16 Reasons Why Christians Must Submit to the Authority of the Bible
Maybe I’m just being belligerent. But more and more I’m growing to hate The Shack.
Naturally, I don’t hate it as much as John Piper hates abortion.
And it’s not really The Shack that riles me up.
It’s the Christian love affair for the book–and not the Bible.
It may seem like a stretch but if the the Bible is living, authentic and reliable, ignoring its demands could be dangerous. [Archie's probably getting sick of hearing this. Emily, too?]
So, let me take this time to look at 16 reasons you can trust the reliability of Bible. Then ask yourself this question: Am I submitting to the entire authority of the Bible?
1. Manuscript Evidence
Over 24,000 New Testament Greek, Syriac, Latin, Coptic and Aramaic manuscripts in existence. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. And there is dating evidence that suggests the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. No other book comes even close to this reliability and authenticity.
2. Bible Writers Were Scrupously Honest
The Bible writers were taught integrity and truthfulness and they went to their graves defending what they wrote. This was an earmark of early Christian conviction.
3. Miracles Confirmed
Miracles are definitive confirmation of a prophet’s claim to be speaking for God. This was true for Moses, Jesus, Peter and Paul–Jesus being the only one who didn’t outright contribute to Scripture.
4. Fulfilled Prophecy
Unlike any other book, the Bible offers specific predictions that were written hundreds of years in advance of their literal fulfillment. These fulfilled predictions stand as a testament of the Bible’s unique, supernatural origin.
5. Unity of the Bible
Sixty-six books unfold one continuous drame of redemption. There is one message: Humankind’s problem is sin. The solution is salvation through Christ.
6. Archaelogical Confirmation
Archaeology cannot directly prove the Bible’s inspiration. What it can do is confirm its reliability as an historical document. No archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of findings however have confirmed historical statements in the Bible.
7. Testimonies of Transforming Power
A subjective but supporting line of evidence for the supernatural origin of the Bible is the evidence of a changed life. It’s always been the preaching of the Gospel that’s transformed lives and gave Christianity its vitality.
8. Paul’s Life Changed
From murderous prosecutor of Christians to zealous evangelist of the Gentiles, Paul’s conversion is a monumental statement to the efficacy of the Gospel. But note, the sheer reading of Scripture–whom Paul claimed to be an expert in–didn’t convert him. It took an act of the Holy Spirit, who comes through reading.
9. Early Church and Councils Confirmed
The early church and councils didn’t confer authority on the canonical books of the New Testament. They simply recognized the books as having the authority.
10. Consensus of the Centuries
Over two thousand years, historic Christian churches have consistently maintained and defended the divine origin of Scripture. This is very impressive and is not to be lightly set aside or despised.
11. Bible Writers Claimed Authority for the Scriptures
What did the Bible writers themselves claim? Moses said he received the law from the Lord. Prophets like Jeremiah introduced their oracles by saying “Thus says the Lord” or “the word of the Lord Came to me, saying.”
12. Certain Characteristics of the Bible Strike Observant Readers
Unity, fulfilled prophecy and relevancy thousands of years later is another line of evidence for the inspiration and authority of Scripture. The Iliad, Shakespeare’s canon, Moby Dick–the world’s greatest literature, including the Koran–lack these qualities.
13. Experience of the Burning Heart
Think about the persuasion that the Bible has had in believer’s lives. In your life. It disturbs the complacent. Comforts the sorrowful. Humbles the proud. Reforms the sinful. Encourages the faint-hearted. Brings hope to the bereaved. Gives direction to those who have lost their way.
14. God Spoke Through Men
The inspiration of the Bible was not mechanical. God made full use of the personality, temperament, background and experience of the biblcial authors, in order to convey throgh each an appropriate and distinctive message. One message shows up despite dozens of styles.
15. Apostles Authority
Paul defended his apostolic commission. John asserted it. And the early church confirmed it. Bishop Ignatius of Antioch said, “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man.” An apostle–most wrote the New Testament–had the mark of divine authority on him.
16. Christ Endorsed the Authority of the Bible
Perhaps the strongest argument that the Bible is the Word of God is the testimony of Jesus. Jesus claimed of the Bible: divine authority, indestructibility, infallibility, ultimate supremacy, factual inerrancy, historical reliability and scientific accuracy. And if he is the Son of God, then the Bible is the Word of God.
What Do You Think?
In the end it comes to this: we submit to the authority of Scripture because we submit to the authority of Jesus. Harsh? I don’t think so.
Note: One thing I’m missing here: Literary criticism. Or hermeneutics. Yesterday Eshu and I were talking about this. I didn’t touch on it here, but I want to explore that next.
Related posts:
13 Comments to 16 Reasons Why Christians Must Submit to the Authority of the Bible
i really needed this reminder. thanks.
Very thorough and very well put!
I remember hearing a Bible teacher once say that he even believed the leather was Moroccan!
Glad it helped, Emily. And Richard…you crack me up!
The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure.
An interesting claim. What does this mean exactly and how is it measured?
And there is dating evidence that suggests the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years.
70 years? So not entirely the eyewitness accounts we are sometimes led to believe? An adult at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion would not have been alive 70 years later. Even their grandchildren would be fairly old.
