Behold! He bloggeth the KJV!

This year Rev'd Glen Scrivener is blogging his way through phrases of the 400 year old Authorised Version of the Bible over at The King's English.

John Frame's The Doctrine of the Word of God

Prof D. A. Cason says: "The fourth volume in John Frame's Theology of Lordship series, The Doctrine of the Word of God, is the best of them - and that is high praise."

From Rev'd Prof J. I. Packer's Foreword: "The author ventures the opinion, "I think this book is my best work ever," and I agree." (p. xxiii)

Richard L. Pratt Jr says: "In my estimation, there has never been a book that deals with the Word of God so carefully, thoroughly, and practically. You will never forget this book."

Carson on Scripture

The Don tells us:

Discussion about the nature of Scripture continues apace. Readers interested in a recent survey of developments might find helpful an essay by Robert W. Yarbrough (in the 34, no. 1 issue of Themelios, published online at thegospelcoalition.org). Of the numerous books on Scripture written within the last five years, the best is that of Timothy Ward, Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God (2009). I am currently working, with about thirty-five others, on a two-volume set to be published by Eerdmans in 2012. Tentatively titled The Scripture Project, the set aims to work through fundamental biblical, theological, historical, and philosophical issues related to the doctrine of Scripture. I would like to think of this current collection as constituting steps along the way in this broader enterprise toward a robust confessionalism on this topic. …

"They're just not ready for it!"

What would your attitude be if someone said someone else wasn't ready for studying a certain portion of God's Word?

I was pretty unconvinced. It's all God's Word and useful and we all need it all, and so on.

But on reflection, I think I'm a bit more sympathetic.

Imagine the Bible as rich, varried food. All of it is good and life-giving, and we need all of it, and a balanced diet. But some of it might be best for breakfast, lucnh, or dinner, or for a snack. Some may be a fine feast. Some is daily bread. We will naturally like some bits more than others. Some bits will be more or less nutritious, or appertising, or digestable. Some might neeed cutting up or mashing, or lots of chewing, or a good long stewing. Some bits will go together with other bits well, or be a nice change. Some might not taste good or upset us. Some bits might be an acquired taste. Some of us will suffer from defficiencies which mean that certain portions would be best for us. We must eat our greens too and not just have suasages for every meal or over-eat on pudding. And so on.

We don't all have to be able to eat everything in one go.

Incarnate Word

It seems to me perfectly acceptable and potentially very useful to compare the inacrnation of the Lord Jesus Christ in two natures (human and divine) with the inscriptuartion of the Word of God, which is both a human and a divine book.

Now, no doubt this is an analogy. We must avoid an illegitimate totality transfer. We need not think there is a hypostatic union between God and Man in the Bible to make use of it. All analogies break down - they are not totalities! They make points about relevant similarity. They invite us to compare and contrast and run thought experiments. They say something in a maybe new or interesting way. They need not say A is B or even the relationship between A and C is identical to the relationship between D and E in all respects. They might just say: hey, have you thought about this: is this a pattern? The incarnation seems to me to be one of the deep structures or paradigms of relatity. Of course it is unique and special in all sorts of ways, but it is also fundamental not accidental or incidental to everything else.

Further, it is no objection to the analogy as such to say that some people abuse it. For example, some people may want to assign stuff they don't get or like to the humanity of the Bible so as to be able to dismiss it. But here the true analogy can help us: Jesus and the Bible both have a perfect sinless humanity. There is no problem with the analogy here - the fault would be with the theology of the incarnation of those who argue thus.

Can We Trust The Bible?

Here's the text of my handout:

Can We Trust The Bible?

Yes! And we can trust the God who wrote it!

The burden of proof / unjustified scepticism? - Why wouldn’t we trust it?

A very important question – central to Christianity, big claims, life changing, eternal significance

World’s best selling book - both revered and rubbished – popular rejection / ignoring of the Bible (myths, legends, fairy tales, maybe moral or theological truths but not history)

The basic Christian view of the Bible / what the Bible claims about itself:

Historic / traditional consensus of the church: God’s words – inspired (2 Timothy 3:16) - God’s Word Written – What the Bible Says, God says – God’s Word reflects the character of God - true / authoritative / reliable in all that it affirms – inerrant / infallible (no errors)

Not just believe the Bible because the Bible tells you to (not a circular argument)!

