A story from R.C. Sproul1
I had an interesting conversation a few weeks ago in Philadelphia with an old friend, a fellow I went to college with…
I said to him, “I’m really interested to hear the history of your pilgrimage. The last time I saw you, you held up the view of the infallibility of Scripture…you were actually a fundamentalist, if I can be accurate in my evaluation. Now, you’ve set aside all those views…I’d really like to hear how and why you made that change.”
He started telling me his history, his pilgrimage, and the things he had given up and why. When he was done, I said, “Well, what I’d really like to know now is, is there anything left with what you started with?”
“Well, the first thing that’s still left,” he says, “it’s a nonnegotiable item, … the lordship of Jesus Christ.”
…Five minutes earlier, he had been telling me how radically he disagreed with Paul’s views of culture and women and all the rest of the things that get Paul in trouble these days, and how he believes that the Bible is filled with errors, et cetera. I said, “Well, what I’d like to know is, where do you find the authority of Christ now? How does Christ exercise real authority over your life?”...
He looked at me and said, “Through the decisions of the church.”
…“Which church? The Methodist Church? Presbyterian Church? Episcopal Church?... I urge you to go home and really think through the implications of your rejection of Apostolic authority. Because I really don’t think you can have your cake and eat it too.”
…that’s why I’m convinced we’re in such malaise and such confusion in our church today. We try to, on the one hand, elevate the authority of Christ, and then on the other hand, stand in judgment over the content of that which He has presumably historically endorsed as His commission.
Is the Bible the Word of God?
I’ve had similar conversations. Sproul’s friend isn’t outright rejecting the authority of the Bible; instead, he’s questioning the unique authority of the disciples, including Paul. In his view, the disciples were simply eyewitnesses recording their experiences, without holding any special status. Furthermore, he finds the Bible we have today too unreliable to accept without question, given the centuries that have passed since the original events were recorded.
In any case, Sproul is concerned for his friend because he has no anchor for his faith. For Sproul, only the Bible can serve as that anchor because it is the historically endorsed Word of God. He states elsewhere in his writings, “It is fashionable in some academic circles to exercise scholarly criticism of the Bible. In so doing, scholars place themselves above the Bible and seek to correct it. If indeed the Bible is the Word of God, nothing could be more arrogant. It is God who corrects us; we don’t correct Him. We do not stand over God but under Him.”2
But hold on—maybe his friend still sees the Bible as authoritative, just not necessarily the words of God. Is it possible to accept the Bible as authoritative while arguing that it isn’t the Word of God? The belief that the Bible is the Word of God is a sacrosanct evangelical tradition. Dismissing the Bible as not being the words of God could be tantamount to dismissing God Himself. Yet the question remains: Does the Bible need to be the words of God to be considered authoritative?
Perceptions of Biblical authority fall along a spectrum. On one end, some see the Bible as authoritative because its inspired authors directly received God’s words and carefully recorded them. From this view, the Bible stands as a definitive, unerring source that offers absolute certainty about God’s nature. On the other end, others understand the Bible’s authority as flowing from divine revelation expressed through diverse human experiences. This approach regards the Bible as a collection of interpretive ideas, yielding a complex and evolving narrative about who God is.
John Wesley—often called the “man of one book.”3 —significantly shaped evangelical views of scripture by championing the Bible as divinely inspired and the ultimate standard by which all truth is measured. Yet Wesley also recognized that authority arises from enduring tradition, human reason, and personal experience4. This raises a crucial question: If, after weighing tradition, reason, and experience, we conclude—like Sproul’s friend—that the Bible may not be the Word of God, does it still maintain its authority?
Does the Bible’s inerrancy and historicity make it the Word of God?
One of the primary arguments for the Bible as the Word of God centers on its enduring significance. Remarkably, the value attributed to this book has persisted for millennia. Despite being composed over 1,500 years, in three languages, by 40 authors across 66 books, the Bible is often described as a unified narrative, unbroken by contradiction. While many ancient manuscripts exist, few, if any, have sustained such influence and reverence.
