What do you think?
Rate this book
Studies in Dogmatics
Holy Scripture
In this series rooted in the normative significance of Scripture, noted Dutch theologian G. C. Berkouwer examines great doctrines of the Reformed faith, developing and defending Reformed theology through interaction with a wide range of theologies and theologians. Berkouwer treats a broad range of topics related to the doctrine of Scripture, including the testimony of the Spirit, Holy Scripture as canon, the doctrine of inspiration, and the authority and interpretation of scripture.
- GenresTheology
380 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1975
41 people want to read
About the author
G.C. Berkouwer
35 books20 followersGerrit Cornelis Berkouwer was for years the leading theologian of the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands (GKN). He occupied the Chair in systematic theology of the Faculty of Theology, Free University (VU) in Amsterdam.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 29, 2024
THE THIRTEENTH VOLUME IN BERKOUWER’S 14-VOLUME “STUDIES IN DOGMATICS”
Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903-1996) taught systematic theology at the Free University in Amsterdam. The other volumes in this series are: The Providence of God,Faith and Sanctification,Faith and Justification,The Person of Christ,General Revelation,Faith and Perseverance,Divine Election,Man: The Image of God,The Work of Christ,The Sacraments,Sin,The Return of Christ,The Church. He also wrote books such as The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism,Modern Uncertainty and Christian Faith,Recent Developments in Roman Catholic Thought,A Half Century of Theology: Movements and Motives, etc.
He wrote in the first chapter of this 1966 book, “the question arises whether it is perhaps possible, and even legitimate, not to be disturbed by the many questions and criticisms of the historical critics but rather to turn away from them as if they were agents of total de-Christianization that more and more silenced the voice of God. In answer to this last question, it is not possible to localize the criticism only among those who reject the message of the gospel. On the contrary, not all historical criticism proceeded from the assumption that only human reason had the right to judge the truth. The church was confronted with a concern for the human quality of Holy Scripture on the part of those for whom Scripture was nevertheless very important in preaching and theology, and who could not be accused of hostility toward God or of refusal to submit to his law… Thus, it was confronted with a complex phenomenon, and the questions multiplied, centering around what obedience Scripture implied and must imply. Gradually, all these questions took on an undeniable existential seriousness, for the true nature of listening to the voice of God when awake.” (Pg. 14)
He continues, “The fear that this aspect of the doctrine of Scripture implies a threat to and an historicizing of the authority of Scripture is really the result of an artificial view of revelation. Those who hold such a view deny that shifts and changes in the history of the church can originate from a better understanding of Holy Scripture. They forget that Scripture is written in human words and consequently offers men legitimate freedom to examine these words and try to understand them. Moreover, those who hold a docetic view of Scripture can never completely disregard the fact that God’s Word has come to us by way of human translations, a fact that cannot be denied. Examining Holy Scripture does not imply a testing of the ‘vox Dei’ by human reason. It is clear that the understanding of Scripture is also determined, by virtue of its nature and substance, by the role that historical development begins to play in the understanding of it.” (Pg. 19-20)
He asserts, “Fundamentalism has hardly come to grips with the human problem of whether attention for the human character of Holy Scripture might be of great importance for its correct understanding. Fundamentalists often give the impression that the point at issue is the acceptance or rejection of … Scripture’s infallibility. They suggest that… an a priori acceptance of Scripture’s infallibility precludes all dangers. Thus, they manifest great tolerance for all who maintain the fundamentalist view of Holy Scripture. They tend to relativize concrete obedience in understanding Scripture. The result is that their apologetic, which is meant to safeguard Scripture’s divine aspect, threatens in many respects to block the road to a correct understanding of Scripture, which is normative, by ignoring and neglecting its human aspect.” (Pg. 22-23)
He observes, “Is it indeed possible for us to read Scripture with free, unbiased, and listening attention? Or do we hear in God’s Word that which we already know, that is, the images, feelings, and presuppositions of our own hearts? Is there still a real encounter with the Word of God when we speak about the ecclesiastically accepted canon? Can we come to Scripture with our subjectivity without allowing that subjectivity to have a creative and projective power? We should never minimize the seriousness of these questions, especially since here both the authority of Scripture and faith in Scripture are at stake… There is no more incisive question concerning our relation to Scripture than the one regarding the shaping of our listening and obedience to that Scripture. For Scripture can be interpreted in a manner which pays little or no attention to the intent or mind of the Spirit.” (Pg. 107)
