Part 3
God not only wanted to communicate with man but He created the mode of communication. He gave language to us and nowhere in the Word do we have any instructions about how to use it. It must be assumed that we are to use it the most logical way that we can and that is the plain and simple literal way.
Ryrie comments on this, "The Purpose Of Language. The purpose of language itself seems to require literal interpretation. That is, God gave man language for the purpose of being able to communicate with him. God created man in His image which included the power of speech in order that God might reveal His truth to man and that man might in turn offer worship and prayer to God." (Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 113)
Had God wanted us to communicate on a deeper level, He would have told us about it, and He would have told us how to do it.
A woman evangelist in California, a few years back, had a revelation from God and He told her that the Bible wasn't written for the normal person to understand. He had written it so that man would think that they understood it, however she was his choice to teach man how to understand it. She had revelation concerning the vocabulary of the deeper meaning of Scripture and she spent hours on the radio explaining what the words of Scripture really meant. Mud isn't really mud, it is really soap, so when you get mud on your pants it's really soap and you can brush it off. There is little difference in her thinking and that of the theologian that does not attempt, at all times, to interpret literally.
What is the first place where Literal Interpreters leave their own method of interpretation? The book of Revelation. When people enter this book they tend to lose all contact with the real world of interpretation. Very few men I know of today have even attempted to interpret this book literally. In your ministry try it — you'll like it.
Since prophecies of the first coming were fulfilled literally it is reasonable to assume that the prophecies of the second coming will also be fulfilled literally. There is no reason for the interpreter to interpret the book of Revelation in any way other than the normal literal approach. Yes, there
are portions of the Revelation that are pictures and symbolic, but they are introduced as such within the text.
Ryrie lists four principles of Normal Hermeneutics. I have adapted these for our study. Items to consider in interpretation:
1. Grammar: The words carry the message to the listener. We must attempt to understand the words as they were used at the time that they were recorded. Not to do this will result in much error and confusion.
2. Context: The words and sentences that you have been studying will of necessity have to be compared to what was mentioned earlier, and later in the text, to fully understand the intent of the Lord.
3. Context Of The Entire Scripture: When you understand what the person hearing or reading the words understood, then you need to compare that to the context of Scripture to properly understand all that is meant. We must interpret every part within the context of the whole.
4. Progressive Revelation Must Be Considered: God revealed Himself progressively over time, and we need to understand that what was revealed to one person in the Scripture, may find change later in Scripture. Example: The sacrificial system was the requirement under the law, is not required in the Church age, and will be reestablished in some form in the Kingdom. The idea of progressive revelation does not imply that later revelation contradicts, nor negates current revelation.
In this section we might mention that the recipient of the book may be of importance. The books to the Jews must be viewed somewhat differently than the epistles of Paul to the churches. Many things had happened and changed between these times. Much will apply differently in our age.
I've added two items of importance.
5. The message of the book: How you approach a book will be partially determined by what the book is about.
6. Objectivity: We must go into the Word to see what it has to say to us, and not to see what we can say to others through it. We all have preconceived ideas, but they should be left out of interpretation.
I wish that I could give proper credit for the following quotation, but I do not know where it originated. I found it in some of my notes. It is of significance, so will be included. I trust that the originator will forgive its uncredited use. "If the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense or you'll end up with nonsense." I trust you will reread that and consider it as you seek to interpret the Word.
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE
1. Remember the words of Jowett? "Interpret the Bible like any other book." Can you imagine the allegorist reading the Caine Mutiny, or the Magnificent Obsession, and interpreting them like he interprets Scripture?
2. The seriousness of proper interpretation cannot be overemphasized in my opinion. If you are going to dare to teach or preach you must be sure that what you have prepared is really what the Lord had to say in the first place. Be very careful of how you use the Word. Be very careful how you prepare.
Don't be satisfied with a bit of surface study. Go deeper to be sure the passage really says what you are going to say it says.
3. It seems to me that any system of interpretation other than plain, literal interpretation is a step away from the idea that the Word of God is for all believers of all ages, education levels, and abilities.
If you move into some of the other areas of interpretation, it seems that you remove the Word from the hands of all, and place it in the hands of the elite that know how to apply their special principles.
ANIMATION
We all know what animated cartoons are, indeed, we probably know all too well. They are drawn pictures that are shown in quick sequence, and then filmed to give the impression that the pictures or characters are alive.
We want to look at the thought of animation in relation to the Word of God. There are some various aspects to animation in the context of the Word. The Word itself is animated, or living, and It can make a person animated as well, via the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
DEFINITION
The term animate comes from the Latin word "anima" which means breath, and this symbolizes life itself. The term "anima" comes to us in our English words; animal, animated, inanimate, animation, and animosity.
1. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionry mentions of animated, ".....endowed with life or the qualities of life....." (By permission. From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary copyright 1991 by MerriamWebster Inc., publisher of the Merriam-Webster (registered) Dictionaries.)
2. Animation is the quality of the Word that gives it the characteristic of life, as well as the quality of the Word of God that produces living and lasting effects in the person reading it.
Animation is a term used to describe an attribute of the Word of God. The Word is active, or animated — it is alive. Not that it will ever get up on it's hands, and knees and crawl, but it can move the reader emotionally. It can bring them to salvation. The Word is faithful, righteous and powerful. It is not a dead lifeless book, but a living Word, capable of giving life. No other book can boast of such an attribute.
The Bible can, and does affect the nonbeliever. Let us look briefly at It's effect on the unsaved: The Word can give him faith, Romans 10:17; The Word can give him wisdom In Relation To Salvation, Psalm 19:7; The Word can give him salvation, Psalm 19:7; 1 Peter 1:23.
Not only does the Word affect the nonbeliever, but It also affects the believer. It's effect on the saved: The word strengthens the new believer, 1 Peter 2:2; The Word builds up the older believer, Acts 20:32; The Word can purify the believer's life, Ephesians 5:26; The Word can bring change in the mind and in the heart of the believer, Hebrews 4:12
There is indication that a proper understanding, and acceptance of the Word is necessary for the animation of the Word to be effective.
A quotation might sum up what we have seen thus far. There are many that have witnessed the life changing effects of the Word, and this is one of those accounts: "Experiences in the past two years have profoundly altered my thinking. The authority and truth of Scripture is not an obscure issue reserved for the private debate and entertainment of theologians; it is relevant, indeed critical for every serious Christian — layman, pastor, and theologian alike.
