# WTS Innerancy and Hermeneutic



## sotzo (Mar 11, 2009)

Many of you may remember this book edited by Harvie Conn. I've just finished Sinclair Ferguson's chapter "How Does the Bible Look at Itself?".

To start the dialogue, here is a citation from him in his section on Authority:

"If Scripture made no claim to divine inspiration, it could still possess authority - as the unique (and to that extent, authoritative) witness of the people of God to the acts of God in history and as the source book of all original Christian tradition. It could even be regarded as possessing supreme authority for the faith and life of the church."

Ferguson seems to be indicating here that the Bible's authority is not dependent on it being inspired - that the basis for its authority resides elsewhere or, at least only partially resides on inspiration. Based on the context of the chapter, I take Ferguson to mean by authority the same thing as infallibility. I could be wrong on that count. If he does mean the same thing, then I don't see how one can give up inspiration and still retain the doctrine of infallibility. If the words are not to be taken as Paul says "the very words of God" then on what other basis is infallibility maintained? Ferguson says that such a basis could be found in the fact that it is "a unique witness of the people of God to the acts of God in history and as the source book of all original Christian tradition". But absent inspiration, it is only unique to the extent the church recognizes it as such which would turn sola scriptura on its head and render a more Roman
Catholic understanding of the Bible. I guess we could say by "unique" we mean "there are no other Bibles out there" and so in that sense it is alone. But the mere quality of being the lone book we call the Bible seems inadequate as a base for holding to infallibility.

I may have misunderstood Ferguson on this matter...any thoughts?


----------



## jogri17 (Mar 11, 2009)

I do think you are misunderstanding him. I take that quote to mean that assuming that God did not specifically say through the apostles and prophets in the Bible that it is directly from God the internal evidence (also by the testimony of the HOly Spirit) is so clear of its authority that it ought to be the authority. The fact that it claims divine authority explicately is just icing on the cake giving us no excuse to not not obey it.


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 11, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> I do think you are misunderstanding him. I take that quote to mean that assuming that God did not specifically say through the apostles and prophets in the Bible that it is directly from God the internal evidence (also by the testimony of the HOly Spirit) is so clear of its authority that it ought to be the authority. The fact that it claims divine authority explicately is just icing on the cake giving us no excuse to not not obey it.



I got that impression as well.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 11, 2009)

I don't think Ferguson would equate "authority" with "infallibility" as you seem to in the OP. I believe he is suggesting that the Bible is inherently authoritative (as an historical testimony and witness) by its nature, even if it did not internally claim divine inspiration. However, it does claim divine inspiration which makes it emphatically authoritative.

Not given the context of his statement, it is hard to speculate any further.


----------

