80

Sermon: What Did Jesus BelieveAbout the Bible?

Matthew 5:17-18Daniel L. Akin

Daniel L. Akin is Vice President and

Dean and professor of preaching at The

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Dr. Akin has served as Dean since 1996

and has also served on the faculty of

Southeastern Seminary and Criswell

College. He has an extensive speaking

ministry, especially on the topic of mar-

riage and family, and is the author of

the commentary on 1-3 John in the

New American Commentary series.

IntroductionOn June 14, 2000 Southern Baptists metin Orlando, Florida for their annual meet-ing. The most important issue on theagenda was the 2000 Baptist Faith and Mes-

sage. While the 1925 and 1963 confessionshad served us well, many believed certaintheological currents and trends made itwise to reconsider, and where necessary,revise the 1963 statement. Article Iaddresses the Scriptures. The following isthe statement that the convention over-whelmingly adopted.

The Holy Bible was written by mendivinely inspired and is God’s rev-elation of Himself to man. It is a per-fect treasure of divine instruction. Ithas God for its author, salvation forits end, and truth, without any mix-ture of error, for its matter. Therefore,all Scripture is totally true and trust-worthy. It reveals the principles bywhich God judges us, and thereforeis, and will remain to the end of theworld, the true center of Christianunion, and the supreme standard bywhich all human conduct, creeds,and religious opinions should betried. All Scripture is a testimony toChrist, who is Himself the focus ofdivine revelation.1

This is a fine statement, rooted both inScripture and the language of historic Bap-tist confessions. However, from its initialpresentation this statement ignited afirestorm of protests among a segment ofour denomination. In particular theydecried 2 points: (1) Instead of saying theBible “is the record of God’s revelation” asdid the 1963 statement, the 2000 statement

affirmed that “the Bible is God’s revelation

…”; (2) Instead of saying “the criterion bywhich the Bible is to be interpreted is JesusChrist,” as did the 1963 Baptist Faith &

Message, the 2000 statement affirms “Allscripture is a testimony to Christ, who isHimself the focus of divine revelation.”Both revisions were viewed by its authorsand the convention as a safeguard againstneo-orthodox manipulation of the 1963statement, which manifested itself in twoways: (1) in claiming that only some of theBible is God’s revelation, and (2) in say-ing that the teachings of Jesus recorded inScripture at times should, and even must,be set in opposition to other biblical textsand authors.

During debate at the Convention a pas-tor from Texas said to the astonishmentof thousands “that while the Bible is trueand trustworthy … the Bible is still just abook.”2 Later in a telephone interview hetold Baptist Press, “As I shared, I believethe Bible is a book that God has given usfor guidance. It’s a book that points us tothe truth. We’re not supposed to have arelationship with a book.” These com-ments, confusing and misguided as theyare, were mild, in comparison to what fol-lowed. In an editorial in the Baptist Stan-

dard, the state paper of Texas, the follow-ing was written:

If the Bible alone is our primaryguide, then all parts of the Biblereceive equal weight. It is a flat Bible.For example, the words of Moses,Jesus and the Apostle Paul are

81

equally authoritative. If, however,Jesus is the guide to interpretingScripture, then Jesus’ words andclear actions take precedence overtheir apparent discrepancies withother Scripture passages, such as theOld Testament codes and some ofPaul’s admonitions.

Some Scriptures, especially por-tions of the Old Testament, clearlystand in paradox to Jesus’ life andteachings, also recorded in Scripture.Other passages, such as Paul’s writ-ings, seem to be at odds with eachother, and Jesus’ words and actionsclarify and separate the timelessand universal from the culturallyspecific.

Baptists who place Jesus over theBible still affirm the full authority ofthe Bible upon their lives. They donot exalt personal experience overScripture; rather, they base theirdecisions upon Scripture. But somepassages are paradoxical; they saydifferent things about the same sub-ject. In those occasions, Jesus-firstpeople look to Jesus for help inunderstanding what the biblicalnorm means for help in applying theScripture to their lives.

After this rather convoluted and sadexhibition of sloppy theology, the editorconcludes:

So, the SBC leaders—who trum-peted “biblical inerrancy” as a battlecry to gain and implement controlof the convention during the past 20years—- have a high view of Scrip-ture, after all. In fact, it’s higher thanwe thought. Rather than a Trinity,they worship a defacto Quartet:Father, Son, Holy Spirit and HolyBible, with the Bible acting as thearbiter of the other three.

