TheInspirationofScripture

byLoraineBoettner

TableofContents

Part1-TheNatureofScriptureInspiration

Part2-TheWritersClaimInspiration

Part3-TheInfluencebywhichInspirationisAccomplished

Part4-TheAllegedErrorsinScripture

Part5-TheTrustworthinessoftheBible

Part6-ThePlenaryInspirationoftheBible

1.TheNatureofScriptureInspiration

The answer thatwe are to give to thequestion, "What is Christianity?"dependsquitelargelyontheviewwetakeofScripture.Ifwebelievethatthe Bible is the very word of God and infallible, we will develop oneconception of Christianity. If we believe that it is only a collection ofhumanwritings,perhapsconsiderablyabove theaverage in its spiritualand moral teachings but nevertheless containing many errors, we willdevelop a radicallydifferent conceptionofChristianity, if, indeed,whatwethenhavecanlegitimatelybecalledChristianity.Hencewecanhardlyover-estimate the importance of a correct doctrine concerning theinspirationoftheScriptures.

In all matters of controversy between Christians the Scriptures areacceptedas thehighest courtof appeal.Historically theyhavebeen thecommon authority of Christendom. We believe that they contain oneharmoniousandsufficientlycompletesystemofdoctrine;thatalloftheirpartsareconsistentwitheachother;andthat it isourduty to traceoutthis consistency by a careful investigation of themeaning of particularpassages.WehavecommittedourselvestothisBookwithoutreserve,andhave based our creeds upon it. We have not made our appeal to aninfallibleChurch,nortoascholastichierarchy,buttoatrustworthyBible,andhavemaintainedthatitisthewordofGod,thatbyHisprovidentialcare it has been kept pure in all ages, and that it is the only inspired,infallibleruleoffaithandpractice.

That thequestionof inspiration is of vital importance for theChristianChurch is easily seen. If she has a definite and authoritative body ofScripturetowhichshecango,itisacomparativelyeasytasktoformulateherdoctrines.AllshehastodoistosearchouttheteachingsofScriptureandembodytheminhercreed.ButiftheScripturesarenotauthoritative,if they are to be corrected and edited and some parts are to be openlyrejected,theChurchhasamuchmoredifficulttask,andtherecanbenoendofconflictingopinionsconcerningeitherthepurposeof theChurchorthesystemofdoctrinewhichsheistosetforth.Itissmallwonderthatdetermined controversy rages around this question today whenChristianityisinalifeanddeathstrugglewithunbelief.

ItshouldbenotedthattheChurchhasnotheldallofherotherdoctrineswithsuchtenacity,nortaughtthemwithsuchclearness,asshehasthisdoctrine of inspiration. For instance, there has been considerabledifferenceofopinionbetweendenominationsastowhattheBibleteachesconcerning baptism, the Lord's Supper, predestination, inability of thesinner todogoodworks, election, atonement.grace,perseverance,etc.;but in theScriptureswe findthisdoctrine taughtwithsuchconsistencyand clearness that all branches of the Church, Protestant and RomanCatholic alike, have agreed with instinctive judgment that the Bible istrustworthyandthatitspronouncementsarefinal.

Butwhile thishasbeenthehistoricdoctrineofChristendom,andwhiletoday it remains embedded in the official creeds of the churches, it is

apparentoneveryside thatunbeliefhasmadeserious inroads.PerhapsnoeventinrecentChurchHistoryhasbeenmoreamazingthantheswingawayfromfaithintheauthorityoftheScriptures.EvenProtestants,whoat the time of the Reformation took as their basic principle anauthoritative Bible rather than an authoritative Church, have shown agreat tendency toneglect theBible.Whilenumerousbooksandarticleshavebeenwrittenonthissubjectinrecenttimes,itmustbeadmittedthatmost of these have beendesigned to explain away or to tone down thedoctrineswhichtheChurchhasheldfromthebeginning.

The indifference which the Church has manifested toward soundScripture doctrine in recent days is probably the chief cause of theuncertainty and of the internal dissension with which she is faced.Ignoranceconcerningthenatureofthedoctrineofinspiration,orwantofclear views concerning it, can only result in confusion. Millions ofChristians today are likemen whose feet are on quicksand and whoseheads are in a fog.Theydonot knowwhat theybelieve concerning theinspirationandauthorityoftheBible.

Much of this uncertainty has arisen because of the searching criticalinvestigationwhichhasbeencarriedonduringthepastcentury,andweoften hear the claim made that the historic Church doctrine of theinspiration of the Scriptures must be given up. Hence the burningquestiontodayis,CanwestilltrusttheBibleasadoctrinalguide,asanauthoritative teacherof truth,ormustwe findanewbasis fordoctrine,and,consequently,developawholenewsystemoftheology?

Themarvelous unity of theBible can be explained onno other groundthanthatofdivineauthorship.Itisconfessedlyonebook,yet it ismadeupof sixty-sixdifferentbooks, composedbynot less than fortywriters,spreadoveraperiodofnotlessthansixteenhundredyears.Thewritersmovedinwidelyseparatedspheresoflife.Somewerekingsandscholarswith the best education that their day afforded; others were herdsmenand fishermen with no formal education. It is impossible that thereshouldhavebeencollusionbetweenthewriters.Yetthereisbutonetypeof doctrine and morality unfolded. The Messianic spirit and outlookpervades the Old Testament, beginning early in Genesis where we aretoldthattheseedofthewomanistobruisetheheadoftheserpent,and

continuing through the ritual of the sacrificial system, the Psalms, themajorandminorprophetsuntilMalachiclosestheOldTestamentcanonwiththepromisethat"theLord,whomyeseek,willsuddenlycometohistemple."And"Christcrucified" is thethemeoftheNewTestament.ThemarveloussystemoftruththatisbegunbyMosesinthebookofGenesisis brought to completion by John in the book of Revelation. In thedevelopmentofnootherbookinthehistoryoftheworldhasthereeverbeenanything thatevenremotelyapproaches thisphenomenonthatwefindintheBible.

ThatthereisawideandimpassablegulfbetweentheBibleandallotherbooksisapparenttoeventhecasualobserver."Holy,holy,holy"seemstobewrittenon its everypage.Aswe read, it speaks touswith authorityandweinstinctivelyfeelourselvesunderobligationtoheeditswarnings.Itiscertainlyfurnishedwithaninfluencewhichispossessedbynootherbook,andweareforcedtoaskthequestion,Whencecomesit?Andsinceit is so unique in the power which it exerts, so lofty in themoral andspiritualprincipleswhichitsetsforth,andsinceitsorepeatedlyclaimstobeofdivineorigin,arewenotjustifiedinbelievingthatclaimtobetrue,thatitisinfacttheverywordofGod?

Theterms"plenaryinspiration"and"verbalinspiration"asusedherearepracticallysynonymous.By"plenaryinspiration"wemeanthatafullandsufficient influenceof theHolySpiritextended toallpartsofScripture,rendering it an authoritative revelation from God, so that while therevelations come to us through the minds and wills of men they arenevertheless in the strictest sense the word of God. By "verbalinspiration" we mean that the Divine influence which surrounded thesacredwritersextendednotonlytothegeneralthoughts,butalsototheverywords they employed, so that the thoughtswhichGod intended torevealtoushavebeenconveyedwithinfallibleaccuracy--thatthewritersweretheorgansofGodinsuchasensethatwhattheysaidGodsaid.

INSPIRATIONNECESSARYTOSECUREACCURACY

Thatthisinspirationshouldextendtotheverywordsseemsmostnaturalsincethepurposeofinspirationistosecureaninfalliblerecordoftruth.Thoughtsandwordsaresoinseparablyconnectedthatasaruleachange

inwordsmeansachangeinthought.