He points out, “Nowhere was the relationship between authority and interpretation so clearly expressed as in the Reformation confession of Scripture… in its hermeneutical rule: … ‘Sacred Scripture is its own interpreter.’ On hearing this rule, one can react that it is a polemically understandable but not really a concrete and fruitful notion for the present interpretation of Scripture. The formula is indeed a polemical focusing of the Sola Scripture on interpretation. This already excludes the possibility of speaking on a purely formal rule without diverse perspectives. It contains a concrete rejection of other interpretations which are foreign to the nature of Scripture… The personification of Scripture as interpreter … includes the awareness that here no dead letter is at stake, but Scripture in its witness by the hand of the Spirit.” (Pg. 127)
He notes, “The well-known Galileo case bothers nobody anymore, but it is still hermeneutically instructive as an illustration of the manner in which the authority of Scripture was called upon… In this complicated historical situation, real questions regarding scriptural interpretation were raised. Already there we can sense a growing awareness in the church that it was not justifiable to allow itself to be led by a reaction against all kinds of dangers; men began to realize that hermeneutically a lesson lay in the much too strongly stated ecclesiastical claims that had to reconsidered later.” (Pg. 136)
He acknowledges, “The question of what criteria to use to distinguish between true and false prophecy understandably caused anguish and fear in Israel, for false prophets also said, ‘Thus says the Lord.’ Yet there was no doubt concerning the matter of the origin itself as the foundation of its legitimacy. The question of the criteria of recognition arose in all kinds of situations in the life of Israel. Various phenomena, events, and deeds were seen under the critical light of the origin… Thus, the question of the origin has played an important role in the reflection concerning Scripture… At the same time, this question could not be answered outside of involvement with Scripture but only by listening to this writing, which led to the church’s confession: … ‘Holy Scripture is the Word of God.’” (Pg. 144-145)
He reassures, “research into God’s Word in its verbal humanity is no threat; instead, it respects the Word of God. Even though this research is surrounded by many dangers, especially by the one great danger of human arbitrariness… But there is another possibility through which this research is not without expectation and promise. It is not aimed at fathoming the depth of God but at understanding the God-breathed Scripture and thus the mystery of the Spirit inseparably connected with its depth.” (Pg. 168-169)
He points out, “The words ‘infallibility’ and ‘reliability’ were not deemed sufficient; it was thought necessary to add ‘inerrancy’… In this view of inerrancy we meet a serious formalization of the concept of erring. The concept of error in the sense of incorrectness is obviously being used on the same level as the concept of erring in the sense of sin and deception. The distinction is left rather vague. As a consequence of this, limited historical perception without a certain cultural and scientific situation is, without further stipulation, put on a par with erring in the sense of lying, the opposite of truth. If erring is formalized in such a way, it cannot later be related to truth in a biblical sense… Thus, we are quite removed from the serious manner with which erring is dealt in Scripture. For there what is meant is not the result of a limited degree of knowledge, but it is a swerving from the truth and upsetting the faith… The testimony of the Spirit stands opposite THAT erring, and the confession of the God-breathed Scripture could not be maintained with that kind of deception in view.” (Pg. 181-182)
He explains, “The distinction between textual criticism and biblical criticism is generally known. Its meaning is that the textual critic does not set himself on a pedestal above God’s Word but wishes to search for this very Word in its original form. Though it has bearing on the text of Scripture, the word ‘criticism’ is more carefully used in the sense of a controlling human function in the judgment. The acceptance of this ‘textual criticism’ is clearly related to the manner in which Holy Scripture was given to us… Concern for a correct text shows clearly that this listening is set in a certain context.” (Pg. 219)
He suggests, “One will never solve the problem of the Gospels by indiscriminately operating with the concept of ‘historical reliability,’ precisely because then one leaves the impression that no further questions need to be answered. As a consequence, all further reflection on this point is subject to suspicion from the start. On the contrary, the right of this research must be maintained, since it immediately flows from the Gospels themselves. These further considerations are caused by clear indications marking differences which far exceed differences in language and style. Attention was given, for instance, to the difference between John and the synoptics. It was asked why John offers no birth narrative… no institution of the Last Supper, no transfiguration on the mount, nothing concerning Gethsemane… while he does offer long discourses of Jesus, as well as the high priestly prayer and the foot washing, which do not occur in the other Gospels… Moreover, there are notable differences among the synoptics regarding Jesus’ encounter with people in his environment, the Beatitudes… and the parables. There is reason to believe that certain post-Easter situations of the church do-determined the renditions… One clearly cannot escape these differences with the presupposition of ‘historical’ (i.e., exact) reliability, thus giving no further thought to the differences… gospel research should be regarded as perfectly legitimate…” (Pg. 251-252)