This is dangerous, for several rea-sons.

First, it refutes orthodoxy—whichasserts the primacy of the Godhead:Father, Son and Holy Spirit—byexalting the Bible to near-divinityand supplanting the influence ofJesus.

Second, by elevating a thing, asprecious and authoritative as theBible is, to such lofty status, it at leastimplies idolatry, the worship of

something other than God.Third, it denigrates the influence

of Jesus and the power of the HolySpirit to work in lives and guidethem toward God’s will.

Fourth, it begs a vital question:Who then is to provide the authori-tative interpretation of all Scripture?

If Scripture stands over Jesus, thenthe teachings and actions of Jesus areinadequate.3

A local Louisville pastor added, “Notall Scripture rises to the full level ofChrist.” Later the “BGCT Seminary StudyCommittee Report” said the 2000 Baptist

Faith & Message makes the Bible “equal toGod.” Even the occasionally evangelicalChristianity Today chimed in, saying the2000 statement “is poorer without the richChristo-centric language of the earlierstatement.”4 Strangely neither this editornor any other detractor noted that “Jesusas the criterion” does not appear in the1925 statement or any other Baptist Con-fession! As R. Albert Mohler, Jr. pointedout,

The statement [that Jesus is the cri-terion] was not simply eliminated.It was replaced with a sentence thatis far more in keeping with historicconfessions of faith. The new sen-tence affirms that “All Scripture is atestimony to Christ, who is Himselfthe pinnacle of divine revelation.”The language of the 1963 statementis not found in any historic confes-sion of faith, nor did it appear in the1925 Baptist Faith and Message asadopted by the SBC…. The 2000revision is even more Christo-logically focused than the 1963statement, and its Christologicalhermeneutic is stronger, not weaker.In keeping with historic evangelicaland Baptist theology, we understandthat every single passage of theBible, in the Old Testament or in theNew Testament, is a testimony toChrist. Every word is true, everyword is fulfilled in Christ, and Christaffirmed every word of Scripture asfully authoritative.5

82

What should we conclude from theabove? Have we “demoted Jesus” andimproperly elevated the Bible to a status“equal to God”? Though numerousavenues could be profitably pursued, Iwant to examine just one issue and per-haps the most important one. I want totry and answer the question, “What didJesus believe about the Bible? What wasthe Savior’s view of Scripture?” After all,as the early Clark Pinnock rightly says,“Unreserved commitment to Jesusrequires us to look at the Bible throughhis eyes.”6 We shall call to the witnessstand several statements made by ourLord, but in particular I want to giveattention to Matthew 5:17-18. A carefulexamination of this text reveals two basictruths concerning Jesus’ view of the Bible.

Jesus Believed that All theScriptures Point to Him (5:17)

In the greatest sermon ever preached,the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus speakson the theme of God’s kingdom (Matt5:17-20). These verses serve as the intro-duction to the “six great antitheses” of5:21-48. They also explain how we canlive out the beatitudes of 5:3-12 and be thesalt of the earth and the light of the world(5:13-16).

Matthew 5:17 introduces us to the highview of Scripture held by Jesus. Clearlywhat is said here pertains to the Old Tes-tament Scriptures. Nevertheless, what Heaffirmed about the Old Testament He alsopromised concerning the New Testament.In John 16:12-15 Jesus said,

I still have many things to say to you,but you cannot bear them now.However, when He, the Spirit oftruth, has come, He will guide youinto all truth; for He will not speakon His own authority, but whateverHe hears He will speak; and He will

tell you things to come. He will glo-rify Me, for He will take of what isMine and declare it to you. All thingsthat the Father has are Mine. There-fore I said that He will take of Mineand declare it to you.

First, Jesus introduced teachings thatwere new and striking. Indeed, as John7:46 states, “No man ever spoke like thisman.” Some may have concluded that Histeaching constituted a decisive break withthe Old Testament Scriptures. That is cer-tainly the judgment of some Baptiststoday. “Not so,” says Jesus. “Do not think(or consider) that I came to destroy(annul, abrogate, disintegrate, demolish.)the law.” J. A. Alexander notes the idea isthat of “the destruction of a whole by thecomplete separation of its parts, as whena house is taken down by being taken topieces.”7 Jesus says I did not come to tearapart or dismantle the law and prophets(a reference to the OT Scriptures of Hisday). I did not come to destroy (repeatedfor emphasis) but to fulfill. Note thatthe antithesis is not between “abolish” and“keep” but between “abolish” and “fulfill.”

