Assignment
Evaluate two different approaches taken to the understanding and application of Old Testament law for Christians (Reformed, Anabaptistic, Dispensationalist, etc.). What implications does the stance toward biblical law have on the theological understanding of biblical authority?
Introduction
The existence of the Old Testament and its laws is a fact that, although admitted is perceived differently by many Christian denominations. Christians, who look up to the Bible and treat it as a book bearing an authority for their lives and everyday conduct, find themselves facing the problem of applying those parts of the Bible in their lives. The problem is born out of difficulties not so much in understanding certain laws, but rather in their application. Since Christians tend to believe that all the scriptures is profitable for them and inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16-17) they should not exclude any part of it and say, without giving any reasons, that it should not be applied.[1] There have been many proposals suggested by the Bible scholars as to how resolve this difficulty. In this paper the first part will be devoted to a description of two approaches to the Old Testament laws. The first one will be of a Polish Baptist while the other comes from an advocate of Dispensationalism. In the second part the author will try to briefly describe some of the most prevailing views concerning the authority of the Bible. And finally an attempt will be made to show that certain interpretative decisions may either weaken or strengthen the eagerness with which people want apply the Old Testament in their lives. Last but not least, a brief conclusion will be presented where I will try to describe what I think of biblical authority.
Two different approaches to OT law.
Polish Baptists as represented by Konstanty Wiazowski
The first approach taken to the law will be of a Polish theologian and the former president of Polish Baptist Association Konstanty Wiazowski. In his book Podstawowe zasady wiary chrześcijańkiej (Basic Principles of Christian Faith he makes certain points that will be presented below.[2]
First of all he divides God’s law into two parts. The first one is what he calls a general law which includes natural or physical law as well as moral law. The second is called a particular law. Natural law is the one on the basis of which the world is constructed whereas moral law refers to people’s action. Both of those laws have God as their lawgiver, however, the first one can be broken for example by miracles performed by God. The moral law, on the contrary, is an expression of God’s moral nature. This law is something more than a mere set of rules to follow, it is not limited by time, but it rather portrays his character and thus never changes. The moral law has its “perfect embodiment” who is Christ (cf. Rom 10:4; Phil. 3:8-9).
The second type distinguished by Wiwazowski is particular law. It includes The Ten Commandments but also ritual law. Those laws have a “timely character” and only God can abrogate them, which he does what can be seen for example in the New Testament.[3]
The aim of giving the law in general was to “reveal God’s holiness” (Galatians 3:24) and in relation to it – human sinfulness. Moreover, it serves to intensify “the knowledge of sin” (cf. Romans 3:20; 7:13) and also shows that nobody is able to gain salvation apart from Christ. Thus one may say that the law paves the way for grace[4]. Never was the intention of the law to bring people to salvation and to help them in sanctification.
K. Wiazowski, just as will be the case with Dispensationalism, underlines that the law should not be divided into moral or ceremonial laws. Christ’s death on the cross was the end of all Old Testament laws (2 Corinthians 3:7-11). The Decalogue should no longer be a norm of Christian living. He than says that “the rule for Christian conduct is love.” Their main ethical preoccupation should be bringing fruits to God. He also points to the fact, that some of the laws are “eternally important” and the most important of them is “to love the Lord and one’s neighbor.” (Matthew 22:37-40). The Decalogue, whose all commandments, except the fourth, are repeated in the NT should not be considered as worthless or insignificant, however, its observance does not lead to righteousness.[5]
The Old Testament laws are now replaced by the law of Christ. As is strongly stressed, one cannot act in accordance with this law if he himself did not experience the work of the Holy Spirit showing him or her God’s love. Then, as Wiazowski puts it, “If someone has been filled with God’s love he or she will not have to be made to show that love” it will be seen[6].
Classical Dispensationalism’s Approach to the Law
The approach to the OT law taken by theologians such as J. N. Darby, C. I. Scofield, Lewis S. Chafer and Charles C. Ryrie is based on a “sharp distinction between Israel and the Church and discontinuity between OT and NT.”[7] This distinction is mainly due to the fact that God’s dealings with man in those two periods were based on different “arrangement and responsibility” that he reveals.[8]
According to C. C. Ryrie, the Old Testament law and obedience to it was that testing tool in the times ranging from Moses until the New Testament. In the latter God is introducing a new system, which abrogates the old one. We read about it in Romans 10:4 where it says that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” or in Galatians 5:18 where Paul writes “If you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law”.
