The American Bible Society recently reported that the purchase of Bibles has increased over 40% in this country since September 11.  At a time of crisis the Bible provides guidance, direction, and comfort for people of all ages from various socio-economic groups.  It is through the Scripture that the voice of God can be heard, for it is recognized as the written Word of God.  In many ways the question that evangelical theologians and biblical scholars must answer as we enter this new century is this:  “Is the Bible still understood as the written Word of God?”

Evangelical Identity and the Doctrine of Scripture

            Evangelicalism has historically viewed Scripture as a special form of revelation, a unique mode of divine disclosure.  It almost seems tautological to define evangelicalism biblically, for the Bible has been at the heart of, the very formative principle of evangelicalism.  The doctrine of Scripture is in many ways the hallmark of evangelical Christianity.[1]  For five decades, the defining article of faith for the Evangelical Theological Society has been “the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and hence free from error in the autographs.”  Without question, this commitment to Scripture has shaped the evangelical tradition; thus the popular description of evangelicals as “a people of the book.”

            If this is the case the question might be raised:  Why a presentation on this subject at a conference like this?  The obvious answer is because the conference leaders asked me to address the issue of evangelical identity, the understanding of biblical inspiration and authority in light of the recent discussions and differences between traditional and postconservative evangelicals.  But a better answer would be:  so that truth may be proclaimed and passed on to the next generation.  And why do we need to do this?  Hasn’t this issue already been decided?  Wasn’t the “Battle for the Bible” settled twenty five years ago, and didn’t the International Council for Biblical Inerrancy sort out the details of this matter?    Well, yes…and no.

            We now find ourselves at a different moment in American Christianity--in the Western world in general.  Contemporary culture is being overtaken and submerged by a new spirit, often described as postmodernism.  Postmodernism began as a self-conscious reaction against the modernism of the Enlightenment, and especially against its unbounded confidence in reason, science, and progress.  The postmodern mind rightly rejects this naïve optimism.  But it then goes further and declares that there is no such thing as objective truth; that all so called ‘truth’ is purely subjective, being culturally conditioned; and therefore we all have our own truth, which has as much right to respect as anybody else’s.[2]

It is in this context that we are made aware that all Christians are at once beneficiaries and victims of tradition, beneficiaries, who receive nurturing truth and wisdom from God’s faithfulness in past generations; victims who now take for granted things that possibly need to be questioned.[3]  Evangelicals are both beneficiaries of good, wise, and sound traditions, as well as victims of poor, unwise, and unsound traditions.  The Bible must be the “last word” in sifting through and evaluating our tradition, in defining evangelicalism biblically, and in sorting out the wheat from the chaff.  Thus today we need to hear afresh the counsel from the apostle Paul:  “Test everything.  Hold on to the good” (1 Thess. 5:21). 

The Crisis of Biblical Authority

            Scriptural authority has been challenged throughout the history of the Church, particularly since the rise of the Enlightenment.  Fresh challenges, shaped by postmodern thinkers, in their postliberal and postconservative forms, now abound.[4]  Current struggles in evangelical circles now seem to parallel debates taking place in Christianity at large.

            For example, the German scholar Wolfhart Pannenberg, commenting on “The Crisis of the Scripture Principle,” notes that the development of historical research has led to the dissolution of the Scripture principle and thereby brought on the crisis in the foundation of theology that has become more and more acute.[5]  Harvard theologian Gordon Kaufman observed that only in isolated places does the Bible have “anything like the kind of existential authority and significance which it once enjoyed throughout much of Western culture and certainly among believers.[6]  James Barr, almost thirty years ago, predicted that doubt about the status of the Bible may well come to be regarded as normal in the churches.[7]  The developing concern over the inspiration and authority of the Bible in the Church and in theology has greatly intensified during the past three decades.  The controversy over the Bible is not unique to a particular denomination, though the intensity of the debate has been greater and more visible among some; such as in the Southern Baptist Convention.[8] 

            Such strident controversies demonstrate the crisis of biblical authority.  In various branches of Christianity, questions dealing with wide-ranging issues such as abortion, homosexuality, feminist theology, inclusive language for God, and the debates surrounding “open theism” point to challenge of defining evangelicalism biblically.

Today the larger Church is divided between liberal expierientialists[9] who make human moral experience the primary basis for the Church’s message and theological understanding and rigid fundamentalists[10] who have equated cultural norms and forms of philosophical rationalism with the truth of Scripture.  I believe that a biblical evangelicalism must avoid these extremes in offering an understanding of the inspiration, interpretation, and authority of Scripture.  Such a position unapologetically affirms the complete truthfulness and absolute authority of God’s Word.  General agreement has existed in evangelical circles regarding this affirmation.[11]  Yet, the current questions, as evidenced at the Wheaton Theology Conference this past spring on “The Battle for the Bible:  25 years later” have raised anew the relationship of the divine and human aspects of Scripture, the understanding of truth, the place of the reader or community in interpretation, and the meaning of authority.  What must be recovered in our context is an understanding of Scripture that equally affirms the unity of Word and Spirit in line with the great heritage of the Church.  Likewise we need to stress the divine and human aspects of Holy Scripture, while affirming that the Bible is the Word of God written, in which we find God’s Word to His people for all times.[12]

Evangelical Identity:  A Historical Perspective

            It would be naïve for us to think that the answers to these issues are simple or that they are only being discussed in this ETS context, as if we lived in a vacuum.  As we have mentioned some of the challenges can be attributed to the cultural and sociological changes taking place all around us.  Yet, the challenge of evangelical identity is not new.  Defining evangelicalism has been notoriously difficult.

            Alister McGrath, in Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity, suggests that there are six controlling evangelical convictions: 

            --the supreme authority of Scripture

            --the majesty and Lordship of Jesus Christ as the only Savior of sinful humanity

            --the Lordship of the Holy Spirit (which involves a Trinitarian understanding)

            --the need for personal conversion

            --the priority of evangelism for individual Christians and the Church as a whole

            --the importance of the Christian community for spiritual nourishment, fellowship and growth (--though, I would add that this is often understood in parachurch and transdenominational ways, especially in North America).[13]

            Some have suggested that evangelicalism is orthodox Protestantism without separatistic fundamentalism.  Confusion sometimes exists between the various use of terms and the difference of meaning associated with these terms in changing contexts and time periods:  terms like evangelicals and fundamentalists, evangelicals and neo-evangelicals, denominational evangelicals and parachurch evangelicals, and especially at the beginning of this new century the difference between traditional evangelicals and reformists or postconservative evangelicals.  It is the evangelical consistency and identity of these last groups where this address will focus. 

