Daniel Denham
“To the law and to the testimony: If they speak not according to this word, It is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20). These are the words of the great Messianic prophet, Isaiah in the days of King Ahaz of Judah. Isaiah was calling the Southern Kingdom of Judah and the house of David back to the Word of God given unto them through “the law, the prophets, and the psalms.” Isaiah knew well that God’s Word always is the only way to real peace and prosperity in life. He knew that it contained both light and life for its adherents. His appeal then was to the authority of the Scriptures and the primacy of that authority. This principle of the obligation of adhering to this authority runs throughout the Scriptures.
The matter of Bible authority is one of the central issues of any age in religion and morals. It lies at the heart of every dispute producing division in the religious world. It lies at the heart of the conflict between the ungodly dominant culture of our time and the godly ethos given by Jesus Christ. It lies at the heart of the current issues troubling our Brotherhood. The lack of respect for Bible authority so prevalent among people in general and among certain of our brethren in particular has brought us to the brink of a new Dark Ages in both the church and society. The surrender of the absolutes of God for the fickle feelings of humanity by brethren in sundry places have silenced so many of our voices against sin and compromised our allegiance to Christ. Bible authority is again the crucial issue of our day upon which virtually every other issue depends among our people!
In this study, we wish to consider three basic truths pertinent to the subject of Bible authority that we must not only acknowledge as so, but also act accordingly, if we are to receive God’s blessings and especially have and help others to have eternal life. After all, that is especially what it is all about!
Bible Authority Inheres in the Supernatural Origin of the Bible
That the Bible is authoritative in its very nature is inherent in the fact that the Bible came into being by the inspiration of God. It was given by God to man to reveal both God’s nature and God’s will to man.
It serves to reveal the nature of God by showing God’s interaction with humanity from the Creation throughout the period of time the Bible covers. This is fundamental to establishing a basis for faith. As faith entails confidence in the goodness and trustworthiness of God (Heb. 11:6), it necessitates sufficient information to show that these things are indeed so. The Word of God thus is the means by which faith is inculcated in the heart of the one who reads it with an open and receptive mind that weighs the evidence and draws the conclusions that such evidence demands (Rom. 10:17; 1 The. 5:21-22; 1 Pet. 3:15).
Further, the Bible reveals the will of God for man. It provides the information needed for human beings to know what God desires them to do—how both to think and how to act in life. Solomon writes:
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil (Ecc. 12:13-14).
Duty in the King James Version stands in italics, because it is supplied by the translators. The original text actually reads, “this is the whole of man.” In other words, this is what man’s purpose is all about. This is the summation of his life from God’s perspective. God is the Creator (Gen. 1:1; Ecc. 12:1; Acts 17:24-31). He therefore has the right as to what He expects out of His moral creation relative to this gift of life itself, and also the right to hold humans accountable for their use of this gift. This is why thinking on the right things and then acting accordingly are involved in the promise that “the God of peace” will be with us (Phi. 4:8-9). Man was created for God’s good pleasure (Rev. 4:11). That pleasure includes, but is not limited to, the fellowship that God desires to have with man. God is a social Being. He desires fellowship with moral beings, like men and angels. Sin gets in the way of that fellowship (Isa. 59:1-2; Hab. 1:13). Man
must be godly and holy to have fellowship with the living God (cf. 1 Pet. 1:13-16; 1 John 1:4-10). This requires, then, revelation from God—the needed information to identify what is sin and how we must deal with it.
For us to “walk in the light” ultimately means walking according to the Word of God which provides that light (Psa. 119:105, 130). God’s Word is the very expression of His nature. He Himself is the ultimate Good, and thus His Word must be good innately as well. God did not give His laws to man because they were good independently from His own Being. Neither did they become good simply by some arbitrary fiat. They flow from His very nature, and thus cannot be anything but good in the ultimate sense of the word. This simple truth has escaped philosophers for ages.