"My convictions have come. . .from life in what may be termed the front-line trenches, behind prison walls where Christians grapple in hand-to-hand combat with the prince of darkness. In our prison fellowships, where the Bible is proclaimed as God's holy and inerrant revelation, believers grow and discipleship deepens. Christians live their faith with power. Where the Bible is not so proclaimed (or where Christianity is presumed to rest on subjective experience alone or contentless fellowship) faith withers and dies. Christianity without biblical fidelity is merely another passing fad in an age of passing fads. In my opinion, the issue is that clear-cut." (Boice,; "Standing On The Rock"; Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1978, p 108. This was a quote from one of Chuck Colson's books.)
Two terms are related to our study of animation.
1. The term "zao" is defined as "to live, be alive" by Vine. (Vine, W. E.; "An Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words"; Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co; Strong's number 2198)
This term is used in Hebrews 4:12 as a clear statement of fact that the Word is living. "For the word of God is living, and powerful, and sharper
than any two-edged sword. . . ." We see the identical thought given in 1 Peter 1:23.
The term is also used of:
God, Matthew 16:16 — The Son incarnate, John 6:57 — The Son in Resurrection John 14:19 — eternal life, John 6:57 — the present state of departed saints, Luke 20:38 — the hope of resurrection, 1 Peter 1:3 — the resurrection of believers, 1 Thessalonians 5:10 — the way of access to God through Christ, Hebrews 10:20 — the manifestation of divine power and authority, 2 Corinthians 13:4b — bread (figurative of Christ), John 6:51 — a stone (figurative of Christ), 1 Peter 2:4 — water (figurative of the Holy Spirit), John 4:10 — a sacrifice figurative of the believer, Romans 12:1 — the oracles, Acts 7:38 — the physical life of men, 1 Thessalonians 4:15 — the maintenance of physical life, Matthew 4:4 — the duration of physical life, Hebrews 2:15 — the enjoyment of physical life, 1 Thessalonians 3:8 — the recovery of life from the power of disease, Mark 5:23 — the recovery of life from the power of death, Matthew 9:18. — Do you get the idea that this life that the Word has, is considered to be life, as in the plain, literal interpretation of life. It is living, and it is really something.
2. The term "energees" (Strong's number 1756) has the idea of "in work" according to Vine. (Vine's Word Studies) It is used in 1 Corinthians 16:9; Philemon 6; and Hebrews 4:12. We gain our terms energy, energetic etc. from this term. It is translated effectual in the first two texts and powerful in the Hebrews text.
The Word is living and powerful, in and of Itself. It is also living and powerful in people's lives.
When I was considering going into the ministry and college, I began to pray that the Lord would make it clear to me that He wanted me to leave at that particular point in time. My father had no one to care for him, and he had been given two years to live, about a year and a half prior to this point in time. I really didn't feel that it was right to leave him, and travel twelve hundred miles away to college, however I told the Lord we would do as He directed. I had in mind that if the Lord sent us away that He would take care of the details of my father.
One evening, as time was running out, I opened the Word to read, and my eyes fell upon two verses that sent us forth to college. "And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead; but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." Luke 9:59,60
The neat part of the story is that shortly after our decision to leave was made, my brother called to tell me that he was moving back home to help care for our father. My father found out a few months later, that the doctors had made a bad diagnoses, and that he wasn't dying. He lived for a number of years after we left. Over the next few weeks the Lord closed the door to the college we had planned on attending, and led us to attend a college that was only three hundred miles away. We were able to spend many weekends with my father over the years.
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE
1. If this is the Word of God, and it is perfect, and it is without error, and it is powerful, and it is living, then why don't we respond to it more as believers. Do we really believe that it has power to change our lives? Do we really believe that it has power to change the lives of others? Do we really believe that it has power to keep mankind out of eternal Hell?
The answers to all of these questions is "Yes". Indeed, if we are believers, we can think back, and see that the Word has, indeed, changed our lives drastically.
If we see that change in our life, then why aren't we more ready to share the Word with people that need their lives changed by the Word?
2. If we really believe that the Word can change lives, why are we so bent on telling people of the problems in their lives? Why not share a reference or two with them, so they can find out what God wants them to be like and trust the Word to change their life.
We worked with a lady that was seeking "the baptism" and tongues so hard that she couldn't see anything else for several weeks. She finally, through the ministry of the Word and the Holy Spirit, realized that it wasn't the baptism and tongues that she needed — it was the Lord Jesus that she needed. She accepted the Lord — a real changed life.
3. In family situations when there are problems why is it that we so often use our own angry words to settle a dispute, when we could allow the living Word to do the job much better?
4. If the Word has a power and life that no other book has then why do we spend so much time in our Sunday Schools etc. in books instead of The Book? We get a newsletter from a fundamental church and the youth group is always studying some book rather than the book. Teenagers can respond to a living Word as well as children and adults.
5. It alone is living — it requires no man to make it live. Recently I saw an ad for one of the California evangelical elite saying that the man makes the Bible live. Wrong. God made It a living thing when He delivered It to man. We have no need of any man to make it live for us.
6. I would like to take a longer look at two verses that we have read. 1 Peter 1:23 and Hebrews 4:12.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." 1 Peter 1:23
It can cause the rebirth of a person, It is incorruptible, It is living, It is eternal.
"For the word of God is living, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12
It is powerful, It is sharp, It pierces to divide soul and spirit, It discerns our thoughts, It discerns the intents of our hearts.
Can we say from those things that the Bible can, on it's own, without any help from us, bring someone to know the Lord? Yes. The Gideons have testimonies of people that have read Bibles in hotels and motels and found the Lord.
A South African missionary I met once shared in his personal testimony that he knew he needed something, and felt that the Bible might have his answers. He purchased one, and shut himself in a room for two days and did nothing but read the Bible. While reading the book of John, he found
his answers and accepted the Lord. Yes, the Word is alive and can make lost men live.
7. Since we know that it is eternal, and we know we are to respond to that part of it that we understand (illumination), then we might assume safely that if we do not respond, that it will be the record used against us when we stand before the Lord. Did you ever wonder what other books are going to be at the judgments? (Revelation 20:12,
"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."
Do you suppose that one of those books will be the living Word?