            Over thirty years ago, Carl F. H. Henry warned that if evangelicals did not settle the identity issue, and in doing so, coalesce, they will become by the 21^st Century a wilderness cult in a secular society, with no more public significance than the ancient Essenes in their Dead Sea caves.[14] 

            During that same time period, Millard Erickson raised the question of evangelical boundaries, observing noticeable differences among evangelicals in matters of science, social ethics, and the inspiration of Scripture, which he predicted may actually develop into ruptures.[15] 

            About a dozen years ago (May, 1989) the “Convocation on Evangelical Affirmations,” hosted by Carl F.H. Henry and Kenneth Kantzer, sought to determine if a consensus could be found concerning that which constitutes evangelicalism, while seeking to identify its boundaries.  Kantzer, in an article written in 1987 titled, “American Evangelicals:  What does the future hold?” suggested, in what today looks like a prophetic insight, that evangelicals would drift apart into two broad categories.[16] 

            Certainly there are at least two categories, and several more subgroups.  James Davison Hunter recognized that the fallout from “the Battle for the Battle” was significant, creating observable divisions.  Thus, he claims that evangelicals are constantly needing to redraw their boundaries.[17] 

            Indeed, it was Harold Lindsell, in his 1976 volume, The Battle for the Bible, who took the step of making a commitment to strict inerrancy a criterion for evangelical identity.  This single issue approach to evangelical identity was widely regarded as simplistic and confusing.  Both Carl F.H. Henry and J. I. Packer felt that Lindsell’s “theological atom bombing” hurt evangelical allies as much as their enemies.  Henry and Packer argued that inerrancy was a marker of evangelical consistency rather than identity.  In Lindsell’s subsequent volume, he went on to argue that the term “evangelical” should be abandoned in favor of “fundamentalist” as a sign of the movement’s commitment to inerrancy.  Henry and Packer rejected Lindsell’s proposal, attempting to serve diplomatic roles during those years.[18]

Traditionalists and Postconservatives

             Roger Olson, in The Story of Christian Theology, sees the “two parties” (traditionalists and postconservatives) having roots in the 18^th Century.  He describes a more doctrine focused evangelicalism, which he traces through Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, and B. B. Warfield, and a more pietistic focused evangelicalism, growing out of the Wesley and Finney revivals.  While this categorizing seems somewhat simplistic, he is right to suggest that these two groups coalesced in the 1940s and 50s to form a “new evangelicalism,” distinct from American fundamentalism, whose architects were Billy Graham and Carl F.H. Henry.

            Yet, Olson contends that over the past two decades the theological center of evangelicalism moved from Carl Henry to Donald Bloesch.  This proposed shift was done by relocating Henry on the map of the evangelical landscape. Olson claims that:

Henry emerged as the leading spokesperson for postfundamentalist evangelicalism in the 1950s and 1960, but his star faded in the 1980s and 1990s as he retreated more and more toward a narrow, almost fundamentalist mentality.[19] 

I think it is much better to suggest that several postconservative evangelicals moved the center toward the left rather than to suggest that Henry moved toward a more narrow, fundamentalist mentality.  Stan Grenz, in Renewing the Center, follows Olson by relocating the evangelical center somewhere between a conservative trajectory that moves from Carl Henry to Millard Erickson on the right and a postconservative trajectory that moves from Bernard Ramm to Clark Pinnock going the other direction. 

            I believe the postconservatives have rightly identified the weaknesses in Lindsell’s , but they have wrongly characterized (if not caricatured) other traditionalists in that light.  Grenz, the most prolific of the postconservatives while helpful and insightful in many of his proposals, is quite critical of the traditional evangelical approach to biblical authority, which proceeds from revelation, inspiration, authority, and illumination, suggesting that “we can no longer construct our doctrine of Scripture in the classical manner.”[20] 

            Olson is right to suggest that evangelical identity is more specific than a synonym for Protestantism and with a generous and charitable spirit suggests that “we give the benefit to all who sincerely and proudly claim the label ‘evangelical’ for themselves.”[21]  Yet, some postconservatives, perhaps because of Lindsell’s suggestion to re-employ the term fundamentalist, are at times less than charitable with traditionalists, often carelessly labeling those who emphasize the doctrinal content of evangelicalism (and who seek to articulate the faith once for all delivered to the saints) as “fundamentalists,” “neo-fundamentalists,” “rationalists,” “scholastics,” or “rigid conservatives.”  Such labels are hardly helpful.  For as Olson rightly reminds us “the ultimate danger to the gospel lies not in nuances of our differences, but in the rising tides of liberalism, paganism, and postmodernism that threaten to swamp the gospel in cultural accommodation.”[22]  Certainly we need a genuine renewal of evangelical consensus to ward off those increasingly dangerous trends in the Church, the academy and society.

            The criticism of the traditional evangelical view of the Bible is often tied to what postconservatives believe are underlying rationalistic presuppositions, an overemphasis on propositionalism, and forced harmonizations.  They contend that the Reformation view of Scripture over the years has become more rationalistic in its attempt to respond to modern and Enlightenment concerns.  Postconservatives often convey the impression that this analysis comes from a philosophically neutral basis.  It seems to me, however, that the criticism, though valid to some extent, is influenced more by their own existentialist and postmodern philosophical presuppositions than they are often willing to admit.

            As Millard Erickson argues:

There is another dimension to this matter of philosophical presuppositions.  The effect of the argument [from the evangelical left] is a two-edged sword, however, for, if applied to their view, it would have similar effects. They must be prepared to argue that either their view does not suffer from this type of historical conditioning or that the historical setting that has contributed the presuppositions with which they are working is somehow preferable to that from which the competing theology issued.[23]

            Though many would prefer to find a shared middle ground, by all appearances we now have a “two party” system:  Traditionalist and Reformist (or Postconservative).  Traditionalists, Olson says, see evangelicalism in terms of boundaries, whereas, reformists or postconservatives see evangelicalism in terms of the center.[24]  He acknowledges that “postconservatives find something of value in postmodern culture and philosophy and interpret it as ally of Christian thought insofar as it rejects the modern project of elevating autonomous human reason above revelation and faith.”[25]  

            D. A. Carson has observed that many postconservatives reject the importance given to “propositionalism” in traditional evangelicalism’s approach to Scripture.  Yet, postconservatives, claims Carson, do not fairly assess the traditional affirmation of the Bible’s truthfulness, which has been characteristic of believers throughout church history until the modern and postmodern periods.  Nor do they seem to recognize that contemporary evangelical scholars want to uphold the propositional truthfulness of Scripture where propositions are offered us, while still recognizing other dimensions of truth.[26]  The Bible’s appeal to truth, says Carson, “is rich and complex.  It cannot be reduced to, but certainly includes propositional truth.”[27]  Erickson similarly observes that the approach used by Lindsell, which was seemingly framed entirely in terms of rational presuppositions and modern views of historiography, is a “faulty evangelical methodology.”[28] 

The Center and Circumference; Boundaries and Blinders

            Obviously the positions put forward by Lindsell and some traditionalists on one side and by the various voices of postconservatives on the other help us see the need to beware of our own blinders. We are often victims of our own approaches, presuppositions, and traditions. While we can pinpoint strengths and insights found in both the traditional and the newer postconservative approaches, we need to be aware of blinders narrowing our own vision from things which those outside our tradition can see.  J. I. Packer has warned us that in the “Battle for the Bible”—the danger operates, that the folk engaged in the battle will just concentrate on the battle and never think of the issues for the sake of which the battle is being fought.[29] 

            While taking seriously these observations, nuances, and warnings, it would be a grievous thing indeed if evangelicals were to go the way of the world in their view of the Bible.  The  issue of evangelical identity ultimately matters because the authority of Scripture matters. The efforts of the postconservatives (and the postliberals moving from the other direction) to bridge the gap between the liberal and conservatives may involve trying to combine two fundamentally opposed systems and methodologies.  While inerrancy itself (which we will address near the end of this presentation) is never a single issue, it does represent something far larger in scope as well as significance.  The foundational issue is, and ever will be, the nature of truth, the understanding of divine revelation.