Inhumanaffairs,forinstance,themanofbusinessdictateshisletterstohis secretary inhisownwords inorder that theymaycontainhisexactmeaning. He does not assume that his secretary will correctly expressimportant,delicate,andcomplicatedmatterswhichmightbegivenhimin general terms.Much less would theHoly Spirit say toHis penman,"Writetothiseffect."TheBibleassumestospeakconcerninganumberofthings which are absolutely beyond the reach of man's wisdom -- thenatureandattributesofGod, theoriginandpurposeofmanandof theworld,man'sfall intosinandhispresenthelplesscondition,theplanofredemption including our Lord's substitutionary life and death, theglories of heaven, and the torments of hell. More than a generalsupervisionisnecessary if thetruthconcerningthesegreatandsublimesubjects is to be given without error and without prejudice. InerrancyrequiresthatGodshallchooseHisownwords.Allmenwhohavetriedtoexplainthesedeepthingswithoutsupernaturalrevelationhavedonelittlemore than show their own ignorance. They grope like the blind, theyspeculate and guess and generally leave us in greater uncertainty thanbeforeInthenatureof thecase these thingsarebeyondman'swisdom.We have only to look at the pagan systems or at the arrogant andspeculative theoriesof ourownphilosophers to findWhat the limits ofourspiritualwisdomwouldbeapartfromtheBible.WhetherweturntothephilosophersamongtheGreeks, to theMysticsof theEastor to theintellectualsamongtheGermans, thestory is thesame.In factmanyofthe world's supposedly advanced thinkers have even doubted theexistenceofGodandtheimmortalityofthesoul.Godaloneiscapableofspeakingauthoritativelyonthesesubjects;andofalltheworld'sbookswefindthattheBiblealonegivesusontheonehandanadequateaccountofthemajesty ofGod, and on the other hand an adequate account of thesinfulstateofthehumanheartandasatisfactoryremedyforthatsin.Itshowsus thatneither lawsnor education can change thehumanheart,thatnothingshortoftheredemptivepowerofChristcanmakemanwhatheoughttobe.

Amerehuman reportofdivine thingswouldnaturally containmoreorlesserror,bothinregardtothewordschosentoexpresstheideasandin

the proportionate emphasis given the different parts of the revelation.Since particular thoughts are inseparably connected with particularwords, the wording must be exact or the thoughts conveyed will bedefective. If it be admitted, for instance, that the words, ransom,atonement, resurrection, immortality,etc.,asused inScripturehavenodefinite authority or meaning behind them, then it follows that thedoctrines based on themhaveno definite authority. In Scripture's ownuseofScripturewearetaughtthestresswhichitlaysupontheverywordswhich it employs, the exact meaning depending upon the use of aparticular word, as when our Lord says that "the Scripture cannot bebroken"(John10:35);orwhenHeansweredtheSadduceesbyreferringthemtothewordsspokentoMosesattheburningbushwherethewholepointoftheargumentdependedonthetenseoftheverb,"IamtheGodofAbraham,andtheGodofIsaac,andtheGodofJacob"(Mark12::26);orwhenPaulstressesthefactthatinthepromisemadetoAbrahamthewordusedissingularandnotplural--"seed,""asofone,"andnot"seeds,as ofmany;" "And to thy seed, which is Christ" (Gal. 3:16). In each ofthesecasestheargumentturnsontheuseofoneparticularword,andineachcasethatwordwasdecisivebecause ithaddivineauthoritybehindit.Oftentimestheexactshadeofmeaningoftheoriginalwordsisoftheutmostimportanceindecidingquestionsofdoctrineandlife.

ADEFINITESYSTEMOFTHEOLOGY

ForanyseriousstudyofChristiandoctrineswemusterstofallhavetheassurance that the Bible is true. If it is a fully authoritative andtrustworthyguide, thenwewill accept thedoctrineswhich it sets forth.Wemaynotbeabletograspthefullmeaningofallofthesethings,theremayinfactbemanydifficultiesinourmindsconcerningthem;butthattheyaretrueweshallneverdoubt.Weacknowledgeourlimitations,butwe shall believe in so far as the truth has been revealed to us. ThefortunesofdistinctiveChristianityareinaveryrealsenseboundupwiththose of the Biblical doctrine of inspiration, for unless that stands wehavenothingstable.

If we have a trustworthy Scripture as our guide, we shall have anevangelical,asdistinguishedfromanaturalistic,humanisticorUnitariansystemof theology; forwe find the evangelical systemclearly taught in

theBible.ButiftheBibleisnotatrustworthyguide,weshallthenhavetoseekadifferentbasisforourtheology,andtheprobabilityisthatweshallhave but little more than a philosophical system left. To undermineconfidenceintheBibleasaninspiredBookistoundermineconfidenceinthewholeChristiansystem.Thistruthisratherpainfullyimpresseduponus when we attempt to read some of the recent religious books, evensystematictheologies,inwhichthewritersappealnottoScripturebuttotheteachingsofvariousphilosopherstoprovetheirpoints.IftheBibleisnot trustworthywemight aswell save ourselves the labor of "revising"ourcreeds.Wemightaswellthrowthemawayandmakeafreshstart,forwe shall then have to develop a whole new theology. To date we haveaccepted the distinctive doctrines of the Christian system because wefound them taught in the Bible. But apart from the Bible we have noauthoritativestandard.

Unless the Bible can be quoted as an inspired book its authority andusefulnessforpublicpreaching,forcomfortinsicknessordeath,andforinstruction in every perplexity, have been seriously impoverished. Its"Thus saith the Lord" has then been reduced to a mere humansupposition,anditcanno longerbeconsideredourperfectruleof faithand practice. If it cannot be quoted as an inspired book, its value as aweapon in controversy has been greatly weakened, perhaps entirelydestroyed; forwhatgoodwill itdo toquote it toanopponent ifhe canreply that it is not authoritative? Today, as in every past age, thedestructivecritics,skeptics,andmodernistsofwhateverkindcentertheirattacks on the Bible. They must first be rid of its authority or theirsystemsamountonlytofoolishness.

The inspiration forwhichwe contend is, of course, that of the originalHebrew andGreekwords as written by the prophets and apostles.Webelieve that if these are understood in their intended sense -- plainstatements of fact, figures of speech, idioms and poetry as such -- theBible is without an error from Genesis to Revelation. While it leavesmuchunsaid,webelieve that all that it does say is true in the sense inwhichitisintended.Wedonotclaiminfallibilityforthevariousversionsandtranslations,suchastheAmericanStandardorKingJamesversions,and much less do we claim infallibility for the rather free one man

translations which have attained some vogue in recent years.Translationswillnaturallyvarywitheachindividualtranslator,andaretobe considered accurate only in so far as they reproduce the originalautographs.Furthermore,someoftheHebrewandGreekwordshavenofull equivalent in the English language, and sometimes even the bestscholarsdifferastotheexactmeaningofcertainwords.Andfurtherstill,wemustacknowledgethatwehavenoneoftheoriginalautographs,butthat our oldest manuscripts are copies of copies. Yet the best of thepresent day Hebrew and Greek scholars assert that in probably ninehundredandninety-ninecasesoutofathousandwehaveeitherpositiveknowledgeorreasonableassuranceastowhattheoriginalwordswere,soaccuratelyhavethecopyistsreproducedthemandso faithfullyhave thetranslatorsdonetheirwork.HencehewhoreadsourEnglishBibleassetforth in the American Standard or King James version has before himwhat is, for all practical purposes, the very word of God as it wasoriginallygiventotheprophetsandapostles.CertainlywehavereasontothankGodthattheBiblehascomedowntousinsuchpureform.

ThishasbeenthehistoricProtestantpositionconcerningtheauthorityofScripture. It was held by Luther and Calvin, and was written into thecreeds of the post-Reformation period. The Lutheran doctrine ofinspiration was set forth in the Form of Concord, which reads: "Webelieve, confess, and teach that the only rule and norm, according towhichalldogmasandalldoctorsoughttobeesteemedandjudged,isnootherwhateverthanthepropheticandapostolicwritingsoftheOldandNewTestament."ThedoctrineoftheReformedChurchwasstatedintheSecondHelveticConfessionasfollows:"Webelieveandconfess,thatthecanonicalScripturesoftheholyprophetsandapostlesofeachTestamentarethetruewordofGod,andthattheypossesssufficientauthorityfromthemselves alone and not from man. For God Himself spoke to thefathers,totheprophets,andtotheapostles,andcontinuestospeaktousthrough the Holy Scriptures." And in the Westminster Confession ofFaith the Presbyterian Church declared that "It pleased the Lord, atsundrytimesandindiversmanners,torevealHimselfandtodeclareHiswilluntoHisChurch;andafterward... to commit the samewhollyuntowriting." "The authority of theHoly Scripture, forwhich it ought to bebelievedandobeyed,dependethnotupon the testimony of anymanor

church,butwhollyuponGod(whoistruthitself)theauthorthereof;andthereforeitistobereceivedbecauseitisthewordofGod."Andfurtherthatboth theOldandNewTestamenthavebeen"immediately inspiredbyGodandbyHissingularcareandprovidencekeptpureinallages."InmorerecenttimesithasbeenreassertedbyHodge,WarfieldandKuyper.ThatthesemenhavebeenthelightsandornamentsofthehighesttypeofChristianitywillbeadmittedbypracticallyallProtestants.TheyhaveheldthattheBibledoesnotmerelycontainthewordofGod,asapileofchaffcontainssomewheat,butthattheBibleinallitspartsisthewordofGod.

