Is the Bible "just a book"?

by    T. C. Pinckney                                                                                                                                      Vol. XIII, No. 7, August 2000
 

Probably most Baptist Banner readers will have heard by now of the statement made at a microphone by a messenger to the SBC annual meeting in Orlando that "the Bible is just a book." In this article I will try to put his statement in context so we can fairly evaluate his intent but also so we can understand the subtle perniciousness of such a view, even taken in context.

Anthony Sisemore, pastor of First BC, Floydada, TX (a little northeast of Lubbock), made the statement during debate on his motion to restore the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message's wording on Scripture.

The entire paragraph of his remarks to the convention was, "Without any hesitation, I believe the Bible is God's word, and I strive to obey the standards it prescribes. The Bible is a book that we can trust. The Bible is a book that points toward the Truth. With that being said, the Bible is still just a book. Christians are supposed to have a relationship with Jesus Christ, the Living Word, not a book. Jesus Christ redeems us, not a book."

Later Sisemore emphasized that the Bible is a record of God's revelation of Himself to man and that we are to worship Jesus, who is the full revelation, not the book.

The first problem with such an approach is that it is based upon a false dichotomy between Jesus and the Bible. Jesus is the incarnate revelation, revelation in the flesh. The Bible is the inscripturated revelation, revelation in writing.

But as Dr. Al Mohler speaking at the convention in rebuttal to Sisemore's statements said, "Pray tell, what do we know about Jesus except what we read in the Bible!"

Moreover, as Jesus Himself said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18)

The second problem with Sisemore's stance is that it raises a red herring by attributing a fictitious position to conservatives. Note his closing two sentences quoted above, "Christians are supposed to have a relationship with Jesus Christ, the Living Word, not a book. Jesus Christ redeems us, not a book."

Every conservative Southern Baptist (and most if not all moderate and liberal Southern Baptists) would agree wholeheartedly. But while his statement is accurate in its theology, it verges on calumny in its implications. No inerrantist Southern Baptist would maintain that we are redeemed by the Book or that we are to have a relationship with the Bible rather than with Jesus. Yet Sisemore ignores Al Mohler's pungent point: How can we have a relationship, especially a growing relationship, with Jesus if we degrade the Bible into a mere record of men's search for and impressions of God?

The third problem with Sisemore's statement is that it is neo-orthodox, denying full authority to the Bible. If Karl Barth and the neo-orthodox are correct that the Bible is replete with myth, a collection of stories which "contain" the truth but mixed with mistakes, a prisoner of the cultures in which its authors lived and wrote, we are cast adrift upon a sea of dark uncertainty with no compass and no Navigator. If it is only inspired in spots, who is qualified to spot the spots? Why are you better prepared than I am, or Joe Bloke than Suzy Smith? If all the Bible is not accepted as true, soon none of the Bible will be considered true, and every man will do what is right in his own eyes. And who can say him nay?

Sisemore was speaking in support of his motion to restore to the Baptist Faith and Message in Article I, "The Scriptures," a sentence which was added in the 1963 revision but which the Study Committee had omitted from our proposed 2000 version. The sentence is, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." The Study Committee proposed to replace that 1963 sentence with, "All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation."

But one must ask, what does the "criterion" sentence mean? How does one apply that criterion as one reads the Bible?

Presumably the response would be that we should study Jesus' life and words, form a conception of His character, and then apply that concept to the words of the Bible as we read it.

A problem fatal to this approach is that it denies the ability of the Holy Spirit to so inspire the biblical authors that they would write exactly what God intended to apply throughout all time. And as that approach denies God's ability, it correspondingly elevates man to sovereignty because it becomes each man's responsibility to decide for himself what is true and what is not.

In conclusion, taking Sisemore's statement in context does nothing to improve its impact. No matter how we read it, it falsely presumes different degrees of inspiration between the Bible and Jesus, projects incorrect beliefs upon biblical conservatives, assumes that the Bible contains errors and cultural bonds, and consequently raises the individual to final authority because it denies God's ability to inspire His chosen vessels to write precisely what He wished. We close by repeating what Jesus said about the exactness of God's Book, " For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18 AV)