What do we mean when we say the Scriptures are “inspired of God”? Many people have faulty ideas on the matter. What do the Scriptures themselves have to say about their own origin? Over 3000 times the Scriptures claim to come from God. Such expressions as “the Word of the Lord came unto me, saying,” “thus saith the Lord,” “And the Lord said,” “The Spirit speaketh expressly,” and a myriad of others adorn the pages of the Bible. Among the most common in the Gospel accounts are Jesus’ solemn, “Verily, verily, I say unto you” and sundry equivalents. No one can deny that the Bible in part and in whole claims to come ultimately from Deity. But what is the nature of that claim, and how does that impact the authority of the Bible?
The claim for inspiration is explicitly made in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which reads:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
The KJV reading of the phrase “given by inspiration of God” translates one Greek word, the compound theopneustos, which literally means, “God-breathed.” The idea of the word is that of an “outbreathing,” not an “in-breathing” as implied by our Latin-based term inspiration. The Latin verb inspiro, the root word for inspiration, meant to “breathe upon or into” something. However, this is not really the idea of the Greek word. Rather than breathing into the Scriptures His thoughts so as to give authority to certain points, He in fact “breathed” the Scriptures “out” fully and completely authoritative. God is the Author of the Scriptures. He brought them into existence in complete form in the minds of those whom He used as His human agents in writing them. So, when we speak of the Bible’s inspiration, we actually are referring to a more comprehensive process than our English word denotes. It is far grander than our mother tongue captures in the word inspiration.
This process is clearly described by Paul, who served as one of those inspired penmen. In 1 Corinthians 2, he had stressed the blessings that God had in store in His great Mind for those who would receive the Gospel (2:9). These “things” human eyes and human ears had never conceived of before. The knowledge of them came by way of Divine revelation. Thus, Paul wrote:
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual (2:10-13).
The last term in our English versions translated spiritual should be taken as entailing an implied substantive—“words.” Thus, the idea is that of “comparing spiritual things with spiritual words.” The “things” refer to the thoughts of God. The “spiritual words” refer to the verbal means of revealing those thoughts in a more concrete form. For one to know the thoughts of another, oral-interpersonal communication is the best means of revelation.
God thus revealed His great thoughts regarding the Gospel through the medium of the Holy Spirit, whom He gave to the writers of the Scriptures to that very end. The Spirit knowing the Mind of the Father made known those wonderful thoughts through the avenue of words—words that were not derived by mere human genius, but were selected by the Spirit Himself. Men did not think up the Scriptures through their own wisdom. Rather, God, through the Spirit, selected the right word to convey the exact and proper meaning or thought He wished to have conveyed to the mind of the human agents in inspiration. In other words, the Spirit put the right thought with the right word expressing that thought and revealed the same to the writers of the Bible. That is how the Scriptures came into being. To be sure, this operation included the use of the several abilities, training, knowledge, and backgrounds of each individual so engaged in the production of the Scriptures. In other words, the Spirit made use of the individual personalities, knowledge, and abilities of the writers. This is clearly reflected in the many distinctions that exist in style, vocabulary, and formulation of argument found in each inspired document. Luke and Acts by far bear the bulk of Greek medical terms due to the writer being “the beloved physician,” while the epistles of Paul, the nonpareil student of Gamaliel, entail syntactical and argumentative structures typical of well-schooled rabbis, and those of Peter bespeak in their imagery of the country-style of life familiar to that apostle.
Even relative to the Old Testament, the nature of inspiration was the same. In fact, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was written chiefly of the Old Testament text, as the New was just coming into existence. “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:21). The latter verb more properly means “to bear along.” The idea is that the Spirit picked them up and carried them along in the process of revealing the Old Testament Scriptures. They were guided, guarded, and directed throughout the process, as God “spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets” (Heb. 1:1). It vouchsafed the certainty of their message (cf. 2 Pet. 1:16-20). The personalities of the writers were used. Amos and Micah, two country preachers, and Isaiah and Habakkuk, the most eloquent of the prophets, are found in the same precious book. The vitality, sorrow, pathos, and tranquility of the sundry penmen come vividly to light even in the most cursory readings of the sacred text. The Scriptures, while not autonomically dictated, were nonetheless given verbally and fully by God, though in keeping with the personalities of the writers. This process is the very essence of verbal, plenary inspiration.