He observes, “We can call attention to the nature of revelation adopting the human-historical aspect by referring to the polemics of Israel. Especially with regard to Genesis 1, clear polemical features are noteworthy, particularly aimed at mythical theogonies and cosmogonies … This shows how the thinking of Israel concerning the creation by God took shape in confrontation with all kinds of myths, theories, and views of life… By giving these polemical elements their due, we are brought to a level different from that of a supernatural and mechanical concept of revelation. For God’s revelation does not exclude human thought and historical confrontation, but it adopts them and brings their unique relevance to light… The inspired nature does not come to light in complete isolation but in the content and intention of revelation. Human mediation and consideration are not thereby eliminated; on the contrary, the human elements of reflection… receive real significance … than had they been influenced by the fear of spiritualization and evaporation.” (Pg. 293-294)
He acknowledges, “Questions and problems that disturb the silence and quiet of a childlike faith were always related to this search of Scripture. A priori answers cannot be found by means of a special method or a hermeneutical technique whereby all scriptural questions could possibly be solved by excluding them on the basis of a childlike faith… The Word of God as a lamp to our feet … can only be accepted, acknowledged, and confessed by walking as Israel walked … step by step, in continual amazement at that light in the midst of dangers and obstacles.” (Pg. 348)
He points out, “We note again the danger of thinking in terms of a competition between the ‘divine’ and ‘human’ aspects of Scripture, a dilemma that easily that easily leads to an emphasis on the divine to the depreciation of the human, which is a misunderstanding of the God-breathed character of Scripture. As a result, God’s voice ‘in the manner of men’ is de-emphasized, so that there is scarcely room remaining for real research. However, in the light of the God-breathed Scripture, there is no sanction against human analysis of this Scripture… Through the ages many believers feared that something would be taken away from God’s speaking by the consideration of human questions and problems. However, in the course of history researchers faced real biblical questions without opening themselves to the charge that these questions were born out of a desire to ‘criticize.’ … Research is therefore warranted as both legitimate and necessary, but it should be done with eyes open to the dangers implied in every analysis.” (Pg. 358-359)
For anyone interested in conservative Reformed theology, this entire series will be of great interest. The diversity of the theologians and sources with whom Berkouwer interacts make this series a very interesting reading project.
Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903-1996) taught systematic theology at the Free University in Amsterdam. The other volumes in this series are: The Providence of God,Faith and Sanctification,Faith and Justification,The Person of Christ,General Revelation,Faith and Perseverance,Divine Election,Man: The Image of God,The Work of Christ,The Sacraments,Sin,The Return of Christ,The Church. He also wrote books such as The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism,Modern Uncertainty and Christian Faith,Recent Developments in Roman Catholic Thought,A Half Century of Theology: Movements and Motives, etc.
He wrote in the first chapter of this 1966 book, “the question arises whether it is perhaps possible, and even legitimate, not to be disturbed by the many questions and criticisms of the historical critics but rather to turn away from them as if they were agents of total de-Christianization that more and more silenced the voice of God. In answer to this last question, it is not possible to localize the criticism only among those who reject the message of the gospel. On the contrary, not all historical criticism proceeded from the assumption that only human reason had the right to judge the truth. The church was confronted with a concern for the human quality of Holy Scripture on the part of those for whom Scripture was nevertheless very important in preaching and theology, and who could not be accused of hostility toward God or of refusal to submit to his law… Thus, it was confronted with a complex phenomenon, and the questions multiplied, centering around what obedience Scripture implied and must imply. Gradually, all these questions took on an undeniable existential seriousness, for the true nature of listening to the voice of God when awake.” (Pg. 14)