In his article “The End of the Law” C. C. Ryrie states that since in Jewish eyes the whole Old Testament law was conceived as a one whole, thus when the New Testament speaks of Christians not being under the Law it means the totality of the Mosaic laws[9]. Following dispensationalists we may say that the Christian’s relationship with the Mosaic law has been terminated. The Mosaic law in its totality is abrogated in Christ and is no longer applicable. That includes the Decalogue. Thus the Mosaic law is neither a means of salvation nor a guide for Christian living, even though it had such a function in the times of Old Testament. Christians on the other had are under the “law of Christ” (2 Corinthians 9;21; Galatians 6:2). Although this is a completely different system, the law of Christ incorporates some individual Mosaic commands and thus overlaps with the Mosaic law. But it is not the Mosaic law that is authoritative for Christians-it is the law of Christ.[10]
What is biblical authority?
Since we have discussed the two view will proceed with the presentation of biblical authority. When Christians speak of the Bible as of the book-or the collection of books, often called the canon of Scriptures-which has authority over their lives, what they want to say is that the “texts of the Christian canon are normative for the speech, thought, and practice of the church.”[11] The question, however, that one needs to ask is what the grounds for such claims are. In his article Authority of the Bible R. Gunse[12] presented a helpful way of speaking about the authority of the Bible. In the first part he describes the history while in the second he talks about what he calls “Modes of Biblical Authority.” This approach will be used in this paper to try to briefly show what different traditions said about their understanding of biblical authority.
Inspiration
First of all we will mention a group of theologians who say that the Bible is an authoritative book because it was inspired by God (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). The views concerning the nature of that inspiration or in other, more Biblical words, “God-breathing” range, on one side, from the idea that each and every one of the Biblical words came from God (this view may also be viewed as dictation)[13], to, on the other side, the idea that God “inspired the minds of the biblical authors but that the actual words they used were their own”.[14]
The fact, that the Bible comes from God coupled with what we know of his nature, especially in this case, that he never tells lies, must entail an idea that scriptures cannot have any errors. This is where the belief about inerrancy comes from. The theory was probably most explicitly stated by a post-reformer Francis Turretin, who-trying to defend the Bible against the attacks of the Enlightenment-said that the text of the Bible was dictated to its human authors and that God took care of preserving those words in an accurate form. Otherwise the Bible could not be trusted.[15] Some modern adherents to that view stress biblical accuracy in maters of science and history.[16]
M. Erickson lists seven types of inerrancy which are differentiated on the basis of how much we consider the text to be true and also in what aspects. Among his list there is a “limited inerrancy” which is worth mentioning because it seems to resemble what some of the Reformers that believed. The Bible is “inerrant and infallible in its salvific doctrinal references”[17]. There is no need to worry about some discrepancies between biblical statements and the science or history since the purpose of the Scriptures is to lead people to relationship with Jesus Christ not to better understanding of the physical world.[18]
Christocentric models
According to another group of scholars, one can usually find a norm in one biblical text that is so important that it becomes a norm to interpret other Biblical texts. Luther found such a norm in Christ to whom the whole Bible testifies and because of this testimony the biblical text should be treated as authoritative.[19] Karl Barth also developed that view when he said that Christ “verifies Scripture simply by the fact that He is its content.”[20] However, Barth is better known for his ‘Word of God’ concept that will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
On the literal sense of Scripture, Lutherans emphasized beginning with Jesus Christ, which meant for them the work of Christ and justification by faith in particular.
Salvation history
According to this view, revelation, the truth to follow, should not be looked for in the texts but rather behind them. To exemplify this we may say that the story of Jesus’ resurrection is not authoritative, but what it does it “testifies to the truth of the Revelation” and is a “reliable witnesses to this, not a locus of divinely revealed truth.”[21] The Bible testifies to more so called “salvific events” when God intervened the history to reveal his will. Those events resulted in creation of “the community of faith” and biblical authority is “derived from the events”, but the events themselves are not the source of authority, but rather their interpretation in the “religious community…be it Israel or the ancient church.” [22] The historicity of the texts is no longer important, what counts is their perception by the faith community.[23] The Bible thus becomes a witness to what God was doing with his people and from this written history we, as the community of believers, interpret the meaning. Biblical authors’ interpretations may have been true for them, but the contemporary church must reinterpret this for herself.