Belief in the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures is fundamental to the issue of Bible authority. This doctrine of the Bible’s origin is essential to every other doctrine taught by the Bible, including the Deity of Jesus Christ. The essentiality of that teaching (cf. John 8:24; 14:6) makes it imperative that we understand the significance of verbal, plenary inspiration. If the Bible is not what it claims to be, if it did not come into being in the way that it states, then the doctrine of the Deity of Christ has no assurance of being true. For one to profess to believe in that doctrine, while denying the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, constitutes a monumental self-contradiction. The former depends on the truth of the latter. Furthermore, the fact of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible is essential to the Bible’s authority.
Thus, inspiration involved the very words of the Bible. It is word-for-word inspired of God. This is supported by the way in which the Bible was treated in certain parts by both Christ and His apostles. Jesus, for example, maintained that even the smallest marks of punctuation in the original Hebrew text were inspired. He said: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Mat. 5:18). Paul in Galatians 3:16 makes an argument on the singularity of seed in the Abrahamic promise that Jesus is that promised Seed. The absence of one Hebrew letter made the difference between singularity and plurality of number. Thus, even the letters comprising the words were inspired of God in the production of the original text.
One implication of the nature of Biblical inspiration is that it primarily concerns the original text. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew with some small portions in Aramaic (ancient Syriac). The New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek. The original text of the Bible was inspired totally by God and can properly be termed “the Word of God.”
It should be duly noted that faithful translation of said text can also be said to be inspired by extension and thus be the Word of God inasmuch as it accurately conveys the meaning of the original. In fact, this principle is seen in the teachings of Jesus. He regularly quoted the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament authoritatively, citing it as “Scripture” or even “the Scriptures.” In John 10:34-35, He even uses the phrases “your law,” “the Word of God,” and “the Scripture” to contemplate the same statement from the Septuagint text of Psalms.
We Need Now to Discuss the Means by Which the Bible Authorizes
Obviously, we cannot deal with every aspect of this subject in this chapter. At the end of our study is a list of recommended books to read toward a more thorough understanding of these matters. What we are concerned with here are just the bare bones, the very basic structure of Bible authority relative to ascertaining what we are to believe and do as accountable human beings.
In many respects, the Bible is like any other book. It contains information, but unlike any other book, that information has, by virtue of its origin as we have noted, a more important place relative to authority. Also, the nature of that information is endowed with capacities and qualities that set the Bible apart from all other such documents. As seen in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, it is not only inspired of God but is also “profitable for” certain things of lasting, spiritual importance. Notice the following points, which are based on thoughts drawn from the belated and beloved Winfred E. Clark:
1. It is profitable for “doctrine.” It tells us what is right!
2. It is profitable for “reproof.” It tells us when we are not right!
3. It is profitable for “correction.” It tells us how to get right!
4. It is profitable for “instruction in righteousness.” It tells us how to stay right!
5. It is profitable to furnish us “unto all good works.” It outfits us to be able to do what is right!
The Scriptures provide us with “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword” (Heb. 4:12). Indeed, the words of Jesus “are spirit, and are life” (John 6:63). They have the sufficient power to do exactly what they claim to do.
As regards the means by which they authorize men to believe and act, the methodology of the Bible is similar to all other books. The Bible is addressed to man as God made him, and it makes use of the moral faculties that God in His wisdom saw fit to bestow upon man. Humans have the capacity to reason, to examine the evidence, and to draw conclusions. The Word of God provides the evidence from whence we are to draw the right conclusions relative to our beliefs and practices in religion and morals. It is that simple. God does not expect us to “check our brains at the door” when it comes to these matters. He calls upon us to examine the evidence, draw the right conclusions, and then act accordingly (1 The. 5:21-22; 1 Pet. 3:15; 4:11; 1 John 4:1; 2 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 11:6; Rom. 10:17; Acts 18:8; Col. 3:17).