Yet the longevity of the Bible is unlikely enough for even the Evangelical to call it the Word of God. It also has to be without fault. To quote the Ark Encounter, “The Bible is authoritative in every subject it addresses and without error in the original manuscripts since the words ultimately came from God who knows everything and is without fault.”5
Granted, the Ark Encounter may not be the most reliable source given its over-the-top anti-science agenda, but the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture is central to the evangelical faith and foundational to the Bible being called the Word of God. “The trustworthiness of the Scriptures lies at the foundation of trust in the Christian system of doctrine, and is therefore fundamental to the Christian hope and life.”6
According to this view, without the doctrine of inerrancy, Christianity’s foundation becomes uncertain. “The truthfulness of the text reflects the truthfulness of its divine author.”7 By this logic, the Bible is the Word of God because its words were divinely inspired and faithfully recorded by humans—God provided the script.
If God is without error, then the Bible, as God’s Word, should also be without error. Yet the Bible we possess today contains mistakes and inconsistencies. If you maintain that it is entirely error-free, you may find the rest of this discussion unhelpful—though I urge you to explore what experts have to say.
So how can the Word of God contain errors? One explanation is that God’s inspiration applied only to the original manuscripts. “We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture.”8 Since the originals are lost, we rely on the copies and hope their transmission has preserved accuracy, despite inevitable corruptions in the narrative.
Is it reasonable to think the Bible we have today is accurate enough? How confident can we be in its preservation? The Old Testament (OT) emerged from oral traditions, where stories were carefully memorized, checked by multiple people, and then passed down word for word. We often hear that ancient scribes were exceptionally meticulous—far more than we are today. If this is true, it might justify considering the OT texts accurate enough.
Yet how much do we really know about the accuracy of oral transmission and ancient scribal practices? Is it enough to give us a guarantee of infallibility? Given human nature, it seems inevitable that errors and biases have crept in over time. These concerns were substantiated by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which revealed significant textual changes between the Hebrew texts from 100BC and the earliest known Masoretic text from 875AD. For instance, the older Jeremiah is about one-eighth shorter than the later version, and it is arranged differently.
As for the New Testament (NT), although we are dealing with a relatively obscure and minor group of people, there is substantial evidence to suggest that the text we possess today is reasonably accurate, given the numerous ancient documents available that share similarities. Even the New Testament critic Bart Ehrman acknowledges, “Most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology.”9
The New Testament focuses intently on Jesus, who—even with limited surviving evidence—is widely regarded by historians as a real historical figure. Ehrman acknowledges: “Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea.”10
Expert consensus offers some reassurance. Still, the transmission of any ancient text—shaped by time, translation, and cultural shifts—naturally introduces errors. While scholars assure us these errors are mostly minor, accepting this claim requires faith: faith that the text we have today is trustworthy enough to be called the Word of God, or at least sufficiently accurate.
While I am willing to trust that we possess reasonably accurate copies of the original manuscripts, can I truly claim they are the actual words of God? Perhaps I could—if archaeological evidence more clearly supported the biblical narrative. In reality, however, few biblical characters appear in historical records, and some scriptural accounts are exaggerated or chronologically inconsistent. Examining all the evidence would take far more space than we have here; suffice it to say, archaeology offers only limited insight into these obscure figures and their reported miracles.
This lack of definitive evidence does not rule out the possibility that biblical events occurred. Rather, it shows that the Bible’s historical reliability, as transmitted over the centuries, is insufficient to prove it contains the literal words of God. Both Christians and atheists, unfortunately, sometimes resort to strawman arguments—using misinterpreted examples or unverified claims to bolster their positions. I remain unconvinced when pastors present themselves as archaeological authorities and selectively cite findings that support their arguments.
Despite these concerns, the Bible’s history of transmission is extraordinary, particularly when compared to other ancient texts. Still, it raises a perplexing question: if God’s hand truly guided its transmission, why do errors remain? Why doesn’t the Bible align perfectly with what modern discoveries reveal? If Moses received a pure and uncorrupted word, why are we now left with flawed copies?
Was only the original manuscript the Word of God?
To illustrate my difficulty, consider a pharmacist who receives a faxed prescription distorted by a malfunctioning printer. The prescription is hard to read, so the pharmacist might make an educated guess based on the patient’s illness, medical history, and their familiarity with the prescribing doctor. Alternatively, they might call the doctor for clarification.
