One of the most important distinguishing marks of the Christian faith is that it is a revealed religion. The Christian faith professes that God has graciously and with authority revealed himself to his creatures. Therefore, the doctrine of Scripture, specifically biblical, is an issue of central importance in any theological formulation that is distinctly Christian. Despite the centrality of biblical authority in the system of Christian faith, there is perhaps no other doctrine under greater reproach. In light of the increased criticism of the doctrine of Scripture, Christians have adopted various theologies of revelation in order to explain what the biblical text is, how it relates to God, and how it functions authoritatively. And yet many of these proposals fail to take advantage of the resources provided by the communicative categories of the rich Christian trinitarian tradition. Specifically, very few evangelical proposals related to biblical authority consider how the specific modes of subsistence related God the Father (unbegottenenss), God the Son (eternal begottenenss), and God the Holy Spirit (procession) contribute to a Christian understanding of divine authorship. This dissertation is an exercise in dogmatic and exegetical theology that gives an account of the relationship between biblical authority and trinitarian communicative activity. This dissertation will argue that the Bible is authoritative because it has God the Father as its source, God the Son as the content and mediator of the Father's speech, and God the Spirit as the efficacious power who speaks the Word that he receives from the Father and Son. Therefore, Scripture is authoritative because God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit all speak, with one voice, an authoritative Word.

Chapter 1 introduces the thesis, methodology, and outline of the dissertation. It also includes a brief historical survey of the doctrine of inerrancy and a study of the factors that led to the formation of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (hereafter, ICBI) and original writing of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (hereafter, CSBI). The final section of this chapter examines the initial usefulness of the CSBI among evangelicals. Chapter 2 traces the developments that occurred within evangelicalism with regard to the doctrine of inerrancy immediately after the formation of the ICBI and the writing of the CSBI. This study is followed by an examination of major contemporary developments concerning the doctrine of inerrancy. In this latter section, the works of several important evangelical scholars who have recently attempted to reframe the inerrancy debate are examined and assessed in order to demonstrate the resilience of the CSBI and note the areas that require reformulation. Chapter 3 begins a three-part reassessment and reformulation section in which the CSBI's nineteen articles of affirmation and denial are studied in their original context and in light of the contemporary challenges examined in chapter 2. Chapter 3 examines specifically Articles I-V. These articles deal chiefly with matters related to the doctrine of revelation. Chapter 3 offers several modifications to these existing articles as well as proposing two new articles. Chapter 4 is the second part of the reassessment and reformulation section. This section comprises and examination of Articles VI-XII. These articles deal primarily with matters related to the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. This chapter examines these articles in their original context, offers several modifications to the existing articles, and proposes the addition of two new articles. Chapter 5 is the final part of the reassessment and reformulation section. This section examines Articles XII-XIX. These articles deal mainly with miscellaneous issues related to the doctrine of inerrancy. Chapter 5 examines these articles in their original context, offers several modifications to these existing articles, and proposes the addition of two new articles. Chapter 6 is the concluding chapter in which I summarize my research and offer suggestions for future studies in this vital area. I recommend that a new group of evangelicals gather together to reconsider the CSBI as it currently stands and use the work provided in this dissertation to begin a conversation toward a revised statement.

The aim of this thesis is to arrive at an understanding of the authority of scripture that is able to accommodate both a faith perspective and the fruits of the historical-critical approach to the New Testament. Put differently, the aim of this thesis is the pursuit of a specifically christian, faith-promoting, reading of the New Testament whilst still enjoying the benefit, in an as uncompromised a form as possible, of the historical- critical approach. In a sense it may be said that this task, given that the roots of both the historical-critical approach and modern Western culture are deeply imbedded in Rationalism, is equivalent to the basic hermeneutical question of whether it is possible to interpret scripture relevantly from within a cultural web of meaning that does not readily accommodate that embodied in the New Testament. In section one of this dissertation we present a characteristic depiction, based on the historical-critical theory of literature, of the authority of the New Testament. This is followed by a brief assessment that makes explicit why the historical- critical approach is not conducive to the adoption of a faith perspective on these writings. In section two, still and inevitably based on critical foundations, we adopt a perspective that is more sympathetic to faith and that seeks to discover in the concerns evidenced in the canonical process, when traditions about Jesus gradually took on more complex and stable forms, culminating in the canon of the New Testament, guidelines in helping us to deal with the problem with which this study is concerned . In the specific example of the rather ordinary concerns underlying the unusual history of the pericope de adultera (John 7:53-8:11), examined against the background of the interests underlying the canonical process, it becomes clear that christians from the very beginning faced a dilemma not unlike that with which the historical-critical approach confronts us. They had to interpret afresh, and faithfully, the traditions in order to meet the demands of situations that had never been foreseen by earlier tradents. In this respect, therefore, the history of the pericope de adultera presents us with an ongoing struggle to hold in tension the demands of new contexts with the imperative of strict continuity with Jesus. In section three, on the basis of the foundation of the authority of scripture in strict continuity with Jesus combined with the contextual reinterpretation of the tradition, the social sciences are employed. Using the social sciences, it is discovered that the two contradictory approaches that we wish to reconcile form part of two different models for interpreting reality. It is on this basis, and made possible by the common culture underlying these opposing models and by the common contact with an unspecified common core of concrete reality, that a solution is proposed in terms of a complex 'fusion of horizons', promoted by a 'precipitative environment'. In the conclusion our solution is decisively aligned with the concerns evidenced in the canonical process