The Word of God is living. God does not need any preacher, nor evangelist, no matter how famous, no matter how eloquent, no matter how brilliant, to make His Word live. It lives, because of Its very nature. It lives, because It is the message to man from a living God. Don't Fall For The False Advertizing That You Have Seen.
GOD'S WORD IS LIVING.
PRESERVATION
Most doctrinal statements which speak of inspiration usually mention at the end of their statement that their belief extends to the original manuscripts. This is true, yet there has always been a gap in thinking to me in these statements. If God inspired the Scriptures in the original manuscripts, but did nothing else, how can we know that what we have today is valid, authoritative, or useful? I was always desirous of more than the statement "in the original manuscripts."
It is this addition that I would like to address in this section. Preservation is often assumed, yet seldom mentioned or examined. Hopefully this section will address this gap in the normal inspiration study.
DEFINITION
1. In jam it means to keep the fruit unspoiled, and so it is in the Scriptures. God preserved the Bible in it's transmission to our time.
The Word was verbally inspired by God through human authors. That inspired Word was in the transmission of the original manuscripts. Preservation would teach that God preserved the transmission of that information to our time in a most useable and correct work.
2. Pardington, in speaking of all that God has created quotes Strong (Both were speaking of the universe.), "Preservation may be defined as "That continuous agency of God by which He maintains in existence the things He has created together with the properties and powers with which He has endowed them". (Pardington, Revelation George P. Ph.D.; "Outline Studies In Christian Doctrine"; Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1926, p 101)
This is one area of preservation, however we do not wish to speak of this type at this time. There is also the preservation of the soul, all things, and physical body.
Unger mentions the preservation that we are interested in under the topic of inspiration. "The Holy Spirit, it is reasonable to conclude, also had a
definite ministry in preserving the inspired Scriptures through millennia of transmission." (Taken from: "Unger's Bible Dictionary"; Unger, Merrill F.; Copyright 1957, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission. p 528)
There are three sections to the preservation of the Scripture.
First, that the books of the canon were preserved throughout the time before they were viewed, or held as canonical.
Secondly, that since the books were set down by their authors the books have been preserved not only until the canon was set but even until our day.
Thirdly, I believe we can be assured that the Lord will also preserve His word until eternity future.
ARGUMENTS FOR PRESERVATION FROM SCRIPTURE
1. The Word is declared to be eternal: To be eternal the Word would need to be kept intact from Its inception throughout all time and into eternity. (Psalm 119:152; Matthew 24:35; 1 Peter 1:23b; Psalm 12:6-7; Psalm 119:89)
2. Christ is the Word and Christ is eternal, so how can The Word change, even if there were no doctrine of preservation? The lack of preservation is a foolish thing to contemplate. (John 1:1)
3. The book of Revelation contains a warning to those that would tamper with it's contents. By application, at the very least, we may say that God is in the business of watching over His Word and how it is transmitted. (Revelation 22:18,19) In a similar vein the book of Deuteronomy contains a warning to the Israelites as well. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish anything from it," (Deut 4:2)
4. One other item that clinches this doctrine of preservation is that Christ and the apostles, when quoting the Old Testament texts were using copies of copies, not the originals. This would show that Christ and the apostles held the copies to be of the same quality and authority as the originals.
5. Matthew 5:18 mentions,
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
This promise Demands Preservation.
The Westminster confession indicates that preservation has been believed even though few have written on the topic. Speaking of the Scriptures, "...being immediately inspired by God and by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages...." (Pache, Rene, "The Inspiration And Authority Of Scripture"; p 186)
ARGUMENTS FOR PRESERVATION FROM LOGIC
1. If God went to the trouble to communicate the Word, His revelation of Himself, to man so that man might know Him, it would be sheer foolishness to allow it to become corrupt along the way through the years, so that at some point in history it was not a true view of Him.
2. If God preserves as worthless a lot as man and beasts, I am sure that He would preserve the Word, which is His revelation to His creation. (Psalm 36:6; Psalm 145:20 mentions that he preserves those that love Him)
3. Consider a few texts. Colossians 1:16 mentions, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones,or dominions, or principalities, or powers — all things were created by him, and for him; And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
Hebrews 1:3,
"Who, being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of
his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,"
Nehemiah 9:6 mentions the preservation of the creation.
It only follows that if He protects all things as the above verses tell us — then He must preserve the Word for He preserves all things.
4. There have been those that have tried to destroy and eliminate the Bible, but we can see how much effect they have had. The Bible still is in existence.
"No other book has ever been the object of such antagonism as has the Bible. In both ancient and modern times, kings and priests have tried desperately to destroy it and unbelieving intellectuals to ridicule and refute it. Untold numbers of copies have been burned and mutilated and hosts of its advocates persecuted and killed. But it has only multiplied the more, and today is read and believed by more people in more nations and languages than ever before, continually remaining for centuries the world's best seller." (Many Infallible Proofs by Henry M. Morris; p 15.)
In the conclusion of one of their chapters Geisler and Nix have a few comments that relate to the topic at hand.
"The history of the New Testament text may be divided into several basic periods: (1) the period of reduplication (to c. 325), (2) the period of standardization of the text (c. 325-c. 1500), (3) the period of crystallization (c.1500. 1648), and (4) the period of criticism and revision (c. 1648-present). During the period of criticism and revision, the struggle between proponents of the "Received Text" and the "Critical Text" has been waged. In the final analysis, there is no substantial difference between their texts. Their differences are mainly technical and methodological, not doctrinal, for the textual variants are doctrinally inconsequential." "Thus, for all practical purposes, both texts convey the content of the autographs, even though they are separately garnished with their own minor scribal and technical differences." (Taken from: "A General Introduction To The Bible"; Geisler, Norman L/Nix, William E; Copyright 1968, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission.; p 464)
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE
1. If the Bible was inspired, if it is authoritative, if it is the Word of God, and if He has preserved it, then we may put our entire trust and faith into the Word.
2. When someone becomes worried as to the differences between the texts we can assure them that The Bible That We Have Is The Bible That God Wanted Us To Have. He Has Preserved It Unto Our Time, In The Form
Of Many Manuscripts, And Among These Manuscripts There Are No Differences That Change Any Doctrine.
3. The preservation of the Scripture might also be of encouragement to one that is having difficulty believing the preservation of the saint in his salvation.