Some reasons to trust the Bible:

Main argument (for Christians!):

Jesus is Lord and Jesus viewed the Bible as God’s trustworthy Word and therefore so should we. He accepted the Old Testament as God’s words and authorised the Apostles to write the New Testament

E.g. John 10:34-36; Matthew 5:17-18; 19:4-5; 22:29-32; John 14:26; 16:12-16

à Are Jesus’ claims about his own identity and authority convincing? E.g. the quality of his life and teaching, the evidence for the resurrection

Supporting arguments:

We can be confident we know what the original manuscripts said since the evidence for the original text of the Bible is very strong. The original text is very well preserved in our Bibles. Relatively few texts are disputed and no major doctrine hangs on any of the mostly trivial disputed texts

Manuscript Evidence for Ancient Writings

Author / Work	When written	Earliest fragment / copy	Time span between writing and copy	Number of manuscripts
Caesar	100 – 44 BC	AD 900	1000 years	10
Plato	427 - 347 BC	AD 900	1200 years	7
Thucydides	460 - 400 BC	AD 900	1300 years	8
Tacitus	AD 100	AD 1100	1000 years	20
Suetonius	AD 75 – 160	AD 950	800 years	643
Homer (Iliad)	900 BC	400 BC	500 years	643
New Testament	AD 40 – 100	AD 125	25 – 50 years	24000

(from Orr-Ewing, p43)

The Gospels were written very close to the events they describe by eyewitnesses or drawing on eyewitness evidence

E.g. Luke 1:1-4; John 20:29-31; 21:24-25; 1 John 1:1-4

The Apostles clearly believed Jesus was who he claimed to be, since they were willing to be persecuted and killed for trusting in him. Christianity is not a fraud job by the disciples!

The extraordinary unity of the Bible – agreement of 66 books, over 40 different authors, written over a period of ? about 1600 years

Where the Bible can be checked, it has proved to be accurate e.g. by archaeological discoveries of inscriptions confirming previously questioned details from the book of Acts

Many Bible prophecies have been remarkably fulfilled (e.g. history of Israel, Jesus)

Professor Peter Stoner took just 11 fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament and tried to calculate the probability of them being fulfilled by chance. He reckoned it was 1 in 8X10^63 (Blanchard, p28 citing Stoner, Science Speaks, Moody Press, pp67-96).

The Bible is remarkably realistic and insightful on many matters, makes psychological sense, interprets our experience. It is a work of supernatural genius

The Bible has the ring of truth about it (J. B. Phillips), it speaks with convincing power

Countless peoples have met with Jesus and been transformed by reading the Bible

à Try reading it (perhaps one of the Gospels in a modern translation) and pray that God would show you whether it is true or not

Further reading:

Paul Barnett, Is The New Testament History? (originally Hodder & Stoughton, 1986; Paternoster, 1998)

John Blanchard, Why Believe The Bible? (Evangelical Press, 2004) – only 40 pages
Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospel (IVP, 2^nd ed. 2008)
F. F. Bruce, New Testament Documents: Are they reliable? (Eerdmans / IVP, 1943)
Walter Kaiser, Old Testament Documents: Are they reliable and relevant? (IVP, 2001)
* Top Recommendation? * Amy Orr-Ewing, Why Trust The Bible? Answers to 10 tough questions (IVP, 2005) – includes consideration of some more modern and postmodern type objections e.g. the Bible on sex, matters of interpretation

J. B. Phillips, Ring of Truth: A Translator’s Testimony (Hodder & Stoughton, 2^nd ed. 1978)
John Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Baker) - deals with a number of supposed "difficulties" with the text. Argues, as above, that Jesus thought of the Bible as the authoritative Word of God and so should we
Brian Edwards, Why 66? The Canon of Scripture (Answers in Genesis, DVD, 2008) - how do we know we have the right books in the Bible?

Bible Prophecy a Fluke?

Professor Peter Stoner took just 11 fulfilled prophecies from the OT and tried to calculate the probability of them being fulfilled by chance. He reckoned it was 1 in 8X10^63. In other words, mind bogglingly unlikely.

(John Blanchard, Why Believe The Bible? Evangelical Press, 2004, p28 citing Stoner, Science Speaks, Moody Press, pp67-96).

Can We Trust The Bible?

God-willing I'll be speaking to our Mothers & Others group on Thurs 15th July and at our Listen & Lunch event on Thurs 22nd July on "Can We Trust The Bible?" In each case the brief is to speak for up to 20 mins and then take questions. Any hints / tips?

