Nature of Scripture

While reading the many comments to the iMonk blog I came across these two contributions that pretty much sum up my view of scripture:


The Bible is, according to Barclay---
“I. A faithful historical account of the actings of God’s people in divers ages; with many singular and remarkable providences attending them.
II. A prophetical account of several things, whereof some are already past, and some yet to come. [of course, as a preterist I believe that all HAS happened - Dan]
III. A full and ample account of all the chief principles of the doctrine of Christ, held forth in divers precious declarations, exhortations and sentences, which, by the moving of God’s Spirit, were at several times, and upon sundry occasions, spoken and written unto some churches and their pastors.Nevertheless, because they are only a declaration of the fountain, and not the fountain itself, therefore they are not to be esteemed the principal ground of all Truth and knowledge, nor yet the adequate primary rule of faith and manners”
Robert Barclay, Apology, Third Proposition
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is a comparative analogy for how God reveals himself to the world and one that I believe makes the obsessive need to believe in Biblical innerancy seem odd. Nearly all Christians would agree God uses human men and women to make Himself known to others. Likewise, most would readily acknowledge the depth of imperfection in those same people. If God is able to use imperfect people to reveal himself, why would he be limited by a less than perfect Bible? By less than perfect, I simply one that is not inerrant as commonly defined. The demand for this kind of innerancy easily leads to honoring (or making an idol of)the book before Christ. The scripture itself becomes a means by which we shield ourselves from the living presence of God. In a well intended effort to honor God, we dishonor him. In trying to protect Him, He is weakened. He is not weakened or limited in Himself of course, but we inadvertently provide the means for ourselves and others to keep Christ at a distance. We make ourselves sovereign through our demand that a particular view of scripture is the key by which God acts.

What I’m writing here will look to some like liberalism, but is nothing of the sort. Liberalism says the world must be understood according to the rational reasoning of men and women. The argument for innerancy is more nearly related to liberalism than the one I advocate, for it presupposes a sort of enlightenment logic by which scripture must conform to. In contrast to this, the living presence of the Holy Spirit makes alive the words of scripture to a reader open to hearing, and Christ is thereby made alive in her through a vital, life giving, and life forming relationship.

This way of approaching scripture is, I feel, far more worshipful and honoring to Christ than the commonly held views of Biblical innerancy.