Existentialism
The Bible is not an authoritative book in a way understood by orthodox Christianity. Looking at the Biblical Authority form the existential perspective we realize that scholars representing this view have developed an understanding of the “Word of God” according to which it is something different than the written Scriptures. Only when a person is confronted by the preached word than the Bible becomes the Word of God. This is the situation of revelation or of meeting with God. There is no authority vested in the Biblical texts but only in an existential encounter.[24] The Bible is an instrument by which we are able to hear what God is speaking.[25] Historicity of the Biblical events does not seem to be of major concern.
The Bible should be treated as a unique means leading to an encounter with a living God. As such, Scripture is enabling revelation which is “existential truth, truth which transforms man’s life, and not objective propositional truth at all.”[26] Emphasis distinctly shifts away from looking at the Bible as on a document containing inspired concepts, and turns toward perceiving it as an instrument leading to an “encounter with God.”[27]
Scholars following this way of thinking also employ the term “Wholly Other” referring to God. He is so different from people that the only way of learning about him is through revelation, which comes only from God’s initiative.
Having presented the most common views in Christendom we will now move to implications that different understandings of biblical law have on biblical authority.
Implication of Polish Baptist View and Dispensationalism on Biblical Authority.
While thinking about implications of the abovementioned approaches taken with respect to biblical authority what might come to mind is how they contribute either to its strengthening or weakening. By doing that, we are asking a question Is the reader encouraged to look for guidance in biblical texts or rather drawn away from them? Do presented reason for not applying some parts of the Old Testament do any harm to overall perception of the Bible as of the book worth depending upon?[28]
Before we do that it is important to point out that those two views are rather far from understanding Biblical authority as a reality behind the text, experienced while reading the Scriptures (Existentialism). They also do not seem to focus on history as means of conveying authority (Salvation Hisory). They seem to be closest to the first and second of the presented approaches.
Strengthening the Authority
The strengths to the two approaches lie first of all in the fact that they both suggest ways of interpreting the Old Testament laws which do not discourage the modern reader from reading them. To read those texts in their literal meaning one does not have to resort to different kinds of allegorizing or avoid reading them at all. As is the case, some Christian circles promote a kind of unwillingness to get acquainted with the Old Testament due to the lack of its understanding or not knowing how to interpret in and apply it.
They both, even though they do that on slightly different basis, suggest that some of the laws seem to be “weightier” than others.[29] This is what Jesus said (Matthew 23:23), and this idea runs across the Bible, that things like doing justice or showing mercy are more important than tithing mint or even fasting (1 Samuel 15:22-23; Isaiah 1:11-15; 58).
Both systems also point to the fact that there is an idea of temporality connected with the Old Testament laws. Wiazowski writes that “there were some periods in which a given law was obligatory” and that some regulations were important for the then societies or individuals.[30] Ryrie extends this considering all of the Old Testament laws, thanks to Christ’s death and resurrection, as abrogated. As we see in the New Testament some of the Old Testament laws were abrogated by Christ himself (Mark 7:19). The author of Hebrews says that the Mosaic covenant or the sacrifices connected with the tabernacle or later the temple were not meant to last forever. Their task was to point to Christ who is their fulfillment.
Another very important factor strengthening the authority of the Bible is stressing the importance of faith put in Christ, as opposed to observance of the laws, when they speak of gaining salvation and then living a holly life. The modern reader seeking the guidance in the Bible will be warned not to treat observing the OT laws as a way of earning God’s favor or salvation.[31]
Emphasizing the work of the Holy Spirit in applying the Word of God in Christian lives also seems to be important. As was pointed above many scholars say that it is impossible to conceive the authority of the Bible without this inner work of God. As C. Pinnok said: “The moving of the Spirit accomplishes more on behalf of biblical authority than all the arguments of conservative evangelicals ever could.”[32] Wiazowski also stresses that not only is the Holy Spirit’s activity in the believer important in understanding what the Bible says, but also in applying its teachings in everyday life.[33]
Those two approaches may also serve as a safeguard against liberalism which was so popular in the eighteen century, when there was no grounds for saying what is true or not. They are not eager to say that the truth is not in the text, they are also far from trying to adjust the Bible to the prevailing ideas of the ‘ruling’ culture.[34]
Weakening the Authority
Having described their strengths we will now focus on some of weaknesses of the presented views which in our mind may be detrimental to the idea of biblical authority.