Here's some possible reading:

John Blanchard, Why Believe The Bible? (Evangelical Press, 2004) 40pp

Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospel (IVP) - apparently there is a second revised edition 2008

F. F. Bruce, New Testament Documents: Are they reliable? (Eerdmans)

Walter Kaiser, Old Testament Documents: Are they reliable and relevant? (IVP, 2001) - I've never read this: is it good?

Amy Orr-Ewing, Why Trust The Bible? Answers to 10 tough questions (IVP, 2005)

John Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Baker) - deals with a number of supposed "difficulties" with the text. Argues that Jesus thought of the Bible as the authoritative Word of God and so should we.

And even a DVD:

Brian Edwards, Why 66? The Canon of Scripture (Answers in Genesis, 2008) - how do we know we have the right books in the Bible?

John Frame on The Doctrine of Scripture

I've got to get on with my sermon prep. now, but I want to come back to these John Frame goodies on Scripture:

Four Favorites on the Doctrine of Scripture - a very brief reccomendation of B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (new edition: Kessinger Publishing, 2008) virtually the same as Revelation and Inspiration (Baker, 2000); Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, volume one of four, on “Prolegomena.” English translation (Baker, 2003); Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Eerdmans, 1972); Ned Stonehouse and Paul Woolley, eds., The Infallible Word (P&R, 2003).

Tim Ward in Words of Life was also especially enthusiastic about Bavinck's doctrine of Scripture.

Frame says: "Bavinck’s theology is the most important work of Reformed systematic theology in the past century. The section on Scripture is marvelously comprehensive and nuanced. In my judgment, there is no difference between his position and that of Warfield, but his vocabulary and emphasis are different. He and Warfield give us “two witnesses,” coming from different cultures, testifying to the truth of Scripture as God’s word. "

Frame calls Kline's book " the most important breakthrough in the doctrine of Scripture since Warfield".

Review of Andrew McGowan's The Divine Spiration of Scripture - useful stuff on Inerrancy

Review of Peter Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation

Review of N. T. Wright, The Last Word = Scripture and the Authority of God

More Words of Life

I posted some first impressions of Timothy Ward, Words of Life: Scripture as the living and active word of God (Nottingham, IVP, 2009) a while back and I've posted a couple of other bits along the way. I’ve read it and written the review for Ecclesia Reformanda now. Here are some further jottings.

Doctrine of Scripture not a dispensible preface or appendix to Christianity. (p18) – “part of the heartbeat of theology itself” not “a kind of theological throat-clearing” (p18)

“I want to demonstrate how a proper doctrine of Scripture can and should make the way a Christian approaches Scripture day by day more fruitful, dynamic and life-giving.” (p19)

B. B. Warfield’s “writings on Scripture have set the agenda for many debates on Scripture in the last century, especially in the United States” (p20)

“Overall, then, this book intends to describe the nature and function of Scripture in explicitly biblical and theological terms, as well as doctrinal ones. I aim to offer an outline of the doctrine of Scripture that stands firmly in line with the best of the theological traditions that have come down to us, and that is also expressed in (p21) a form appropriate for the twenty-first century. If it turns out that this will help some readers to understand God’s actions in and through Scripture in a little more depth, and so worship the God of Scripture with greater assurance and joy, then my aims will have been fulfilled.” (p21)

“God creates by speaking” (p23) – “Following humanity’s creation by means of an act of speech, it is tragically fitting that humanity’s fall should also be precipitated partly by language.” (p23)

The Bible is fundamentally the book of the covenant (p56).

God is “semantically present in Scripture, and personally present in the person of the Spirit.” (p67)

Bavinck: Scripture as the handmaiden or servant of Christ (p74)

“this kind of analogy between Scripture and incarnation is of very limited value” (p77) – uniqueness of incarnation

Bible more as word or message less text or object (p79)

“… while ‘verbal’ inspiration is basically correct in what it affirms, its focus is not quite in the right place. It is the speech acts of Scripture (its units of meaning: sentences, paragraphs and books) that have their origin in divine authorship, because authors primarily author speech acts. The individual words are inspired (spoken out by God) to the extent that they come together to express these speech acts.” (p88) – p92 this helps with the problem of lost autographs and the corruption of copies & translations

“The Spirit acts to minister the meaning of the words of Scripture, not to manipulate or modify it.” (p96

Sola Scriptura – endorses Mathison’s formulation that “our final authority is Scripture alone, but not a Scripture that is alone”

“Sola scriptura means ‘Scripture supreme’” (p153)

‘Anabaptist’ approach of the Bible only solo scriptura which exalts individuals’ interpretations of Scripture over the consensus of the church down the years.

