Sean: Since we’ve started our “Sparks” discussions, Tony, I’ve wondered how our views on the Bible compare. We’ve both expressed concerns about the lack of biblical knowledge today among youth, but I can’t help but wonder, Is it for the same reason?

I’m concerned about the lack of biblical knowledge among young people, because I believe an accurate understanding of the character and nature of God is critical for spiritual formation. This is why I often wonder, Can true health in the church take place apart from accurately handling the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)? This is why much of my concern about new movements in the church revolves around the de-emphasis on the authority of Scripture.

I believe Scripture is authoritative because it stems from God. Since God is our ultimate authority, and the Bible contains the very words of God, its message is therefore the very message of God—and thus authoritative (2 Peter 1:21). That’s why the Bible has final authority to define our beliefs and behavior.

Jesus clearly viewed the Old Testament as authoritative. He regularly quoted from the Old Testament as if it were completely accurate and regularly chastised the Sadducees and Pharisees for not correctly understanding the Scriptures (Matthew 22:29).

Of course, this doesn’t mean we always get our interpretations correct or live consistently according to our beliefs—I’ll be the first to admit this! But it does mean our primary task as individuals and youth workers is to properly understand God’s revelation and to live under its authority.

Tony, why do you believe the Bible is an authoritative book? Is it something about us (e.g., how we interpret it, what place we give it in our community, etc.), or is it something about the book itself (e.g., that it contains the very words of God and is thus inerrant)?

Tony: Sean, I agree with so much of what you’ve said here, but let me start with a difference. You make equivalent two concepts that I do not: God’s words and “inerrancy.” Inerrancy is the doctrinal position that the Bible is without any factual error in any category, including scientific, historical, and geographical statements.

I believe that the quantity of intellectual gymnastics one is required to perform in order to maintain this position makes it ultimately untenable. The Bible does contain contradictory statements and is sometimes inaccurate in its descriptions of geography and historical events.

But that’s not the point of the Bible. The doctrine of infallibility, on the other hand, claims that the Bible, when read faithfully and in context, is the “norming norm” of Christian faith and practice.

Since you bring up Jesus’ use of the Old Testament, let’s use that as a case-in-point. When you compare Jesus’ use of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures to those same passages in the Old Testament, you’ll notice that often the wording isn’t quite the same. Was Jesus paraphrasing? Was he using a different version of the OT than you have?

Regardless of your answers to those questions, I’m sure you and I can agree that Jesus’ use of the OT is inspired and authoritative, even if a few of the words were changed along the way.

Sean, the Bible is authoritative because it is God’s revelation to us. It is something about the document itself. But it’s not because that document is error-free.

Sean: I’m glad to see we have common ground that the Bible is God’s revelation to us and serves as the “norming norm” of Christian faith and practice. I disagree, though, that the Bible is contradictory and makes historical and geographical mistakes. Some statements may appear contradictory, and there are some issues that haven’t yet been resolved, but the Bible has continually proven reliable when all the evidence comes to light.

As far as the issue of Jesus misquoting the Old Testament, no major evangelical New Testament scholars I know of would argue that the Gospels record the “very words” of Jesus (ipsissima verba) but rather the “very voice” of our Lord (ipsissima vox). Such a distinction is consistent with a balanced view of inerrancy. When we recognize these sorts of things, many such “inaccuracy” charges disappear.

Ultimately, the reason I hold a high view of Scripture isn’t because the Bible itself claims to be inspired (e.g., 2 Timothy 3:16), as such a claim is circular, or that I can explain away every seeming contradiction. My reason is simple: Jesus held a high view of Scripture. And we can know the testimony of the biblical writers is accurate through historical examination. Jesus often spoke about Scripture with a deeper reverence than the Pharisees and Sadducees—criticizing those who raised tradition above it or failed to handle it accurately.

Regardless, Tony, I believe we can both agree that inerrancy is not an essential belief for salvation. But if Jesus is the resurrected Messiah, and he held a high view of Scripture, can we have any less?

Tony: I don’t understand why you stand by the word inerrancy when you’re willing to admit that Scripture doesn’t necessarily contain the exact words of Jesus and that there are apparent discrepancies between the text and the facts. By admitting these things, aren’t you basically gutting the inerrancy concept? Why not just claim infallibility?

By the way—and with all due respect—it seems like a cop-out to say that the Bible is without error, except for the places there are errors, and those are only errors because we don’t have all the facts yet.

You purport a “high view of Scripture.” But I wonder, how high a view of Scripture can one hold when one repeatedly tries to use science (an extra-biblical framework) to “prove” that a person can live in the belly of a fish for three days?

I’m arguing that a higher view of Scripture is one that allows the authority of the Bible to rest on its own merits.

Sean: Tony, you are criticizing an outdated fundamentalist notion of inerrancy that neither I nor the majority of conservative evangelical New Testament scholars hold. Properly understood, inerrancy is not a property of specific words but the ideas behind them. In other words, all of the claims that the Bible makes—whether with regard to science, history, ethics, etc.—are true. You have confused individual “words” of the Bible with the truth therein.

Thus, it is not an error if Jesus quotes a passage from the Old Testament that may have different words than a contemporary translation, anymore than it is to say there’s an error between the sentences “I love Stephanie” and “I love my wife.” Different words—identical meaning.

Finally, I don’t hold “the Bible is without errors, except in places there are errors.” My point is simply that there have been numerous alleged biblical errors that have been overturned when more information comes to light. God is trustworthy, and so is his Word.

Tony: Any philosopher or linguist would tell you that “I love Julie” and “I love my wife” do not have “identical” meaning. In fact, the meanings within each sentence are contingent upon a host of other factors.

Words do matter. And regardless of your assertion, the vast majority of inerrantists believe that inerrancy means that every word of the Bible (i.e., every jot and tittle) is without error. But Jesus most likely used the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures—at least that’s what Matthew has him quoting. So...was the Septuagint an inerrant translation of the Hebrew?

God is indeed trustworthy, and so is God’s Word. So why be tempted into bolstering Scripture with extra-biblical “proofs” such as science and history? In other words: If inspiration was good enough for theologians and everyday Christians for 1850 years, it’s good enough for me. I don’t believe that the historical-critical method is any challenge at all to the trustworthiness of the Bible.

Good discussion, Sean. Next time we’ll tackle the issue of women in ministry.