Thesis (DTh)--Stellenbosch University, 2011. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die krisis rakende Skrifgesag vra ‘n dringende sistematies-teologiese ondersoek om ‘n weg vanuit dié krisis aan te dui deur ‘n oortuigender, meer verstaanbare en belowende benadering te bied om opnuut die sinvolheid, waaragtigheid, toepaslikheid en gesag van die Skrif vir ons geloof en lewe te bevestig. Die oorkoepelende oogmerk van hierdie verhandeling is dus om ‘n meer toepaslike sistematies-teologiese raamwerk te vind om oor die gesag en interpretasie van die Skrif te kan praat. Ten einde hierdie doel te bereik, maak die verhandeling gebruik van drie hoof benaderings – epistemologies, dogmaties en hermeneuties – in ‘n dinamies geïntegreerde, onderling afhanklike, en holistiese wyse. Om die epistemologiese status van die Skrif as God se waarheid te bevestig, het ons ‘n meer genuanseerde epistemologiese model nodig waardeur die uiterstes van sowel moderne dogmatiese funderingsdenke asook van postmoderne nie-funderingsdenke vermy kan word. As alternatiewe model sal ’n vorm van post-funderingsdenke as benadering hier ontwikkel word, te einde die valse verdelings tussen objektief en subjektief, ontologies en funksioneel, en epistomologies en hermeneuties te oorkom. Ons kan dus die objektiewe eenheid van die waarheid en gesag van die Skrif as beslissende weg na die realiteit van God bevestig, sonder om ons bewussyn van die voorlopige, kontekstuele en feilbare aard van menslike kennis te ontken. ‘n Dogmaties-ontologiese verantwoording van die Skrif plaas ons spreke oor Skrifgesag binne die konteks van die drie-enige God se ekonomie van verlossing. Vanuit ‘n trinitaries-pneumatologiese oogpunt word die gesag van die Skrif afgelei vanuit die drie-enige God se self-kommunikatiewe spraak-akte, sodat dit beskryf kan word as goddelike kommunikatief-performatiewe gesag binne die drie-enige God se verlossingsdrama. Die Skrifte kan gesien word as die teo-dramatiese teks wat ons binne die verbondslewe met God bring en ons deur die dinamiese, dienende en vormende werk van God se Gees oproep om aan die grootse drama van God se verlossing deel te neem. Hermeneutiese oorwegings en nadenke moet as ‘n wesenlike en kritiese deel van ons totale gesprek oor Skrifgesag ter sprake kom. Hermeneutiek help ons om hermeneutiese afgode bloot te lê en om die werklike teenwoordigheid van God in ons lees van die Skrifte te onderskei. Dit fasiliteer voorts ons beliggaming van bybelse tekste in die spesifieke en tydelike kontekste van die lewe. Dit stel ons bowenal in staat om realiteite van andersheid te herken en om na (‘n) ander stem(me) te luister. In die lig van hierdie drievoudige hermeneutiese taak, kan ons die gesag van die Skrif as die viva vox Dei, wat tot ons spreek in ons hier-en-nou lewe, herwin, terugeis en bekragtig. Ons herken dus opnuut die gesag van die Skrif as goddelik kommunikatief-performatief, verbondsmatig, dinamies-transformerend, lewens-deelnemend en veelvormig. Deur die Skrif te lees, daaroor te mediteer, dit te geniet en uit te leef, ervaar ons die drie-enige God se intieme teenwoordigheid, en aanbid en verheerlik ons God met eerbied en vreugde. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In the face of the crisis of scriptural authority, an urgent systematic-theological task is to chart the way beyond that crisis by providing a more convincing, comprehensible, and promising way to reaffirm the significance, truthfulness, relevance, and authority of Scripture in our beliefs and lives. The overarching aim of this dissertation is thus to search for a more appropriate systematic-theological framework for talk of the authority and interpretation of Scripture. To this end, this dissertation engages with three key dimensions — epistemological, doctrinal, and hermeneutical — in a dynamically integrated, mutually dependent, and holistic way. To affirm the epistemological status of Scripture as God’s truth, we need a more nuanced epistemological model by which to avoid the extremity of the modern dogmatic foundationalism and the postmodern relativist nonfoundationalism. A postfoundationalist approach as an alternative model would provide the way to overcome the false dichotomy between objective and subjective, ontological and functional, and epistemology and hermeneutics. Without losing the awareness of the provisionality, contextuality, and fallibility of all human knowledge, thus we can affirm the objective unity of truth and the authority of Scripture as the ultimate way to the reality of God. A dogmatic-ontological account of Scripture brings our talk of scriptural authority within the context of the triune God’s economy of salvation. From a trinitarianpneumatological viewpoint, the authority of Scripture is derived above all from the triune God’s self-communicative speech-act and hence it can be described as the divine communicative-performative authority in the triune God’s drama of redemption. Scripture can be thought of as the theo-dramatic script, which brings us into the covenantal life with God and calls us to participate in the grand drama of God’s salvation, by the dynamic, ministerial, and formative work of God the Spirit. The hermeneutical concerns and reflections must be brought, as a constitutive and critical part, into our whole talk of scriptural authority. Hermeneutics helps us to expose the hermeneutical idols and to discern the real presence of God in our reading of Scripture. It also facilitates our embodiment of biblical texts in the particular, temporal context of life. Most of all, it enables us to recognise the realities of otherness and to listen to other voice(s). In light of this threefold hermeneutical task, we can retrieve, reclaim, and reaffirm the authority of Scripture as the viva vox Dei speaking to us in our here-and-now life. We thus recognise anew the authority of Scripture as divine communicative-performative, covenantal, dynamic-transformative, life-engaged, and multifaceted. By reading, mediating, enjoying, and living Scripture, we experience the triune God’s intimate presence, and worship and glorify God with reverence and enjoyment.