He continues, “The fear that this aspect of the doctrine of Scripture implies a threat to and an historicizing of the authority of Scripture is really the result of an artificial view of revelation. Those who hold such a view deny that shifts and changes in the history of the church can originate from a better understanding of Holy Scripture. They forget that Scripture is written in human words and consequently offers men legitimate freedom to examine these words and try to understand them. Moreover, those who hold a docetic view of Scripture can never completely disregard the fact that God’s Word has come to us by way of human translations, a fact that cannot be denied. Examining Holy Scripture does not imply a testing of the ‘vox Dei’ by human reason. It is clear that the understanding of Scripture is also determined, by virtue of its nature and substance, by the role that historical development begins to play in the understanding of it.” (Pg. 19-20)
He asserts, “Fundamentalism has hardly come to grips with the human problem of whether attention for the human character of Holy Scripture might be of great importance for its correct understanding. Fundamentalists often give the impression that the point at issue is the acceptance or rejection of … Scripture’s infallibility. They suggest that… an a priori acceptance of Scripture’s infallibility precludes all dangers. Thus, they manifest great tolerance for all who maintain the fundamentalist view of Holy Scripture. They tend to relativize concrete obedience in understanding Scripture. The result is that their apologetic, which is meant to safeguard Scripture’s divine aspect, threatens in many respects to block the road to a correct understanding of Scripture, which is normative, by ignoring and neglecting its human aspect.” (Pg. 22-23)
He observes, “Is it indeed possible for us to read Scripture with free, unbiased, and listening attention? Or do we hear in God’s Word that which we already know, that is, the images, feelings, and presuppositions of our own hearts? Is there still a real encounter with the Word of God when we speak about the ecclesiastically accepted canon? Can we come to Scripture with our subjectivity without allowing that subjectivity to have a creative and projective power? We should never minimize the seriousness of these questions, especially since here both the authority of Scripture and faith in Scripture are at stake… There is no more incisive question concerning our relation to Scripture than the one regarding the shaping of our listening and obedience to that Scripture. For Scripture can be interpreted in a manner which pays little or no attention to the intent or mind of the Spirit.” (Pg. 107)
He points out, “Nowhere was the relationship between authority and interpretation so clearly expressed as in the Reformation confession of Scripture… in its hermeneutical rule: … ‘Sacred Scripture is its own interpreter.’ On hearing this rule, one can react that it is a polemically understandable but not really a concrete and fruitful notion for the present interpretation of Scripture. The formula is indeed a polemical focusing of the Sola Scripture on interpretation. This already excludes the possibility of speaking on a purely formal rule without diverse perspectives. It contains a concrete rejection of other interpretations which are foreign to the nature of Scripture… The personification of Scripture as interpreter … includes the awareness that here no dead letter is at stake, but Scripture in its witness by the hand of the Spirit.” (Pg. 127)
He notes, “The well-known Galileo case bothers nobody anymore, but it is still hermeneutically instructive as an illustration of the manner in which the authority of Scripture was called upon… In this complicated historical situation, real questions regarding scriptural interpretation were raised. Already there we can sense a growing awareness in the church that it was not justifiable to allow itself to be led by a reaction against all kinds of dangers; men began to realize that hermeneutically a lesson lay in the much too strongly stated ecclesiastical claims that had to reconsidered later.” (Pg. 136)
He acknowledges, “The question of what criteria to use to distinguish between true and false prophecy understandably caused anguish and fear in Israel, for false prophets also said, ‘Thus says the Lord.’ Yet there was no doubt concerning the matter of the origin itself as the foundation of its legitimacy. The question of the criteria of recognition arose in all kinds of situations in the life of Israel. Various phenomena, events, and deeds were seen under the critical light of the origin… Thus, the question of the origin has played an important role in the reflection concerning Scripture… At the same time, this question could not be answered outside of involvement with Scripture but only by listening to this writing, which led to the church’s confession: … ‘Holy Scripture is the Word of God.’” (Pg. 144-145)
He reassures, “research into God’s Word in its verbal humanity is no threat; instead, it respects the Word of God. Even though this research is surrounded by many dangers, especially by the one great danger of human arbitrariness… But there is another possibility through which this research is not without expectation and promise. It is not aimed at fathoming the depth of God but at understanding the God-breathed Scripture and thus the mystery of the Spirit inseparably connected with its depth.” (Pg. 168-169)