            Rather than choosing to focus only on the evangelical center as proposed by postconservatives or on evangelical boundaries, supposedly the focus of traditionalists, I believe evangelicals must balance both the material principle of the gospel and the formal principle of inspired Scripture.  As R. Albert Mohler, Jr. has recognized, “the material and formal principles constitute not only a center, but rightly understood they also establish boundaries.”[30]  Though I have elsewhere argued against an ad hoc “domino theory” in defending an evangelical doctrine of Scripture, we must recognize that some postconservative views of Scripture have also impacted their doctrine of God and salvation.[31]  This shift indicates that we cannot focus on the center alone and ignore the circumference, for one influences the other.  Nowhere has this been better portrayed than in the bold agenda set forth by Robert Brow in his 1990 Christianity Today article, “The Evangelical Megashift,” which has in many ways become a landmark for many of the proposals we have observed over the past decade.  Here he urges evangelicals to move away from their Reformation foundation to what he identifies as “a postmodern, Arminian evangelicalism.”  Brow suggests that a whole generation is ready to declare obsolete the doctrines of biblical inerrancy, substitutionary atonement, forensic justification, imputed righteousness, the exclusivity of the gospel, the doctrine of hell, and the classic doctrine of God.[32]  That challenging agenda, now a decade old, coupled with the more recent proposal on the part of some other postconservatives wishing to embrace aspects of postmodernism while seeking to move “beyond foundationalism”[33] underscores Millard Erickson’s contention that there surely comes some point where the line has been crossed, and at least a hybrid evangelicalism has developed.[34]  D. A. Carson likewise suggests that there comes a time to “draw lines” even when “drawing lines is rude.”  He offers four reasons why this must be done:

1.                  because truth demands it;

2.                  because distinctions between orthodoxy and heresy must be maintained;

3.                  because a plurality of errors calls for it; and

4.                  because entailments of the gospel confront our culture and must be lived out.[35] 

He acknowledges the great difficulty in doing so as a wider and wider group of people apply the label “evangelical” to themselves.”[36]  Granted that the center takes priority over the circumference, that the material principle rather than the formal principle is at the heart of evangelicalism, it is nevertheless, impossible to define or even describe evangelicalism apart from a full-orbed doctrine of Scripture.  That is because the formal principle of evangelicalism, often summarized in the phrase sola scriptura, affirms that only those beliefs and practices that rest firmly on scriptural foundations can be regarded as binding on Christians.  Evangelical theology and spirituality rests on Scripture as the central legitimating source of Christian faith and theology, the clearest window through which the face of Christ may be seen.  We must recognize that to allow one’s ideas and values to become controlled by anything or anyone other than the self-revelation of God in Holy Scripture is to adopt an ideology rather than a theology.[37]  Alister McGrath suggests that boundaries are necessary, but he warns us that we should not expect or demand uniformity.  Arguing for the need for some flexibility and variety, he says “those who demand total uniformity within evangelicalism impose a straight jacket on Scripture as much as on their fellow evangelicals.”[38] 

            The challenge for evangelicals as we enter the 21^st Century is to develop a doctrine of Scripture that is not enslaved to rationalism and not denatured by an alien postmodernism.  There is a need to emphasize the core doctrines and articulate a theology with boundaries that does not result in a straightjacketing uniformity.  With these guidelines in mind, let us now seek to address this challenge, which is at the heart of defining evangelicalism biblically.

Scripture’s Self-Attestation

            First, let us look at various ways Scripture speaks about itself.

            Both testaments view the words of Scripture as God’s own words.  Just as the Old Testament treats the Mosaic law as God’s words (I Kings 22:8-16; Neh. 8: Ps. 119), so the Old Testament is viewed as a whole as “oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2) written by men whom the Holy Spirit moved and taught (I Pet. 1:10-12; 2 Pet. 1:20-21).  Likewise Old Testament quotations or allusions are viewed not only as what Moses, David, Isaiah, or Jeremiah wrote, but as what they said through the Spirit (Mark 7:6; 12:36; Rom. 1:5,20; 11:9).  In reference to the Old Testament, the New Testament adopts formulas like “God says” and the “Holy Spirit says” (Matt. 19:4; Acts 4:25-24; 13:47; 28:25; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 1:5-13; 3:7; 10:15).  Scripture and God are so closely joined together in the minds of the New Testament authors that they naturally could speak of Scripture doing what it records God as doing (Gal. 3:8; Rom. 9:17). 

            In keeping with New Testament practices, John's Gospel intro­duced statements or ideas from the Old Testament with the words, "it is written" (John 6:31; 8:17; 12:14; 15:25, etc.). Herman Ridderbos suggests that this phrase is employed in this Gospel to put "an end to all contradiction." While this might be viewed as an overstatement by some, the authority resident in the appeal "it is written" is beyond dispute. Thus the Gospel's expression, "these are written" (John 20:31) intends to communicate the same authority present in John's message. Similarly, Pilate's words, "what I have written, I have written," (19:22) demonstrate the authoritative sense of graphō (to write).[39]  The New Testament concept of faith is in accord with the divine character of the apostolic word (Rom. 1:5; 10:3; 16:26). The reference to the divine character of the apostolic word in its written and oral form deserves a response of faith and obedience. When Paul taught and commanded in Christ's name (2 Thess. 3:6), claiming Christ's authority because he was Christ's apostle (I Cor. 14:37) and maintaining that both his words and ministry were Spirit‑given (2:9‑13), he was offering a pattern of inspiration that called for the same perspective toward the apostolic writings that the apostles had toward the Old Testament.

The Scripture, because of its divine content and origin, can be described as “sure" (2, Pet. 1: 19), "trustworthy" (I Tim. 1: 15; 2 Tim. 2:11; Titus 3:8, NIV), "confirmed" (Heb. 2:3, NIV), and "eternal" (I Pet. 1:24‑25). Those who build their lives on Scripture “will not be disappointed" (Rom. 9:33, NASB; see also I Pet. 2:6). The Word was written for "instruction, . . . and ... encouragement" (Rom. 15:4, NKJV), to lead to saving faith (2 Tim. 3:15), to guide people toward godliness (v. 16) and to equip believers for good works (v. 17). God's people will know and hear God's word (I John 2:20,27; 4:6) which "cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

Scripture's purpose is to place men and women in a right relationship with God and to enable believers to seek God's glory in all of life's activities. Scripture, however, is not just concerned with a person's spiritual needs, but also with humanity's nature, history, origin, and destination, their past and future. Thus the Bible teaches us to understand all of life sub specie Dei.[40] The Bible is not only a book of conversion but also a book of creation and redemptive history, and it is this perspective that best represents and defines the divine character of Scripture.

Central to Scripture is the unifying history of God's redeeming words and acts, of which the life and work of Jesus Christ serve as the ultimate focus. Yet, there are three linked levels at which God acts. The first is the public stage of history which included a series of redemptive events including prophetic predictions and explanations at various stages along the way. These acts and words emerged at a second level in, to use Calvin's description, written public records. These records included narrative, celebration, apocalyptic, letters, wisdom sayings, and historical explanation, all of which communicated God's ongoing work of grace. The third level is the human response and understanding of God's work as the Holy Spirit illuminates human hearts and minds to interpret the sacred writings.