2.TheWritersClaimInspiration

Ourprimary reasons for holding that theBible is the inspiredWordofGodare that thewriters themselvesclaim this inspiration, and that thecontentsoftheirmessagesbearoutthatclaim.TheuniformitywithwhichtheprophetsinsistedthatthemessageswhichtheyspokewerenottheirsbuttheLord's--thattheirmessageswerethepureandunmixedWordofGod,spokenoutby themjustas theyhadreceivedthem-- isastrikingphenomenon of Scripture. "Thus saith the Lord" was the prophet'sconstantremindertothepeoplethatthewordswhichhespokewerenothisown,butGod's.Paulandtheotherapostles claimed to speaknot inthe words which man's wisdom taught, but in words which the Spirittaught(ICor.2:13).Notonlythesubstanceoftheirteaching,butalsoitsformofexpression,wasassertedtobeofDivineorigin.

AlthoughtheclaimthattheyspokewithDivineauthorityischaracteristicof the writers throughout the entire Bible, they never once base thatauthority on their own wisdom or dignity. They speak as the Lord'smessengersorwitnesses,andtheirwordsaretobeobeyedonlybecauseHis authority is behind them. Those who heard them heard God, andthose who refused to hear them refused to hear God (Ezek. 2:5; Matt.10:40;John13:20).

Andsincethewriterssorepeatedlyclaimedinspiration,itisevidentthat

theywereeither inspiredor that theyactedwith fanaticalpresumption.Weare shutup to the conclusion that theBible is theWordofGod,orthat it is a lie.Buthowcoulda liehave exerted theuniquely beneficialandmorallyuplifting influence that theBiblehasexertedeverywhere ithasgone?Toasksuchaquestionistoanswerit.

LetusalsonoticethatthecontemporariesoftheNewTestamentwriters,aswellastheearlychurchfathers--menwhowereinthebestpositiontojudge whether or not such claims were true -- accepted these claimswithout question. They acknowledged that a great gulf existed betweenthosewritingsandtheirown.AstothedyingSirWalterScotttherewasbut one "Book," so to these early church fathers there was but oneauthoritativeDivineword.Theybaseddoctrinesandpreceptsonit.TheGospelsandEpistlescontainanabundanceofinternalevidenceshowingthattheywereexpectedtobereceivedandthattheywerereceivedwithreverence and humility. And as we follow the course of history downthroughthecenturiestheevidencebecomesallthemoreabundant.Eventhehereticsbearwitnesstothisfact,anxiousastheyaretoberidofsuchauthority. Furthermore, the writings themselves contain nocontradictionsorinconsistencieswhichwoulddestroytheirclaims.Withperfect harmony they present the same plan of salvation and the sameexalted moral principles. If, then, in the first place, sober and honestwritersclaimthattheirwordswereinspiredbyGod;andif,inthesecondplace,theseclaimsnotonlywentunchallengedbutwerehumblyacceptedbytheircontemporaries;andif,inthethirdplace,thewritingscontainnocontradictory evidence, then certainly we have a phenomenon whichmustbeaccountedfor.

ObjectionissometimesmadetotheNewTestamentbooksonthegroundthattheyarenotthewritingsofJesusbutonlyofHisfollowers,andthattheywerenotwrittenuntilsometimeafterHisdeath.Butitishardlytobe expected that Jesus would have given a full account of the way ofsalvation during His earthly ministry, for that could not have beenunderstooduntilafterHisdeathandresurrection.Hecould,indeed,havesetit forthbywayofprophecyeveninthedaysofHisflesh,andinfactHeannounced toHisdisciples thegeneralnatureof theplan.ButevenHismostintimatedisciplesappeartohavebeenunabletounderstandthe

natureofHisworkuntiltheirmindswereenlightenedbytheHolySpiritonthedayofPentecost.Allthingsconsidered,themostnaturalmethodwas thatwhichHechose-- the fulfillmentof theevents,and then theirexplanationthroughinspiredwriters.That,also,wasinaccordancewiththeLord'sprocedurethroughoutOldTestamenttimes.

SCRIPTURETEACHINGCONCERNINGINSPIRATION

The Biblical doctrine of the true purpose and function of the prophetsand their manner of delivering the message is clearly set forth in theLord'swordstoMoses:"Iwillraisethemupaprophetfromamongtheirbrethren, likeunto thee; and Iwillputmywords inhismouth, andheshall speak unto them all that I shall command him" (Deut. 18:18).Jehovahwouldspeaknotsomuchtotheprophetsasthroughthem.Theyweretospeakpreciselythewordsgiventhem,butnoothers."Ihaveputmywordsinthymouth,"theLordsaidtoJeremiahinappointinghimaprophettothenations(Jer.1:9).Identicallythesamewordswerespokento Isaiah (51:16; 59:21), and the formula, "Thus saith Jehovah," isrepeated some eighty times in the book of Isaiah alone. Even the falseprophetBalaamcouldspeakonlythatwhichJehovahgavehimtospeak--"AndtheangelofJehovahsaiduntoBalaam,Gowiththemen;butonlythewordthatIshallspeakuntothee,thatthoushaltspeak"(Nu.22:35;23:5,12,16).InmanyOldTestamentpassagesitisnothingotherthanaprocessof"dictation"whichisdescribed,althoughwearenottoldwhatthemethodwasbywhichthisdictationwasaccomplished.InotherswearesimplygiventounderstandthatJehovahspokethroughchosenmenasHisorgans, supervising them in suchamanner that their spokenorwrittenwordswereHiswordsandwereadistinctlysuperhumanproduct.The uniform teaching of theOld Testament is that the prophets spokewhen,andonlywhen,thewordofJehovahcameuntothem:Hosea1:1;Amos1:3;Micah1:1;Malachi1:1,etc.

ThecharacteristicHebrewword forprophet isnabhi, "spokesman," notmerely spokesman in general, but by way of eminence, that is, God'sspokesman. In no case does the prophet presume to speak on his ownauthority. That he is a prophet in the first place is not of his ownchoosing,butinresponsetoacallfromGod,oftentimesacallwhichwasobeyedonlywith reluctance: andhe speaks or forbears to speak as the

Lordgiveshimutterance.

And in strong contrast with this high calling of the true prophets weshould notice the stern warnings and denunciations against those whopresumetospeakwithouthavingreceivedaDivinecall."Buttheprophetthat shall speak aword presumptuously inmyname,which I havenotcommandedhimtospeak,orthatshallspeakinthenameofothergods,that same prophet shall die" (Deut. 18:20); "Woe unto the foolishprophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing" (Ezek.13:3). It is a serious thing for mere men, with unwashen hands, topresume to speak for the Most High. Yet how common it is for thedestructivecriticsofourdaytodenythisorthatstatementintheBible,orto tell us that we need a shorter Bible, or perhaps even a new Biblecomposed of modern writings! And the error committed by men inaddingtoGod'sword,astheRomanCatholicsdowiththeir"Apocrypha"and church traditions, the Christian Scientists with their "Science andHealthWithKeytotheScriptures,"andtheMormonswiththeir"BookofMormon,"isfullyasbadastotakefromit.

TESTIMONYOFJESUSTOTHEOLDTESTAMENT

That Jesus considered the Old Testament fully inspired is abundantlyclear.Hequoteditassuch,andbasedHisteachingsuponit.OneofHiscleareststatementsisfoundinJohn10:35,where,incontroversywiththeJews, His defense takes the form of an appeal to Scripture, and afterquoting a statementHe adds the significant words, "And the Scripturecannotbebroken."ThereasonthatitwasworthwhileforHim,orthatitisworthwhileforus,toappealtoScripture,isthatit"cannotbebroken."Andthewordhere translated"broken" is thecommononeforbreakingthe law, or the Sabbath, meaning to annul, or deny, or withstand itsauthority.InthisstatementJesusdeclaresthatitisimpossibletoannul,orwithstand,ordenytheScripture.ForHimand for theJewsalike,anappeal toScripturewas anappeal to anauthoritywhosedeterminationwasfinaleventoitsminutedetails.

ThatJesusconsideredallScriptureastheverywordofGodisshowninsuch a passage asMatt. 19:4.When some of the Pharisees questionedHimonthesubjectofdivorceHisreplywas:"Haveyenotread,thathe

whomade them from the beginningmade themmale and female, andsaid, 'For this cause shall aman leavehis father andmother, and shallcleavetohiswife;andthetwoshallbecomeoneflesh....WhatthereforeGodhath joined together, letnotmanput asunder."HereHe explicitlydeclaresthatGodistheauthorofthewordsofGen.2:24:"Hewhomadethem...said,""Amanshallleavehisfatherandmother,andshallcleavetohiswife."AndyetaswereadthesewordsintheOldTestamentthereisnothingtotellusthattheyarethewordsofGod.TheyarepresentedonlyasthewordsofScriptureitselforofMoses,andcanbeassignedtoGodastheirAuthoronlyonthebasisthatallScriptureisHisword.Mark10:5-9and I Cor. 6:16 present the same teaching. Wherever Christ and theApostlesquoteScripture, they thinkof itas the livingvoiceofGodandthereforedivinelyauthoritative.TheyhavenottheslightesthesitationinassigningtoGodthewordsofthehumanauthors,orinassigningtothehumanauthorsthemostexpresswordsofGod(Matt.15:7;Mark7:6,10;Rom.10:5,19,20).