We need to be aware that the Bible authorizes by one of three specific ways. These are: (1) direct statement, (2) example, and (3) implication. Sometimes brethren have used the rubric CENI for command, example, and necessary inference. While this is easy to remember, it really is quite inaccurate. It does not go far enough.
Direct Statement
The Bible authorizes by direct statement. That command is insufficient to cover the various sentence structures used in the Bible to give instruction should be obvious even from a cursory reading of it. Command denotes properly an imperative statement—i.e., one given in the imperative mood (or the mood used to express the idea of command). In New Testament Greek there are six moods, including the participle and the infinitive as so categorized. The other four are the indicative, the subjunctive, the optative, and the imperative. Even our English translations make use of several different sentence structures beyond the imperative mood. Beyond this, there are the different verb forms and stems that are used to express different ideas in addition to what a particular mood may express. There are also three voices used in the Greek text (active, passive, and middle voices, as opposed to simply the active and passive in English) to depict the relationship of the subject to the verbal action. These with the moods and tenses make for numerous combinations that ancient Greek employed in its sentence structures, of which imperative constructions were but a fraction.
Mark 16:16, for example, is surely binding: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” However, it is a declarative sentence in English and uses the indicative mood in Greek. It does not stand in the imperative in Greek or English. It is not given as an imperative even in English translation. Yet, it is still binding.
When Paul asked, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” (Rom. 6:1), he was not engaging in mere philosophical speculation. He was making a specific point—one that is binding in its truth. We are not authorized to continue in sin simply because God’s grace abounds. The question, which is called in English an interrogative, carries in such use its own answer. It is a quite forceful literary device that is not only rhetorical but also pedagogic. It teaches! Grammatically, Paul uses a future active indicative in the question, “What shall we say then?” but then a present active subjunctive in the central question, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” The verb translated “may abound” actually involves an aorist active subjunctive as well. Paul closes verse 2 with yet another rhetorical question: “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” while using an aorist and a future indicative in doing so. The indicative would normally be used in a declarative statement, but here we see the indicative, as also with the future indicative in the first question of verse 1, being used in an interrogative statement asking a rhetorical question.
Paul followed up that question by an emphatic construction, which is expressed in our English translations by an exclamatory sentence, “God forbid!” (6:2). The verb form genoito is an aorist middle optative. So, we have in these verses an indicative, two subjunctives, and an optative used by Paul by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to convey the truth of the texts. Paul continued with this in verse 3 with yet another rhetorical question (or interrogative statement) using two more indicatives. There is not a single imperative in the three verses, despite the fact that Paul has clearly taught certain truths that are binding.
The phrase direct statement contemplates every sentence structure that is used in Holy Writ to teach or to impart information. The idea of command simply is insufficient to do so.
Example
The Bible authorizes by example. The Scriptures contain numerous accounts of action, i.e., written records of acts performed by men and women. When said actions are based on compliance with what is bound by direct statement, the action thereby constitutes an example. An example may be obligatory or optional depending upon several factors, but it is nonetheless an example, and is binding. In other words, it either grants by its nature one the right to do the same action or actually requires the doing of the same action. An account of action by itself is not an example. There are accounts of action concerning the people as well as the devil lying. These accounts obviously do not authorize us to lie. There is an account of action of Cain murdering Abel, but that account is not an example authorizing us to murder others.
On the other hand, there is an account of action in Acts 20:7ff, which is binding upon us. The observance of the Lord’s Supper was one of the five acts of New Testament worship observed by the early church. Direct statement enjoins it upon us as obligatory and even sets forth that it should be observed on a regular basis (cf. 1 Cor. 11:20-34). It should be noted from the text that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 uses an adverbial marker translated “as often as” in conjunction with eating the unleavened bread and drinking the fruit of the vine. This expression does not mean, “whenever you feel like doing it” as often wrongly taken by readers. It is indicative of a regular practice, especially in view of the fact that the verbs for the action are present tense vers. In fact they are both present active subjunctives (esthieete and pineete respectively). The primary use of the present, especially in the subjunctive mood as here, is that of progressive or linear action. They would not therefore be gnomic presents or so-called “aoristic presents,” which itself is somewhat of a misnomer. The present tense in the subjunctive mood in Greek views the action as in process. Habituality is one form of that kind of action. By the way, even gnomic presents can entail habitual or iterative action—a fact that some of our liberal brethren on marriage, divorce, and remarriage often conveniently ignore.
