I can’t find my doctrinal statements that I wrote years ago. So I am rewriting what I believe in a systematic way. Here is what I wrote yesterday during Super Bowl Sunday. Feel free to comment with your own doctrinal statement on bibliology.
Bibliology
I believe the Bible is God’s direct, fresh communication to me through the human authors of ancient time (“Thus says the LORD”). The thirty-nine books of the Old Covenant and the twenty-seven books of the New Covenant through the illumination of the Holy Spirit have unveiled for me glorious understanding of the Triune God and the precious Gospel for redeeming sinful mankind. God’s Word created me (Gen. 1:26) and redeemed me (I Pet. 1:23-25); it heals me (Ps. 107:20), upholds me (Ps. 119:116), and is continually sanctifying me (John 17:17).
I believe in the inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and inerrancy [1] of the original autographs of Scripture and that God has preserved every word (Ps. 12:6-7, Ps. 119:160, Is. 40:8) for us to examine in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available today [2]. I believe that we have trustworthy English translations [3] of God’s Word that I hold to be binding authority for my thoughts and will and that will guide me all the days of my life (Ps. 119:105). And I believe that God’s Word addresses every heart issue [4] for equipping me to be what I need to be as God’s child (II Pet. 1:3).
I interpret the Bible through a dispensational hermeneutic [5], readily favoring a grammatico-historical approach. This will be evident in my eschatology and the nuances I would make between Israel and the Church. But I appreciate the rich gems that I gather from men steeped in the redemptive-historical hermeneutic, declaring the continuity of God and His Gospel through the entire Bible.
[1] Please read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy – http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
[2] I would favor the Masoretic text in the Hebrew Old Testament and the Byzantine family of Majority Texts in the Greek New Testament, but at the same time alert and appreciative of the discoveries through conservative, lower textual criticism.
[3] Because of various reasons, I favor using the NKJV as a pulpit translation for our church family. But I also find it very advantageous to utilize the tradition of the KJV, the inductive edge of the NASB, and the latest scholarship of the ESV as supplement in teaching settings. I also enjoy dynamic equivalent translations in my personal readings of Scripture.
[4] I benefit from the counseling ministry of CCEF – http://www.ccef.org/
[5] I like the research being done by the Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics – http://www.bbc.edu/council/
[...] See here. [...]
I like it. Jon E. shares with me his bibliology statement written in 1989:
I. BIBLIOLOGY: The Doctrine of Scripture
The Bible is God’s inspired self-revelation to man. As such it must be the supreme authority of faith and practice.
A. Its source — the Holy Spirit caused the human authors of Scripture to pen the very words He intended to express His message with exactness, yet without violating their distinctive personalitites (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21).
B. Its accuracy — Inerrancy and infallibility are the terms used to describe the result of the inspiration process. Since the Holy Spirit was superintending inspiration, the product (our Bible) is completely without error in all matters to which it speaks, including history, science, morality, prophecy and the quotation or interpretation of other portions of Scripture. Any apparent error may be attributed to faulty transcription by a copyist or limited understanding on the part of the reader {including errors of translation} (Ps 19:7-11; 33:4; Jn 17:17; 1 Cor 14:37).
All translations of Scripture which were made by competent and believing scholars have value. The King James Version and New American Standard have literal word-for-word rendition in their favor, while the New International Version is commended for its readable style.
C. Its authority — As God’s message to man, the Bible must be taken seriously. It must be supreme in matters of faith (what we believe) and practice (how we live). What we believe and how we live must conform to its teaching (1 Tim 4:15,16; 2 Tim 3:16,17; Heb 2:1).
D. Its finality — The sixty-six books contained in the Bible are exclusively God’s written Word. All claims to further authoritative revelation are either misguided or demonic (Jn 16:13; 1 Cor 13:10; Gal 1:8,9; 2 Tim 3:17; 2 Pet 1:3-9).
E. Its interpretation — All those possessing the indwelling Holy Spirit through rebirth, and only they, are capable of understanding the truths of Scripture. Even they, however, must diligently study it (1 Cor 2:1-16; 1 Tim 4:13; 2 Tim 2:15). The Bible was intended to communicate God’s truth, thus it must be interpreted literally or normally. This means that a grammatical-historical-theological method will interpret individual sections in their context based upon grammatical relationships, historical circumstances, and the clear teaching of the rest of Scripture on the subject at hand. This approach will inevitably result in a dispensational understanding of God’s dealings with man (Rm 9-11; Eph 2:11-22; Heb 1:1,2).
Todd,
I was looking through some of my files the other day and came across your doctrinal statement. Let me know if you want a copy. Good stuff.
I appreciate your clarity and passion for the Word of God. Nothing equals its authority, and no message is as compassionate and full of grace, mercy and salvation than the Words that God has given to us. May God give you grace as you speak them this weekend.
Jason
Wednesday night, Brother Lovegrove gave me a copy of my statements.
Comparing with my bibliology statement written in 1997, by God’s grace, I haven’t gone off into the ditch.
I should post it on here.
But I won’t read the rest of each section of my old 1997 statement until I write my new ones. It is a joy to meditate afresh on the glorious themes of systematic theology.