INERRANCY OF THE SCRIPTURE
This is a relatively old doctrine, though little had been done to develop it until more recent years when the Christian community allowed the liberal questions and attacks to shake their belief and confidence in the Scriptures. Since, there has been good research and the doctrine has been developed. Most conservative Christians would have believed it in years past but probably hadn't really thought that much about it.
In recent years there has arisen confusion as to the meaning of the term. Some have used terms similar to those used by conservatives to discuss the Scriptures. These men do not believe that the Bible is without error.
Enns describes the dilemma nicely. "The result, as Charles Ryrie has shown, has necessitated the inclusion of additional verbiage. To state the orthodox view it is now necessary to include the terms 'verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant, unlimited inspiration.' All this has been necessitated because of those who have retained words like inspiration, infallible, and even inerrant while denying that the Bible is free from error." (Taken from: "The Moody Handbook Of Theology"; Enns, Paul; Copyright 1989, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission. p 166)
DEFINITIONS
1. The Scriptures are without error of any kind in all that they say.
2. Webster states that inerrancy means "free from error."
3. Enns suggests, "The teaching that since the Scriptures are given by God, they are free from error in all their contents, including doctrinal, historical, scientific, geographical, and other branches of knowledge." (Taken from: "The Moody Handbook Of Theology"; Enns, Paul; Copyright 1989, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission. p 636)
Inerrantists are people that believe that the Bible is without error, while Errantists are people that believe that there are errors in the Scripture.
OTHER DEFINITIONS
1. An errantist writes, "The Bible is infallible, as I define that term, but not inerrant. That is, there are historical and scientific errors in the Bible, but I have found none on matters of faith and practice" (Ryrie quoting Stephen T. Davis, The Debate About The Bible, Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986 p 115)
This demands that either God gave men His message and the men added in what they wanted, or that God gave the writers of Scripture information that was not correct. Neither are acceptable to the theologian that believes in infallibility.
2. The Lausanne Covenant stated, "inerrant in all that it affirms." Both errantists and inerrantists could agree to that statement, though the inerrantist would naturally desire to take the statement further.
3. The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in Chicago stated, "Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching..." They then added nineteen articles to define what they said.
4. The Roman Catholics hold to an inerrant scripture, but only in the area of salvation.
5. The Neo-evangelical holds to either inerrancy or non-inerrancy. Some of the old timers that we now call established evangelicals held to the inerrant scriptures. Harold Ockenga is one of those according to Enns.
There are others that feel that the text itself is not inerrant, however the truths that the text conveys are inerrant.
Ryrie sets the argument logically by stating that God is true, the Scriptures were breathed out by God, thus the Scriptures are true. (Romans 3:4; 2 Timothy 3:16)
Erickson suggests that there are seven divisions within inerrancy. (P 222ff if you are interested.) I will recap his points as I understand him.
1. Absolute Inerrancy: This position holds that everything is true and if there is a seeming contradiction that it needs to be explained. In the area of science some suggest that the Word is in error. The absolute inerrantist would state that there is an explanation for all those seeming contradictions, normally that science is wrong again. Science has been proven incorrect before when it had contradicted Scripture.
2. Full Inerrancy: The full would be similar to the absolute except that they would not attempt to prove contradictions to be false in the area of science. They would state that the Biblical author was presenting what he saw or heard as he saw or heard it with his level of understanding in his own time period. This might allow for errors of misunderstanding on the author's part.
3. Limited Inerrancy: These folks would hold that the Bible is not attempting to be an authority on science, history etc. The items of science, history, etc. that Scripture mentions are limited to the understanding of the day and may indeed contain some error.
4. Inerrancy Of Purpose: This position tells us that the purpose of the Scripture is to bring man to God. In that purpose, everything that the Word states is inerrant, but that is all.
5. Accommodated Revelation: There is the possibility of a mixing of man's knowledge with the revelation of God. When Paul mixes in teaching that comes from his Rabbinical days he is actually adding comment to the Lord's inerrant revelation.
6. Nonpropositional Revelation: This is the position that holds that the Bible is only there to guide us to personal relationships between people. The Scriptures are only the words of men and are only useful to bring you to person to person encounters.
7. Inerrancy Is Irrelevant: The thought of inerrancy brings one to concentrate on the minute thoughts of inerrancy while ignoring what might happen if someone is free to study the Word without the limitation of thinking that it is without error.
Ryrie poses some questions that might help us understand some of the ramifications of this doctrine. (p 77) Can a person be an Evangelical and
not hold to inerrancy? Yes, many are today. Can a person be a Christian and not hold to inerrancy? Yes. Many are. Can a person be a Biblicist and not hold to inerrancy? No, not if the Bible teaches inerrancy.
Some suggest that the terms infallibility and inerrancy are identical and relate to the Bible. Lindsell is quite emphatic about the fact that they are synonyms. When you are studying either, you will probably need to look under both topics.
I personally feel they relate first to God, and then to His revelation. I also feel there is a slight difference between the two words.
Inerrancy according to Webster is "exemption from error." He defines infallibility as "Incapable of error." If I, as your teacher, sit in silence during a class hour looking at you, I would be without error in what I had taught, however I certainly am not "incapable of error". The difference is slight but we need to see it.
Infallibility is the idea of being unable to make errors. Or in the case of Scripture the Word of God was given without error, in that God can not make errors. God is infallible. His Word on the other hand IS without error. An extension of this might be that it is unable to give forth error to it's reader.
Infallibility then is: God is unable to make errors, and the Bible cannot give forth error. Inerrancy is the other side of the coin in that it is the result of infallibility. Because the Bible was given by One with no possibility of error then it is without error. Inerrancy then is the fact that the Bible is without error in the original manuscripts. Thus an errantist that says the word is infallible but has errors must say that the Lord gave errors to the writers of Scripture, or else that God made errors in what He transmitted.
Geisler/Nix list an argument of logic. "Whatever God utters is errorless (inerrant). The words of the Bible are God's utterances. Therefore, the words of the Bible are errorless (inerrant)." (Taken from: "A General Introduction To The Bible"; Geisler, Norman L/Nix, William E; Copyright 1968, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission.)
Thus infallibility must be the quality that makes God's utterances errorless, and His utterances are without error or inerrant because He is infallible. This then would extend to the Scriptures themselves as they were given to the authors. Inspiration would be that process by which the infallible God transmitted His errorless revelation to the authors for the recording of the canonical books of the Scripture.