In 1978 a group of evangelical philosophers and theologians held a meeting to decide what the definitive statement on the doctrine of inerrancy would be. Drawing on the thought of B.B. Warfield and others this group came up with a statement comprising of a short statement, nineteen articles including both statements of affirmation and denial, as well as, an exposition of these articles. Taken in its entirety, this statement is intended to be the Evangelical statement determining all subsequent information about the doctrine of inerrancy. Leading evangelicals, including Carl F.H. Henry signed this document in order to establish a consensus on what one meant when using the term inerrancy. Almost three decades later this term is still used with a sense of confusion and the doctrine is no less controversial. In fact, it still is responsible for the division of departments in many evangelical institutions of higher education in North America. The following thesis hopes to help loosen this doctrine from its theological ‘stronghold’ and place it in a position where it will be less likely to cause division amongst evangelicals. By examining the thought of both B.B. Warfield, who helped create the doctrine, and Carl F.H. Henry, who played a contemporary role in the formation of the Chicago Statement and who might rightly be considered the evangelical theologian of the twentieth century, this thesis brings to light certain presuppositions of the doctrine of inerrancy that allow it take a position that undergirds other theological doctrines. By identifying the nature of truth and authority as the main tenants of the inerrantist position, the thesis examines these terms in light of the thought of both Warfield and Henry. Their thought is found to be remarkably similar to certain principles and concerns raised by Enlightenment philosophers and it is concluded that the understandings of truth and authority presupposed by the doctrine of inerrancy ultimately are biased by Enlightenment philosophy and so are an inadequate representation of the terms as used in Scripture and tradition. The thesis suggests that an adequate understanding of truth would be primarily Christological in nature and, therefore, a larger category than the one presupposed by the doctrine of inerrancy. Also, an adequate understanding of authority would presuppose the contemporary work of the Holy Spirit, which again makes for a much larger pneumatological category than the one presupposed by the doctrine of inerrancy as it is currently defined. Enlarging these categories in no way necessitates the denial of inerrancy altogether. Rather it removes the doctrine of inerrancy from its theological pedestal and places it amongst other beliefs that might support the truth and authority of Scripture but by no means establish them. The concluding chapter ends with a statement of what this new doctrine of inerrancy might look like.