He points out, “The words ‘infallibility’ and ‘reliability’ were not deemed sufficient; it was thought necessary to add ‘inerrancy’… In this view of inerrancy we meet a serious formalization of the concept of erring. The concept of error in the sense of incorrectness is obviously being used on the same level as the concept of erring in the sense of sin and deception. The distinction is left rather vague. As a consequence of this, limited historical perception without a certain cultural and scientific situation is, without further stipulation, put on a par with erring in the sense of lying, the opposite of truth. If erring is formalized in such a way, it cannot later be related to truth in a biblical sense… Thus, we are quite removed from the serious manner with which erring is dealt in Scripture. For there what is meant is not the result of a limited degree of knowledge, but it is a swerving from the truth and upsetting the faith… The testimony of the Spirit stands opposite THAT erring, and the confession of the God-breathed Scripture could not be maintained with that kind of deception in view.” (Pg. 181-182)
He explains, “The distinction between textual criticism and biblical criticism is generally known. Its meaning is that the textual critic does not set himself on a pedestal above God’s Word but wishes to search for this very Word in its original form. Though it has bearing on the text of Scripture, the word ‘criticism’ is more carefully used in the sense of a controlling human function in the judgment. The acceptance of this ‘textual criticism’ is clearly related to the manner in which Holy Scripture was given to us… Concern for a correct text shows clearly that this listening is set in a certain context.” (Pg. 219)
He suggests, “One will never solve the problem of the Gospels by indiscriminately operating with the concept of ‘historical reliability,’ precisely because then one leaves the impression that no further questions need to be answered. As a consequence, all further reflection on this point is subject to suspicion from the start. On the contrary, the right of this research must be maintained, since it immediately flows from the Gospels themselves. These further considerations are caused by clear indications marking differences which far exceed differences in language and style. Attention was given, for instance, to the difference between John and the synoptics. It was asked why John offers no birth narrative… no institution of the Last Supper, no transfiguration on the mount, nothing concerning Gethsemane… while he does offer long discourses of Jesus, as well as the high priestly prayer and the foot washing, which do not occur in the other Gospels… Moreover, there are notable differences among the synoptics regarding Jesus’ encounter with people in his environment, the Beatitudes… and the parables. There is reason to believe that certain post-Easter situations of the church do-determined the renditions… One clearly cannot escape these differences with the presupposition of ‘historical’ (i.e., exact) reliability, thus giving no further thought to the differences… gospel research should be regarded as perfectly legitimate…” (Pg. 251-252)
He observes, “We can call attention to the nature of revelation adopting the human-historical aspect by referring to the polemics of Israel. Especially with regard to Genesis 1, clear polemical features are noteworthy, particularly aimed at mythical theogonies and cosmogonies … This shows how the thinking of Israel concerning the creation by God took shape in confrontation with all kinds of myths, theories, and views of life… By giving these polemical elements their due, we are brought to a level different from that of a supernatural and mechanical concept of revelation. For God’s revelation does not exclude human thought and historical confrontation, but it adopts them and brings their unique relevance to light… The inspired nature does not come to light in complete isolation but in the content and intention of revelation. Human mediation and consideration are not thereby eliminated; on the contrary, the human elements of reflection… receive real significance … than had they been influenced by the fear of spiritualization and evaporation.” (Pg. 293-294)
He acknowledges, “Questions and problems that disturb the silence and quiet of a childlike faith were always related to this search of Scripture. A priori answers cannot be found by means of a special method or a hermeneutical technique whereby all scriptural questions could possibly be solved by excluding them on the basis of a childlike faith… The Word of God as a lamp to our feet … can only be accepted, acknowledged, and confessed by walking as Israel walked … step by step, in continual amazement at that light in the midst of dangers and obstacles.” (Pg. 348)
He points out, “We note again the danger of thinking in terms of a competition between the ‘divine’ and ‘human’ aspects of Scripture, a dilemma that easily that easily leads to an emphasis on the divine to the depreciation of the human, which is a misunderstanding of the God-breathed character of Scripture. As a result, God’s voice ‘in the manner of men’ is de-emphasized, so that there is scarcely room remaining for real research. However, in the light of the God-breathed Scripture, there is no sanction against human analysis of this Scripture… Through the ages many believers feared that something would be taken away from God’s speaking by the consideration of human questions and problems. However, in the course of history researchers faced real biblical questions without opening themselves to the charge that these questions were born out of a desire to ‘criticize.’ … Research is therefore warranted as both legitimate and necessary, but it should be done with eyes open to the dangers implied in every analysis.” (Pg. 358-359)
For anyone interested in conservative Reformed theology, this entire series will be of great interest. The diversity of the theologians and sources with whom Berkouwer interacts make this series a very interesting reading project.