We need to distinguish between the originals and the copies of Scripture. Most doctrinal statements mention that the inerrancy is in the original manuscripts. The implication is that the copies of copies that we have today may have errors in them that the originals did not. The Lord and apostles when quoting the Old Testament were giving their approval to the copies of Old Testament originals. They viewed them as reliable.
We do not know what condition the copies they used were in. I suspect they may have been of better quality than those we have for the New Testament. The fact is that there are differences between different manuscripts that we have today. That was the bad news but the good news is that we have no doctrine that is changed by any of these differences. We will discuss the differences in a coming study.
Point: The originals were errorless.
Point: The manuscripts of today have differences.
Point: The differences make no changes to any doctrine.
Point: There is strong indication that the Scriptures have been Preserved. The fact of so many manuscripts existing shows preservation.
Point: We may then safely assume that the manuscripts that we have are adequate for our knowing the total error free knowledge that God has revealed to mankind.
THE CHURCH FATHERS SPEAK
Ryrie assembles some of the Church fathers for their input to our discussion: "For example, Augustine (396-430) clearly stated that 'most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books. That is to say that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us and committed to writing put down in
these books anything false. If you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true' (Epistula, p. 28). Here in ancient terms is the domino theory.
"Again, Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) plainly said that 'nothing false can underlie the literal sense of Scripture' (Summa Theologica, I, 1, 10, ad 3). Also Luther declared, 'The Scriptures have never erred' (Works of Luther, XV;1481). John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, wrote, 'Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible there may well be a thousand. If there is one falsehood in that Book it did not come from the God of truth' (Journal VI, 117).
"How can anyone say, then, that inerrancy is a recent invention?
"But even if it were, it could still be a true doctrine.
"Only the Bible, not history, can tell us." (Ryrie, "BASIC THEOLOGY"; P 81)
It may be to simplistic to find a place in a theology book but think about the simple facts.
God revealed-
God can not have, nor give error-
The revealed Word was recorded-
The recorded Word is the Word of God-
How Then Can There Possibly Be Errors?
Pache mentions that there are 3,808 times that the authors of scripture state that it is the Word of God that they are communicating. The Psalmist says that the Law of God is perfect (Psalm 19:7). How can something perfect have error? Matthew 5:18 states that there will not be a jot or tittle pass from the word until all comes to pass.
The possibility of errors calls into question every doctrine that we have. There is no part of the Word that would not be suspect.
If as some say the Bible is error free in the parts that govern faith and practice then they leave the rest of Scripture open to errors. This contradicts the idea of the Psalmist when he says it is perfect.
I would like to close with the words of Augustine, "I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it." (Erickson p 226 quoting Augustine Letter 82.3)
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE
1. When the Bible declares that we need only call on the Name of Jesus Christ to be saved, we can unreservedly declare that we are believers on the basis of His work and not our works.
2. When the Bible declares that we are His for eternity, we can unabashedly declare that there is no possible way in which we can lose our salvation.
3. When the Bible commands that we love one another, it is not a multiple choice option, but the very command from God Himself.
CRITICISM
Please read 2 Timothy 3:1-17 as an introduction to this study.
Criticism — we all know what that stuff is. That is how we get back at someone without them knowing it. Criticism is telling someone off without the danger of a black eye. There are two types of criticism: Higher and Lower. Higher is when you get the pastor and teachers. Lower is when you get the janitor. Both are valid criticism but neither is proper.
Now that we have that out of the way we can move on. In the Bible we have criticism. We want to take some time to consider this subject.
A conservative, old preacher was riding on a train next to a liberal theologian. They had been discussing the Bible and its trustworthiness. The conservative man began reading in the Old Testament. When he came to the crossing of the Red Sea he was so thrilled that he said aloud, "AMEN". The liberal ask him what he had read to cause him to say "Amen".
The conservative related the story of God opening up the Red Sea. The liberal said, "OH NO. we know that isn't the Red Sea, but it is the Reid Sea further north. It's only a marsh and about six inches deep."
"Oh", said the conservative somewhat disappointed. He returned to his reading. A little later, he in excitement said, "Praise be to God." The liberal said, "Well what now?"
The conservative replied, "Wow, God Just Drowned Pharaoh's Army In Six Inches Of Water".
Some today say the Bible is a bunch of stories. Some today say the Bible is a bunch of myths. Some today say the Bible contains "SOME" truth.
I say today: That the Bible has no error. That the Bible is trustworthy. That the Bible is reliable. Our study will primarily deal with the New Testament though all of these things are true of the entire Bible.
The term criticism comes from the Greek word "krino" or to judge. It is the study or evaluation of information to prove it valid or invalid. There
are several types of criticism in the religious realm. In Biblical Criticism there are two divisions. Historical which is at times called Higher and Textual which is also termed Lower. We will stick to the Higher/Lower terms as they are more popular today, I believe.
Biblical Criticism: "Science or art of studying the text, authorship, date, and meaning of various parts of the Bible." (Kauffman, Donald T.; "The Dictionary Of Religious Terms"; Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1967)
It is the process by which information is studied to attempt to show the original words of the original manuscripst. The person involved in this study uses all sources of information available to him to make his determination. He attepmts to discover not only the original terms, but in some cases the author, date, etc. of the work.
1. Higher Criticism: "Biblical criticism principally concerned with sources, writers, dates, and order of the various documents in the Bible. It seeks to apply scientific, historic, and literary principles to Scripture." ("Dictionary Of Religious Terms")
Miller mentions that higher criticism "seeks to determine the age (date), authorship, composition, sources, character and historical value of the documents, as judged by internal evidence. This is done chiefly by a study of the documents themselves, although it does not hesitate to make use of the sciences of history, geography, ethnology, and archaeology. It deals with the contents of the Scriptures, and is concerned with the questions of canonicity, genuineness, authenticity, and credibility of the books of the Bible. . . ." (Miller, Revelation H.S.; "General Biblical Introduction"; Houghton, NY: The Word-Bearer press, 1937, p 13, 14)
2. Lower Criticism: "Lower criticism is concerned principally with actual manuscripts and the original text of Scripture." ("Dictionary Of Religious Terms")
Webster states, "criticism concerned with the recovery of original texts esp. of Scripture through collation of extant manuscripts"
Miller: "seeks to determine the exact and correct text of the Scriptures as it existed in the original documents, when freed from the errors, corruptions,
and variations which have come into it during the long process of copying and recopying. It deals with the text. It is sometimes called lower Criticism." (Miller p 14)
Q. What type of Criticism are we going to be covering if we are trying to decide which text of many is the best? Hopefully we will be studying "Lower" or "Textual Criticism".