Evangelicals have been characterized as a people committed to the Bible with historical roots to the fundamentalists who were engaged in controversy with liberals in North America at the beginning of the twentieth century. Harold Lindsell's book, The Battle For The Bible (1976), led to a great deal of discussion about inerrancy among evangelicals which resulted in major conferences and the publication of a number of books and articles discussing inerrancy in the subsequent decade. The principal doctrinal statement of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) has been from its inception a statement on inerrancy. The inerrancy debate among evangelicals took a new direction with the publication of R H Gundry's commentary on Matthew (1982). This sparked a debate concerning redaction criticism and the compatibility of using the historical-critical methodology while maintaining a commitment to the doctrine of inerrancy. Just when the debate appeared to be dying down the publication of the results of the Jesus Seminar (1993) led to several responses from evangelicals. The most controversial publication was The Jesus Crisis (1998) which accused evangelicals and some within the ETS of embracing the same methodology as those of the Jesus Seminar, refueling the debate again. Consequently this debate amongst evangelicals, particularly those associated with the ETS has continued for almost two decades. The debate has ranged over a variety of issues related to historical criticism and the study of the Gospels, including presuppositions, the Synoptic Problem, the role of harmonization, and whether the Gospels provide a strict chronology of the life of Jesus. The role of form and tradition criticism and the criteria of authenticity and whether the Gospel writers were faithful historians or creative theologians have also been points of contention in the debate. The languages that Jesus spoke and whether the Gospels preserve the ipsissima verba or vox have highlighted the differing views about the requirements of inerrancy. The redaction criticism debate has proven to have a significant role in exposing differences in methodology, definitions, presuppositions, and boundaries among evangelicals and members of the ETS. / New Testament / D.Th. (New Testament)

No description available.

No description available.

Evangelicals have been characterized as a people committed to the Bible with historical roots to the fundamentalists who were engaged in controversy with liberals in North America at the beginning of the twentieth century. Harold Lindsell's book, The Battle For The Bible (1976), led to a great deal of discussion about inerrancy among evangelicals which resulted in major conferences and the publication of a number of books and articles discussing inerrancy in the subsequent decade. The principal doctrinal statement of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) has been from its inception a statement on inerrancy. The inerrancy debate among evangelicals took a new direction with the publication of R H Gundry's commentary on Matthew (1982). This sparked a debate concerning redaction criticism and the compatibility of using the historical-critical methodology while maintaining a commitment to the doctrine of inerrancy. Just when the debate appeared to be dying down the publication of the results of the Jesus Seminar (1993) led to several responses from evangelicals. The most controversial publication was The Jesus Crisis (1998) which accused evangelicals and some within the ETS of embracing the same methodology as those of the Jesus Seminar, refueling the debate again. Consequently this debate amongst evangelicals, particularly those associated with the ETS has continued for almost two decades. The debate has ranged over a variety of issues related to historical criticism and the study of the Gospels, including presuppositions, the Synoptic Problem, the role of harmonization, and whether the Gospels provide a strict chronology of the life of Jesus. The role of form and tradition criticism and the criteria of authenticity and whether the Gospel writers were faithful historians or creative theologians have also been points of contention in the debate. The languages that Jesus spoke and whether the Gospels preserve the ipsissima verba or vox have highlighted the differing views about the requirements of inerrancy. The redaction criticism debate has proven to have a significant role in exposing differences in methodology, definitions, presuppositions, and boundaries among evangelicals and members of the ETS. / New Testament / D.Th. (New Testament)

The question leading to this study is whether the facts and theories pertaining to the Bible and Jesus Story as presented by The Authors (H Schonfield, D Joyce, B Thiering, M Baigent, R Leigh, H Lincoln; M Starbird, and D Brown) could be verified by the Archaeology evidence. I have adopted a multidiscipline and holistic approach considering information gathered from all media sources to ascertain what theories, if any could replace the traditional Jesus Story of the New Testament. I considered whether the alternative theories or traditional theories were believable due to the evidence presented by Biblical Archaeology or by the techniques used by The Authors in presenting their facts. By using Thouless’ system of Straight and Crooked thinking I was able to ascertain that the theories used in the novels written by The Authors may have been persuasive, but lacked substance. / Biblical and Ancient Studies / M. Th. (Biblical Archaeology)