Second, Jesus provides not only anemphatic denial but also a positive decla-ration concerning the purpose for hiscoming—he came to fulfill, complete theScriptures. To set them aside was neverHis agenda. To bring them to fulfillmentand fruition was why He came. DonCarson has it right when he says,

Jesus fulfills the entire Old Testa-ment in many ways. Because theypoint toward him, he has certainlynot come to abolish them. Rather, hehas come to fulfill them in a richdiversity of ways.… Jesus does notconceive of his life and ministry interms of opposition to the Old Testa-ment, but in terms of bringing to frui-tion that toward which it points.Thus the law and the prophets, farfrom being abolished, find their

83

valid continuity in terms of theiroutworking in Jesus. The detailedprescriptions of the Old Testamentmay well be superceded, becausewhatever is prophetic must be insome sense provisional. But whateveris prophetic likewise discovers its legiti-mate continuity in the happy arrival ofthat toward which it has pointed.8

That our Lord would have affirmedthat “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ,who is Himself the focus of divine revela-tion” (which concludes the Baptist Faith &

Message 2000 statement on Scripture) canhardly be questioned:

John 5:39—“You search the Scrip-tures, for in them you think you haveeternal life; and these are they whichtestify of me.”Luke 24:25-27—“Then He said tothem, ‘O foolish ones, and slow ofheart to believe in all that the proph-ets have spoken! Ought not theChrist to have suffered these thingsand to enter into His glory?’ Andbeginning at Moses and all theProphets, He expounded to them inall the Scriptures the things concern-ing Himself.”Luke 24:44-45—“Then He said tothem, ‘These are the words which Ispoke to you while I was still withyou, that all things must be fulfilledwhich were written in the Law ofMoses and the Prophets and thePsalms concerning Me.’ And Heopened their understanding, thatthey might comprehend the Scrip-tures.”

This truth that Jesus Christ is the themeof the entire Bible is well-captured in theanonymous poem, “I find my Lord in theBook”:

I find my Lord in the Bible whereever I chance to look, He is thetheme of the Bible the center andheart of the Book;

He is the Rose of Sharon, He is theLily fair, Where ever I open myBible the Lord of the Book is there.

He, at the Book’s beginning, gave to

the earth its form, He is the Ark ofshelter bearing the brunt of thestorm,

The Burning Bush of the desert, thebudding of Aaron’s Rod,Where ever I look in the Bible I seethe Son of God.

The Ram upon Mt. Moriah, the Lad-der from earth to sky,The Scarlet Cord in the window,and the Serpent lifted high,

The smitten rock in the desert, theShepherd with staff and crook,The face of my Lord I discoverwhere ever I open the Book.

He is the Seed of the Woman, theSavior Virgin-born; He is the Sonof David, whom men rejectedwith scorn,

His garments of grace and of beautythe stately Aaron deck,

He is a priest forever, for He isMelchizedek.

Lord of eternal glory whom John,the Apostle saw; Light of thegolden city, Lamb without spot orflaw,

Bridegroom coming at midnight, forwhom the Virgins look.

Where ever I open my Bible, I findmy Lord in the Book.

Jesus Believed that All theScriptures Were Perfect inEvery Detail (5:18)

Verse 17 affirms a promise-fulfillment

understanding of Jesus’ view of Scripture,not a promise-abolish paradigm, whileverse 18 provides the Christological andtheological rationale. Jesus introducesverse 18 with a note of personal authoritythat transcended the authority of all otherrabbis. The word amen variously trans-lated as “assuredly,” “truly,” or “I tell youthe truth” alerts us that the words that willfollow are of paramount importance andauthority. The phrase “until heaven andearth pass away” means until the end ofthe age, as long as the present worldorder persists. One jot (iôta) is a reference

84

to the yod, the smallest letter in theHebrew alphabet, similar in shape to ourapostrophe. One tittle (keraia) is the small-est projection or part of a Hebrew letter,similar to that which distinguishes our “F”from an upside down “L.” The phrase“will by no means” (ou me) is a doublenegative used to emphasize that God’slaw shall not pass away until all is ful-filled. In the Lukan parallel we read, “It iseasier for heaven and earth to pass awaythan for one tittle of the law to fail” (Luke16:17).