Demian FarnworthMarch 17, 2009
Hey Eshu: The first statement involves differences between NT manuscripts. Since everything was copied by hand, there’s obvioulsy going to be errors and omissions. Basically, how close is Romans manuscript A to a later Romans manuscript B? It’s measured by comparing all the documents together. Of note, where there are differences, no major Christian doctrine is affected. Usually we’re talking about misspellings and omissions of articles.
…
70 years is the time for the entire NT. Matthew through Revelations. Obviously Matthew, Luke and John were written by eyewitnesses, within their lifetime, so just a decade or two after Jesus’ death. Paul, while not an eyewitness of Christ, was alive at the same time as the others and wrote his letters even earlier and made statements that could be verified by eyewitnesses . I appreciate your questions, Eshu.
Demian,
Thanks for the clarification.
Basically, how close is Romans manuscript A to a later Romans manuscript B?
Erm, so how is that relevant to the accuracy of the originals? Do we even have the originals? I mean, if we have an early manuscript and a later copy and there are some minor differences, well then, use the earlier copy. If we could find the originals then we might be on to something but as it is I don’t think this tells you anything about the bible’s accuracy, just that some people who copied some copies of copies were fairly good at copying. If I took a copy of the koran and copied part of it with 100% accuracy, would that make it reliable?
What would be more convincing (although human-authored books could also acheive this) is if the stories were consistent throughout the bible. However, from what I’ve read, the gospel stories differ considerably regarding the resurrection.
Obviously Matthew, Luke and John were written by eyewitnesses, within their lifetime, so just a decade or two after Jesus’ death.
Obviously? I understood that Mark was commonly thought to be the first of the gospels, written about 70 CE, then Matthew around 80 CE, Luke 85 CE, John somewhere in the 90s CE. Given the life expectancy at the time was mid-forties, these couldn’t have been eyewitnesses, unless they were children at the time or exceptionally long-lived. If it is obvious and you know otherwise please show me.
Eshu: “If I took a copy of the koran and copied part of it with 100% accuracy, would that make it reliable?” Is that a trick question? How are you defining reliable? And…Where are you getting your dates from?
Demian,
I don’t intend it as a trick question. When you said, “The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure.” I thought this implied that it added authority or reliability to the bible. Given your clarification that this only means the ability for people to subsequently copy the copies accurately, it seems irrelevant to authority and reliability. If you think it is relevant, then surely the same measure could be applied to other books? Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood.
I got the dates from Dan Barker’s recent book, but they are also discussed in the following WikiPedia article, which cites “Marcus J. Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally, (HarperSanFrancisco, 2002) page 189″ as a source amongst others.
Now, how do you know the authors were “obviously” eyewitnesses?
Demian FarnworthMarch 18, 2009
Hi Eshu,
I think accuracy does mean reliability. We can trust that the documents aren’t corrupted. Accuracy means I can trust that your copy of the Koran is identical to the original Koran. It doesn’t demonstrate authority, of course. That’s trying to prove too much.
And I shouldn’t have said “obviously.” Good catch. Yet, Luke declares he was an eyewitness. And both John and Matthew were Jesus’ students. Mark was the only one who got his info second hand, from Peter, another student of Christ.
Okay, we could probably go endlessly around challenging authorship and dates…both trotting out scholars and books to defend our positions equally…but I’m curious…why would you trust those sources? But more importantly, what do you hope to get out of talking to me? I’m seriously curious.
Take care, Eshu.
Hi Demian,
Accuracy means I can trust that your copy of the Koran is identical to the original Koran. It doesn’t demonstrate authority, of course. That’s trying to prove too much.
Thank you. So at least point 1. is irrelevant to the title of the post. I’m not exactly convinced by the other points regarding the bible’s authority, but don’t have the time to go into them now.
…
Okay, we could probably go endlessly around challenging authorship and dates…both trotting out scholars and books to defend our positions equally…but I’m curious…why would you trust those sources?
Yes, I expect we could. Are you curious enough to investigate them? I trust them only because they’re biblical scholars. Why do you trust the claims of the bible are not mere fiction?
…
But more importantly, what do you hope to get out of talking to me? I’m seriously curious.
Hehe, why am I picking on you? 
It’s a fair question. The short answer is that I’m curious too. The long answer is an upcoming post on my blog. I’ll pop you an email when I’ve posted it so you can comment.
…
Thanks for your thoughtful replies.
Demian FarnworthMarch 19, 2009
Eshu,
Why do I trust the claims of the bible are not mere fiction? I don’t have any reason to.
Yes, supernatural events are hard to swallow, and I struggle with things like Jesus’ resurrection. But that doesn’t discount them as fiction.
Besides, I don’t think any serious scholar would assert they were fiction. Even the Jesus Seminar people didn’t do that. And they’re hyper critical about miracles.
I look forward to your post. And no, I don’t feel like you’re picking on me. I appreciate the challenge and see it as fleshing out the blog post. Furthermore, contrasting me helps me to sharpen my own thoughts. I hope to do the same for you. 
March 22, 2009
[...] 16 Reasons Why Christians Must Submit to the Authority of the Bible [...]
TalalJanuary 22, 2010
Hi Demian ,
read a book called ( misqouting jesus), tells The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and why, would that add to its reliability ,Authority
or accurately,i double it, i will let you decide.
very intresting topic
Leave a comment
Search
Get Updates | Subscribe
Somewhat Essential
Recent Posts
Categories
Archives
March 13, 2009