Firstly, especially Wizaowski puts a lot of stress on acting according to the principle of love. However, the reader is told very little about this whole idea. This may bring some questions about application, which are not answered. This difficulty might be due to the little space that is devoted in his book to describing the “rule of love” but still the demanding reader might be left wondering what exactly should be done.
Even though it provides a basis for interpreting the Old Testament, drawing a sharp distinction between the law and grace, as dispensationalists do, may be somewhat misleading. As Sprinkle writes, the law in the OT was never meant to help people merit their salvation. It was rather given to already saved people, to those who were taken out of Egypt, and its aim was to “guide them and show them whether or not they were in compliance with the covenant.”[35] This is important, as many readers find the Old Testament laws distinct from the rule of grace revealed in the New Testament. Moreover, one should remember that there is a continuity between the two Testaments. To prove his point Sprinkle refers to Jeremiah 31:31-34 where the new covenant is said to be only for the people of Judah and Israel, but the New Testament applies it to Christians.
Another difficulty with dispensationalists approach is that even though it underlines the importance of the Old Testament it does so for the Jews most of all. Christians, living under a new economy of grace do not find Old Testament passages binding. The question is How then the verse from 2 Timothy 3:16 should be interpreted? It says, that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness,” and the modern reader knows perfectly well that those words were spoken of the Old as much, or even more, as about the New Testament.[36]
What’s more one might question the interpretation of Matt 5:17-20. If we understood the word “fulfill” as ‘to bring to an end’ as is done by dispensationalism we come across some kind of self-contradiction. It seems to lack some logic when one says “I did not come to abolish the law, but to bring it to an end.”[37]
If we say that since we are Christians some parts of the OT do not apply to us, we my be in danger of loosing some of the very important truths of the OT. (Many people find it uninteresting to read the OT laws). Is there an approach that might revive those texts to the modern readers.
Evaluation and some Extra Comments.
An examination of the abovementioned suggestions brings us to several conclusions. Firstly, there is a certain degree in which those views admit that what is described in the Biblical texts is true to reality. Some will say that every word is true, others will contend that even though the words are true, they are such only in matters of faith or salvation. There will also be such who will say that the reality is not that important. What counts is either how we interpret the text pointing to the history of God’s salvation or how we encounter God in the process of proclamation of God’s “Word”. We must say here, that the danger of departing from plain understanding of the words of the Bible may turn out to be very dangerous. Although we may come across some seeming discrepancies in the Scriptures, it would be advisable to humbly look for their solutions.[38] Leaving the common sense understanding of the Biblical texts we may find ourselves far from treating the Bible as the Word of God and fall short of the biblical claim that God’s Word is “present unambiguously and directly in the words of Scripture, a text which can judge and correct our wayward minds, and shed light upon them.”[39]
One more very important factor, often mentioned while discussing the authority of the Bible, is the “witness of the Holy Spirit in a person’s heart”[40] which is sometimes regarded most highly.[41] Many scholars believe that without special illumination or revelation humans are simply unable to come to certainty about the truth of the Bible (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:14).[42]
Also, no matter what view of biblical authority one adopts another question has to be answered, How do I interpret the Bible? So hermeneutics starts to play an important role in determining what exactly the Bible says.
At this point it seem worthwhile to bring up two scholars who have recently suggested some methods of interpreting the Old Testament law which try to make it as much applicable to Christians as possible and, at the same time, they stress the authority of this part of the Bible over believers lives.[43] The first one is J. Sprinkle. In his already cited book Old Testament Law and its Relevance he is suggesting a way of reading some confusing Old Testament laws so that the modern reader may benefit from them. Looking for “principles” behind certain laws he says that they were meant to portray the “character of God” (this resembles Wiazowski’s division of the laws) and to “foster a closer relationship between God and Israel (with implications for our relationship with God as well).”[44] Another scholar is W. J. Webb who has suggested the “Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutics.”[45] Applying it to the text is based on comparing certain laws given by God with the then laws of neighboring nations. The author is convincingly showing that, even though in our culture it is unthinkable to do certain things, at the time when it was being written it was bringing a lot of freedom.