In His stinging rebuke to the Sadducees, "Ye do err, not knowing theScriptures"(Matt.22:29),theverythingwhichHepointsoutisthattheirerrorcomes,notbecausetheyhavefollowedtheScriptures,butpreciselybecause they have not followed them.Hewho founds his doctrine andpractice on Scripture does not err. So common was its use, and sounquestionablewas itsauthority, that in the fiercest conflictHeneedednootherweaponthanthefinal"Itiswritten"!(Matt.4:4,7,10;Luke4:4,8;24:26).HislastwordsbeforeHisAscensioncontainedarebuketothedisciples because they had not understood that all things which werewrittenintheentireScriptures"mustneedsbefulfilled"(Luke24:44).Ifitwaswritten that theChrist should suffer these things, then all doubtconcerningHimwasrenderedabsurd.Thedisciplesweretorestsecurelyon that word as on a sure foundation. Hence we receive the OldTestamentontheauthorityofChrist.Hehandsittousandtellsusthatitis theWordofGod, that theprophets spokeby theSpirit, and that theScripturescannotbebroken.ByHisnumerousquotationsHehasweldedittotheNewTestamentsothattheynowformoneunifiedBible.ThetwoTestamentshavebutonevoice.Theymuststandorfalltogether.

NEW TESTAMENT MANNER OF QUOTING THE OLD

TESTAMENT

IfJesusheldthattheentireOldTestamentwasinfallible, the idea isnolessclearlysetforthbytheApostles.ThefamiliarwayinwhichtheyquoteanypartoftheScripturesasthewordofGod,regardlessofwhethertheoriginalwordsareassignedtoHimornot,showsthatHewasconsideredasspeakingallthroughtheOldTestament.InHeb.3:7thewordsofthepsalmist arequotedas thedirectwords of theHoly Spirit, "Wherefore,evenastheHolySpiritsaith,Todayifyeshallhearhisvoice,Hardennotyourhearts,asintheprovocation"(Ps.95:7).InActs13:35thewordsofDavid(Ps.16:10)aresaidtohavebeenthewordsofGod,"He(God)saithinanotherpsalm,ThouwiltnotgivethyHolyOnetoseecorruption."InRomans15:11thewordsofthepsalmistareascribedtoGod,"Andagain(Hesaith),PraisetheLord,allyeGentiles;AndletallthepeoplespraiseHim" (Ps. 117:1). InActs4:24,25 theApostlesascribe toGod thewordsspokenbyDavidinthesecondpsalm,"God...whobytheHolySpirit,bythemouthofourfatherDavidthyservant,didstsay,WhydotheGentilesrage,Andthepeoplesimaginevainthings?"InHebrews1:7,8thesameteaching is found concerning two other psalms. In Romans 15:10 thewords of Moses are ascribed to God, "And again He saith, Rejoice, yeGentiles,withHispeople"(Deut.32:43).

These quotations show clearly that in the minds of Christ and theApostlestherewasanabsoluteidentificationbetweenthetextoftheOldTestamentandthevoiceofthelivingGod.Anditis,ofcourse,nottobeinferredthattheinspirationoftheNewTestamentisinanywayinferiortothatoftheOld.InfactthetendencyhasbeentoassignalowerpositiontotheOldTestament.WhentheOldTestament is showntobe inspiredthereisusuallynoquestionabouttheNew.

CLAIMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS FOR THEIR OWNWRITINGS

WhenweexaminetheclaimswhichtheNewTestamentwritersmakefortheir own works we find that they claim full inspiration for them andplace themon thesame levelwith theScripturesof theOldTestament.All schools of present-day Biblical criticism acknowledge that theseclaimswererepeatedlymade,eventhoughtheydenythat theyare true.

We find, for instance, thatwhen theApostlesbegan theirministry theyreceived fromChristHimself a promise of supernatural guidance: "Butwhentheydeliveryouup,benotanxioushoworwhatyeshallspeak:foritshallbegivenyouinthathourwhatyeshallspeak.Foritisnotyethatspeak,but theSpirit of yourFather that speaketh in you" (Matt. 10:19,20;Mark13:11;Luke12:11, 12).This samepromisewas repeatedat theclose of His ministry (Luke 21:12-15). Perhaps the most importantpromiseisfoundintheGospelofJohn:"WhenHe,theSpiritoftruth,iscome,He shall guide you into all the truth" (16:13). TheApostles laterclaimedthisguidance.Theyhavenottheleastshadowofdoubtastotheexacttruthoftheirwords,whetheronhistoricalordoctrinalmatters,--arather striking phenomenon, since accurate and truth-loving historianscommonlyexpressless,andnotgreater,assurancewhentheydescendtodetails. So authoritative does Paul claim his gospel to be that hepronounceswrong and accursed any one who teaches differently, eventhoughitbeanangelfromheaven."...Butthoughwe,oranangelfromheaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which wepreacheduntoyou,lethimbeanathema..."(Gal.1:6-9).Theircommandsare from the Lord, and are given with binding authority, "...the thingswhichIwriteuntoyou, that theyare thecommandmentof theLord"(ICor. 14:37,; II Thess. 3:6, 12). In writing to the Corinthians Pauldistinguishes between the commands which Christ gave, and thecommandswhichhegives,butplaceshisownalongsidethoseofChrist'sas of equal authority (I Cor. 7:10, 12, 40). He asserts that what theypreachedwasintruth"thewordofGod"(IThess.2:13).Suchthingsweretobeimmediatelyandunquestionablyreceived.WeshouldalsonoticehiseasywayofcombiningthebookofDeuteronomyandtheGospelofLukeunder the common head of "Scripture," as if that were amost naturalthingtodo(ITim.5:18):"FortheScripturesaith,Thoushaltnotmuzzletheoxwhenhe treadethout thecorn.And, the laborer isworthyofhishire"(Deut.25:4;Luke10:7).Thissamepracticewascommonamongtheearlychurchfathers.

InIITim.3:16(translatingtheGreekinitsmostnaturalsense)Paultellsusthat"AllscriptureisgivenbyinspirationofGod,andisprofitablefordoctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."This marginal translation, which has behind it the. authority of

Archbishop Trench, Bishop Wordsworth, and others of the RevisedVersionCommittee,aswellastheauthorityofthatprinceofexegetesandtheologians, Dr. Benjamin B.Warfield, is much to be preferred to therenderingoftheRevisedVersion,whichreads,"EveryscriptureinspiredofGod isprofitable,"etc.This latter translationhasbeen repudiatedbynumerousscholarsasa calamitousandhopelessly condemnedblunder,and even by some of the critics as false criticism. As Dr.Warfield haspointedout,theverytermintheGreek,theopneustos,meansnotthataproduct of human origin is breathed into by God, but that a DivineproductisbreathedoutbyGod.Itmeans"Godbreathed,""producedbythecreativebreathoftheAlmighty,""God-given."ThereisnoothertermintheGreeklanguagewhichwouldhaveassertedmoreemphaticallytheDivineoriginoftheproduct.

InthewritingsofPeterwefindthesamehighestimateofNewTestamentScripture.Hedeclares,forinstance,that"Noprophecyevercamebythewillofman:butmenspake fromGod,beingmoved (or literally,borne,carried along) by the Holy Spirit" (II Peter 1:21). He declares that theApostles "preached the Gospel... by the Holy Spirit sent forth fromheaven"(IPeter1:12).HeplacesPaul'swritingsonthesamehighplanewith"theotherscriptures"--"OurbelovedbrotherPaulalso,accordingtothewisdomgiventohim,wroteuntoyou;mallhisepistles...asalsotheother scriptures" (II Peter 3:15, 16). More dignity and reverence andauthoritythanthatcouldnotbeascribedtoanywriting.

Luke declares that on the day of Pentecost the disciples spoke "as theSpirit gave themutterance" (Acts 2:4). And John, the beloved disciple,evenpronouncesacurseonanyonewhodarestotakefromoraddtohiswriting (Rev. 22:18, 19). Such claims as these, if based only on humanauthority,wouldexhibitonlythemostastoundingimpudence.