Jesus Christ binds and unites together everything in Scripture beginning and end, creation and redemption, humanity, the fall, history, and the future as well. If this overriding unity is neglected, Scripture can become denatured, losing its "theological‑Christological definition" and become "abstracted from the peculiar nature and content of scripture.”[41]  Recognizing that there are numerous other passages that could be cited that address the divine aspect of Scripture (e.g., Ps. 119; Luke 24:25‑27; Heb. 1: 1‑2; 2 Pet. 3:16),  we have nevertheless offered a representative picture of Scripture’s own self-attestation.  Yet, the primary witness to the Bible's own inspiration is found in 2 Timothy 3:16‑17, "All Scripture is God‑breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the person of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (author). Let us now look at this important passage and its witness to the Bible's inspiration.

The Divine Inspiration of Canonical Scripture

We must acknowledge that the approach of self‑attestation is sometimes rejected on the grounds of circular reasoning. The dilemma involved in such an approach is obvious, however. Either the Bible has its starting point upon itself or upon some other foundation, which would be most inconsistent. Certainly there exists a place for additional testimony, but we maintain that Scripture's own claim must be given prior consideration. The argument for the indissoluble relation between ultimate Christ and penultimate Scripture is, of course, circular, but it is a salvific circle, a very viable circle, and certainly not a vicious circle. As with all points of theology, a consistent method would call for a theological statement in Scripture about itself to be considered prior to an examination of the phenomena in Scripture.

The Bible affirms its own inspiration. The term "inspiration" (theopneustos) has a long heritage in the theological literature, but it is always used with further disclaimers and explanations. The biblical idea of inspiration, as used in 2 Timothy 3:16 should not be associated with illumination nor human genius. Neither does it mean "a breathing into."  The New Testament emphasis is that "God breathed out" what the biblical writers convey in their writings. The apostolic emphasis focuses on the divine initiative and divine source of Scripture.

Some contemporary New Testament scholars have suggested that 2 Timothy 3:16 does not refer to all of Scripture, a view that is indicated by the translation, "every scripture inspired of God is also useful.”[42] Such a translation, however, is highly unlikely because it makes the translation of "and/also" (kai) quite awkward. It is most doubtful that the apostle would add that scripture has a second characteristic ("also") before affirming its initial characteristic. I. Howard Marshall claims that this translation can be confidently rejected, since no New Testament author would have conceived of the possibility of a book being classified as Scripture and yet not being inspired of God.[43] 

The grammatical construction of this passage evidences a predicate construction and calls for the more straightforward translation:

All [the whole of] scripture is inspired  . . . as found in the King James Version, New International Version, New American Standard Bible, and the New Revised Standard Version.

Herman Ridderbos says that the predicate significance of theopneustos “is not in my opinion disputable.”[44] G. Schrenk comments that this construction “obviously refers to every passage of Scripture.”[45] I recognize that some will differ with this conclusion, thereby affirming a limited inspiration for the so‑called salvific parts. The problem with this approach is the difficulty in distinguishing the salvific parts from the nonsalvific ones. Certainly 2 Timothy 3:16 refers primarily to the Old Testament writings (graphē). All fifty usages of graphē ("Scripture") in the New Testament primarily refer to the Old Testament, though the entirety of canonical Scripture cannot be eliminated. The construction employed in verse 16 has a broader meaning that allows for the inclusion of all the New Testament writings as well. The anarthrous construction, pas graphē ("all scripture") can have a characteristic idea, so that the phrase can mean "all that has characteristics of canonical scripture.” In addition, graphē in such an inclusive fashion would yield a translation similar to "everything that takes on the character of scripture is inspired, . . .” thus including both Testaments, though verse 15 would suggest that the Old Testament is primarily what was intended by the apostle. Recognizing that all canonical Scripture is inspired, meaning all Scripture finds its source and initiative in God, we must address one of the key questions of our day:  “how can an inspired Bible be written by human authors?”

An Inspired Bible and Human Authors

To confess "all scripture is inspired" primarily points to the product of inspiration rather than the process. What is asserted is the activity of God throughout the entire process, so that the completed, final product ultimately comes from Him. The biblical concept of inspiration must be understood in broader terms than merely the time when the Spirit of God moved the human author to write.

Inspiration allows for the Spirit's activity without demanding that we understand all of the Spirit's working in the same way at all times and places. An evangelical understanding of inspiration includes viewing God's Spirit revealing specific messages to the prophets (Jer. 1:1‑9), guiding authors in research (Luke 1:1‑4), prompting the poets' creativity (Psalms/Proverbs), and adopting or adapting tradition or extra‑canonical material (2 Peter 2). I. H. Marshall has summarized the variety and inclusiveness of inspiration saying that it encompasses the collection of information from witnesses, the use of written sources, the writing up and editing of such information, the composition of spontaneous letters, the committing to writing of prophetic messages, the collecting of the various documents together, and so on. At the same time, however, on the divine level we can assert that the Spirit, who moved on the face of the waters of creation (Gen. 1:2), was active in the whole process, so that the Bible can be regarded as both the words of men and the Word of God.[46]

There is a parallel in Scripture with the incarnation of Christ, who in His one person was both God and man, so Scripture is both divine and human.  Just as Christ’s divinity does not abrogate Christ’s human nature, so the divine authorship of Scripture does not abolish its human authorship. It is simply not the case that evangelicalism denies the presence of a human element in Scripture, as some of its critics persist in maintaining.  Evangelicalism rejoices in the presence of a human element in Scripture, as in Christ, and in the fact that God should have revealed himself in and through humanity in both these manners.  Inspiration is certainly not to be understood as dictation, for that would fall into the heresy of docetism.[47]  Scripture then cannot be understood correctly unless we take into consideration that it has a dual-sided authorship.  It is not enough to affirm that the Bible is a human witness to divine revelation, for that would fall into the ebionite trap.  We must affirm that the Bible is also God’s witness to Himself.  An affirmation that the Bible is partly the Word of God and partly the words of humans is also inadequate.  What must be maintained is a confession that the Bible is entirely and completely the Word of God as well as the words of human authors (see Acts 4:25). 

People who take seriously not only the divine aspect of Scripture, but also the human factors have used the term concursive inspiration to describe the activity of the Spirit with those of the human authors.  This approach readily affirms a plenary view of inspiration and yet takes seriously the circumstances of the human authors.

The tension produced by simultaneously asserting both aspects (divine/human) of Scripture can be best explained, or at least informed, by the spiritual characteristics of the biblical writers. These men of God had known God, learned from Him, and walked with Him for many years in their spiritual formation and pilgrimage. Through their unique backgrounds and experiences, God had prepared the biblical authors (and editors) for the sacred task of inscripturating the Word of God. Through their familial, educational, cultural, and social backgrounds God was preparing the writers and even shaping their unique vocabularies to pen Holy Scripture. Beyond these observations, further explanations regarding the "how" of inspiration result in speculation.

            Postconservatives often object that traditionalists have a “flat view” of inspiration.[48]  Yet, I believe it is best to think that the manner of inspiration is different in Luke’s Gospel, the Proverbs, the Pauline Epistles, the Apocalypse, and the Ten Commandments.[49]  The nature of inspiration is, however, the same throughout, even though some portions of Scripture may be more easily recognized as inspired Scripture.  Yet, this distinction is due in part to the subject matter.  The theological emphases of Romans or Ephesians differ from the historical accounts in Kings or Chronicles.  The inspiration in such historical passages assumes the general characteristic of reliability that is brought to these records.  Even though the manner of inspiration differs and may be less recognizable to the reader in some places, all canonical Scripture can be characterized as inspired (pas graphe theopneustos). 