Similarly, the Bible reaches us like a message transmitted through a faulty printer—its meaning can be obscured by time, translation, and imperfect copying. To interpret it well, we must turn to theologians and historians who can help uncover its context, study its historical setting, and reconstruct the intentions of its authors. This is akin to a pharmacist enlisting experts to decipher a corrupted prescription.
Of course, some claim they can bypass all intermediaries and communicate directly with the original author. Yet, those who profess a direct line to God often seem unconvincing and occupy the fringes of the faith community. For most of us, the task remains: we must piece together the message from incomplete, smudged, or ambiguous fragments, relying on collective wisdom to interpret what’s unclear.
So, what are we to make of all this? Is the Bible truly the Word of God? Disregarding reason might lead us to accept today’s Bible as the inerrant words of God, but few are willing to forgo reason entirely. Thus, many evangelicals maintain that only the original manuscripts were the actual words of God. Yet even this view demands faith—a faith that a divine hand guided the text’s transmission, despite the reality that errors, varied interpretations, and ambiguities persist, often requiring theologians (who themselves frequently disagree) to help us make sense of it all.
Do the prophecies confirm it is the Word of God?
Uncovering flaws in what I once regarded as the infallible words of God is unsettling. Uncertainty breeds anxiety; I long for a stable foundation and crave clear, step-by-step instructions—do A, then B, then C. Yet, the Bible resists offering such a protocol, no matter how much I wish it did. Instead, God’s word places me amid divergent opinions and a landscape filled with unanswered questions.
Perhaps it’s worth shifting our perspective. The argument that the Bible is the Word of God may hinge less on its historicity or inerrancy and more on the sheer volume of its prophecies—many anticipating future events, with at least 300 said to concern Jesus. As the Ark Encounter boldly claims, “Of all the ‘holy books’ of the world, only the Bible contains accurate, predictive prophecy because only the God of the Bible knows the future and has the power to bring it to pass.” Their certainty is striking and invites closer examination, but does this confidence withstand scrutiny?
Even the most accomplished scholars continue to debate the meaning and fulfillment of many biblical prophecies. For some, these predictions resemble the ambiguous statements of fortune tellers, open to broad interpretation and flexible application. For others, prophecies serve as warnings or sources of encouragement about the future. The biblical texts in question are often ancient—dating back 2 to 4 millennia—written in a cultural and historical context foreign to us. Opinions have shifted over time, and even long-standing positions within Christian tradition are subject to re-examination and doubt.
Ambiguity inevitably surrounds the interpretation of certain prophecies. Yet the sheer volume of predictions pointing in a similar direction is difficult to ignore. If the overall number of prophecies does not persuade, perhaps attention should be given to those few that appear less ambiguous. These may provide more substantial evidence for the Bible’s claim to divine origin. Consider, for example, Isaiah 7:14:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.11
Yet even this well-known prophecy is shrouded in interpretive debate. As one commentator observes, “Few prophecies have been the subject of so much controversy, or called forth such a variety of exegesis, as this prophecy of Immanuel.”12 Another theologian states, “Who this virgin was, and what is the precise meaning of this prediction, has given, perhaps, more perplexity to commentators than almost any other portion of the Bible.”13
A central point of contention is with the virgin birth. “First of all, it must be said that the Hebrew word almâ may mean ‘virgin,’ but does not necessarily mean anything more than a young woman of marriageable age. Had the prophet intended specifically and precisely to say ‘virgin,’ he must have used the word be tûlâ (maiden), though even then there would be a faint shade of uncertainty.”14
Nevertheless, not all scholars agree. The late Old Testament scholar Charles Feinberg,15 for instance, insists there is indeed a predictive message in Isaiah 7:14. He cites a colleague who argues, “The assurance that Christ was to be born in Judah, of its royal family, might be a sign to Ahaz, that the kingdom should not perish in his day; and so far was the remoteness of the sign in this case from making it absurd or inappropriate, that the further off it was, the stronger the promise of continuance of Judah, which it guaranteed.”16
Even when a biblical prophecy seems to be clearly fulfilled, I find myself wondering: Am I interpreting it through the lens of my Christian tradition? Can I genuinely rely on that tradition? Could Matthew, in the New Testament, have read Isaiah through his own fallible perspective? Should I be open to unfamiliar viewpoints?