Jesus affirms the reliability and truth-fulness of the Scriptures in the strongestpossible language. He is not saying thatthe Old Testament contains some truth orthat it becomes truth when men andwomen have a significant encounter withit. As he affirms in John 10:35, “the Scrip-ture cannot be broken.” As He proclaimsin prayer to the Father in John 17:17, “Yourword is truth.” The outstanding scholarH. C. G. Moule says it well, “[Jesus] abso-lutely trusted the Bible; and though thereare in it things inexplicable and intricatethat have puzzled me so much, I amgoing, not in a blind sense, but reverently,to trust the Book because of Him.”9

I am no fan of liberal/antisupernaturaltheology or destructive biblical criticism.I am unimpressed with its worldview,bias, and skewed methodologies. Still, wecan learn from those with whom wedisagree, and sometimes a breath of schol-arly fresh air and honesty blows our wayfrom this camp. When it comes to whatJesus and the Church believed about theBible, some of our moderate Baptist broth-ers and sisters would do well to listen tosome of their heroes:

Rudolf Bultmann—“Jesus agreedalways with the scribes of his timein accepting without question the

authority of the (Old Testament) law …the idea that Jesus had attacked theauthority of the law was whollyunknown to the Christian commu-nity.”10

Emil Brunner—“The doctrine of Ver-bal Inspiration was already knownto pre-Christian Judaism and wasprobably also taken over by Pauland the rest of the Apostles.”11

Kirsopp Lake—“It is a mistakeoften made by educated personswho happen to have but littleknowledge of historical theology tosuppose that fundamentalism is anew and strange form of thought. Itis nothing of the kind; it is the par-tial and uneducated survival of atheology which was once univer-sally held by all Christians. Howmany were there, for instance, inChristian churches in the eighteenthcentury who doubted the infallibleinspiration of the Scripture? A fewperhaps, but very few. No, the fun-damentalist may be wrong; I thinkthat he is. But it is we who havedeparted from the tradition, not he;and I am sorry for anyone who triesto argue with a fundamentalist onthe basis of authority. The Bible andthe corpus theologicum of theChurch are on the fundamentalistside” [italics added].12

Four notable examples are cited else-where by another author—“H.J.Cadbury, Harvard professor and oneof the more extreme New Testamentcritics of the last generation, oncedeclared that he was far more sureas a mere historical fact that Jesusheld to the common Jewish view ofan infallible Bible than that Jesusbelieved in His own messiahship.Adolf Harnack, the greatest churchhistorian of modern times, insiststhat Christ was one with Hisapostles, the Jews, and the entireearly Church in complete commit-ment to the infallible authority of theBible. John Knox, author of what isperhaps the most highly regardedrecent life of Christ, states that therecan be no question that this view ofthe Bible was taught by our LordHimself. The liberal critic, F. C.Grant, concludes that in the New

85

Testament, ‘It is everywhere takenfor granted that Scripture is trust-worthy, infallible, and inerrant.’”13

When we survey our Lord’s teachingin the Gospels we discover that thejudgments of these scholars is confirmed.Jesus consistently treated the historicalnarratives of the Old Testament asstraightforward records of fact. Hereferred to Abel (Luke 11:51), Noah (Matt24:37-39), Abraham (John 8:56), Sodomand Gomorrah (Matt 10:15, 11:23-24), Lot(Luke 17:28-32), Isaac and Jacob (Matt8:11), the manna (John 6:31), the wilder-ness serpent (John 3:14), David (Matt22:43), Solomon (Matt 6:29, 12:42), Elijah(Luke 4:25-26), Elisha (Luke 4:27), Jonah(Matt 12:39-41), and Moses (Matt 8:4),among others. Nowhere is there the slight-est hint that he questioned the historicityor accuracy of the accounts.

It is interesting to note that Jesus oftenchose as the basis of his teaching thosevery stories that many modern skepticsfind unacceptable (e.g., Adam and Eve,Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, andJonah). For Jesus, Scripture was the finalcourt of appeal in his disputes with thePharisees and Sadducees. In his battleagainst Satan in the wilderness, Jesuscited scriptural statements as argumentsagainst which no further argument waspossible (Matt 4:1-11). Jesus might setaside or reject the Rabbinic or Pharisaicalinterpretation of the Old Testament (cf.Matt 5:21-48), but He never questioned itsauthority or truthfulness.