We must distinguish between the good Higher Criticism of the conservative movement, and the improper destructive higher criticism that the liberal theologians have given us. This includes the JEPD theory which teaches that there were four different authors for the book of Genesis. They also attribute different Old Testament books to authors and dates that allow for the Bible to have been written by men, rather than being the inspired Word of God.
A brief look at where our Bible came from might be of assistance to the study.
We need to realize that we have no original manuscripts today. We have many parts of copies which we have assembled our Scriptures from. These copies come to us from many sources and by many methods.
1. Papyrus: Papyrus was the pith of a reed that was beaten and flattened and prepared so that men could write on it. It was laid in strips, then a layer of strips going perpendicular to the previous strips was placed on, and they were stuck together with sticky water. They were then dried, smoothed and used. These come to us from the 2nd-4th century and are the earliest witnesses we have.
2. Uncial manuscripts: Uncial manuscripts were parchments in book form from the 4th to 10th century. They were developed around the city of Pergumus. These manuscripts were written in all capital letters with each letter formed separately.
3. Minuscule manuscripts: Minuscule manuscripts are the largest group existent today, and are from the 9th century and following. These were written with all small letters.
4. Lectionary manuscripts: These are the 2nd largest group of manuscripts, and are arranged in units for church purposes. They would be similar to responsive readings of today.
5. Codex: This is a manuscript that is in book form rather than in roll form.
To date there are around 5000 different manuscripts that the critic's must deal with. Some of these are only small portions of copies of the scriptures.
When you compare a Biblical text in one group with another group there may be differences found between the manuscripts. Some are only transposed letters, some are misspelled words, and some are verses that are missing in some of the manuscripts. These differences are called variants.
Some would suggest that the above paragraph indicates that the Bible has errors. No, that is not what I said. There are differences. The variants have been studied by men that are knowledgeable of the languages, and they have decided on those manuscripts that are best in the case of each and every variant. There are no doctrines that are compromised in any of these variants.
If all 5000 manuscripts are compared with one another there are about 200,000 variants in all. The 200,000 figure seems large however let me illustrate. In one case there is a verse that is in only four manuscripts. If you do the comparing of all to the four you have many variants already.
H.S. Miller states concerning this number, "Each manuscript is compared with one standard and with each other, and the number of variations are found; then these sums are added together, and the result is given as the number of variant readings. Each place where variations occur is counted as many times as there are distinct variations in it, and also as many times as the same variation occurs in different manuscripts. This sum also includes all variations of all kinds from all sources, even those which are peculiar to a single manuscript of small importance and those which are of such minor importance as the spelling of a word." ("General Biblical Introduction" p 282, 283)
Of all of these variants there are only about fifty of any significance. Among these significant variants, there are none that affect any doctrine. The doctrines involved are clearly taught elsewhere in the Scripture, so if you tore all of these significant variants from the Bible, you would not eliminate or change any doctrine.
Today there are two main texts which are used in translation work. These are the Textus Receptus and the Critical text. Most scholars would use one of these two or a combination of the two.
The Critical text has produced most of our current translations and paraphrases. The Textus Receptus is the basis for the King James Version.
There is a great debate concerning which text is the proper text. Some feel that the Textus Receptus is the inspired text, and that the Critical text is heresy. The other side of the coin is that the Critical text is the best text to use, but most using it do not feel that it is inspired and the Textus Receptus is not. They would feel that both texts are resultant from the inspired originals and that the Critical text is the closest to the originals.
This debate is one of the saddest of our day. It is splitting good fundamental churches. Pastors are declaring that the King James is the only Bible. One of my students told me that the New American Standard Bible was of the Devil. He told me that was the Bible that the Cults use. When I told him that the cults also use the King James, he realized the foolishness of his statement.
The King James Only people are often quite divisive in their comments, while being quite caustic in their attacks on those that disagree with them.
A plea for sanity, fairness, logic, and Christian love is needed.
When these two texts are compared with one another there are only 5000 variants between the two. These variants are all minor and they change no doctrine whatsoever. Many are variations of only a letter or two. Some are misspelled words. A very few include a verse or two.
Mark 16:9ff is one of the largest variants to my knowledge. The passage may or may not belong in Scripture. Even in its variance the text does fit both with the Chapter and the whole of Scripture, and may well be a part of scripture.
Remember, No Doctrine Is Changed. Many of the new translations list these variances for us in the side or footnotes.
Variants Examined: Let us look at some of these variants and how they may have come to exist.
UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS
1. Errors of sight: These errors may have come because of poor sight on the part of the copier, or the light in which he was attempting to work. You must understand that this copying was done a few years before Franklin went kite flying. They had no electricity. There may well have been problems with the manuscript that the man was working from. There may have been aging, or staining which distorted the original information.
As an example of how sight can affect your perception translate the following phrase. Have You Ever Seen Abundance On The Table. There are two very logical translations. Have you ever seen a bun dance on the table, or Have you ever seen abundance on the table. This is how the uncial texts look. They are all capital letters with no punctuation, nor spacing.
2. Interruptions: Have you ever been interrupted when copying something, returned to your work and found that you went back to the wrong place? This is a common occurrence even in our own day.
3. Lack Of Sleep: Have you ever been writing and fallen asleep? I quite often keep writing, however it makes little sense. In fact at times when working on the computer, I have fallen asleep and kept typing. It is quite a shock to look up at the screen and see nothing but gibberish. It's a possibility that copyists did the same thing.
4. Error Of Hearing: At times one person would read the Scripture slowly, while several other men wrote down copies of what was read. Some Greek words are pronounced nearly the same yet are spelled differently and mean something completely different.
5. Errors Of Memory: As he was coping the copyist might have transferred a phrase, but inadvertently lost part of the phrase as he transferred it. I have at times been writing and had someone say something.
I am shocked when I return to recheck my work and find that some of their words had crept into my paper.
6. Sloppy Copy Work: When copying from sloppy work there could be mistakes made.
7. Skipping A Line: This is especially easy when two lines end the same way. (Especially the same word or syllable.)
8. Repeated Words: Omitting a word that appears twice in a verse can be easy, as is the addition of a word making it appear twice when it shouldn't.