It is,ofcourse, impossibletoexplainawaythe innumerable textswhichteachplenaryinspiration,andtheideathattheymightbeexplainedawayis based on the odd notion that this doctrine is taught only in isolatedtextshereand there. It is true that some texts teach itwithexceptionalclearness,andthosearetheoneswhichskepticswouldmostliketoberidof. But these passages are simply the climax of a progressive andpervasivetestimonytothedivineoriginandinfallibilityofthesewritings,

atestimonyequallystronginthetwoTestaments."Theefforttoexplainaway the Bible's witness to its plenary inspiration," says Dr. Warfield,"remindsoneofamanstandingsafely inhis laboratoryandelaboratelyexplaining -- possibly with the aid of diagrams and mathematicalformulae--howeverystoneinanavalanchehasadefinedpathwayandmayeasilybedodgedbyonewithsomepresenceofmind.Wemayfancysuchanelaboratetrifler'striumphashewouldanalyzetheavalancheintoits constituent stones, and demonstrate of stone after stone that itspathwayisdefinite, limited,andmayeasilybeavoided.Butavalanches,unfortunately, do not come upon us stone by stone, one at a time,courteouslyleavingusopportunitytowithdrawfromthepathwayofeachinturn:butallatonce,inaroaringmassofdestruction.Justsowemayexplain away a text or twowhich teachplenary inspiration, to ourownclosest satisfaction, dealing with them each without reference to itsrelationtotheothers:butthesetextsofours,again,unfortunatelydonotcomeuponusinthisartificialisolation;neitheraretheyfewinnumber.Therearescores,hundreds,ofthem;andtheycomeburstinguponusinonesolidmass.Explainthemaway?WeshouldhavetoexplainawaythewholeNewTestament.Whatapity it is thatwecannotseeand feel theavalancheoftextsbeneathwhichweliehopelesslyburied,asclearlyaswemayseeandfeeltheavalancheofstones!Letus,however,butopenoureyestothevarietyandpervasivenessoftheNewTestamentwitnesstoitshighestimateofScripture, andwe shallno longerwonder thatmodernscholarshipfindsitselfcompelledtoallowthattheChristianChurchhasreadherrecordscorrectly,andthatthechurch-doctrineofinspirationissimply a transcript of the biblical doctrine; nor shall we any longerwonder that the church, receiving these Scriptures as her authoritativeteacherofdoctrine,adoptedintheverybeginningofherlifethedoctrineof plenary inspiration, and has held it with a tenacity that knows nowavering,untilthepresenthour."

3.TheNatureoftheInfluencebyWhichInspirationisAccomplished

The evangelical Christian churches have never held what has beenstigmatized the "mechanical" theory of inspiration, despite the chargesoftenmadetothecontrary.InsteadofreducingthewritersofScripturetothe level of machines or typewriters we have insisted that, while theywroteorspokeastheyweremovedbytheHolySpirit,theyneverthelessremained thinking, willing, self-conscious beings whose peculiar stylesand mannerisms are clearly traceable in their writings. If their nativetongue was Hebrew, they wrote Hebrew; if it was Greek, they wroteGreek;iftheywereeducated,theywroteasmenofculture;ifuneducated,theywroteassuchmenwouldwrite.Wedonotseparatethedivineandhumanelements,butinsistthatthetwoareunitedinperfectharmonysothateverywordofScriptureisatoneandthesametimethewordofGodandalso thewordofman.Thewriters themselvesmake itplain that inthisprocessthedivineinfluenceisprimaryandthehumansecondary,sothat they are not somuch the originators but rather the receivers andannouncersofthesemessages.Hencewhattheywroteorspokewasnottobelookeduponasmerelytheirownproduct,butasthepureWordofGod,andforthatreasonitwastobereceivedandimplicitlyobeyed.

The fact that we can so easily trace the peculiar style or manner ofexpressionthroughthewritingsofPaulorJohnorMosesshowsthattheScriptures were given in a way which made allowance for humanpersonalities.IfitwereotherwisetheScriptureswouldthenbereducedtoadeadlevelofmonotony,andwewouldindeedhaveamechanicaltheoryof inspiration inwhich thewriterswere littlemore thanautomatons. Itlies in thevery ideaof inspirationthatGodwouldusetheagentswhichHeemploysaccordingtotheirindividualnatures.Onetypeofmanwouldbechosentowritehistory,anothertypetowritepoetry,andstillanothertype to set forth doctrines, although these functions might overlap insomewriters.Andbackofthatwearetorememberthatthroughouttheentire lifeof theprophetGod'sprovidentialcontrolhadbeenpreparinghimwiththeparticulartalents,educationandexperiencewhichwouldbeneeded for the message which he was to give. This providentialpreparation of the prophets, which gave them the proper spiritual,intellectual and physical background, must, indeed have had itsbeginning in their remote ancestors. The resultwas that the rightmenwere brought to the right places at the right times, and wrote the

particularbooksorgavetheparticularmessageswhichweredesignedforthem. When God wanted to give His people a history of their earlybeginnings, He prepared aMoses to write itWhen He wanted to givethemtheloftyandworshipfulpoetryofthepsalms,HepreparedaDavidwithpoetic imagination.AndsinceChristianity in itsverynaturewoulddemandlogicalstatement,HepreparedaPaul,givinghimalogicalmindandtheappropriatereligiousbackgroundwhichwouldenablehimtosetitforthinthatmanner.InthisnaturalwayGodsopreparedthevariouswritersofScripturethatwiththeappropriateassistanceofHisdirectingand illuminating Spirit they freely and spontaneously wrote what HewishedasHewishedandwhenHewished.Thustheprophetwasfittedtothemessage, and themessagewas suited to theprophet.Thusalso thedistinctiveliterarystyleofeachwriterwaspreserved,andeachwriterdidaworkwhichnooneelsewasequippedtodo.

OnsomeoccasionsinspirationamountedtolittleifanythingmorethanaprocessofdictationEndspokeandmanrecordedthewords:Gen.22:15-18;Ex.20:1-17;Is.43:1-28,etc.Onotheroccasionsthewritersfunctionedasthinkersandcomposerswithalloftheirnativeenergycomingintoplayas theydeliberated, recollectedandpouredout theirhearts toGod, theHolySpiritexercisingonlyageneralsupervisionwhichledthemtowritewhatwasneedful and to keep theirwritings free from error, e.g., Luke1:1-4;Rom. 1:1-32;Eph. 1:1-23, etc. In narrating simple historical factsand in copying lists of names or numbers from reliable sources thissuperintendence was at a mini mum. Perhaps in some instances theywerenotevenconsciousoftheSpirit'sdirectinginfluenceastheywrote.

Inthemain,however,wecansaythatthewordsoftheprophetsexpressnot merely something which has been thought out, inferred, hoped orfeared by them, but something conveyed to them,-- sometimes anunwelcome message forced upon them by the revealing Spirit. Theynaturallyshrankfromgivingmessageswhichforetolddestructionforthepeopleorforthenation.Yettheywerenotatlibertytosayeithermoreorless thanwhat had been given to them, for hewho is entrustedwith amessage fromtheKing isnotat liberty toomitorchangeanypartof itbut must give it out just as he has received it. Isaiah, for instance,immediatelyafterhisgloriousvisionandofficialappointment,wassent

with an unwelcome message to his country men, and was even toldbeforehand that the people would not hear, that the effect of hispreaching would be further rebellion and further hardening of theirhearts.Yethewasnotabletochangethemessage,butcouldonlyinquire,"Lord,howlong?"(Is.6:9-13).Ezekiel likewisewassenttoa rebelliouspeopleandwastoldthattheywouldnothear(3:4-11)Butwhethertheywould hear or whether they would forbear, they were to know that aprophet of the Lord had been among them (Ezek. 2:5). Much as theprophetmight like to speak otherwise, he could only give themessagewhichhadbeengiventohim.Ifthepeoplefailedtoheedthewarningtheresponsibilityrestedonthemselves(Ezek.33:1-ll).Theobjectivityof themessageisfurthershowninthatsometimestheprophetsthemselvesdidnotunderstandtherevelationswhichweregiventhroughthem(Daniel12:8,9;Rev.5:1-4).

Nor is the work of the Holy Spirit in inspiration to be considered anymoremysteriousthanHisworkinthespheresofgraceandprovidence.Thefirstexerciseofsavingfaithintheregeneratedsoul,forinstance,isatone and the same time awork induced by theHoly Spirit and a freelychosenactoftheperson.AndthroughouttheBiblethelawsofnature,thecourse of history, and the varying fortunes of individuals are everattributed to God's providential control. "Jehovah hathHis way in thewhirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of His feet,"Nahum 1:3. "HemakethHis sun to rise on the evil and the good, andsendeth rain on the just and the unjust," Matt. 5:45. "The Most Highrulethinthekingdomofmen,andgivethittowhomsoeverHewill,andsettethupoveritthelowestofmen,"Dan.4:17."ItisGodwhoworkethinyou both to will and to work, for His good pleasure," Phil. 2:13. "Theking'sheartisinthehandofJehovahasthewatercourses:HeturnethitwhithersoeverHewill,"Prov.21:1.