The early Pinnock saw this clearlywhen he wrote,

Jesus’ doctrine of inspiration re-ceives expression in the Sermon onthe Mount. Before setting forth hisethical instructions, Jesus explainedhis intention. “Think not that I havecome to abolish the law and the

prophets; I have not come to abol-ish them but to fulfill them” (Mt.5:17). Evidently he does not want usto think that the thrust of his teach-ing is to violate or even to devalueOld Testament revelation. The say-ing which is also contained in Luke(16:17) has an entirely genuine ringto it. Jesus’ enemies were eager topin an “antinomian” label on him ifthey could. Therefore, Jesus made itclear that the object of his criticismswas not the Bible, but the traditionswhich the Rabbis had built as a fencearound it, traditions which in prac-tice enjoyed an authority actuallyhigher than the written Word. Heassures us that his confidence in thedivine character of Scripture doesnot stop short even of its smallestelements. “Not an iota, not a dot,will pass” (Mt. 5:18). He issues astern warning: “Whoever thenrelaxes one of the least of thesecommandments and teaches men so,shall be called least in the kingdomof heaven; but he who does themand teaches them shall be calledgreat in the kingdom of heaven” (v.19).14

Liberal scholar James Barr is incorrectwhen he writes,

Jesus took Jewish scripture as it was,as his contemporaries did, and heused it as they did in this respect, asa source through which authorita-tive intimations of divine truth hadbeen given. Thus if Jesus refers to apassage in Exodus or in Deuteron-omy with the words “Moses said,”it is quite mistaken to read this as ifhe was placing his own full messi-anic and divine authority behind theassertion that these books wereactually written by the historicalMoses. No such question entered hishead and there is nothing in theGospels that suggests that his teach-ing was intended to cope with it.Historical questions interested himlittle.15

Jesus said, “Not a jot or tittle.…”

Former Southern professor, Alan Cul-pepper, got it wrong when he said,

86

Jesus had remarkably little to sayabout the nature of Scripture … [andthat] Jesus demands [in the Sermonon the Mount] a standard of righ-teousness higher than that set by theHebrew Scriptures and the tradi-tions of the Pharisees.16

The traditions of the Pharisees yes, theHebrew Scriptures no way. Our Lord said,“Not a jot or tittle.…”

Former Southern professor Frank Staggis off course when he says,

Those who say the Bible is inerrantare lying … [and] inerrancy missesthe point. If we follow Christ we rec-ognize variant perspectives; we seecompeting perspectives. You can’tgo north and south at the same timeand Jesus didn’t try to. He affirmedmuch but He rejected much.17

The Savior said, “Not a jot or a tittle.…”

Former Southern professor HenleeBarnette was simply wrong when he said,

1. The Bible is errant with many self-contradictions.2. The Bible has errors in the field ofscience.3. The Bible is not historically accu-rate.4. The Bible is errant as to cosmol-ogy.18

Again, our Lord Jesus Christ said, “Not ajot or a tittle.…”

ConclusionMy initial theology was formed and

influenced by Clark Pinnock. Few lamenthis theological disintegration more thanI. Earlier in his life, he articulated the cruxof the matter concerning the relationshipbetween Jesus and the Bible with crystalclarity:

Shall we follow Jesus in his view ofScripture? In the light of this evi-dence the question calls for another.How can a Christian even considernot doing so? Our Lord’s view ofinspiration was not an incidentaltenet on the border of his theology.His belief in the truthfulness of theOld Testament was the rock onwhich he based his own sense ofvocation and the validity of much ofhis teachings. The question about theinspiration of Scripture really boilsdown to the issue of Christology. Itis impossible to affirm his authoritywhile at the same time seeking toevade his teachings regarding thedivine authority of the Bible. IfChrist’s claim to be the Son of Godis true, his person guarantees thetruth of all the rest of his teachingsas well. So long as Jesus Christ isconfessed, honored, and adored, wemay confidently expect a high viewof Scripture to persist in the church.And in the light of a considerabledefection from that view amongstprofessed Christians today weboldly appeal for a return to a properview of the Bible on the basis of themassive fact of our Lord’s doctrineof inspiration.19

In my early days at Southern, I hadlunch with a former professor. Eventhough we held significantly different the-ologies, he was always gracious and sup-portive of me and I enjoyed the time offellowship with him. As we sat down toeat he looked at me and said, “I want toask you a question and I mean no offense.”I replied that he could ask me anythinghe wished, and his question was this,“How did you turn out theologically theway that you are? I mean, why do youthink theologically like you do?” I toldhim I was not offended by the question atall, but I did not think that my answerwould be very satisfying. I shared thatwhen I was a little boy at about the age ofeight, I trusted Jesus Christ as my Lordand Savior. As I grew in the faith, I cameto understand that to be a Christian meant

87

to live under the Lordship of Jesus Christand that His Lordship should permeateevery area of our lives. His Lordshipincluded what I should think about allmatters of theology, including the Bible. Itold him that as I had studied Jesus’ viewof the Bible, I came to the conclusion thatI could do nothing other than hold to itscomplete truthfulness and reliability. Tobe anything other than that would be toset aside the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Thatprofessor simply responded by saying, “Ihave never thought of it like that before,but it does make a lot of sense.”