9. Using Memory, Rather Than Sight: When copying a familiar text the copier might have relied on his memory for what he put down, and made mistakes.
10. Mistakes: In copying the genealogy of Christ one man didn't realize his original was in columns and he copied across the page. Thus virtually no father had the right son.
11. Errors Of Judgment: When problems were incountered, it would be possible to misinterpret the evidence and make corrections when they were not needed and vice versa.
12. Transposition Of Letters, Syllables Or Words: These are easy mistakes to make even in our good light, and with our modern computers.
13. Boredom: Boredom of copying over and over could cause great problems of lack of attention, eye strain, etc..
INTENTIONAL CHANGES
These would be changes that the men made, believing that they were correcting someone else's previous error.
1. Grammatical Changes: It has been of interest to me in my own writing. I have very poor grammatical skills so at times check my work with a computer grammar checker. I have been amazed at the high rate of grammar errors that I find in Scripture quotes. It is not that the Scripture is poorly written, but that the laws of grammar have changed.
Many of these copies were hundreds of years removed from the original Scriptures.
2. Liturgical Changes: Some of these changes came because someone wanted to make it fit into the services. This would be in the lectionaries.
3. Harmonizing Changes: Some copiers seemingly tried to harmonize the Synoptic Gospels by changing small things so that the three gospels would be in agreement. (Matthew, Mark, and Luke are very similar in some of their passages, though they are different in some of their details. This is not due to errors of copiers, but from difference of view of the authors.)
4. Doctrinal Changes: To strengthen what was already there to make their own doctrinal position look better. 1 John 5:7 might be the result of this. This text only appears in four of the 5000 texts that we have.
In short, Any Mistake That We Today Can Make, They Could Have Made In Their Copying.
THE METHOD OF CRITICISM
Internal Evidence: These are some of the principles that are used in determining which version of a text is used in translation work.
1. The shorter reading is often the preferable reading. The shorter version would be the preferable due to the fact that any additions and most changes would extend the original sentence. Colossians 1:14 contains the term blood in the King James but not in modern translations. It is felt that this was in the King James as a result of someone trying to harmonize this verse with Ephesians 1:7 where "blood" does exist.
2. The harder the reading the more preferable the reading. During the copying some of the Scribes wanted to simplify the text so it was easier to read. John 3:16 in some manuscripts does not have the term "begotten". The King James and the New American Standard Bible have it but the New International Version doesn't. (John 1:18 is also listed in relation to the term "begotten".)
3. The reading from which the other readings in a variant could most easily have developed is often preferable.
4. The reading that is most characteristic of the author is often preferable.
External Evidence: The critics collated and compared 5000 manuscripts plus 13,000 pieces. These pieces of information they divided into three families of texts.
1. The Alexandrian Family: These were found around Alexandria, Egypt. (These are the most reliable to the critical text people.)
2. The Western World Family: These portions were from Europe.
3. The Byzantine Text Family: The majority are in this family. These come from the East and are the minuscule texts. (The critical text people feel that these are the poorest available.)
Bernard Ramm mentions that we should never build ANY doctrine on a questionable text. Indeed, we should probably never rely heavily on one verse for a doctrine, unless the text is very easily understood as to meaning.
This introduces you to the realm of criticism, but you must understand there is also criticism for the Old Testament as well with it's own differences. We won't get into Old Testament criticism. There are good works on this subject readily available.
You need to understand as well that the men that work in this field devote their lives to their study and work. It is not something which you can pick up from some theology book.
I have entitled this study "application," however I'm not sure that this is a good term. It does describe what we are going to be talking about, yet the term conjures up images of long dry application in the sermons when the preacher is stepping on your toes and we are too dead spiritually to realize it.
Our study is somewhere between the interpretation and the previous type of application. It is not, in and of, itself interpretation in my mind, in that it is the use of things learned in interpretation to assemble the information required for application.
"Pre-application" or "post-interpretation might be a couple of choices for a better term. Interpretation deals with what the text is saying. It is finding out just what God wanted us to know from that text. Our study is the process by which we take that information and use it to change lives in our own time.
The "rub" here is that not all things in Scripture are for our time in the same way they were in the time given. Example: The law of the sacrifice when given, demanded and expected a sacrifice, while for a teacher to teach that way today is in error, for we have further revelation and know that the sacrifice is not needed since Christ provided Himself for our sacrifice.
Since Paul told Timothy that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable...." we must assume that there are things in the Old Testament law that are profitable for us.
This study will attempt to deal with some general rules to know just how you can use Scripture in the application section of your sermon or study.
Webster states of application, "an act of applying. . .an act of putting to use. . .a use to which something is put. . .an act of administering or superposing. . .the practical inference to be derived from a discourse. . . ." The final thought of Webster is probably more to the point for our discussion. "the practical inference to be derived from a discourse...."
(Webster, Merriam; "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary"; Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1986)
How do we apply and use the different sections of Scripture and do it correctly? We have the Old Testament Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, Acts, the Epistles, and the Revelation
THE NEED FOR THIS STUDY
1. There are many today that are so loose with how they use Scripture that they are teaching false doctrine. Example: 1 Corinthians 16:2,
"Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."
I was in an Independent Baptist church in Denver one Sunday morning when the pastor used this text to give a half hour message in the Sunday School opening on how we had to give that day and in coming weeks so that we wouldn't have to take up any collections when the Lord came. I call that false doctrine. I trust you also call that false doctrine. (A reading of the passage will reveal that the text is speaking of Paul coming, not the Lord.)
2. There are many today that are being confused by some of the writers of our day and their use of the gospels. You can not take application directly from every text in the gospels to our lives without running it through some very important questions.
I was in a Bible study in Oregon that was being taught by a layman that had been prepared by his pastor to give the lesson. We were in the beatitudes and he would read a beatitude and ask what we thought it meant. There would be as many thoughts as there were people and he would end up with something like, "Well I don't know which one of these thoughts is the one that the writer was getting at, but I'd guess one of them is correct."
The people went away thinking that the beatitudes were completely impossible to understand.
PREREQUISITES FOR THE STUDY
1. A balanced mental capacity: A balance of common sense, logic, imagination and criticism. If a person is unbalanced in any area he may miss much of what the Word has to say. These abilities will help in understanding what the text is not teaching as well as what it is teaching.
