The Study of Bibliology

People who read here will associate me with the doctrine of preservation of scripture, because of the book, Thou Shalt Keep Them.  I and others argue the biblical and historical doctrine of the perfection preservation of scripture in the language in which it was written.  The Bible teaches its own preservation and it shows perfect preservation.  The doctrine of preservation falls under the general category of the doctrine of bibliology.  What does the Bible say about itself?

The study of bibliology includes sub-categories of doctrines.  Early on in the Bible, we read Satan attack God’s Word (Genesis 3:1-5).  From his attack, we see his desire to undermine or destroy God’s Word.  We suppose that Satan wants to do this, and then in observation of history, we see this occur also with his using the world system.  Satan uses people to destroy the Bible by undermining and destroying biblical teachings about the Bible, which includes the sub-categories of doctrines under bibliology.

Presupposing What the Bible Says About Itself

Being an evangelical presupposes belief in and from the Bible, what it says.  Truly saved people believe the gospel, which is in the Bible.  Evangelicals have believed the Bible for salvation to be evangelicals.  Saying they believe the Bible means they believe the Bible on the doctrines as subcategories of bibliology.  What are those?  Among those are the inspiration, preservation, canonicity, and perspicuity of scripture.

From where at one time in the past evangelicalism supported scriptural bibliology, I contend that they move the goalposts.  What was inspiration is no longer inspiration, what was preservation is no longer preservation, and so on.  The serious modification of the doctrine of bibliology does destructive damage.

Attacks on the Doctrine of Scripture

The major bad outcome of the attack on categories of the doctrine of scripture is the undermining or elimination of the authority of God’s Word.  This effects both belief and practice of scripture.  I have observed especially these four attacks.

Inspiration

One, people attack the inspiration of scripture.  A common attack on inspiration is that the Bible is written only by men.  There are variations of this attack, as I see it, accommodated or supported by those calling themselves evangelicals.  They would even say they believe in inspiration, but I’m saying that they moved the goalposts on inspiration.

Preservation

Two, people attack the preservation of scripture.  There are a few common attacks on the doctrine of preservation.  First, the Bible doesn’t teach its own preservation.  Second, God preserved scripture in heaven, not on earth.  Third, God preserved all the Words of God in the preponderance of the hand copies or manuscripts, but they both haven’t all been available or identified and there is no settled text.  Fourth, the Words of God in the original languages were lost (not preserved) but restored in translations even like the King James Version.

Perspicuity

Three, people attack the perspicuity of scripture when they say that we are not sure of what the Bible means.  It’s now mostly an opinion as to what the Bible says.  It’s only men’s interpretations anymore.  So many interpretations exist, it’s impossible to know the right one.  Today people are shut out or shut off from the meaning of words and what men meant when they wrote them.  These are ways that men today undermine the doctrine of perspicuity.

Application

Four, people attack the ability to apply scripture in many different ways, so that no one is sure about the application of the Bible.  That was a different era, culture foreign to us today, so that even if we knew what passages meant, it doesn’t apply today, especially cultural issues.

The Bible is a very old book written for a people that lived thousands of years ago that does not apply in any significant way today.  Even if you try to apply it, you can’t do that with any authority, because it could only be your opinion or preference.  The gap in history is too monumental to bridge from then to now.  These are various types of attacks today on the application of scripture.

Variations occur of the above four attacks with many different arguments employed.  The attacks take away from the authority of scripture.  Someone may call the Bible, the Word of God, but it no longer has the same authority as a book from God, because we are so unsure or uncertain about it.  In its usefulness, the Bible possesses a level something more akin to an important historical or philosophical resource.

Cutting Losses

Someone may say that it’s to their credit, that evangelicals today do not want a mass scale rejection of Christianity, so they invent new positions about the Bible to hinder an exodus.  They may use someone like Bart Ehrman as an example, who pushed the eject button Christianity when he dug deeper into the trustworthiness of scripture.  He could not square the guarantees of God and the certainty expressed in scripture with what the evidence presented to him in class and through his own investigation.

Evangelicals and others more conservative than Ehrman say that his former fundamentalist position caused his apostasy.  Someone cannot treat the Bible with an absolutist or purist stance.  Today even evangelicals would say that God didn’t even intend for the readers or audience of scripture to treat the Bible with such assurance.  Evangelicals now modify the former positions to rescue or spare the next generation.

As an Example

Just as an example, a Bart Ehrman argues against the historical reliability of the gospels.  He asks the question, “Do the gospels report or represent what really happened?”  His answer is “No.”

Many evangelicals now are afraid to say that everything in the gospels is reliable, but a high enough percentage is verifiable to the extent that the gospels are reliable.  They are at least as or more reliable than other extant writings from the same period.  The gospels are amazingly reliable for a historical document and that is good enough.

Moving the Goalposts

Evangelicals are moving the goalposts now on bibliology.  Mostly they see this as necessary to cut their losses.  If they try to take what they would call a strict fundamentalist view on the Bible, they’ll get exposed by scholarship.  In this era of the internet, they’ll lose the next generation.  Very smart men will steal these young people.  The idea of “cut losses” is reducing them.  Instead of saying that scripture is absolute, to say there is sufficient confidence or suitable confidence without absolute full confidence.

Are evangelicals and even professing fundamentalists right or true in their assessment of the conditions of the proof or evidence for the Bible and Christianity?  Are these recent modifications and adaptations of scriptural, historical, or classical bibliology outdated?  Do the evangelicals move the goalposts on bibliology and if they do, should we join them?

More to Come