Inspirationmusthavebeensomewhatlikethetouchofthedriveronthereinsof the racing steeds.Thepreservationof the individual styles andmannerisms indicates as much. Under this providential control theprophetsweresogovernedthatwhiletheirhumanitywasnotsupersededtheirwords to thepeoplewereGod'swords andhavebeen accepted assuchbytheChurchinallages.

That thewriters of Scripture often used other documentsor sources inthecompositionoftheirbooksisapparenttoeventhecasualreader.Forinstance,thethirty-seventhchapterofIsaiahandthenineteenthchapterofIIKingsareexactlyalike.HenceIsaiahandthewriterofIIKingsmusthavehadaccesstothesamesourcematerials.ManyoftheaccountsinthedifferentGospelsaretoldinalmostidenticallanguage.Ifitbedefinitelyproven,forinstance,thatthePentateuchconsistsofdifferentpartswhichin turn are based on older documents, our doctrine of inspiration canaccept that view. In dealing with historical or legal data especially thewritersofScripturemayhaveusedsourcesasnaturallyasdopresent-daywriters,withthisdifference:thattheHolySpiritsupervisedtheirworkinsuch away that they selected out only thematerial whichGodwantedgiventothepeople,andsetforththatmaterialinsuchawaythatitwasfreefromerror.Wearenotsomuchconcernedwiththemethodbywhichtheywroteasweareaboutthevalueandauthorityoftheirfinalproduct.Themorenaturallyandthelessmechanicallythiswritingtookplace,thebetter.

It isnottobeexpectedthatweshouldgivea fullexplanationastohowthedivineandhumanagentsco-operatedintheproductionofScripture.Sufficeittosaythatinmostcasesitwassomethingmuchmoreintimatethanwhatiscommonlyknownas"dictation."Thetroublewithusisthatoftentimes we seek full explanations for those things which in theirdeeperaspects shouldonlybeadoredasmysteries, such as theTrinity,the atonement, the relationship between the sovereign of God and thefreedom of man, and the inspiration of the Scriptures. The modernistwith his naturalistic basis easily solves these problems by ignoring theDivine, but is unaware how superficial he is. Evangelicals have trulygrappledwiththeseproblems.TheyhaveacknowledgedboththeDivineand human elements and have brought about a partial solution whileconfessing that the human mind cannot fully comprehend the deepthingsofGod.

Itis,ofcourse,nottobeassumedthatinspirationrenderedtheprophetsomniscient. Their inspiration extended only to the contents of theparticular messages which were given through them. In matters ofscience, philosophy or history which were outside their immediate

purpose they stood on the same level with their contemporaries. Theywere preserved from error when speaking the Lord's message, butinspirationinitselfnomoremadethemastronomersorchemiststhanitmade them agriculturists. Many of themmay have believed with theircontemporaries that the sun moved around the earth, but nowhere intheir writings do they teach that it does. Paul could not err in histeachings, although he could not remember how many people he hadbaptizedatCorinth (ICor. 1:16).Wehavealreadyobserved thatDanielandJohndidnotfullyunderstandalltherevelationsgiventhroughthem.IsaacunwittinglypronouncedthepropheticblessingonJacobinsteadofhis favorite son Esau, and when he later discovered that he had beendeceived he was utterly unable to change it. whenMoses recorded thepromise that Abraham was to be the father of many nations, he littlerealized that in the later era all of the Gentile Christians were to beincludedinthatpromiseandthateventuallyitwouldembracethewholeworld(Gal.3:29;Eph.2:13,14;Rom.4:13;Acts13:17).

Nordoesthedoctrineofinspirationimplythatthewriterswerefreefromerror in their personal conduct. Moses wrote voluminously concerningtheearlyhistoryofIsraelandiscommonlyconsideredthegreatestoftheOldTestamentprophets;yetatthewatersofMeribahhetooktohimselftheglorywhichbelongedonlytoJehovah,andforthatoffensehewasnotpermittedtoenterthepromisedland(Nu.20:7-13).Balaamspokecertaingreat truths, and Saul was among the prophets. Peter likewise wasinfallibleasaspokesmanoftheLord,andyetonatleastoneoccasionhefell into serious error in his personal conduct and it was necessary forPaultoresisthimtotheface,forhestoodcondemned(Gal.2:11-14).

Furthermore, we find that inspiration was flexible enough to allow forsome personal matters, as when Paul asked Timothy to come to himshortlyandtobringhiscoatandcertainbookswhichhehadleftatTroas(IITim.4:13).ItincludespersonaladviceinregardtoTimothy'shealth,ITim. 5:23), and personal concern for the treatment accorded to thereturnedslaveOnesimus(Philemon1:10-16).

Hence we see that the Christian doctrine of inspiration is not themechanical lifeless process which unfriendly critics have oftenrepresentedittobe.Ratheritcallsthewholepersonalityoftheprophet

into action, giving full play to his own literary style and mannerisms,takingintoconsiderationthepreparationgiventheprophetinorderthathemightdeliveraparticularkindofmessage,andallowingfortheuseofotherdocumentsorsourcesofinformationasthesewereneeded.Ifthesefactswerekeptmoreclearlyinmindthedoctrineofinspirationwouldnotbe so summarily set aside nor so unreasonably attacked by otherwisecautiousandreverentscholars.

4.TheAllegedErrorsinScripture

One of the most distressing things in present-day churches is thatwhereasinthereligiousdebatesofearlierdaystheyusedtoargueaboutwhat theBiblesaid,never foramomentdoubting thatwhat it saidwastrue,groupswithinthevariouschurchesarenowarguingastowhetheror not the Bible is trustworthy. A short time ago the writer heard asermonbyaprofessorfromawell-knowntheologicalinstitutioninwhichhedeclaredthattheBiblecontainedhistorical,moralandliteraryerrors.This is a serious charge and if it could be proved it certainly woulddestroytheChristiandoctrineofinspiration.

ThattheBiblecontainssomestatementswhichweinourpresentstateofknowledge are not able to explain fully, is readily admitted. Ourknowledgeof theHebrewandGreek languages is bynomeans perfect.There are anumberofwordsor idioms, for instance,whichoccuronlyonceoronlyafewtimesinScripture,anditsometimeshappensthateventhebestscholarsarenotinfullagreementastotheirexactmeaning.

Itgivesusnolittlesatisfaction,however,toknowthatasscholarshipandarchaeological discovery have advanced the great majority of thesupposed"Biblicalerrors"whichweresoconfidentlyparadedbyskepticsand atheists a few decades ago have been cleared up. Today scarcely ashredoftheoldlistremains.ItgivesusevengreatersatisfactiontoknowthatdespiteallofthemercilessattackswhichthroughtheageshavebeenmadeontheBible,anddespiteallofthefiercelightofcriticismwhichso

long has been beating upon its open pages. not somuch as one singleerrorhasbeendefinitelyprovedtoexistanywhereintheBible.Withoutexceptionuptothepresenttimewheretheconflicthasbeenjoinedandthe verdict rendered the skeptic has been proved wrong and the Bibleright. Those supposed discrepancies remain today as only too readilyforgottenwarningsagainstthosewhointheireagernesstodoviolencetotheScripturedoctrineof inerrancy throwhistorical and literary cautiontothewinds.

It is to be noted further that the alleged errors have been for themostparttrivial.Innocaseshaveimportantdoctrinesorimportanthistoricalevents been in question. When fuller light is turned on them most ofthem,likeghosts,meltawayfromsight.Fewifanyofthemareanythingmore thanmistakeson thepartofcopyistsor translators;andcertainlynoonehasarighttosaythereareerrorsintheBibleunlesshecanshowbeyondreasonabledoubtthattheywereintheoriginalmanuscripts.

Thefewdifficultieswhichstillremainaresotrivialthatnooneshouldbeseriouslytroubledbythem.Thereiseveryreasonforbelievingthatwithadditionalknowledgetheytoowillbeclearedup.Itislittleexaggerationto say thaton thewhole theybearabout the same relation to theBiblethata fewgrainsof sandstonedetectedhereand there in themarbleofthe Parthenon bear to that building. In view of past experience it isimportanttokeepinmindthatthereisastrongpresumptionagainstanyofthembeingrealerrors,apresumptionwhichcanbemeasuredonlybythewholeweightofevidencewhichcanbebroughtforwardtoprovethattheBibleisafullytrustworthyguideinmoralandspiritualmatters.