The church at Troas, as recorded in Acts 20:7, regularly observed “the breaking of bread,” the Lord’s Supper, on the first day of every week. This was their habitual practice, as is implied by the construction of that verse. Relative to Acts 20, it should also be noted that Paul was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost of that year (20:16). If it were the case that the Lord’s Supper could be observed Scripturally at any time during the week, as our liberal brethren often claim, Paul, especially as an apostle of the Lord, could have called the church together and done so at the earliest convenience to expedite his travel plans. Yet, he tarried with his companions seven days awaiting the first day of the week, when the brethren at Troas habitually observed the Supper. That is quite significant, to say the least! Furthermore, there is no other account of action (much less an example) relative to the conduct of the early church in its observance of the Lord’s Supper on a day other than the first day of the week.
Other matters also support this brief exegesis of the text. (1) The use of the term kuriakos. This term is used only twice in the Greek testament. It is a peculiar genitive that is used only of the first day of the week (Rev. 1:10) and the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20). It is quite fitting that the royal feast would be observed on the royal day. (2) The early history of the church conforms to this pattern of observance. Wherever we have record of the time in which the Lord’s Supper was being observed, the early saints are pictured as doing it on the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week.
Thus, we have in Acts 20:7, as pertains to the time of the observance of the Lord’s Supper, an account of action that comprises a binding example for the church. It is just as binding as if it were explicitly commanded.
Implication
The Bible authorizes by implication. Sometimes necessary inference is used. First, necessary is not really necessary, especially if we have in mind the matter of implication. Also, the phrase involves an imprecise use of inference. An inference is something we may draw from a statement that may or may not actually follow. Human beings may infer from the statements of others a particular conclusion, but that does not necessitate the idea that the inference is always correct or that it necessarily follows from what is explicitly said. Implication properly refers to that which logically follows from an explicit statement or the combination of premises.
If a dime is placed in an envelope, and the envelope is placed in a trunk, then it is implied that the dime is in the trunk. One can logically know that the dime is in the trunk. It is the conclusion demanded by the two propositions embodied in the protasis or antecedent of the statement. It is an implication. It necessarily follows from the two propositions.
If the early church had the obligation to come together to observe the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20-34), and if the act of eating the Lord’s Supper is an act of worship (John 4:24), then it must be the case that we have authority for a “worship assembly.” The first part of this hypothetical statement we have already discussed. The second part is true due to the very definition of what constitutes an act of worship, especially as contemplated by proskuneo used in John 4:24 showing that worship is obligatory. Proskuneo originally meant “to kiss the hand toward,” and then came to mean “to bow down or prostrate oneself to another.” In each case, the idea was to do obeisance, to give homage, or to show adoration. These ideas are involved in the word in Koine and New Testament use. The term came to properly mean “to express homage or adoration through specific acts.” One of those acts in the New Testament use is the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Thus, both parts of the antecedent are true, the implication then follows that we have authority for a “worship assembly,” despite the claims of some today.
It will be recalled that an implication is just as true and binding as an explicit statement. The Bible, for example, teaches in Genesis 12 that Lot travelled with Abram from Ur to Canaan and even dwelt with Abram and his family for some time. Later, the text says in Genesis 13:1 that Lot came up out of Egypt with Abram and his wife. Yet, the Bible nowhere says explicitly that Lot went down into Egypt. The only way, however, that he could come up out of Egypt is that at some point he had to have gone down into Egypt from Canaan. That is a matter of implication. It necessarily follows, and is just as true as if explicitly stated. Simply because something is implied, it does not follow that it is less true than if explicitly stated.