You may disagree with every theologian I’ve referenced regarding Isaiah 7:14. Still, it’s undeniable that expert opinion is far from unanimous—and that fact alone should give us pause. Even if we assume our interpretation is unbiased and that this prophecy does accurately predict the coming of Jesus, we must still ask: Is one seemingly precise prophecy enough to claim the entire Bible as the Word of God? After all, the biblical books were composed across diverse eras and for a variety of purposes.
Does the power in the words themselves make it the Word of God?
Relying solely on accuracy, historicity, or fulfilled prophecies to claim the Bible is the Word of God feels tenuous to me. What I find more compelling is the Bible’s unique power and authority to transform people’s lives. Many books and ideas can inspire change, but is there something singular about the Bible’s impact? Does it possess a transformative force that sets it apart—something more profound than the fictional magic of Harry Potter’s spells, yet no less profound in effect?
“For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”17
It’s important to note that the Bible as we know it today did not exist when the book of Hebrews was written. Still, if we generously assume the author is referring to scripture as the Word of God, the verse seems to suggest that the Bible itself has inherent power to affect people’s lives.
I struggle with the idea that simply reading a verse can produce healing or provide solutions. That hasn’t been my experience. While I respect those for whom scripture has been a direct source of comfort or answers, their testimonies alone don’t convince me that the written words themselves wield automatic, transformative power.
Many scholars argue that the ‘word of God’ in Hebrews 4:12 points to God’s ongoing, active revelation—not just the written words. The true power lies in the message behind the text, which is described as ‘living’ and ‘active.’ This dynamic quality resonates with biblical depictions of the Holy Spirit, and it’s here that I begin to sense the divine at work through scripture: not in the ink on the page, but in the living message that the Spirit brings to life.
On a personal level, I’ve experienced moments where I felt the Holy Spirit at work in my life. I’ve also heard similar accounts from others—times when reading scripture felt deeply moving, as if the Spirit was communicating something profound through the text. These experiences reinforce my faith that the Holy Spirit is an agent of real transformation.
Yet, scripture is not the Spirit’s only medium. I’ve been deeply moved in conversation, through relationships, and even amid the beauty of nature. What inspires one person from scripture may leave another unmoved. The Holy Spirit is alive and active within the community, using many means to reach us; the words of scripture function more as a conduit or instrument than the ultimate source of spiritual power.
Consider Paul’s words at the Jerusalem council: “God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.”18 The context was the debate over Jewish traditions, such as circumcision. Paul’s point was that Gentiles were no longer bound to scriptural commands regarding circumcision—instead, they were led by the Holy Spirit. This example suggests it’s possible to uphold the authority of scripture’s message without rigidly adhering to every word.
Does the integrity of the authors or its indestructibility make it the Word of God?
Where does that leave us? I remain unconvinced that the Bible is the Word of God on the basis of its accuracy, historicity, prophetic content, or the supposed power of its written words alone. Could its claim rest on the integrity of its human authors? Certainly, many biblical writers were so deeply committed to their message that they were willing to die for it. If I were ever called to record God’s words, I too would hope to be that devoted—though I’d want to be absolutely certain my convictions weren’t just a hallucination.
Yet, the message itself seems more powerful and worthy of sacrifice than the words alone. Martyrs gave their lives for what they truly believed, not simply for written text. For them, the Bible offered a revelation that could transform lives. In this sense, biblical authority is rooted less in the integrity of its authors and more in the enduring integrity of its message.
If not the integrity of its authors, does the Bible’s survival through centuries of attempted destruction prove its divine origin? Its resilience is remarkable—it has endured the ravages of time and countless efforts to erase it, standing out as an extraordinary work of literature. This lasting presence certainly points to a message worth exploring. But does endurance alone prove it is the Word of God?
Let’s pursue this line of thought further: Does the longevity of the Bible’s moral vision serve as evidence of divine authorship? While the teachings of love and compassion endure, other passages—on violence, oppression, or sexuality—are far more contentious. Some dogmatic proclamations, especially when taken out of context, have justified oppression and suffering throughout history—realities many Christians are reluctant to discuss.
The Bible is authoritative because I choose it to be authoritative
As this discussion draws to a close, I return to the central question: Is the Bible truly the Word of God, or am I merely engaging in semantics? My motivation for writing stems from how we use this term—“the Word”—and the weight the Bible ascribes to it.