The canon of Scripture itself, the Bible’s contents page, is a result of tradition.

Individual believers private reading of Scripture “derivative of, and depenadant on, the corporate reading and proclamation of Scripture in the Christian assembly” (p173)

Willing to risk sounding “too Catholic” to some if it means being “more in line with the consistent views of the church fathers and the Protestant Reformers than modern evangelicalism often is.” (p174)

Our aim in coming to the Bible determined by what the Bible is and what God intends to do through it (p176)

Church's ministry to Scripture

St Francis Turretin describes the church's ministerial function in relation to Scripture:

The church is charged to be the :

• keeper and preserver of Scripture
• guide, pointing to Scripture
• defender of Scripture, vindicating the genuine canonical books
• herald, proclaiming the truths of Scripture
• interpreter, unfolding the true sense of Scripture

Tim Ward, Words of Life (IVP, 2009) p154, citing Institutes 2.16.1-26

Similarly, Article 20 of the 39 calls the church "a witness and keeper of Holy Writ" (Ward, p155).

Covenant Words & Food

Timothy Ward argues that the whole Bible is fundamentally and supremely God's covenant book (Words of Life, IVP 2009, p56).

It seems to me that the Bible has its quintessential use and paradigmatic place (I'm struggling for the right words here!) in the Lord's Day Service of covenant renewal where it calls us to the covenant meal of the Lord's Supper which is the climax of the service, a seal of the covenant and a foretaste of the consummation of the covenant.

Sacramental Universe

Randall C. Zachman writes:

This metaphor [of the heavens preaching from Ps 19] recalls Calvin’s fondness for Augustine’s dictum that the sacraments are “visible words” of God, and indicates his willingness to extend this sacramental way of speaking to the self-disclosure of God in the universe. Calvin reinforces the theme of visible words in his interpretation of the fourth verse, in which he uses the metaphor of the orations of a teacher. He then combines this similitude of teaching and preaching with the metaphor of a written volume set forth for us to read.

Image and Word in the Theology of John Calvin (Notre Dame University Press, 2007) p37

This view of the "book" of the universe as sacramental might be strengthened if one were willing to think of God's other book, the Scriptures, as specially sacramental.

An exciting new book on Scripture

I received Revd Dr Timothy Ward’s Words of Life: Scripture as the living and active Word of God (IVP, 2009), which looks excellent, to review for Ecclesia Reformanda today. Pleasingly, “the Reformation maxim ecclesia semper reformanda” gets quoted with approval on p14.

The blurb on the IVP website, where you can also read an excerpt, is here.

And why bother to read a book before reviewing it?!

I dare not criticise a book which…

Peter Adam calls “… a landmark…. … splendid…. I thank God for it.”

Paul Helm calls “… very fine…. …. well-written, clear-headed, thoughtful and judicious”.

David Jackman says its “important”, so you better read it!

Donald Macleod calls it “a great read and a sterling work of scholarship. … comprehensive … rich … Text-book and treat”.

J. I. Packer calls it “well-informed and thoroughly thought through…. Rarely has a book on this subject stirred me to such emphatic agreement and admiration.”

Jonathan Stephens calls it “brilliantly conceived, academically aware and beautifully written.”

You get the idea! Now get the book! Only £6.59 on Amazon UK.

Fortunately, I’m not anticipating having to disagree.

There’s some stuff on the Bible’s view of the Bible and later on the kind of doctrinal headings you’d expect (necessity, sufficiency, clarity, authority) and it looks like you’ll get interesting stuff along the way (Preaching and a clear Bible; Diverse interpretations and a clear Bible). The book is practically oriented and particularly appealing is the chapter on ‘The Bible and Christian life: the doctrine of Scripture applied’ where there’s stuff on the church, preaching, the Spirit and the aim of Bible reading.

Revd Tim Ward is a Vicar in Leicestershire who trained at Oak Hill, no less!

Dr Ward knows his onions when it comes to the doctrine of the Bible. His 1999 PhD from Edinburgh under Kevin Vanhoozer resulted in Word and Supplement (OUP).