2. Salvation: Salvation of course is required for the student to properly understand the Scriptures. An unregenerate mind has no capacity to understand and interpret the Word of God.
3. Knowledge: A knowledge of many things will help in the understanding of the Word. Geography may be an asset as you enter into some of the historical books and the prophetic books. History is very helpful in understanding the context within which the Bible was written. The outside world was exerting forces upon the Jews in the Old Testament. You won't properly understand the Gospels if you don't understand past and present, at that time, forces. (The captivity, Roman rule, etc..)
An understanding of politics, as they relate to the history of the Biblical times also will help to show what was going on in some of the Books of Scripture.
4. Godliness: The walk of the expositor will very definitely reflect upon the outcome of his study. If he is not walking with the Lord, the Holy Spirit's ministry to him will be limited and his study will in turn be limited.
PRESUPPOSITIONS FOR THE STUDY
1. You must desire to interpret the Scriptures in a literal and as such, a premillennial and dispensational format. This assumes your ability to use the tools available to properly interpret the text that you are dealing with.
2. You must believe in progressive revelation.
3. You must be using proper tools of interpretation to arrive at the principles which you are attempting to apply.
4. You must be a believer. Each believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God and He can illuminate your study.
5. Since the above are true we must also assume that the final authority should be found in the Scripture that is directly related to the Church age. Any application that is used must be in complete keeping and agreement with these teachings.
These teachings are to be found primarily in the Epistles of the New Testament along with some information within the book of Acts and the Gospels.
6. There must be a distinction between the Church and Israel in the Bible.
7. You must never apply Scripture until you have properly interpreted that passage. A related item of business is the fact that you should never attempt to apply truths to the lives of others until you have applied the truths to your own life.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR DETERMINING THE USAGE OF A TEXT
These are principles that relate to all of the following sections. They may vary slightly between sections but primarily relate.
1. Is the principle that you have drawn restated in the Bible in any other dispensation? If it is found in other dispensations, which ages are the principles found, and how are they used?
2. Is the principle found in the New Testament epistles?
3. Do any of the New Testament writers mention that this principle is no longer useful to the believer?
4. Is there any indication from any age or Scripture that this principle is not for other ages? Example: The idea that circumcision was a sign to the Jews would show that it was not for the Church age saint unless there was some statement in the New Testament that would make this a requirement for the New Testament believer.
5. Use common sense and logic as your guides. If your application does not follow these guides then don't use it.
6. Allow the application to come naturally from the text. Do not determine your application then go looking for a text to stuff it into. I was in a
Sunday School class once when a Christian psychologist was teaching. He mentioned a group of facts concerning the cycle of marriages, and I have no doubt that the facts were true, yet the man then turned to Scripture and began trying to show how that passage was teaching what he had taught. It did not fit nor could he make it fit no matter how hard he tried to stuff it into the text. Several of the laymen challenged him on his usage of the text, but he would not back down.
7. In application we need to remember that it is the Scripture that is applicable to the believer, not our own thoughts of what the people need.
SPECIFIC CASES AND PRINCIPLES
Let us look at some specific cases and list some principles for interpretation in different areas of the Bible.
THE OLD TESTAMENT LAW
An example of a problem of applying the Law. The Scriptures teach that the woman is not to wear the clothes of a man. Can we use this text to state that women can not wear slacks in the church service today? If they can't wear them in the church service then can they wear them on recreational outings connected to the church? This text relates to its own time and has little to do with our time. I am not stating that women can or cannot wear slacks to church, I am just stating that this text does not show this.
PRINCIPLES FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT
1. Is the principle, if used, placing the believer under bondage to the law if he tries to follow it? If it does, then it is an improper principle.
2. A method of Old Testament usage has been suggested by some that asks the student to take the passage and boil it down and boil it down to it's most basic thought that would be usable for all of time. The problem with this is that if you are working with a text that is specifically given to Israel then how do you know when you have it boiled down enough, or if you can boil it down enough to state that it is a principle for all time.
In our example of women wearing slacks some New Testament texts might relate and assist in the study. The epistles mention that the inner woman is to be the prominent thing that people see when they look at a Godly woman. The passage on hair relates in that the man is to look like a man and not a like woman. Vice versa a woman is to look like a woman. There are many times when I can not tell if a person is a man or woman — that is wrong according to the Scripture. Take any principle you find in the Old Testament to the Epistles for validation.
THE PROPHETS
We cannot apply everything found in the prophets directly to our day. When the prophet prophesied that some of the people would die from the sword, he was speaking of a specific occurrence that was yet future for his listener. It has nothing to do with us today. The application might be made that if a Church age believer continually turns against God, they run the chance of suffering retribution in this life. This can be backed up with several New Testament passages.
PRINCIPLES FOR THE PROPHETS
1. The prophets were given to a specific people in a specific time and for a specific purpose. Be very careful how you apply them.
2. If you can determine the time and people that the work was written to, then you can know these facts, and know that the main message is not for us.
3. Some general application can be made from the prophets in that as you determine the principle set forth by the writer, you will find similar situations in the church age to which the principle may relate. Example: In the book of Ezekiel the people were told that they would throw their gold and silver into the streets because it had no value. The city would be under siege and the gold and silver would not buy them freedom nor food.
You might find a situation in the spiritual life where we are under siege and starving and there is no way out. How is your money going to help you? The important things of life are not money and things, but the spiritual food that our souls desire.
It might have application in areas of stewardship as well. We do not want to say, however, that the believers should throw their gold and silver into the streets when they get home from church. There is no need to. At least not until I'm positioned under the window.
THE GOSPELS
One of the problems of the gospels is the different character of life and living that are portrayed in them. It must be understood that there are texts which relate to the life of the Millennial believer, and that there are texts which relate to the life of the believer in the transition period between the gospels and the epistles. Example: The text concerning the taking of no weapon sees it's meaning in the Millennial time when there is peace and no need for weapons. The gospels also mention taking up weapons and this would have fitting application in the Church age when there is a need of weapons at times.
Example: Mark 16 mentions the picking up of serpents and drinking poisons and not being hurt. The graves of many people are full due to their misapplication of this text. This was a promise to the people of the early church that were spreading the gospel. The book of Acts mentions such an occasion in the life of Paul, yet later in life Paul did not have the power to heal as he did earlier in his ministry. The sign gifts and miracles diminished with time.