It seems that adopting those kinds of approaches encourages the modern reader to treat the Old Testament and, consequently, its laws as still worth reading and meaningful. Thus the understanding of the authority of the entire Bible is strengthened.
Conclusion
In this essay I have tried to describe how certain views about Old Testament laws influence the theological understanding of biblical authority. I showed two different approaches to those parts of the Old Testament, later focusing on how the authority of the Bible is perceived by various groups of theologians. Then an attempt was made to present how I understand the idea of biblical authority.
Bibliography
‘Barth, Karl’ at http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_themes_750_barth.htm#top, accessed on 23 May 2008
‘Bultmann, Rudolf’ at http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_themes_760_bultmann.htm, accessed on 23 May 2008
‘Karl Barth’ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth, accessed 23 May 2008
Barton, J., ‘Authority of Scripture’, in The SCM Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation
(London: SCM Press, 1990), pp. 69-71.
Barton, J., ‘Bible, Its Authority and Interpretation’ in The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 72.
Baxter, C. A., ‘Barth, K.’ in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (London, Philadelphia: Coggins, Houlden, SCM Press, Trinity Press international), pp. 78-79.
Erickson, Millard, J., Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998).
Grudem, W., Systematic Theology. An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994)
Gunse, R., ‘Authority of the Bible’, in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), pp. 87-91.
Hammer, R., ‘Authority of the Bible’ in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993)
Lancaster, S. H., Women and the Authority of Scripture. A Normative Approach (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2002)
Pinnock, C. H., Callen, B. L., The Scripture Principle, Reclaiming the Full Authority of the Bible, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006)
Raymond H., ‘Authority of the Bible’, in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Rogers, J., edt., Biblial Authority (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1977)
Rogerson, J., ‘The Old Testament and Christian ethics’ in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 2000) accessed in Cambridge Collections Online, 18 May 2008 <http://cco.cambridge.org/uid=17519/extract?id=ccol052177070x_CCOL052177070XA005>
Ryrie, C. C., ‘The End of the Law,’ Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 124, No. 495 (Jul 1967), pp.
Ryrie, C. C., Dispensatinalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995). http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Bible/dis_dispensation.html; accessed 16 May 08.
Ryrie, C.C., Podstawy Teologii [Basics Theology] (Dallas, Texas: BEE International, 1994)
Sprinkle, J. M., Biblical Law and its Relevance. A Christian Understanding and Ethical Application for Today of the Mosaic Regulations (Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Oxford: University Press of America, 2006)
Webb, W., J., Slaves, Women & Homosexuals. Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001)
Webster, J., ‘Authority of Scripture’, in Dictionary of Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005), pp. 725-6.
Wiazowski, K., Podstawowe zasady wiary chrześcijańskiej [Basic Principles of Christian Faith] (Warszawa: Wyższe Baptystyczne Seminarium Teologiczne, 2000)
[1] Some obvious difficulties concern mainly the literal interpretation, i. e. Should women on the basis of Deuteronomy 22:5 wear cloths that are designed for men?
[2] K. Wiazowski, Podstawowe zasady wiary chrześcijańskiej [Basic Principles of Christian Faith] (Warszawa: Wyższe Baptystyczne Seminarium Teologiczne, 2000)
[3] Wiazowski, p. 93.
[4] Wiazowski, p. 93.
[5] Wiazowski, p. 94.
[6] Ibid., p. 94.
[7] J. M. Sprinkle, Biblical Law and its Relevance. A Christian Understanding and Ethical Application for Today of the Mosaic Regulations (Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Oxford: University Press of America, 2006), p. 6.
[8] C. C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), pp. 23-43. Accessed on 16 May 08 at http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Bible/dis_dispensation.html. The author lists two more absolutely indispensable parts of the system being: (1) A specific system of hermeneutics called literal interpretation (2) The underlying purpose of God in the world is believed to be God’s glory.
[9] C. C. Ryrie, ‘The End of the Law,’ Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 124, No. 495 (Jul 1967)
[10] Sprinkle, p. 6. The authority of the Bible is only partial; There are parts of the OT that are not applicable anymore. It is also worth mentioning that proponents of this approach in their attempt to correctly interpret the Bible will use a “normal” or “plain” hermeneutics Ryrie; Cf. C. C. Ryrie Basic Theology, Scripture Press, 1986. Polish translation BEE International, Dallas Texas, 1994. pp. 125-133.
[11] J. Webster, ‘Authority of Scripture’, in Dictionary of Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005), pp. 725-6.
[12] R. Gunse, ‘Authority of the Bible’, in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), pp. 87-91.
[13] M. J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998) p. 231-2. Erickson mentions five different types of inspiration ranging from what he calls the “intuition theory” to dictation.
[14] J. Barton,., ‘Authority of Scripture’, in The SCM Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (London: SCM Press, 1990).: p. 71. This also brings about a debate about the connections and the size or nature of the participation human and divine elements.
[15] J. Rogers, edt., Biblial Authority (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1977), p. 30.
[16] R. Gunse, p. 88. Gunse lists the following scholars: R. Pache, T. Engelder, E. Young, F. Schaeffer, J. Packer, J. Montgomery, J. Gerstner, G. Archer.
[17] Erickson, p. 248.
[18] Rogers, J., edt, p. 28. See also: J. B. Rogers & D. K. McKim, The Authority and interpretation of the Bible : an historical approach. Some of the names mentioned by Gunse in that tradition include: H. Bavnick; A. Kuyper, G. Berkouwer, J. Orr.
[19] Rogers, p. 24
[20] C. A. Baxter, ‘Barth, K.’ in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (London, Philadelphia: Coggins, Houlden, SCM Press, Trinity Press international), p. 78.
[21] J. Barton, ‘Bible, Its Authority and Interpretation’ in The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 72.
[22] Gunse, p. 89. In this tradition the following names are mentioned: Wright, Cullman, Von Rad and Bultmann.
[23] Gunse, p. 89. Some of the proponents of that view include: Von Rad and Bultmann, W. Pannenberg, J. Moltmann, T. Rendtorf.
[24] Erickson, p. 270.
[25] H. Raymond, ‘Authority of the Bible’, in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 67. Sometimes an illustration of listening to an old vinyl record is used. You want to hear the musician and you are able to do so despite the obvious lack of quality in the recording. One can find Word of God in the Bible, which itself contains some errors.
[26] Gunse, p. 89.
[27] C. H. Pinnock; B. L. Callen, The Scripture Principle, Reclaiming the Full Authority of the Bible, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006), p. 58.
[28] J. Rogerson, ‘The Old Testament and Christian ethics’ in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics (Cambridge University Press, , 2000) accessed in Cambridge Collections Online, 18 May 2008 <http://cco.cambridge.org/uid=17519/extract?id=ccol052177070x_CCOL052177070XA005>
p 34-5. In his article Rogerson points out that critical studies of the Bible as well as unwillingness to accept the OT ethics as authoritative may be due to attempts to straightforwardly apply some parts of the OT in people’s lives.
[29] Sprinkle, p. 3.
[30] Wiazowski, p. 93.
[31] Sprinkle, pp. 6-7
[32] C. Pinnock, ‘Three views of the Bible in contemporary theology’, in Rogers, J., edt., Biblial Authority (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1977) p. 73.
[33] Wiazowski, p. 94.
[34] C. Pinnock, ‘Three…’ pp. 53-54.
[35] Sprinkle, p. 7.
[36] As is generally admitted 2 Timothy was written around A. D. 66, and although some book that later formed the New Testament canon were written, the canon itself was not established until around the 5th or 6th century.
[37] For more helpful criticism see: Sprinkle, pp. 7-9.
[38] Cf. Erickson and Grudem.
[39] C. Pinnock, ‘Three…’ pp. 59-60.
[40] J. Rogers, p. 33. See also: C. Pinnock, Reclaiming….
[41] Cf.: M. Luther, J. Calvin, C. Pinnock. The role of the Holy Spirit is also very strongly underlined in the feminist understanding of the authority of the Bible (C.f. Lancaster, p. 59-60).
[42] Erickson, 277; Grudem, 77.
[43] We are aware of the existence of more approaches to understanding and applying the Old Testament laws in the Christians’ lives, however, in this essay we will briefly mention only two, which have been very interesting to the author.
[44] Srpinkle, p. 203.
[45] W. J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals. Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001), pp. 30-67.