WhenwerememberthattheBiblewasinprocessofbeingwrittenoveraperiodof about fifteenhundredyears, that some forty authors living indifferent ages with different points of view in life and' with diverseliterarytalentshadapartinitsproduction,thatthereligiousandpoliticalhistoryof thecountrywashopelesslycomplicated, and that confessedlyaccurateRomanhistorianshavesometimesfallenintoerrorinnarratingcontemporary events, the marvel is, not that there are a few thingsrecorded in the Bible which are difficult to understand, but that thenumberissofew.

EventhoughitbeadmittedthattheBiblecontainssomefewstatementswhichwe in our present state of knowledge arenot able to harmonize,thatshouldaffordnorationalgroundfordenyingthegeneraldoctrineofScripture infallibility. We have the word of Christ Himself that "theScripturecannotbebroken"(John10:35);andmorethanthatweshouldnotask.Inthematerialuniverseweseeevidencesofdesignsomanifold,anddiverse,andwonderful,thatthemindisdriventotheconclusionthatithasanintelligentAuthor.Andyethereandtherewefindmonstrosities.Thefactthatinourpresentstateofknowledgewearenotabletoexplainfullywhy snakes andmosquitoes andmalaria germswere createddoesnot prevent us from believing that the world had an intelligent andbenevolent Creator. Neither should the Christian give up his faith in afully inspiredBible just because he is unable toharmonize everydetailwithalloftheremainder.

PerhapsnootherscienceinrecenttimeshasdonesomuchtoconfirmtheBibleashasarchaeology.ThepatientworkofexplorersandexcavatorsinEgypt,Babylonia,AssyriaandPalestine,withtheirpicksandshovels,hasopenedvolumesof ancienthistory forus,givingusgraphicaccountsofthe languages, literature; institutions and religions of peoples who hadlongsincebeenforgottenexceptas theywere incidentallymentioned intheBible.Herewehavetherecordschiseledinstone,burntintotheclaybricktablets,recordedinonewayoranotheronthemonuments,tombs,buildings, papyrus and pottery. With out exceptions these discoveriesconfirmthetruthfulnessof theBible, - and timeafter time the theoriesandguessesofthedestructivecriticshavebeenprovedwrong.InfacttheenemiesoftheBiblehavemetnomorerelentlessfoethanthescienceofarchaeology. The evidence presented from this source is so impartial,unimpeachableandconclusive that it compelsacceptanceby friendandfoealike.

EXAMPLESOFALLEGEDERRORS

Space forbids us giving a detailed list of the "errors" which have beenpointedoutinScripture,yetourdiscussionwouldbeincompleteifwedidnotgivea fewexamples.At firstsightthereseemstobeacontradictionbetweenActs9:7andActs22:9concerningtheconversionofSaul.Intheformer it is said that themen who traveled with Saul heard the voice

which spoke to him,while in the latter it is said they did not hear thevoice.Thedifficulty is solved,however,by the fact that theGreekwordtranslated "voice" may also mean "sound" and is so translated in themarginal reference givenwithActs9:7.We conclude that themenwhowere traveling with Saul heard the sound, but did not understand thewords.

Ithasbeenonlyafewyearssincethedestructivecriticshadnothingbutscorn for anyone who accepted Luke's statements that the island ofCypruswasruledbya"pro-consul"(Acts13:7),andthatLysaniaswasacontemporary tetrarch with the Herodian rulers (Luke 3:1). Yet howquicklythescornwasforgottenwhenarchaeologicaldiscoveryvindicatedtheBiblicalstatements.

Whether in thehealingof the centurion's servant the centurion himselfwenttoJesusandaskedthathisservantbehealed,asMatthewleadsustobelieve(8:5),orwhetherhesentuntoHimeldersoftheJewsasLukesays(7:3),isallthesamesofarasthepointofthestoryisconcerned.Inour everyday language we ascribe to the person the thing which hisagentsorservantsdoathiscommand.

The accusation which Pilate wrote on the cross is given with slightvariationsby thedifferentGospelwriters: It appears, however, that theexplanationforthisistobefoundmainlyinthefactthattheaccusationwaswritten in three languages, inLatin,Greek andHebrew, that therewerevariationsintheoriginals,andthatat leastoneofthewritersmayhave given a free translation, there being no substantial difference forinstancebetweenMark'sstatement, "TheKingof theJews," andLuke'sstatement,"ThisistheKingoftheJews."

Whetherontheresurrectionmorningthestonewasrolledawayfromthetomb by human hands, as we might infer from the accounts given byMark,LukeandJohn(althoughtheyarecarefulnottosaythatitwasbyhumanhands, but only that the stonewas rolled away), orwhether anearthquakewasused toserve thepurposeasMatthewmore specificallytellsus(28:2),makesnodifferenceinregardtotheessentialpointofthestory thatChrist aroseandcame forth from the tombon thatmorning.Matthewhasgiven theaccount ingreaterdetail at thispoint, tellingus

thattheLordusedtheforcesofnaturetoaccomplishHispurpose,whiletheotherwritershavesimplyrecordedtheimportantreligioustruththatthe tomb was opened. It often happens that the sacred writers, likesecular writers, describe events from different points of view or withdifferent points of emphasis. In cases of this kind there is no morecontradictionbetweenthenarrativesthanthereis,forinstance,betweenfourphotographsofthesamehouse,.oneofwhichistakenfromthewest,another from the north, another from the east, and another from thesouth,althoughtheymaypresentquitedifferentviews.

Matt. 27:5 says that Judas brought hismoneyback to thepriests, thenwentoutandhangedhimself,whileActs1:18saysthatheobtainedafieldwithhismoney.Butweavingtogetherthetwofulleraccounts itappearsthatwhatreallyhappenedwasthatwhenthepriestsrejectedthemoneyJudasthrewitdowninthetempleandthenwentoutandhangedhimself.Butafterhistreacheryandsuicidesuchdisgraceattachedtohimthatnofriendsorrelativescametocareforthebodyandthatithadtobeburiedat public expense. The priests remembered that his money had beenbroughtback,thatitcouldnotbeputintothetreasurysinceitwasbloodmoney; and now that his body needed burial they very appropriatelydecidedtousethemoneytobuyaburialground,perhapstheveryfieldinwhichhehadcommittedsuicide.Henceheissaidtohaveobtainedafieldwiththerewardofhisiniquity,--notthathepersonallyboughtit,butthatitwaspurchasedwithhismoneyandhewasburiedinit.

Many critics claim that the reference to Jeremiah in Matt. 27:9 is anerror, and that the reference shouldhavebeen toZechariah (11:12, 13).This,however,seemstobeacaseof"SubsequentMention,"suchasActs20:35andJude14.MatthewsaysthatJeremiah"spoke"thesewords,andcertainlynoonecanproveotherwise.ApparentlyJeremiahspokethem,Zechariah wrote them down, and Matthew, under the guidance of theHoly Spirit, quoted them and assigned them to Jeremiah. PerhapsMatthew had other bookswhich assigned them to Jeremiah butwhichhave sincebeen lost.The fact thatMatthew'squotation isnotquite thesame as that found in Zechariah may also indicate that he possessedotherbooks.

It is sometimes said that in Gen. 36:31 the reference to the "king" (or

kings) who ruled over the children of Israel proves that the book ofGenesiswasnotwrittenbyMosesbut by some laterperson.Weare torememberhowever, thatMoseswasaprophet, that longbeforethisthepromisehadbeen given toAbraham that kingswould arise (Gen. 17:6;35:11), that Moses himself predicted the rise of kings in Israel (Deut.17:14-20),andthatinGen.36:31hesimplysaysthatkingswerereigninginEdombeforeanyhadyetariseninIsrael.

InregardtoEx.9:19itissometimesaskedhowtheEgyptianscouldhavehadanycattlelefttobekilledbythehail,whichwastheseventhplague,whenEx. 9:6declares that all of themhadbeen killed by themurrain,whichwasthefifthplague.Thisisexplained,however,bythefactthatthefifthplaguedidnotkillthe.cattlewhichbe longedtotheIsraelites,andthat during the time which had elapsed between the fifth and seventhplaguestheEgyptiansdoubtlesshadtakenpossessionofmanyofthose.