History must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are and so forth.  Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed:  since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectation in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in the biblical writers.  When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it.[50] 

We must never forget that the biblical writers adopted the linguistic resources available to them as they wrote to specific people with particular needs at particular times.[51]  An affirmation of the Bible’s plenary inspiration does not neglect the human, the historical, nor the cultural elements in the writings.  The human authors were not lifted out of their culture or removed from their contexts.  The writers were functioning members, and most likely significant leaders, in the early communities of faith. Thus neither the writers nor the writings should be seen as autonomous, abstract, or atemporal. 

The biblical authors were people aware of God’s presence and seeking God’s leadership for the issues of their times.  Obviously, the writers were not unbiased historical observers but were people of faith. Whether or not they were fully aware that they were writing inspired Scripture, they did evidence an active God consciousness. Thus the concursive action of Spirit and human authorship is shaped and informed by the writers' spirituality. The resulting canonical shape of the writings helps us understand that they are much more than mere ancient documents. Therefore, they have an ongoing meaning and authority for contemporary believing communities far surpassing anything imagined by the initial penmen.[52] 

We recognize the variety and diversity within the canonical witness.  The Holy Spirit is the one who, in a mystery for which the incarnation provides the only analogy, causes the verbal human witness to coincide with God's witness to Himself.

The Bible as a divine‑human book is indeed a special book, but that means it must be treated both equal to and yet more than an ordinary book, not less than an ordinary book. To deny that the Bible should be studied through the use of literary and critical methodologies seems to treat the Bible as less than human, less than historical, and less than literature. Viewing the Bible from the standpoint of concursive inspiration affirms the Bible as a literary work that is both human and historical and yet simultaneously the very word of God.  Having concluded that the Bible is a divine-human book, we affirm that inspiration applies to all of canonical Scripture (including the process, purpose, and ultimately the product) and assert that by the concursive action of God, the Scriptures are, in their entirety, both the work of the Spirit and the work of human authors. Such a view of plenary inspiration is not only plausible, but necessarily important for a consistent evangelical affirmation of truth. This approach alone does justice to the theological teachings and the human aspects of the biblical text.

Models of Biblical Inspiration

A number of models have arisen in recent years attempting to articulate a view of biblical inspiration.[53]  Space and time limitations prohibit an expanded survey.

The dictation view, often attributed to evangelicals by non-evangelicals, but maintained by no writing evangelical theologian anywhere as far as I know, places the emphasis on God’s actual dictation of all words in Scripture to the human writers.[54]  Such a model could be described as docetic, in that it denies Scripture’s humanity. 

Ebionite views that fail to give adequate recognition to the divine nature of Scripture include the illumination,[55] existential,[56] feminist,[57] and liberation[58] approaches to biblical inspiration.  The Neoorthodox view understands biblical inspiration as an ongoing work whereby the Bible can become a means of revelation to specific individuals or communities.  This approach stresses the idea of ongoing inspiration more than the Spirit’s work at the time of the Bible’s composition.[59]  While this approach affirms a divine and human aspect to Scripture, it seems Nestorian in that there is no unity of the divine and human.  Postliberal views[60] borrow much from the neoorthodox thinkers, and some postconservatives do as well.[61] 

Views that historically have been advocated by evangelical theologians include the dynamic or sacramentalist view and the plenary view.  The dynamic or sacramentalist view sees the work of the Spirit in directing the writer to the concepts and ideas God wanted the writers to have and then allowing great freedom for the human authors to express these ideas in their own styles through their own personalities in a way consistent with and characteristic of their own situation.  Evangelical leaders of a century ago who followed this view included James Orr, A. H. Strong, and E. Y. Mullins,[62] while those in more recent days include Donald G. Bloesch and G. C. Berkouwer.[63] 

The plenary view, which I would contend is the position of traditional or consistent evangelicalism seeks to view inspiration as concursive and extending to all (thus the adjective “plenary”) portion of Holy Scripture, even beyond the direction of thoughts to the selection of words.[64]  From these last two viewpoints we shall move toward a model of biblical inspiration and authority for contemporary evangelical life.

Defining Evangelicalism Biblically or Toward a Model of Biblical Inspiration for Evangelical Life

If the words of Scripture are God-breathed, it is almost blasphemy, claims J. I. Packer, to deny that the Bible is free from error in that which it is intended to teach and infallible in the guidance it gives.[65]  Our attitude toward the doctrine of biblical inspiration is one of accepting God’s testimony.  When faced by difficulties in and objections to biblical inspiration, we will infer that the problem is our failure to comprehend God’s testimony to make truth plain, and will be driven back to a closer rethinking of the matter in light of a closer study of the biblical evidence.  Thus in our dealings with the doctrine of Scripture or the doctrine of God it is the sifting and weighing of Scripture in light of the history of doctrine that shapes our convictions.  Certainly we learn from the debates between Arius and Athanasius and Pelagius and Augustine, all of whom appealed to Scripture, that our goal is the careful and faithful reading of Scripture that has ultimately shaped the consensus of faith through the ages.  This is how all doctrinal advance has been made throughout the history of the church.[66]  This is also how a more true and full understanding of the theological challenges for the 21^st Century can be reached as well.  Certainly this is true for other doctrinal challenges, like the doctrine of God, as well. 

We believe that an evangelical doctrine of Scripture must be careful to maintain that the Bible’s literary diversity is more than a historic accident or decorative device.  This diversity is a vehicle for imaginative thought and creative expression about things difficult to grasp.  Commands, promises, parables, analogy, metaphor, symbol, and poetry cannot be forced into propositional forms without loss.[67]  This is not a denial of propositional revelation, but a clear recognition that the Bible’s literary diversity is so broad that it cannot completely be understood in terms of propositions.[68]  Recognition of this literary diversity brings a healthy realization of the human aspect in Scripture, thus balancing the divine-human authorship of the Bible.  We need a model of inspiration that affirms that even words are inspired, but cognizant of contemporary linguistic theory that suggests that meaning is at the sentence level and beyond.[69]  A model of inspiration articulated in this manner infers the complete dependability and truthfulness of Scripture.  It maintains that what the Bible affirms is completely true and therefore normative for the contemporary Church.[70]  This belief suggests that the purpose of divinely inspired teaching concerning God and matters relating to God and His creation (sub specie Dei) is normative not just for the early church but also for the contemporary Church. 

When such matters are proclaimed and confessed in the twenty-first century, however, mere repetition of earlier Christian beliefs may not be sufficient.  It is at this point that one additional issue raised by Pinnock, Olson, and Grenz deserves our attention—the issue of Scripture’s relevance.[71] 

As Alister McGrath observes, Scripture possesses existential relevance.  This is not, it must be stressed, to say that Scripture’s authority is grounded in such existential relevance.  Scripture is authoritative whether its subjective dimension is appreciated or not.[72]  The postconservatives have rightly reminded us that a restatement that awakens modern readers to an awareness that the Bible speaks in relevant ways to contemporary issues in Church and society is necessary.[73]  The unique authority of Scripture rests on the activity of the revealing God, both in relation to the biblical material, and to a similar extent in the subsequent work of the Holy Spirit in interpretation and appropriation by the reader.  An evangelical understanding of Scripture is not merely rational, but must be one of Word and Spirit.[74] 

We must now probe further and raise the important question of inerrancy.  While inerrancy continues to be a “red-flag” word among many and a subject of misunderstanding among others, it remains an adequate term to describe the results of inspiration.