It should also be noted that when it comes to applying even direct statements to ourselves today, such is done by virtue of implication. The reason is there is no explicit text of the Bible that is addressed to us by name. If we fall under the purview of a text, it is by way of implication. How do we know, for example, that the passages pertaining to being saved by the Gospel of Christ apply to us today? The answer is by implication! There is no explicit text addressed to Daniel Denham by name. I am included by implication under such terms as “whosoever,” “he who,” etc., given in specific contexts concerning and in connection with salvation by the Gospel of Christ.
Other Things That we Need to Properly
Understand Relative to Bible Authority
There are many other things we need to understand relative to Bible authority in general and how the Bible authorizes in particular. These are too many to discuss in a lecture of this nature, but here is a brief list of some of the most pressing ones: (1) the nature of aids and expedients, (2) the distinctions between the covenants in rightly dividing the Word of God (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15), (3) the difference between circumstances and conditions, (4) the difference between custom and principle, (5) the difference between generic command and specific command, (6) the difference between temporary and permanent obligations, (7) the difference between temporary and permanent options, etc. A couple of these distinctions we will note a few things about here.
Relative to aids and expedients, it should always be remembered that a true “aid” or “expedient” actually aids or expedites the doing of the intended action. A coordinate thing is not an aid. It is an addition. A piano is not an aid to singing. It entails a different form of music. It is an addition. The same is also true of beat-boxing, humming, and whistling.
An expedient requires, at the very least, two key things: an obligation to expedite and the idea of advantage. One cannot expedite an obligation that does not exist. Also, if there is no real advantage in using a thing, it is by definition not expedient.
Relative to the covenants, we need to be aware that three great ages or dispensations have been involved in God’s unfolding of His plan to save man—the Patriarchal Age, the Mosaic Age, and the Christian Age, and that two major covenants or testaments comprise the Biblical text itself—the Old Testament given to the nation of Israel and the New Testament intended for the whole world. We live in the Christian Age and are directly subject to the New Testament of Jesus Christ as our standard for religion and morals.
The works in the recommended reading list address many of these matters in great detail. I have especially selected these works based on that fact and the fat that they were produced or published byand large by faithful brethren. They each work from the same premise of this lecture that the authority of the Bible flows from its Source by the process of verbal, plenary inspiration.
Conclusion
Let us love God’s precious, inspired Word. It is the inerrant, all sufficient Word of the living God. It provides us with the only real light that directs our path to Heaven. Without it we would stumble and fall into outer darkness (Psa. 119:105, 130; 1 John 1:7).
Work Cited
All Scripture quotations are from the King James Version unless otherwise indicated.
Recommended Reading List on Bible Authority
Note: I confined the list to books published by the brethren so that the works could be recommended without reservation for use by members of the church with little or no prior training in the areas treated in my lecture and subjects covered in the respective works.
Beals, George F. How Implication Binds and Silence Forbids: Studies in Biblical Hermeneutics. Ann Arbor, MI: PC Publications, 1998.
Deaver, Roy C. Ascertaining Bible Authority. Pensacola, FL: Firm Foundation, 1987, rpt.
How to Study the Bible. Plano, TX: Biblical Publishing Corp., 1973.
Dungan, D. R. Hermeneutics: A Text-Book. Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 1930, rpt.
Hightower, Terry M. (editor). Rightly Dividing the Word, 2 vols. San Antonio, TX: Shenandoah Church of Christ, 1990 & 1991.
Lamar, J. S. The Organon of Scripture: or, The Inductive Method of Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott, 1860.
Lockhart, Clinton. Principles of Interpretation. Revised edition, Delight, AR: Gospel Light, n.d., rpt.
Warren, Thomas B. Logic and the Bible. Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press, 1982.
– – -. When Is an “Example” Binding? Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press, 1975.
Woods, Guy N. How to Study the New Testament Effectively. Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Publishing Co., 1992.
Reprinted from “Innovations”, The 38th Annual, Bellview Lectureship, Pensacola, Florida, June 7-11, 2013, Ed. Michael Hatcher