August 9, 2020
Once one of Barth's greatest critics, in this volume Berkouwer shows that Barth actually had great influence on him. He attempts to hold the historic reformed view of Scripture with the "neo-orthodox" view hand in hand. He obviously fails to do this and can end up saying things like, "Though Jesus may never have said the words recorded in the gospels, yet they are still inspired because they are contained in God-breathed Scripture and the Church can and must confess them as the very words of Jesus through human lips." This book helped lead me away from Barth, but it is not to be seen as a sound guide for Reformed students.
February 25, 2016
The doctrine of Scripture is one of my specialties. Berhouwer offers some great reflections from position that is thoroughly evangelical, but does not buy into the absurdities of biblical inerrancy (as described in documents like the Chicago Statement, etc.).
For Berkouwer, Scripture is an authority understood through faith. Interestingly, inerrantists about the Princetonian tradition refuse to see Scripture as an article of faith. The seek to set up the Bible as a rational foundation prior to faith, an object of certainty, not assurance. Ironically, inerrantists are just as modernistic as the liberals they dispice as both reduce the Bible to an epistemological exercise.
Seeing every statement of the Bible as historically and scientifically inerrant, and even seeing the purpose of the Bible as giving us inerrant information, ironically is an unbiblical idea. As he shows in the chapters on inspiration, the inspiration of the Bible is for connection with Christ and forming Christ-like righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). An idea that inspiration overpowers the falliblity and finitude of the writer is actually deeply docetic, and has lost sight of the primary concern of Scripture. Similarly, the notion of "error" in the Bible is not primarily concerned with scientific factuality. An error in the Bible has to do with wrong doing and failure to understanding the character of Christ. This implies that a passage might get some facts wrong by the fact that the author is human, but since the author is an apostles, a virtious eyewitness to Christ, their witness and teaching has not lost credibility.
When all things are said and done, for Berhouwer, the Bible assumes its reliability, but does not require absolute perfection of its statements of facts. The Bible is the word of God through human words, used by the Spirit to point us to Christ and living like Christ.
I rated this book as three stars because, while its is a large book with excellent studies, it is long and dry and oddly misses quite a bit. Berkouwer is so concerned with citing Kuyper and Bavinck and meditating through the nomeclature of reformed notions (the "perspicuity" of Scripture, the inner witness, etc.) that he does not treat a lot of very important notions like what "revelation" is, what the "word of God" is and how it is used, key passages that are disputed and what they mean for the doctrine of Scripture, etc.
So, as I said, the doctrine of Scripture is one of my specialties. To date, one of the best books on the doctrine of Scripture is Goldingay's Models for Scripture. A beautiful and sussinct classic is John Clifford's The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.
For Berkouwer, Scripture is an authority understood through faith. Interestingly, inerrantists about the Princetonian tradition refuse to see Scripture as an article of faith. The seek to set up the Bible as a rational foundation prior to faith, an object of certainty, not assurance. Ironically, inerrantists are just as modernistic as the liberals they dispice as both reduce the Bible to an epistemological exercise.
Seeing every statement of the Bible as historically and scientifically inerrant, and even seeing the purpose of the Bible as giving us inerrant information, ironically is an unbiblical idea. As he shows in the chapters on inspiration, the inspiration of the Bible is for connection with Christ and forming Christ-like righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). An idea that inspiration overpowers the falliblity and finitude of the writer is actually deeply docetic, and has lost sight of the primary concern of Scripture. Similarly, the notion of "error" in the Bible is not primarily concerned with scientific factuality. An error in the Bible has to do with wrong doing and failure to understanding the character of Christ. This implies that a passage might get some facts wrong by the fact that the author is human, but since the author is an apostles, a virtious eyewitness to Christ, their witness and teaching has not lost credibility.
When all things are said and done, for Berhouwer, the Bible assumes its reliability, but does not require absolute perfection of its statements of facts. The Bible is the word of God through human words, used by the Spirit to point us to Christ and living like Christ.
I rated this book as three stars because, while its is a large book with excellent studies, it is long and dry and oddly misses quite a bit. Berkouwer is so concerned with citing Kuyper and Bavinck and meditating through the nomeclature of reformed notions (the "perspicuity" of Scripture, the inner witness, etc.) that he does not treat a lot of very important notions like what "revelation" is, what the "word of God" is and how it is used, key passages that are disputed and what they mean for the doctrine of Scripture, etc.
So, as I said, the doctrine of Scripture is one of my specialties. To date, one of the best books on the doctrine of Scripture is Goldingay's Models for Scripture. A beautiful and sussinct classic is John Clifford's The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews