1) Divine Writing: The Bible, down to the details of its words, consists of and is identical with God’s very own words written inerrantly in human language.

This could only have been written by someone who knows only one language. Even rudimentary acquaintance with another language would tell him how the statement is impossible. Does he propose that Jesus’s words came to us from Aramaic (or maybe sometimes Hebrew) through Greek without having to make approximate word choices? What was “over the waters”? A wind? A spirit? And then into English (see(5))? And what about the variety of literary styles, where, for example, Paul’s writings are in a distinct style different from Peter’s or Moses’s. Finally, those making this claim show ignorance of literary possibilities, such as apocalypse. Anyway, why should the author of all language confine himself to a single genre, explication?

2) Total Representation: The Bible represents the totality of God’s communication to and will for humanity, both in containing all that God has to say to humans and in being the exclusive mode of God’s true communication.

Does that mean that all the theology and inspirational material written since the canon was settled are without value? (5) and (8) bear on this too. I imagine that much that has been written since the canon was established might be included now if it were a new subject. I especially like Sanctorum Communio as a candidate. You might have some favorites too.

3) Complete Coverage: The divine will about all of the issues relevant to Christian belief and life are contained in the Bible.

Perhaps by implication. But if it is, I must draw out the implications, and so I must interpret (see (5)). What do I do about my sassy children? Bring them to the gate to be stoned? Or did Jesus in the case of the woman taken in adultery abrogate that command. If He did, I can find out only by reaching a conclusion myself—it doesn’t say so explicitly.

4) Democratic Perspicuity: Any reasonably intelligent person can read the Bible in his or her own language and correctly understand the plain meaning of the text.

Then what does this mean, “The sons of the gods saw that the daughters of men were fair and took for themselves such women as they chose.”? If there’s a plain meaning, or any meaning for that matter, I can’t see it.

5) Commonsense Hermeneutics: The best way to understand biblical texts is by reading them in their explicit, plain, most obvious, literal sense, as the author intended them at face value, which may or may not involve taking into account their literary, cultural, and historical contexts.

That’s a good start, but Jesus himself uses parables which he explains as allegory when the disciples ask. Is Job history, biography, or fiction? It doesn’t matter because that’s not what the book is about. And this, “The Lord said to my lord, ‘come and sit by my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.’” I imagine David as court musician singing this as praise of Saul, but Jesus uses it to refer to himself as messiah, and his hearers apparently understood it that way, but it’s a second-level interpretation.

6) Solo [sic] Scriptura: The significance of any given biblical text can be understood without reliance on creeds, confessions, historical church traditions, or other forms of larger theological hermeneutical frameworks, such that theological formulations can be built up directly out of the Bible from scratch.

If you can do that, you’re more perceptive than I am. I need contact with other Christians of all times to keep me on course. I don’t want to make the mistake of thinking today’s pet idea (or, worse, my pet idea) is universal. Lewis warned about that, and he knew all the original languages and was acquainted with literature from all of history.

7) Internal Harmony: All related passages of the Bible on any given subject fit together almost like puzzle pieces into single, unified, internally consistent bodies of instruction about right and wrong beliefs and behaviors.

Then why do Acts and the epistles differ on whether Paul’s companions heard the voice or saw the light, but not both? Is “He who is not against us for us.” or is “He who is not for us against us.”? They can’t both be right about those who are neutral. If you say they were both right, but at different times, you have taken away universality ((1) and (8)).

8) Universal Applicability: What the biblical authors taught God’s people at any point in history remains universally valid for all Christians at every other time, unless explicitly revoked by subsequent scriptural teaching.

Possibly. God has given me curiosity about general cases. He instructs me only about my own. It’s one of the advantages of not being a professional guide of Christians.

9) Inductive Method: All matters of Christian belief and practice can be learned by sitting down with the Bible and piecing together through careful study the clear “biblical” truths that it teaches.

Let’s sew together our own scriptures. That’s what this seems to invite.

10) Handbook Model: The Bible teaches doctrine and morals with every affirmation that it makes, so that together those affirmations comprise something like a handbook or textbook for Christian belief and living, a compendium of divine and therefore inerrant teachings on a full array of subjects—including science, economics, health, politics, and romance.

No it doesn’t. Some is plain instruction, some history, some biography, some allegory, some poetry, some myth (You must understand what I mean by myth. I’m confident you do.), and more. During the period of the judges, “every man did what was right in his own eyes.” Is that good politics? One message is that men must be governed, but not enslaved. But then, that’s an interpretation, which literalists won’t allow.

Feel free to stop in the next time you visit St. Louis and sit in on a class or two!

I won’t type it all in, I don’t have time, but a few weeks ago I posted a comment based on Franzmann’s commentary on Romans 12:2:

http://concordiatheology.org/2011/08/somebody-said-it-before-i-did-and-better/

Perhaps more to this issue is a couple paragraphs from Franzmann’s commentary on Rom 12:1. I don’t have time to type it all in, but here is the key sentence:

“The new worship is grounded in “the mercies of God.” In that phrase Paul sums up the creative and transforming power of the Gospel of God as he has been proclaiming it in the first 11 chapters of his letter.”

Read the rest of the paragraph, great stuff (again). Point being, it is not so much what we say about the Scriptures as what the Scriptures say, and do, to us.

I heard Depak Chopra tell a pastor, “I don’t worship a book of rules.” The pastor replied, “I don’t either, I worship the Savior of which this book tells.”

Are there better “words” to use when describing the Bible and its power?

I’d be more than happy to sit down with you, David, or anyone else “reading in” on this, and work through this on the basis of Sasse’s writings (or Preus, or Pieper). Perhaps that is the best way for this kind of discussion to happen. As you point out, lots of things get shorthanded on blogs, and so not everything comes across clearly. We are hosting another Day of Exegetical Reflection and Theological Symposium on Sep 19-21. Let me know if you’ll be around for that.

Thanks for your time! Maybe we get together at the Walther Conference?. Let me end with these 2 thoughts:

**** (1) Sasse’s view of inerrancy, how could I have missed this, is that Scripture is inerrant only in regard to the articles of faith (correct?). He would say that it is not inerrant in every word or historical fact. I *think* this is in line with what a seminary prof was saying at last years’ symposium.

If this view of inerrancy has support at the seminary, then the LC-MS needs to have an open and brotherly conversation on the topic that will hopefully produce more light than heat.

***** (2) The situations I was thinking about were not hypothetical. Yes, I share the Goodnews of Christ — that is the point of the Bible. One must always get to the message of Christ no matter where one starts (E.G. from debate on Hell to the fact Jesus received the punishment of Hell upon the cross for our sins).

Please don’t take shorthand on a posting (E.G. The Bible’s trajectory being Christ, in point 3) as if I don’t preach justification in Christ as the main thing.