Scripture and Authority

What you'll learn

Explain what inerrancy means (and does not mean) using the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) and the Westminster Confession.
Describe the progressive view of Scripture fairly, including 'red-letter' and 'Jesus-shaped' readings and the 'flat reading' charge, and answer it from Jesus' own view of Scripture.
Assess the 'trajectory' or 'redemptive movement' argument and reason graciously with someone who picks and chooses texts.

The root question: who has the final word?

Almost every disagreement with progressive Christianity, whether about the cross, hell or sexuality, eventually comes back to one question: what is the final authority? If the Bible is God's word, then when it speaks, God speaks, and our task is to understand and obey. If the Bible is a human record of people's developing ideas about God, then we must decide which parts to keep, and the deciding authority becomes us: our conscience, our experience or our culture.

The Westminster Confession puts the historic Protestant view sharply. Scripture's authority does not depend on any person or church but 'wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof' (WCF 1.4). And the supreme judge of every controversy is 'the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture' (WCF 1.10). This is why the Reformers insisted on sola Scriptura: not that Scripture is the only authority of any kind, but that it is the only infallible, final authority over every other.

So in conversation with a progressive friend, the authority question is usually the place to slow down. You will rarely persuade someone on sexuality or hell while you are standing on different foundations.

Why does the lesson say the authority question is usually the place to slow down in a conversation with a progressive friend?Show answer

Almost every disagreement, whether about the cross, hell or sexuality, comes back to what the final authority is. If the Bible is God's word, our task is to understand and obey; if it is a human record of developing ideas, we must decide which parts to keep, and the deciding authority becomes our conscience, experience or culture. You will rarely persuade someone on sexuality or hell while you are standing on different foundations.

disagreements trace to authority
God's word: understand and obey
human record: we become the judge
different foundations block agreement

What inerrancy means: the Chicago Statement

In October 1978 more than two hundred evangelical leaders met in Chicago under the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy and produced the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: a short statement and nineteen articles in 'We affirm... We deny' form. Signatories included J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul and many others. Two later statements followed, on hermeneutics (1982) and application (1986). (You met the Chicago Statement in Know Your Faith, Lesson 1 and The Reliable Word, Lesson 3; here we apply it to progressive objections.)

Inerrancy means that Scripture, as originally given by God, is true in everything it affirms and free from falsehood, fraud or deceit, including when it speaks of history and the created world, not only of 'spiritual' matters. The Chicago Statement is careful about what this does not mean. Inerrancy applies to the original writings (the autographs), which the statement says can be ascertained from the available manuscripts with great accuracy. It does not deny that God used the human authors' personalities, vocabulary and literary styles. And it is not undermined by ordinary features of language: round numbers, descriptions of nature as it appears to the eye (the sun 'rises'), loose quotations, topical rather than strictly chronological arrangement, and different genres such as poetry, parable and apocalyptic.

In other words, inerrancy is not a wooden literalism. It means God tells the truth in the way he chose to speak. Reformed Christians hold inerrancy as part of the historic doctrine of Scripture; some broader evangelicals prefer to speak of the Bible's 'infallibility' in matters of faith and practice, though most still affirm its full truthfulness.

Explain in your own words what inerrancy means, according to the Chicago Statement.Show answer

Inerrancy means that Scripture, as originally given by God, is true in everything it affirms and free from falsehood, fraud or deceit, including when it speaks of history and the created world, not only 'spiritual' matters. It applies to the original writings, which the statement says can be ascertained from the available manuscripts with great accuracy. Put simply, God tells the truth in the way he chose to speak.

true in all it affirms
includes history and creation
applies to the originals
originals recoverable from manuscripts

How would you answer someone who says, 'Inerrancy means taking everything literally, so you must think the sun actually rises'?Show answer

Inerrancy is not wooden literalism. The Chicago Statement says it is not undermined by ordinary features of language such as round numbers, describing nature as it appears to the eye (the sun 'rises'), loose quotations, topical arrangement, and different genres like poetry, parable and apocalyptic. It also affirms that God used the human authors' personalities, vocabulary and styles.

not wooden literalism
language as it appears to the eye
round numbers, genres
human styles used by God

The progressive view of Scripture

Progressives see the Bible very differently, and it is important to state their view in its best form. Peter Enns argues for an 'incarnational' model: just as Jesus is fully divine and fully human, the Bible is a divine and human book, deeply shaped by the ancient cultures in which it was written (Inspiration and Incarnation, 2005). In The Bible Tells Me So (2014) he presents it as a diverse, ancient collection that records Israel's and the church's journey with God, including their limited and sometimes mistaken perceptions of him. Brian McLaren urges readers to treat the Bible less like a legal constitution and more like a library of voices in conversation (A New Kind of Christianity, 2010).

Two popular reading strategies follow. The first is a 'red-letter' emphasis, after Bibles that print Jesus' words in red; Tony Campolo and Shane Claiborne founded the Red Letter Christians movement in 2007. Many who use the label simply want to take Jesus' teaching seriously, which is good. But in progressive hands it can become a way of ranking Jesus' words above the rest of Scripture. The second is a 'Jesus-shaped' or 'cruciform' hermeneutic: Jesus, especially the self-giving love of the cross, becomes the lens by which every other text is judged. Greg Boyd's The Crucifixion of the Warrior God (2017) argues that Old Testament portraits of God commanding violence reflect the fallen perceptions of the human authors, which God accommodated rather than truly revealed. Progressive writers use similar reasoning to set aside texts on judgement, gender and sexuality.

Progressives also level the 'flat reading' charge: conservatives supposedly treat every verse as an equally direct, timeless command, so that a law about mixed fabrics stands on the same level as the Sermon on the Mount. There is a grain of truth here; some Christians do quote verses carelessly. But historic Reformed interpretation has never been flat. It recognises progressive revelation (God revealed more over time, Heb 1:1-2), the differences between the covenants, the categories of moral, ceremonial and civil law (WCF 19), the importance of genre, and the rule that Scripture interprets Scripture (WCF 1.9). Progressive revelation means later revelation fulfils and clarifies earlier revelation; it never corrects it as though God had been wrong.

State the progressive view of Scripture in its best form, using Peter Enns and Brian McLaren.Show answer

Enns argues for an 'incarnational' model: like Jesus, the Bible is divine and human, deeply shaped by ancient cultures, and he presents it as a diverse collection recording Israel's and the church's journey with God, including limited and sometimes mistaken perceptions of him. McLaren urges readers to treat the Bible less like a legal constitution and more like a library of voices in conversation.

Enns: incarnational model
shaped by ancient culture
includes mistaken perceptions
McLaren: library of voices

What is the 'flat reading' charge, and how does historic Reformed interpretation answer it?Show answer

Progressives say conservatives treat every verse as an equally direct, timeless command, so a law about mixed fabrics stands level with the Sermon on the Mount; there is a grain of truth, since some do quote verses carelessly. But Reformed interpretation recognises progressive revelation (Heb 1:1-2), differences between the covenants, the categories of moral, ceremonial and civil law (WCF 19), genre, and Scripture interpreting Scripture (WCF 1.9). Later revelation fulfils and clarifies earlier revelation; it never corrects it as though God had been wrong.

grain of truth admitted
progressive revelation
moral, ceremonial, civil law
fulfils, never corrects

Jesus' own view of Scripture

Here is the decisive question for anyone who wants a Jesus-shaped faith: how did Jesus read the Bible? If we follow him, we should share his view of Scripture. The Gospels give a consistent picture:

Every detail stands. 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.' Not 'an iota, not a dot' will pass until all is accomplished (Matt 5:17-18). Jesus fulfils the law; he does not discard it.
Scripture cannot fail. In a debate turning on a single word in Psalm 82, Jesus said, 'Scripture cannot be broken' (John 10:35).
What Scripture says, God says. Asked about divorce, Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24, words of the narrator, as what the Creator 'said' (Matt 19:4-5). He called the commandment of Moses 'the word of God' (Mark 7:10-13) and treated Exodus 3:6 as 'what was said to you by God' (Matt 22:31).
The whole Old Testament points to him. After his resurrection he said that 'everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled' (Luke 24:44), and rebuked those 'slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken' (Luke 24:25).
He accepted the hard texts. Jesus treated Noah's flood and the destruction of Sodom as real acts of God's judgement (Luke 17:26-30), and warned that judgement would be worse for those who rejected him (Matt 10:15).
He authorised the apostles. Jesus promised that the Spirit would teach the apostles 'all things' and bring his words to their remembrance (John 14:26), and guide them 'into all the truth' (John 16:13). The apostolic writings are not a rival to the red letters; they are the red letters' own appointed sequel.

Which texts show that for Jesus, 'what Scripture says, God says'?Show answer

Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24, words of the narrator, as what the Creator 'said' (Matt 19:4-5). He called Moses' commandment 'the word of God' (Mark 7:10-13) and treated Exodus 3:6 as 'what was said to you by God' (Matt 22:31). In a debate turning on one word of Psalm 82 he said, 'Scripture cannot be broken' (John 10:35).

Genesis 2:24 as God's speech
Moses' command 'the word of God'
Exodus 3:6 spoken by God
Scripture cannot be broken

How would you answer someone who says, 'I follow the red letters, not the rest of the Bible'?Show answer

Jesus himself treated every detail of the Old Testament as standing (Matt 5:17-18), said the whole of it pointed to him (Luke 24:44), and accepted hard texts like the flood and Sodom as real judgements (Luke 17:26-30). He also authorised the apostles, promising that the Spirit would teach them all things and guide them into all the truth (John 14:26; 16:13). So following Jesus means sharing his view of Scripture, and the apostolic writings are the red letters' own appointed sequel.

Jesus upheld the Old Testament
accepted the hard texts
authorised the apostles
apostles are the appointed sequel

The trajectory argument assessed

A more sophisticated argument says that Scripture shows a trajectory: a movement away from the harsher norms of the ancient world toward greater freedom and equality. We should follow the direction of travel beyond where the biblical text stopped, as the church did with slavery. William Webb's Slaves, Women and Homosexuals (2001) developed a careful version called a redemptive-movement hermeneutic. Notably, Webb himself concluded that on homosexuality the biblical texts show no movement toward acceptance, so his method does not support the progressive conclusion. Many Reformed scholars, such as Wayne Grudem, also criticised the method itself for placing final authority in an 'ultimate ethic' beyond the New Testament.

Several points answer the trajectory argument. First, the biblical movement on slavery runs back toward creation: humans made in God's image (Gen 1:27), the slave as 'a beloved brother' (Philem 16), 'enslavers' condemned (1 Tim 1:10). Scripture regulated slavery; it never grounded it in creation. Marriage as one man and one woman is the reverse: Jesus grounds it explicitly in creation, 'from the beginning' (Matt 19:4-8). Second, on sexual ethics the New Testament moves toward greater strictness, not less: lust is adultery of the heart (Matt 5:27-28), and divorce is restricted (Matt 19:9). Third, the trajectory argument has no stopping point. Who decides where the line ends? In practice it ends wherever our culture currently stands, which makes the culture the final authority. Fourth, the faith was 'once for all delivered' (Jude 3); the canon is closed, and there is no further revelation that could carry us beyond the apostles. (Hard Questions, Lesson 4 looks more closely at slavery and the Bible's ethics.)

What is the trajectory argument, and what did William Webb himself conclude about homosexuality?Show answer

The trajectory argument says Scripture moves away from harsh ancient norms toward freedom and equality, so we should follow that direction beyond where the text stopped, as the church did with slavery. Webb developed a careful 'redemptive-movement hermeneutic', yet he concluded that on homosexuality the biblical texts show no movement toward acceptance. Scholars such as Wayne Grudem also criticised the method for placing final authority in an 'ultimate ethic' beyond the New Testament.

follow the 'direction of travel'
Webb's redemptive-movement method
Webb: no movement on homosexuality
authority moved beyond the text

Explain why slavery and marriage are not parallel cases, and why the trajectory argument has no stopping point.Show answer

Scripture regulated slavery but never grounded it in creation, and its movement runs back toward creation (Gen 1:27; Philem 16; 1 Tim 1:10). Marriage is the reverse: Jesus grounds it explicitly in creation 'from the beginning' (Matt 19:4-8), and New Testament sexual ethics become stricter, not looser (Matt 5:27-28). And if we follow a trajectory beyond the text, someone must decide where it ends; in practice it ends wherever our culture currently stands, making culture the final authority.

slavery regulated, not grounded in creation
marriage grounded in creation
sexual ethics grow stricter
culture becomes the authority

Reasoning with someone who picks and chooses

Sooner or later you will hear: 'Everyone picks and chooses. You eat shellfish, so why do you quote Leviticus on sex?' Do not be defensive. Gently show that there is a principled difference between reading the Bible's own covenant structure (the New Testament itself declares food laws fulfilled, Mark 7:19; Acts 10) and setting aside texts because we dislike them. Sexual ethics are repeated in the New Testament; food laws are explicitly fulfilled.

Greg Koukl's Tactics, which you practised in Tactics and Debate, Lesson 1, suggests asking questions rather than making speeches. Try these:

'What do you mean by a Jesus-shaped reading? Where do you get your picture of Jesus?' (The only Jesus we know comes from the same Bible, and the same Jesus speaks of hell, judgement and marriage.)
'How do you decide which texts are God's voice and which are human misunderstanding?' (Listen for the real authority: usually conscience or experience.)
'Did Jesus treat the Old Testament the way you do?'
'If a text clashed with your values, would you ever let it change your mind?' (If the answer is no, the Bible cannot correct us, only confirm us.)
'Could our culture be wrong about something, the way past cultures were?'

How would you answer someone who says, 'You eat shellfish, so why do you quote Leviticus on sex?'Show answer

Don't be defensive. There is a principled difference between following the Bible's own covenant structure and setting aside texts we dislike: the New Testament itself declares the food laws fulfilled (Mark 7:19; Acts 10), but it repeats the sexual ethics. Then ask questions rather than making a speech, such as 'How do you decide which texts are God's voice?' or 'If a text clashed with your values, would you ever let it change your mind?'

don't be defensive
food laws fulfilled in the NT
sexual ethics repeated in the NT
ask questions

In their own words

“The Bible is both divine and human, like Jesus himself; it is deeply embedded in the ancient cultures that produced it, and we should expect it to look like ancient literature (paraphrase).” (Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation (2005))

“The Bible records Israel's and the early church's journey with God, including their limited and changing perceptions of God; it models a faith that wrestles rather than a book of fixed answers (paraphrase).” (Peter Enns, The Bible Tells Me So (2014))

“We should read the Bible less like a legal constitution and more like an inspired library of voices in conversation (paraphrase).” (Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity (2010))

“Jesus, and above all the cross, is the full revelation of God; Old Testament portraits of a violent God reflect the fallen perceptions of their human authors, which God accommodated (paraphrase).” (Greg Boyd, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God (2017))

Key texts

Matthew 5:17-18: Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfil the Law and the Prophets; not 'an iota, not a dot' will pass away. A Jesus-shaped reading must include this.
John 10:35: 'Scripture cannot be broken.' Jesus rests an argument on one word of a psalm, showing his confidence in every word.
Matthew 19:4-5: Jesus attributes the narrator's words in Genesis 2:24 to the Creator. For Jesus, what Scripture says, God says; and he grounds marriage in creation.
Luke 24:25-27, 44: The risen Jesus treats all three parts of the Hebrew Bible as speaking of him and rebukes slowness 'to believe all that the prophets have spoken'.
2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is 'breathed out by God'. The Old Testament Paul refers to is the very Bible progressives often find hardest.
John 14:26; 16:13: Jesus promises the Spirit's guidance to the apostles. Use it to answer the claim that Paul's letters are less authoritative than the red letters.
2 Peter 1:20-21: Prophecy did not come by human will; men 'spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit'. Human authors, divine origin.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“The Bible was written by fallible humans in ancient cultures. Of course it contains errors and outdated views.”Show a response

It was certainly written by humans in real cultures, and that is part of its beauty: Paul sounds like Paul and John like John. But human authorship does not require error if God is the one ultimately speaking through them (2 Pet 1:21). Your own analogy helps: Jesus was fully human, yet without sin (Heb 4:15). In the same way, Scripture is fully human, yet without error. Most importantly, Jesus himself treated the Old Testament as God's word that 'cannot be broken' (John 10:35). If I am his follower, I want to read the Bible the way he did. Would you be willing to look at how Jesus quoted Scripture?

“I follow Jesus, not the Bible. Jesus is the Word of God, not a book.”Show a response

I love that you want Jesus at the centre; so do I, and John 1:1 does call him the Word. But think about where we meet him. Every word Jesus spoke that we have comes to us through the Bible: the Gospels and the apostles he authorised (John 14:26). And the Jesus we meet there constantly appealed to Scripture: 'It is written' (Matt 4:4), 'Have you not read?' (Matt 19:4). You cannot set Jesus against the Bible without setting Jesus against himself. The living Word and the written word stand together. So the question becomes: are we willing to accept the whole Jesus, including his view of Scripture?

“You read the Bible flatly. You don't wear mixed fabrics or stone disobedient children, so you pick and choose too.”Show a response

That is a fair question and deserves a careful answer. I do not read the Bible flatly. The Bible itself tells us that the ceremonial laws pointed forward to Christ and are fulfilled in him (Heb 8-10; Mark 7:19), and that Israel's civil penalties belonged to Israel as a nation under the old covenant. Those distinctions come from Scripture, not from my preferences. By contrast, the New Testament repeats and deepens the moral law, including its sexual ethic (Matt 5:27-28; 1 Cor 6:9-11). So the question is not whether we interpret but whether our interpretation follows the Bible's own structure. How do you decide which texts to set aside?

“The church moved beyond the Bible on slavery. We are just following the same trajectory on other issues.”Show a response

I am glad slavery was abolished, and Christians who read the Bible were at the heart of that fight. But the case against slavery came from inside Scripture: the image of God in every person (Gen 1:27), the condemnation of 'enslavers' (1 Tim 1:10), the slave as 'a beloved brother' (Philem 16). The Bible regulated slavery but never grounded it in creation. Marriage is the opposite: Jesus grounded it in creation 'from the beginning' (Matt 19:4-8). Even William Webb, who developed the trajectory approach, concluded the texts on homosexuality show no movement toward acceptance. And if we keep moving beyond the text, who decides where we stop?

“Inerrancy is a recent American invention from 1978. The church never believed anything like it before then.”Show a response

The Chicago Statement is from 1978, but the belief it describes is far older. It was written to state carefully, in a time of controversy, what the church had long held. The Westminster Confession in the 1640s said Scripture's authority rests 'wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof' (WCF 1.4). Augustine wrote to Jerome in the early fifth century that he trusted only the canonical Scriptures as free from error. Most importantly, Jesus said, 'Scripture cannot be broken' (John 10:35), and treated the words of Genesis as what the Creator said (Matt 19:4-5). New words for an old conviction are common in church history; 'Trinity' is a later word too. The real question isn't when a label was coined but whether it fairly describes how Jesus treated God's word.

“God is perfectly revealed in Jesus, who was nonviolent. So the Old Testament stories of God commanding violence must be the authors' mistaken perceptions.”Show a response

I agree that Jesus is the fullest revelation of God (Heb 1:1-3), and some Old Testament passages are genuinely hard. But notice where this argument leads. The only Jesus we know comes from the same Bible, and that Jesus did not treat the hard texts as mistakes. He spoke of Noah's flood and the destruction of Sodom as real acts of God's judgement (Luke 17:26-30). He called the Old Testament 'the word of God' (Mark 7:10-13) and said 'Scripture cannot be broken' (John 10:35). He also warned of judgement more than anyone else in the Bible. A 'Jesus-shaped' reading that sets aside what Jesus himself affirmed isn't really shaped by Jesus; it's shaped by our own picture of him. Better to wrestle honestly with the hard texts alongside him than to edit him.

Written task

Your friend says: 'I take the Bible seriously, but not literally. I read it through the lens of Jesus, and Jesus would never say the harsh things the Old Testament says.' Write a 300-400 word reply. Acknowledge what is right in wanting a Jesus-centred reading, explain how Jesus himself viewed and used Scripture (with at least four references), answer the 'flat reading' or 'picking and choosing' concern, and close with two questions that invite further conversation.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Begins graciously by acknowledging what is good in the friend's desire to centre on Jesus
Uses at least four accurate texts on Jesus' view of Scripture (e.g. Matt 5:17-18; John 10:35; Matt 19:4-5; Luke 24:44)
Shows that Jesus himself affirmed hard Old Testament texts (e.g. the flood, Sodom, judgement)
Distinguishes principled covenantal interpretation from selective rejection of texts
Ends with open, thoughtful questions rather than a lecture