L. R. Scarborough was a great TexasBaptist who succeeded his hero, B. H.Carroll, as president at SouthwesternBaptist Theological Seminary. In his bookGospel Message, Scarborough records inmoving and memorable words the deathof this Texas Titan:

B. H. Carroll, the greatest man I everknew, as he was about to die, a fewdays before he died, expecting me,as he wanted me, to succeed him aspresident of the seminary, I was inhis room one day and he pulled him-self up by my chair with his handsand looked me in the face. Therewere times when he looked like hewas forty feet high. And he lookedinto my face and said, “My boy, onthis Hill orthodoxy, the old truth ismaking one of its last stands and Iwant to deliver to you a charge andI do it in the blood of Jesus Christ.”He said, “You will be elected presi-dent of this seminary. I want you, ifthere ever comes heresy in your fac-ulty, to take it to your faculty. If theywon’t hear you, take it to the trust-ees. If they won’t hear you take it tothe conventions that appointedthem. If they won’t hear you, take itto the common Baptists. They willhear you. And,” he said, “I chargeyou in the name of Jesus Christ tokeep it lashed to the old Gospel ofJesus Christ.” As long as I haveinfluence in that institution, by thegrace of God I will stand by the oldBook.20

We gladly stand with this Texas Baptist.

ENDNOTES1Exod 24:4; Deut 4:1-2; 17:19; Josh 8:34; Ps19:7-10; 119:11, 89, 105, 140; Isa 34:16;40:8; Jer 15:16; 36; Matt 5:17-18; 22:29;Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15;17:17; Acts 2:16ff.; 17:11; Rom 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Tim 3:15-17; Heb 1:1-2, 4:12; 1 Pet1:25; 2 Pet 1:19-21.

2Todd Starnes, “6 Words: ‘DefiningMoment’ between Conservative & Mod-erate Baptists,” Baptist Press, 21 June2000.

3Marv Knox, “Editorial,” Baptist Standard,

19 June 2000.4Editorial, “Do Good Fences Make GoodBaptists?,” Christianity Today, 7 August2000, 36.

5Speaking for the Baptist Faith and Message

study committee at the 2000 SouthernBaptist Convention in Orlando, Florida,June 14, 2000.

6Clark Pinnock, “The Inspiration of Scrip-

ture and the Authority of Jesus Christ,” inGod’s Inerrant Word, John Warwick Mont-gomery, ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1974)202.

7J. A. Alexander, The Gospel according to

Matthew (1860; reprint, Grand Rapids:Baker, 1980) 126.

8D. A. Carson, Sermon on the Mount

(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982) 37.9René Pache, The Inspiration and Authority

of Scripture (Chicago: Moody, 1969) 223.10Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word,

trans. L. P. Smith and E. H. Lantero (Lon-don: Scribner, 1958) 61, 63.

11Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of

God (London: Lutterworth, 1949) 107.12Kirsopp Lake, The Religion of Yesterday

and Tomorrow (Boston: Houghton, 1926)61.

13Kenneth Kantzer, “Christ and Scripture,”

88

His 26.4 (1966) 16-20.14Pinnock, 205.15James Barr, Beyond Fundamentalism

(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984)11.

16R. Alan Culpepper, “Jesus’ View ofScripture,” in The Unfettered Word,

ed. Robison B. James (Waco: Word,1987) 26-27.

17Relma Hargus, “Retired SeminaryProfessor Advises Baptists to UseBible as Jesus Did,” Baptists Today,23 May 1996, 8.

18Henlee Barnette, “The Heresy ofInerrancy Continues to PlagueSouthern Baptists,” Baptists Today, 21Sept 1995, 16.

19Pinnock, 215.20L. R. Scarborough, Gospel Message

(Nashville: Sunday School Board ofthe Southern Baptist Convention,1922) 227-228.