Jack Rogers and Donald McKim have wrongly contended that inerrancy (broadly and rightly understood) has not been the universal view of orthodox Christians down through the history of the Church.  Rather, they say, inerrancy was but one of several views of Scripture of recent origin.[75]  John Woodbridge has capably shown the inadequacy of the Rogers-McKim thesis, carefully pointing out the faulty historiography of their approach.[76]  Even Clark Pinnock and Donald Bloesch generally agree with Woodbridge’s critique.  Knowing the family history is certainly one way of avoiding past errors and preparing to face the future.  Woody Allen claims that history repeats itself because “nobody listens the first time around.”

J. I. Packer has identified four problems linked with some models of inerrancy.  He suggests inerrancy is often misunderstood because of:

1.  Bad Apologetics—It is sometimes built on faulty rationalistic apologetics.

2.  Bad Harmonizations—It often forces the Bible to say what it does not say with bad harmonizations.

3.  Bad Interpretation—It often is preoccupied with what are actually minor aspects of the Bible, and a failure to focus on its central message.

4.  Bad Theology—The Bible is often treated as merely a source of information; thus its Christocentric dimension is missed.[77] 

Still Packer maintains the need to affirm inerrancy because when rightly understood it affirms biblical inspiration, determines interpretative method, and safeguards biblical authority.[78] 

An affirmation of inerrancy is important primarily for theological and epistemological reasons.  One’s personal salvation is not dependent on a confession of biblical inerrancy, nor should we propose strict inerrancy as the sole identity marker of evangelicalism.  Carl Henry’s model for drawing evangelical parameters is more informative.  Contributors to Revelation and the Bible, edited by Henry (in 1958), included non-inerrantists like G. C. Berkouwer and F. F. Bruce, whom Henry also included among the contributing editors in the early days of Christianity Today.[79]  We must remember that James Orr and E. Y. Mullins, who both held to a dynamic model of inspiration were contributors to The Fundamentals (1910-1915).[80]  Walter Elwell, in his Handbook of Evangelical Theologians, includes chapters on Strong, Orr, Mullins, Berkouwer, and Bloesch.[81] 

The evangelical identity of all of these thinkers is widely acknowledged.  While Donald Bloesch’s nuanced view of Scripture is put forward as a model by many postconservatives, traditionalists recognize that he has provided some of the most helpful analyses and theological critiques of Christian feminism, narrative or story theology, and even the “openness” view of God.[82] 

We can thus affirm that the boundaries for evangelical identity, understood biblically will exclude the dictation, illumination, existential, feminist, liberation, and neoorthodox models of inspiration.  It will include the dynamic and plenary views of inspiration.  While recognizing that inerrancy serves as an identity marker for membership and involvement with the Evangelical Theological Society and many other evangelical institutions and agencies, it still seems best to view inerrancy primarily as a marker of consistency for the long term health of evangelicalism.

It is most important to note that the six examples of non-inerrantist evangelicals identified above (and we could add C. S. Lewis, I. Howard Marshall, and others to the list) remained steadfast to the material principle of the Christian faith.  Yet, as we have noted earlier both the material principle and formal principle constitute and shape the essence of evangelicalism, and help establish the boundaries for the long term health of the Church at large.  Thus a confession of biblical inerrancy is an important safeguard, a necessary but insufficient statement for the Church to maintain consistent evangelical instruction and theological method, which is needed for an orthodox statement, in the essential matters of salvation, Christology, and the doctrine of God. [83]    We recognize that inerrancy, as a corollary of inspiration is a foundational issue on which other theological building blocks are laid.  Recognizing the importance of the issues we can suggest the following definition of inerrancy:

When all the facts are known, the Bible (in its autographs) properly interpreted in light of which culture and communication means had developed by the time of its composition will be shown to be completely true (and therefore not false) in all that it affirms, to the degree of precision intended by the author, in all matters relating to God and his creation.

The definition is complex, but it seeks simultaneously to be faithful to the phenomena of Scripture as well as the theological affirmations in Scripture about the veracity and holiness of God.

While affirming the Bible’s full authority, which means that its full message speaks prescriptively and normatively to us today, we still recognize the temporal and cultural distances that separate us from Scripture and understand that certain teaching may be contextually limited (e.g. 1 Tim. 5:23; 1 Cor. 16:20; Eph. 6:5).  Yet, because the Bible is divinely inspired, the underlying principles are normative and applicable for the Church today as they were in the first century.

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant.  In determining what the biblical author is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production.  J. I. Packer maintains that “in inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman’s milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is a misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.”[84] 

Thus we must interpret Scripture in our confessional setting recognizing that it is, indeed, the inspired and inerrant Word of God.  We must affirm the real possibility that the entire biblical text in its canonical context contains a theological meaning that is not unlike what has been called sensus plenior.[85]  Though we must certainly focus on the original historical meaning of the text intended by the Spirit-directed author, yet because of the canonical shape and divine nature of the biblical text, a passage may have a depth of meaning beyond the human author’s intention or the understanding of the original readers.  Thus we need to read the Bible literally, historically, christologically, and ecclesiologically.  We must emphasize that the literal meaning does not exclude the recognition of figurative language in the text.  Oddly enough, it seems to me that the open theist postconservatives who are often cautious not to overemphasize the literal interpretation of the text, tend to read figurative or anthropomorphic descriptions of God and His actions in a literal, if not literalistic, way.

Traditionalists and Postconservatives:  What Must We Do?

 We all know that the doctrine of Scripture is not the only issue currently impacting evangelical identity.  Certainly there are visible differences among us.  Substantive and challenging issues have developed regarding the doctrine of God, Christology, and soteriology.  Evangelical identity then must be more than merely a sociological matter.  Certainly it is a matter of ethos, as Richard Mouw rightly contends claiming that evangelical identity is primarily a matter of piety, how we sing the hymns.  Yet, I believe that an understanding of evangelical identity must include confessional commonalities—which respect denominational traditions and differences and which do not seek to enforce straightjacketed uniformity.

The pressures from the academy and a postmodern culture will continue to create significant challenges in our efforts to rediscover an evangelical consensus.  A model of dynamic orthodoxy must be reclaimed.  The orthodox tradition must be recovered in conversation with Nicea, Chalcedon, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, the Pietists, and the Confessionalists.  In sum, our evangelical identity must be rooted in the consensus fidei of the Christian Church.

Evangelical identity must be characterized by a clear and balanced affirmation of the Bible’s truthfulness and trustworthiness.  Those who find the term inerrancy problematic must find a way adequately to address the issue of the Bible’s complete truthfulness.  Underlying this commitment is a hermeneutic of acceptance over against a hermeneutic of suspicion.

Evangelicalism has historically reflected considerable diversity.  While we do not hold out doctrinal uniformity as a goal, we do call for renewed parameters regarding the inspiration, truthfulness, and authority of Scripture as well as a reestablishment and reaffirmation of the evangelical center.[86] 

To describe evangelicalism as “biblical” means we confess the full inspiration of Scripture; thus we can contend for the Gospel as truth because it has been revealed to us in Holy Scripture.  It is in this sense that evangelicals in the past, and hopefully in the future, can be called “the people of the Book.”

