His people to know His name—that is, Hisnature—and His will both of precept and purpose in the

present and for the future. This line of prophetic spokes-

men from God came to completion in Jesus Christ, God’s

incarnate Word, who was Himself a prophet—more than

a prophet, but not less—and in the apostles and prophets

of the first Christian generation. When God’s final and

climactic message, His word to the world concerning Jesus Christ, had been spoken and elucidated by those in

the apostolic circle, the sequence of revealed messages

ceased. Henceforth the Church was to live and know

God by what He had already said, and said for all time.

At Sinai God wrote the terms of His covenant on tablets

of stone as His enduring witness and for lasting accessi-

bility, and throughout the period of prophetic and apos-

tolic revelation He prompted men to write the messages

given to and through them, along with celebratory

records of His dealings with His people, plus moral reflec-

tions on covenant life and forms of praise and prayer for




covenant mercy. The theological reality of inspiration in

the producing of Biblical documents corresponds to that

of spoken prophecies: Although the human writers’ per-

sonalities were expressed in what they wrote, the words

were divinely constituted. Thus what Scripture says, God

says; its authority is His authority, for He is its ultimate

Author, having given it through the minds and words of

chosen and prepared men who in freedom and faithful-

ness “spoke from God as they were carried along by theHoly Spirit” (1 Pet 1:21). Holy Scripture must be acknowl-

edged as the Word of God by virtue of its divine origin.

B. Authority: Christ and the Bible

Jesus Christ, the Son of God who is the Word made

flesh, our Prophet, Priest and King, is the ultimate

Mediator of God’s communication to man, as He is ofall God’s gifts of grace. The revelation He gave was

more than verbal; He revealed the Father by His pres-

ence and His deeds as well. Yet His words were cru-

cially important; for He was God, He spoke from the

Father, and His words will judge all men at the last day.

As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ is the central

theme of Scripture. The Old Testament looked ahead toHim; the New Testament looks back to His first coming

and on to His second. Canonical Scripture is the divine-

ly inspired and therefore normative witness to Christ.

No hermeneutic, therefore, of which the historical

Christ is not the focal point is acceptable. Holy

Scripture must be treated as what it essentially is—the

witness of the Father to the incarnate Son.

It appears that the Old Testament canon had been

fixed by the time of Jesus. The New Testament canon is

likewise now closed, inasmuch as no new apostolic wit-

ness to the historical Christ can now be borne. No new




revelation (as distinct from Spirit-given understanding

of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes

again. The canon was created in principle by divine

inspiration. The Church’s part was to discern the canon

that God had created, not to devise one of its own.

The word ‘canon’, signifying a rule or standard, is a

pointer to authority, which means the right to rule and

control. Authority in Christianity belongs to God in His

revelation, which means, on the one hand, Jesus Christ,the living Word, and, on the other hand, Holy

Scripture, the written Word. But the authority of Christ

and that of Scripture are one. As our Prophet, Christ

testified that Scripture cannot be broken. As our Priest

and King, He devoted His earthly life to fulfilling the

law and the prophets, even dying in obedience to the

words of messianic prophecy. Thus as He saw Scriptureattesting Him and His authority, so by His own sub-

mission to Scripture He attested its authority. As He

bowed to His Father’s instruction given in His Bible

(our Old Testament), so He requires His disciples to

do—not, however, in isolation but in conjunction with

the apostolic witness to Himself that He undertook to

inspire by his gift of the Holy Spirit. So Christians showthemselves faithful servants of their Lord by bowing to

the divine instruction given in the prophetic and apos-

tolic writings that together make up our Bible.

By authenticating each other’s authority, Christ and

Scripture coalesce into a single fount of authority. The

Biblically-interpreted Christ and the Christ-centered,

Christ-proclaiming Bible are from this standpoint one.

As from the fact of inspiration we infer that what

Scripture says, God says, so from the revealed relation

between Jesus Christ and Scripture we may equally

declare that what Scripture says, Christ says.




C. Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation

Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witness-ing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be

called ‘infallible’ and ‘inerrant.’ These negative terms

have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard cru-

cial positive truths.

‘Infallible’ signifies the quality of neither misleading

nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms

the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliablerule and guide in all matters.

Similarly, ‘inerrant’ signifies the quality of being free

from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the

truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustwor-

thy in all its assertions.

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be

interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant.However, in determining what the God-taught writer is

asserting in each passage, we must pay the most care-

ful attention to its claims and character as a human

production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and

conventions of his penman’s milieu, a milieu that God

controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpre-

tation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poet-

ry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and

metaphor, generalization and approximation as what

they are, and so forth. Differences between literary con-

ventions in Bible times and in ours must also be

observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narra-tion and imprecise citation were conventional and

acceptable and violated no expectations in those days,

we must not regard these things as faults when we find

them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particu-




lar kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not

to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense

of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in

the sense of making good its claims and achieving that

measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the

appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or

spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of

false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), orseeming discrepancies between one passage and anoth-

er. It is not right to set the so-called phenomena of

Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself.

Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored.

Solution of them, where this can be convincingly

achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the

present no convincing solution is at hand we shall sig-nificantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His

Word is true, despite these appearances, and by main-

taining our confidence that one day they will be seen to

have been illusions.

Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single

divine mind, interpretation must stay within the

bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschewhypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by

another, whether in the name of progressive revelation

or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired

writer’s mind.

Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound

in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it

is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs

and conventional views of a particular period, so that

the application of its principles today calls for a differ-

ent sort of action.




D. Skepticism and Criticism

Since the Renaissance, and more particularly since theEnlightenment, world views have been developed that

involve skepticism about basic Christian tenets. Such

are the agnosticism that denies that God is knowable,

the rationalism that denies that He is incomprehensible,

the idealism that denies that He is transcendent, and the

existentialism that denies rationality in His relation-

ships with us. When these un- and anti-Biblical princi-ples seep into men’s theologies at presuppositional

level, as today they frequently do, faithful interpretation

of Holy Scripture becomes impossible.

E. Transmission and Translation

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant trans-

mission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only theautographic text of the original documents was inspired

and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means

of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in

the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science,

however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be

amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified

in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular

providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the

authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact

that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all

translations are an additional step away from the auto-

graph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is thatEnglish-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly

well served in these days with a host of excellent trans-

lations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude

that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed,




in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the

main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy

Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no

serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its

meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise

for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15).

F. Inerrancy and Authority

In our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as

involving its total truth, we are consciously standing

with Christ and His apostles, indeed with the whole

Bible and with the main stream of Church history from

the first days until very recently. We are concerned at

the casual, inadvertent, and seemingly thoughtless way

in which a belief of such far-reaching importance has

been given up by so many in our day.We are conscious too that great and grave confusion

results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of the Bible

whose authority one professes to acknowledge. The result

of taking this step is that the Bible that God gave loses its

authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible

reduced in content according to the demands of one’s crit-

ical reasoning and in principle reducible still further onceone has started. This means that at bottom independent

reason now has authority, as opposed to Scriptural teach-

ing. If this is not seen and if for the time being basic evan-

gelical doctrines are still held, persons denying the full

truth of Scripture may claim an evangelical identity while

methodologically they have moved away from the evan-

gelical principle of knowledge to an unstable subjec-

tivism, and will find it hard not to move further.

We affirm that what Scripture says, God says. May

He be glorified.

Amen and Amen.




The Assemblies of God has from its founding Council

believed in the Bible as the Word of God. Such a posi-

tion casts the subject of the Bible in a certain light. It isnot mere literature, or even sacred literature.

It is God’s Word, authoritative for all cultures in all

times. Those who proclaim it must believe this.

Otherwise their proclamation gives an uncertain sound

bible word god

Documents