Devoted followers of Dr Ward’s work may wish to know that “earlier versions of some parts of this book have been previously published in” Word and Supplement; The Word Became Flesh; Reformed Theology in Contemporary Perspective and Spirit of Truth and Power. (p10)

Sadly no subject index – though at 186 pages its not a long book and it looks easy to find your way around.

In my copy there’s a sticker which says “ERRATUM Please note that all page number entries in the indexes [author & Scripture, that is] should be increased by 2.”

Ward examines the doctrine of Scripture first from the contents of the Bible, keeping in mind the Bible plot-line of redemptive history and the events of the gospel (what some would call a biblical theological approach), then theologically in relation to the Trinity. He hopes thereby to show that the doctrine of Scripture is more than a mere preface or appendix to theology proper, but intimately related to God and his action in Christ.

Lurking in the background is how the written and incarnate Words of God relate and how evangelicals can avoid bibliolatry (p12).

Ward says he will draw primarily on the work of Calvin, Turretin, Warfield and Bavinck, though Packer also gets an honourable mention (p20).

I fear I may be looking for things to quibble with in this book. This is pedantic in the extreme but what Ward calls “that great slogan from the Reformation, sola scriptura (Scripture alone)” (p19) is, according to Tony Lane, strictly speaking a post-Reformation slogan. See Anthony N. S. Lane, ‘Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan’, in A Pathway Into the Holy Scripture (ed. by Philip E. Satterthwaite & David F Wright; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994).

As I begin reading the book, I find myself wanting to type most of it out! Here are some bits from the introductions and conclusion:

“Throughout Christian history, the overwhelmingly predominant view of the Bible has been that it is itself the living and active Word of God. To say that the Bible is the Word of God is to say, putting it another way, that ‘what the Bible says, God says’.” (p11)

“… the heart of what I am attempting to do in this book: I want to articulate, explain and defend what we are really saying when we proclaim, as we must, that the Bible is God’s Word. In particular, this is how I want to go about this: I am attempting to describe the nature of the relationship between God and Scripture.” (p13)

“… the words of the Bible are a significant aspect of God’s action in the world. The relationship between God and the Bible is at heart to do with the actions God uses the Bible to perform…. Heb. 4:12” (p14)

“Scripture, by which we mean the speech acts performed by means of the words of Scripture, is the primary means by which God presents himself to us, in such a way that we can know him and remain in a faithful relationship to him…. … Scripture is God in communicative action. Therefore to encounter the words of Scripture is to encounter God in action.” (p179)

“Theologically Scripture is the means by which the Father presents his covenant to us, and therefore the means by which he presents himself to us as the faithful God of the covenant. It is also in the words of Scripture that the Word of God, Jesus Christ, comes to us so that we may know him and remain in him. And it is through the Scripture, which he authored, preserved and now illumines, that the Holy Spirit speaks to us most reliably. All this is what we are saying when we confess, simply, that ‘The Bible is the Word of God.’” (p179)

Cf. Christ, Nature, Scripture, Sacraments etc.

For anyone who can't wait for the Magnum Opus, here's a passage that might somehow get included:

“Within the sacrament, the sign’s relationship to “the Word” mirrors Christ’s relationship to God the Redeemer… (p156) [quotes Institutes IV.XIV.3]. Like Christ, the signs are perceptible, but also like Christ, their appearance does not express their meaning transparently, simply, directly, or self-evidently. Like Christ, the signs are “earthly,” simple, seemingly common; like Christ they serve to bridge human blindness and divine revelation, bot not automatically or simply. Like Christ, they belong to the cognitive and somatic complexity of God’s communication with humanity…. Calvin distinguishes a range of divine representations: nature, Scripture, Christ, the elements of the sacraments. All share in representing God to humanity. Nature is a manifestation which originates in God and displays his magnificence and love. Scripture also originates in God, abd articulates in words his will. Christ represents God more complexly, bridging in his person the divine and human, embodying and giving voice to God’s commands and instructions. God designated the elements, made of them “signs”; they do not manifest God in the same way as nature, Scripture or Christ. All share the fact of their physicality, but the ways in which they represent differ. How they function to communicate differs. And the content of their communication differs. Christ and the elements belong most fully to God’s communication of his covenant with humanity.