For example, when John refers to the ‘Word’ as God, he isn’t talking about scripture itself. Likewise, in many biblical passages, ‘the word’ does not directly equate to Jesus or to the written text. It seems more accurate to understand ‘the word’ as the living message that emerges from the pages of the Bible—a revelation of who God is.
The Bible’s human authors witnessed and experienced something profound. They recorded their insights through the lens of their culture and personal biases, but that does not diminish the value of their testimony. The very humanness of the Bible is part of its enduring significance; it has resonated across centuries and cultures for good reason.
So, is the Bible the Word of God? Perhaps the question itself misses the point. What makes the Bible compelling is the story it tells—a puzzle whose pieces, when assembled, reveal a message that continues to unfold. Even if it is not, strictly speaking, the Word of God, the Bible has something vital to say. Its authority, for me, lies in the ongoing discoveries I find within its pages and the faith I choose to place in its message.
To circle back to where we began, I’ll close with a quote from the Ark Encounter: “The Bible’s message provides ultimate answers to our greatest need and meets our deepest yearning.” While I may interpret ‘need’ and ‘yearning’ differently than they do, I find truth in that sentiment. The Bible Project expresses it this way: “We believe the Bible is a unified story that leads to Jesus.” The Bible, at its heart, is a response to humanity’s search for meaning—a message that continues to reveal who God is.
Questions of Reflection
- Do you find Sproul’s concern about having “no anchor” for faith convincing? Why or why not?
- When you hear the phrase “Word of God,” what do you instinctively think it means—text, person (Jesus), message, something else?
- How do you personally handle apparent contradictions or historical problems in Scripture? Do they threaten, deepen, or not really affect your faith?
- Is it possible, in your view, to treat the Bible as authoritative without treating it as inerrant? What might that look like in practice?
- The article suggests that the power lies not in the ink but in the living message the Spirit brings to life. Does that resonate with your experience? Why or why not?
- If the Holy Spirit also speaks through relationships, nature, art, or conscience, how should those experiences relate to what we read in the Bible?
- How can Christian communities maintain unity with such a spectrum of views on biblical authority?
- The author says, “The Bible is authoritative because I choose it to be authoritative.” How do you react to that statement—comforted, disturbed, challenged, something else?
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8fnLmlYOJc – I hope R.C. Sproul can forgive me for abbreviating his story. However, I don’t think I have changed his point. ↩︎
- R.C. Sproul, Five Things Every Christian Needs to Grow ↩︎
- John Wesley, Preface to Sermons on Several Occasions, 174,7 ↩︎
- The Wesleyan quadrilateral – https://www.wesleyan.org/the-wesleyan-quadrilateral ↩︎
- https://arkencounter.com/blog/2017/04/07/5-evidences-that-show-bible-is-true/ ↩︎
- Benjamin B. Warfield ↩︎
- Matthew Barrett ↩︎
- Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” (PDF). Archived from the original ↩︎
- Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, 2005, p55
↩︎ - Bart Eherman, Did Jesus Exist, 2012, p12 ↩︎
- Isaiah 7:14 ↩︎
- George Rawlinson, “Isaiah: An Exposition,” in The Pulpit Commentary, ed. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Excell (1892; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 10:129 ↩︎
- Albert Barnes, “Isaiah,” in Notes on the Old Testament: Explanatory and Practical, ed. Robert Frew (1853; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950), 1:148. ↩︎
- Rogers, “Isaiah,” 643–44. For the same approach compare: Lindblom, “Immanuel,” 18; C.W.E. Naegelsbach, “The Prophet Isaiah,” in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical by John Peter Lange (1869; repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 6:121–23; and Conrad von Orelli, The Prophecies of Isaiah (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899), 53. Skinner holds that be tûlâ is not wholly free from ambiguity, while contending that ‘almâ does not necessarily connote virginity (Isaiah, 56).
↩︎ - Charles L. Feinberg, Is the Virgin Birth in the Old Testament? (Whittier, CA: Emeth Publishing, 1967), 34– 48 ↩︎
- Joseph A. Alexander, Commentary on Isaiah (1865; repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953), 170.
↩︎ - Hebrews 4:12 ↩︎
- Acts 15:8
↩︎