Evangelicals cannot give up the affirmation that the Bible is totally true and trustworthy because this foundational commitment serves these other essential affirmations of the Christian faith.  A commitment to a completely truthful and fully authoritative Bible is the first step toward healing the deadly sickness in today’s theological and ethical trends that threaten the very heart of the Christian faith and message.  This commitment is grounded in Holy Scripture itself, which is the norma normans non normata.[87] 

The diverse voices of the larger evangelical movement can once again make a harmonious chorus out of what seems at the present moment to be a cacophony of sounds.  Thus out of seeming confusion can come a choir, but this can happen only with and by a recommitment to the truthfulness of Scripture.  Traditional evangelicals and postconservatives can only be reconciled through a common rededication to the message and imperatives of Holy Scripture, and remote though the possibility may now seem, we should certainly strive toward this goal.[88]

We want primarily to stress the truthful and trustworthy character of God’s faithful revelation to humanity and believe it unlikely to move forward together for the long term in ministry, missionary, educational, or evangelistic efforts apart from this common affirmation.  We not only need to affirm the truthfulness of the Bible,[89] we need a fresh call to live under its authority.[90] 

Contemporary evangelicals need not only to affirm the Bible’s inspiration, truthfulness, sufficiency, and normative nature in clarifying evangelical identity, but we need to evidence our concern for these matters by careful biblical interpretation and theological reflection, faithful proclamation, repentance, and prayer.  A confession that the Bible is fully inspired and totally truthful is a necessary and non-negotiable framework for defining evangelicalism because it is the foundation that establishes the complete extent of Scripture’s authority.

Twenty-first century evangelicals must choose to articulate a view of the Bible for the contemporary Christian community that is faithful to historic evangelical positions that have characteristically confessed that the Bible is the written Word of God, is truthful, infallible, and is the only authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.  We can thus relate to one another in love and humility bringing about true fellowship and community, resulting not only in orthodoxy but orthopraxy before a watching world.  Today let us together recommit ourselves wholeheartedly to the Bible’s full inspiration, truthfulness, and authority of Holy Scripture and place our total trust and confidence in it as God’s written Word.[91]

SOURCES

Abraham, William J. The Coming Great Revival:  Recovering the Full Evangelical Tradition. San Francisco Harper and Row, 1984.

__________. The Divine Inspiration of Holy Scripture. New York. Oxford, 1981.

Baker, D. L. Two Testaments:  One Bible. Downers Grove:  InterVarsity, 1976.

Barr, James. Beyond Fundamentalism. Philadelphia:  Westminster, 1984.

__________. Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. Philadelphia:  Westminster,        1983.

__________. The Bible in the Modern World. London: SCM, 1973.

Barth, Karl.  Church Dogmatics.  Trans. G. W. Bromiley.  Ed. T. Torrance. Edinburgh:  T&T Clark, 1956.  1:1.

Beekman, John and John Callow.  Translating the Word of God.  Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1974. 

Berkouwer, G. C. Holy Scripture. Trans. and ed. Jack Rogers. Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1975.

Black, David A. and David S. Dockery. Interpreting the New Testament.  Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001.

Bloesch, Donald G.  God the Almighty:  Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love.  Downers Grove:  InterVarsity, 1996.

__________.  Essentials of Evangelical Theology. 2 vols. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978-79.

__________.  Holy Scripture:  Revelation, Inspiration, and Interpretation.  Downers Grove:  InterVarsity, 1994.

Bonno, Jose Misquez.  Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation.  Philadelphia:  Fortress, 1975.

Boone, Kathleen C. The Bible Tells Them So. Albany: SUNY 1989.

Bratt, James D., editor.  Abraham Kuyper:  A Centennial Reader.  Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1998.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W. “Authority.” ISBE 1 (1979):364-71.

Brow, Robert. “Evangelical Megashift.” Christianity Today. 34 (February 19, 1990) 12-14.

Bultmann, Rudolf.  Kerygma and Myth.  Ed. H. W. Bartsch.  London:  SCM, 1953.

Carnell, E. J. The Case for Orthodox Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960.

Carson, D. A. The Gagging of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

__________ and John D. Woodbridge, eds. Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.

__________ and John D. Woodbridge, eds. Scripture and Truth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

Christensen, Michael J. C. S. Lewis on Scripture. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1979.

Colyer, M., editor.  Evangelical Theology in Transition.  Downers Grove:  InterVarsity, 1999.

Conn, Harvie M., ed. Inerrancy and Hermeneutic. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.

Cotterell, Peter and Max Turner.  Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation.  Downers Grove:  InterVarsity, 1989.

Countryman, William. Biblical Authority or Biblical Tyranny. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

Davis, John J. Foundations of Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Dayton, Donald W. and Robert K. Johnston, eds. The Variety of American Evangelicalism. Downers Grove: InterVarsity 1991.

DeWolf, L. H.  A Theology of the Living Church.  New York:  Harper, 1960.

Dibelius, Martin and Hans Conzelmann.  The Pastoral Epistles.  Trans. P. Buttolph and Ai Yarbro.  Philadelphia:  Fortress, 1962.

Dockery, David S.  Christian Scripture.  Nashville:  Broadman and Holman, 1995.

__________, ed.  New Dimensions in Evangelical Thought:  Essays in Honor of Millard J. Erickson.  Downers Grove:  InterVarsity, 1998. 

__________, ed.  Southern Baptists and American Evangelicals:  The Conversation Continues.  Nashville:  Broadman, 1992.

__________.  “The Inerrancy and Authority of Scripture:  Affirmations and Clarifications.”  Theological Educator 37 (1988) 15-36.

__________, K. A. Mathews, and Robert B. Sloan.  Foundations for Biblical Interpretation.  Nashville:  Broadman and Holman, 1992. 

Ellingsen, Mark.  The Evangelical Movement:  Growth, Impact, Controversy, Dialogue.  Minneapolis:  Augsburg, 1988.

Elwell, Walter A., ed.  Handbook of Evangelical Theologians.  Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1993.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983-86.

__________. Postmodernizing the Faith. Grand Rapids: Baker 1998

__________. The Evangelical Left. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.

__________.  The New Evangelical Theology.  Westwood, NJ:  Revell, 1968.

__________. Truth or Consequences: The Promise and Peril of Postmodernism.  Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001.

Fackre, Gabriel. The Christian Story. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Fiorenza, Elizabeth Schussler.  In Memory of Her.  New York:  Crossroad, 1983.

Garrett, D. and R. Melick, eds.  Authority and Interpretation.  Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1986.

Garrett, James Leo, Jr. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Geisler, Norman, ed. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.

George, Timothy.  “A Transcendence-Starved Deity.”  Christianity Today (January 9, 1995) 33-34.

Grenz, Stanley J. Renewing the Center. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000.

__________. Revisioning Evangelical Theology: A Fresh Agenda for the Twenty-First Century. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993.

__________. Theology for the Community of God. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.

__________ and John Franke. Beyond Foundationalism. Louisville: WJK, 2000.

Hanson, R. P. C. and A. T. Hanson. The Bible Without Illusions. London: SCM, 1989.

Henry, Carl F.H. Confessions of a Theologian. Waco: Word, 1986.

__________. Conversations with Carl Henry: Christianity for Today. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1986.

__________.  Evangelicals in Search of Identity.  Waco: Word, 1976. 

__________, ed.  Revelation and the Bible.  Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1958.

__________. Evangelicals at the Brink of Crisis.  Waco: Word, 1967.

__________. God, Revelation, and Authority.  6 vols. Waco: Word, 1976-83.

Hunter, James Davison. American Evangelicalism: Conservative Religion and the Quandary of Modernity. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1983.

__________. Evangelicalism:  The Coming Generation. Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1987.

James, Robison B. and David S. Dockery, eds.  Beyond the Impasse?:  Scripture, Interpretation, and Theology in Baptist Life (Nashville: Broadman, 1992).

Johnston, Robert K., ed. The Use of the Bible in Theology. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr.  Toward an Exegetical Theology.  Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1981.

Kantzer, Kenneth. “American Evangelicalism:  What Does the Future Hold?” United Evangelical Action (May-June, 1987) 7.

Kaufman, Gordon D.  “What Shall We Do With the Bible?” Interpretation 25 (1971).

Kelsey, David H.  The Use of Scripture in Recent Theology.  Philadelphia:  Fortress, 1975.

Lindbeck, George. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984.

Lindsell, George.  “The Church’s Mission to a Postmodern culture.”  Postmodern Theology.  Ed. F. B. Burnham.  San Francisco:  Harper, 1989.

Lindsell, Harold.  Battle for the Bible.  Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1976.

Longacre, Robert E.  The Grammar of Discourse.  New York:  Plenum, 1983.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.

MacQuarrie, John.  An Existentialist Theology:  A Comparison of Heidegger and Bultmann.  London:  SCM, 1955. 

McGrath, Alister.  Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity.  Downers Grove:  InterVarsity, 1995.

_________.  “Whatever Happened to Luther?”  Christianity Today.  (January 9, 1995) 34.

_________.  J. I Packer:  A Biography.  Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1997.

McKim, Donald K., ed. A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

__________. What Christians Believe About the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985.

Marsden, George. Evangelicalism and Modern America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

__________. Reforming Fundamentalism.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Marshall, I. H. Biblical Inspiration. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Mickelsen, Alvera.  Women, Authority, and the Bible.  Downers Grove:  InterVarsity, 1986.

Mohler R. Albert, Jr. “Reformist Evangelicalism: A Center Without a Circumference.” A Confessing Theology for Postmodern Times. Ed. Michael S. Horton. Wheaton: Crossway, 2000.

__________. “The Eclipse of God at Century’s End: Evangelicals Attempt Theology Without Theism.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. 1:1 (Spring, 1997):6-15.

Mouk, C. F. D.  An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek.  Cambridge:  University Press, 1953.

Mullins, E. Y. The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression. Philadelphia: Judson, 1917.

Nicole, Roger and J. Ramsey Michaels, eds. Inerrancy and Common Sense. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

Nida, Eugene.  Message and Mission.  New York:  Harper, 1960.

Noll, Mark A. Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and Bible in America. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986.

__________. “Evangelicals and the Study of the Bible,” in Evangelicalism and Modern America, ed. George Marsden. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

__________ and David N. Livingstone, editors.  B. B. Warfield:  Evolution, Science, and Scripture.  Grand Rapids:  Baker, 2000.

Olson, Roger E. “Back to the Bible (Almost): Why Yale’s Postliberal Theologians Deserve an Evangelical Hearing.” Christianity Today (May 20, 1996) 31-34.

__________. “Postconservative Evangelicals Greet the Postmodern Age.” Christian Century (May 3, 1995) 480-83.

__________. “The Future of Evangelical Theology” Christianity Today (February 9, 1998) 40-48.

__________. The Story of Christian Theology.  Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999.

__________. “Whales and Elephants: Both God’s Creatures But Can They Meet?” Pro Ecclesia 4:2 (Spring 1995) 169.

Orr, James.  The Progress of Dogma.  London: Clarke, 1901.

Osborne, Grant. The Hermeneutical Spiral. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

Packer, J. I. “Biblical Authority, Hermeneutics, and Inerrancy.”  Jerusalem and Athens.  Ed. E. R. Geehan.  Nutley, NJ:  Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971.

__________.  “Encountering Present-Day Views of Scripture.” Foundations of Biblical Authority, ed. James M. Boice (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978).

__________.  “The Comfort of Conservatism” in Power Religion:  The Selling Out of the Evangelical Church.  Edited by M. Horton.  Chicago:  Moody, 1992.

__________.  “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God.  Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1958.

__________.  God Has Spoken.  Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1988.

__________.  “Notes on Biblical Inerrancy.”  Lecture 12.  Regent College, 1978.

__________.  “Is Systematic Theology a Mirage?” in Doing Theology in Today’s World.  Ed. John D. Woodbridge and Thomas McComiskey.  Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1991.

__________.  “Revelation and Inspiration.”  The New Bible Commentary.  Ed. E. F. Kevan, A. M. Stibbs, and F. Davidson.  London:  Inter-Varsity, 1958.

__________.  The Evangelical Anglican Identity Problem.  Oxford:  Latimer House, 1978.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Basic Questions in Theology, 1. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970.

Phillips, Timothy R. and Dennis L. Okholm, eds. The Nature of Confession: Evangelicals and Postliberals in Conversation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996.

Pinnock, Clark H. Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology.  Chicago: Moody, 1971.

_________.  The Most Moved Mover.  Grand Rapids:  Baker, 2001.

__________. The Scripture Principle. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984.

__________ , et al. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994.

__________. Tracking the Maze: Finding Our Way Through Modern Theology from an Evangelical Perspective. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1990.

Radmacher, Earl D. and Robert D. Preuss, eds. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Ramm, Bernard. After Fundamentalism: The Future of Evangelical Theology. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1983.

Reventlow, H. G. The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Rice, John R. Our God-Breathed Book the Bible. Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1969.

Ricoeur, Paul. Essays on Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

Ridderbos, Herman. Studies in Scripture and Its Authority. St. Catherines, Ontario: Padeia, 1978.

Rogers, Jack B. and Donald K. McKim. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible.  San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979.

Russell, Letty, ed.  Feminist Interpretation of the Bible.  Philadelphia:  Fortress, 1975.

Sanders, James A.  Canon and Community.  Philadelphia:  Fortress, 1984.

Silva, Moises. Has the Church Misread the Bible? The History of Interpretation in Light of Current Issues. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

Smith, Timothy, “The Evangelical Kaleidoscope and the Call to Unity.”  Christian Scholar’s Review 15 (1986): 125-140.

Stott, John R. W.  Guard the Truth.  Downers Grove:  InterVarsity, 1996.

Strong, A. H. Systematic Theology. Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1907.

Thiselton, Anthony. The Two Horizons. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

__________. “Truth.” NIDNTT 3 (1971): 874-902.

Tribble, Phyllis.  God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality.  Philadelphia:  Westminster, 1978.

Turner, Nigel.  Syntax:  A Grammar of New Testament Greek.  Edinburgh:  T&T Clark, 1963.

Wells, David F. No Place for Truth, or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

White, James E.  What Is Truth.  Nashville:  Broadman and Holman, 1994.

Woodbridge, John D. Biblical Authority. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982

ENDNOTES