Those earthly elements “have been marked with this significance by God.” Their meaning is not autonomous of God speaking. The faithful learn to read the true meaning of the elements within the culture of preaching the Word of God. At the same time, the elements themselves provide a cognitive bridge, between the corporeality of human intelligence and God’s speaking. The two exist in interdependence, the one providing the verbal articulation of meaning, the other providing the tactile, visible, audible means by which that meaning is made accessible to humankind. The two sacraments exist in different relationship to preaching. Baptsim initiates the infant into the culture of preaching (Chapter XVI), signalling with the earthly element, water, the covenant between God and man. As children age, they grow in understanding of baptism (section 21). The Lord’s Supper, like preaching, recurs.” (p157)

Wandel, Lee Palmer, The Eucharist In The Reformation: Incarnation and Liturgy (New York, Cambridge University Press, 2006)

Peter Enns a "leading postmodernist"

I'm not well up on the details of the controversy about Dr Peter Enns' doctrine of Scripture at Westminster Seminary though I understand Enns has repeatedly affirmed inerrancy. I was surprised to see that the Amazon blurb for Greg K. Beale's new book, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority (Crossway) describes Enns as "one leading postmodernist".

As originally given

There's a lot of fuss in McGowan's book (The Divine Spiration of Scripture) about the inspiration of the Bible about "hypothetical" lost autographa, the original documents of Scripture. He seems to think of the claim to inerrancy applying only to them and this being a rather bothersome blind alley of pointless speculation.

I was just wondering if a claim that the Scriptures are inerrant "as originally given" would strictly necessarily require inerrant autographa? For example, in the case of a spoken prophetic oracle, would an error in recording the message in writing be excluded by the claim that the Scriptures as originally given are inerrent? If Paul dictated his letters, is it Paul's dictation or the amanuesnsis' scribing that is without error?

I guess so, actually, as terms like Scripture and Bible require a written document. Worth being accurate about that. You could still say the Scriptures were not originally given in written form but I reckon that's stretching it a bit.

Is The Bible God?

No. But Herman Bavinck says that, in 1714, according to A. Tholuck, Nitzsche in Gotha wrote a dissertation on the question of whether Holy Scripture itself was God. Sadly Bavinck doesn't tell us what Nitzsche's answer was.

(Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Prolegomena, vol 1, p416 cited in McGowan, Divine Spiration, p120. )

Scripture and Incarnation

McGowan argues against Peter Enns but along with John Webster and also quoting Thomas F. Torrance, that it is dangerous to use an analogy drawn from the divine and human natures of Christ in the incarnation to speak about the divine and human aspects of Scripture.

McGowan says, “How can the Scriptures have a divine nature, since only God is divine? ... Scripture can share certain divine attributes but it cannot have a divine nature, because it is not God.” (Divine Spiration, pp120-121)

Of course we do not want to say that the Bible is God. The Bible is not a fourth member of the Trinity. Quite right. It’s hard to think that anyone would think that someone would want to say that! What are the names of these bibolators we are all supposed to be concerned about?

But we do want to say the Bible is the Words of God. The Bible is God speaking. Since God also created language and is sovereign over it, God’s words thoroughly reflect his character. God accommodates himself to human beings in his revelation (he speaks baby-language, slowly and loudly) but he does not have a speech impediment. God’s words are true because God is true.

No doubt it is possible to press the analogy between the incarnation and Scripture too far or to do silly things with it, but I still find it helpful.

The incarnation reminds us that something can be fully human and fully divine. We do not have to parcel out the humanity and the divinity of Scripture. Romans can be fully Paul’s words and fully God’s. We don’t need to take 2 different colour highlighter pens to it to mark up God’s bits and the apostle’s bits.

The incarnation also reminds us that humanity does not necessarily imply sin and error since Jesus was a perfect man. Likewise, human language is always subject to limitations (just as Jesus’ humanity was always located in space and not omnipresent) but that does not mean that it is necessary for the Bible to err to be human.

If we're taking votes...

According to Mark Noll:

Most Christians in most churches since the founding of Christianity have believed in the inerrancy of the Bible. Or at least they have believed that the Scriptures are inspired by God, and so are the words of eternal life. The term inerrancy was not common until the nineteeth century. But the conviction that God communicates in Scripture a revelation of himself and of his deeds, and that this revelation is entirely truthful, has always been the common belief of most Catholics, most Protestants, most Orthodox, and even most of the sects of the fringe of Christianity.

Mark Noll, ‘A Brief History of Inerrancy, Mostly in America’, in The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy 1987 (Nashville: Broadman, 1987), pp.9-10 quoted in McGowan, Divine Spiration, p85.