The fact that the Ten Commandments as given in Exodus 20:3-17 andDeut. 5:7-21 shows some variation in wording, or that in a number ofinstances where the New Testament writers have quoted from the OldTestament they have not given the exact words but only the generalmeaning, is no argument against verbal inspiration unless it can beproved that they intended to quote verbatim. A writer or speaker isentirely within his rights if he chooses to repeat his thoughts in asomewhat different form, and this is what the Holy Spirit has done.HumanlanguageatitsbestistooimperfecttoexpressthefullnessoftheDivineMind, and we should not limit theHoly Spirit to a stereotypedformofspeech.TheNewTestamentwritersareoftenmoreconcernedtogivethebasictruth,settingitforthwithvarietyandrichness,thantheyare to follow a stereotyped form. This consideration sets aside a largenumber of the contradictions which some critics profess to find in theBible. Furthermore, if we find a passage which is capable of twointerpretations,oneofwhichharmonizeswiththerestofScripturewhiletheotherdoesnot,wearedutyboundtoaccepttheformer.Whetherthestatement in question be in Scripture, in historical records, or in legaldocuments, theacceptedprincipleof interpretation is that themeaningwhichassumesthedocumenttobeself-consistentandreasonableistobepreferred to the onewhichmakes it inconsistent and unreasonable. To

actonanyotherbasisistoactwithprejudiceandtoassureerrorratherthantoprove it.Thecriticsof theBible,however,haveoftenbeenonlytoogladtoneglectthisrule.

Manyoftheso-called"moraldifficulties"oftheOldTestamentariseonlybecause people fail to take into consideration the progressive nature ofrevelation. Much more, of course, is expected of us who live in theChristianeraandwhohavethefulllightoftheNewTestamentthanwasexpectedofthosewholivedintheformerages.Heretoothereis"firsttheblade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear." Sometimesmisunderstanding arisesbecauseof failure todistinguishbetweenwhattheScripturesrecordandwhattheysanction.

Probablythemostseriousproblemsariseinregardtomatterssuchasthedestruction of the Canaanites, the imprecatory Psalms, thesubstitutionary doctrine of the atonement, and the doctrine of eternalpunishments.Wemaynotbeable to solveall thedifficulties connectedwiththese,buttheobjectionthattheyaremorallywrongproceedsontheassumption that there can be no such thing as retributive justice. Wemust remember, however, that while God is good and rewardsrighteousness,He isalso justandmost certainlypunishes sin,andthatthepunishmentof sin isasobligatoryonHimandreflectsHisgloryastruly asdoes the rewardingof righteousness.This is taught in theNewTestamentasclearlyas in theOld,and it isat thebasisof thedoctrinethatthepunishmentforoursinscouldnotsimplybecanceledbuthadtobelaidonChristifweweretobesaved.Furthermore,theOldTestamentteachesthatnotonlycertainindividualsbutsometimeswholetownsandtribesweresodegradedthattheywereacursetosocietyandunfittolive.Eventhereligionofsometribeswasdesperatelycorrupt,thatofBaalandAshtaroth, for instance, being accompanied by lascivious rites, thesacrificeofnewbornchildreninthefirebytheirparents,andthekissingoftheimagesoftheseheathengods.

The Old Testament attitude toward polygamy, divorce, slavery,intoxicants,andkindredthemes,isoftenridiculedbypresent-daycritics,butifseeninitspropersettingisitselfanargumentforthedivineoriginoftheBible.InregardtoalmostallsuchquestionswefindthatthedesignoftheBibleistosetforthbasicprincipleswhichshallbeapplicabletoall

peoplesandracesandinallagesratherthantogivespecificlawswhichwhilesuitedtoonetypeofpeopleundercertainsocialconditionsmightnot be equally suited to others. Themaking of specific laws governingsocialandcivilaffairsandsuitedtolocalconditionsisleftlargelytolaterlegislativebodies.ConsequentlythelawsoftheBiblearenotasspecificasmanypeoplewould like themtobe. In regard to theuseof intoxicants,forinstance,wecertainlyaretoldthat"Wineisamocker,strongdrinkabrawler;Andwhosoevererreth thereby isnotwise,"Prov.20:1; thatnodrunkardshallinheritthekingdomofGodICor.6:10;thatwearenottospendourmoney for thatwhich isnotbread, Is. 55:2; andmanyothersimilar statements. On the basis of these we should be able to framesuitablelegislationdealingwiththeliquortraffic.ThewisdomwhichtheBibleshowedindealingwiththoseevilsinaprimitiveage--givinglawsandprincipleswhichregulatedthem,andinregulatingdestroyedthem--isstrongevidenceinitselfthatthelawisofsuperhumanorigin.

THEBIBLEANDSCIENCE

TheBible,ofcourse,wasnotwrittenfromthescientificpointofview,andthepersonwhoattemptstodealwithitasifitwereatextbookonsciencewill be badly disappointed. Written long before the rise of modernscience,itwasintendedprimarilynotforscientistsandintellectualsbutforthecommonpeople.Its languageis thatof thecommonpeople,anditssubjectmatterisprimarilyreligiousandspiritual.Haditbeenwrittenin the language of modern science or philosophy it would have beenunintelligible to the people of earlier ages, and in fact would also beunintelligibletomultitudesinourownday.Moreover,whilewecertainlyhavenodesiretodisparagethescientificaccomplishmentsofourdaybutwishrather toaccept themanduse themto the full,wemustpointoutthat textbooks on science have to be rewritten at least once everygeneration and that so rapidly is scientific research progressing in ourdaythatmostbooksonscientificsubjectsareobsoletewithintenyears,ButintheBiblewehaveaBookwhichhashadnorevisionformultipliedcenturiesandwhichappealstotheheartandintelligenceofpeopletodayasstronglyasithaseverdoneinthepast.ThosewhogototheBibleforspiritualandintellectualinspirationfinditasfreshandinspiringasifithadbeenwrittenbutyesterday.

OneofthemostmarvelousthingsabouttheBibleisthatalthoughitwaswritten in a day of ancient ignorance and superstition it does I notcontainthepopularerrorsandfallaciesofthatday.MosesastheCrownPrinceofEgyptattendedthebestoftheirschoolsand"wasinstructedinall the wisdom of the Egyptians" -- most of which is considered purenonsensetoday--buthedidnotwritethat inhisbooks.Theweirdandfantastic theories held by the Egyptians concerning the origin of theworldandofmanwerepassedovercompletely;andinthefirstchapterofGenesisinmajesticlanguagewhichhasneverbeensurpassedtothisdayhe gives an account of God's creation of the world and of man, nostatementofwhichisdisprovedbymodernscience.Otherprophetswhowere incontactwith theChaldeanandBabyloniansciencewereequallyguided so that while personally they may have believed many thingswhich were erroneous they wrote only what was in harmony with thetruth.

Someoftheprophetsmayhavebelieved,forinstance,thattheworldwasflat.Butnowhere in theirwritingsdotheyteachus that it is flat.Whenthey speak of the sun rising and setting, or of the four corners of theearth, or of the ends of the earth,we arenot to take those expressionsliterally. We use the same expressions today, but we do not mean toalarm that the sun goes around the earth, or that the earth is fiat orrectangular. In our everyday speech we often describe things as theyappear,ratherthanastheyareknowntobe.Andwhileskepticsasaclassare ever ready to affirm that the Bible teaches that the world is Hat,hardlyonecanbefoundwhoishonestenoughtoquotetheoneparticularverse inwhich theBibledoesmakea statement about the shapeof theearth.IndescribingthegreatnessandmajestyofGodIsaiahsaysthat"Hesitteth above the circle of the earth," - the Hebrew word translated"circle" literally means "roundness" (40:22). Nor are the skeptics anymoreanxioustoquoteJob'sstatementwhenincontrastwiththepopularideas of his dayhewrote, "He stretcheth out the north over the emptyspace,Andhangeththeearthuponnothing"(26:7).

Intheyear1861theFrenchAcademyofSciencepublishedalistoffifty-one so-called scientific facts, each of which, it was alleged, disprovedsomestatementintheBible.TodaytheBibleremainsasitwasthen,but

notoneofthosefifty-oneso-calledfactsisheldbymenofscience.

Distinctionshouldalwaysbemadebetweenthespeculationsintherealmofscienceanditsclearlyprovenfacts.Thespeculationsofscienceareliketheshiftingcurrentsofthesea,whiletheScriptureshavebreastedthemliketherockofGibralterfortwothousandyears.TheBiblehasnotbeenshown to contradict so much as one proven fact of science; on thecontrary the account which it presents of the origin and order of theworld,ascontrastedwiththatfoundinotherancientbooks,correspondswith the findings of modern science to a degree that is perfectlymarvelous.TheconflictwhichsomepeoplesupposetoexistbetweentheBibleandsciencesimplydoesnotexist.

Perhapstheprimaryreasontherehasbeensomuchconfusionregardingtherelationshipbetweenreligionandscienceisthefailureonthepartofsomanypeopletodiscriminatebetweenfactsandopinions.Truesciencedealsonlywithestablishedfacts;opinionsmaybeasvariedasthepeoplewho express them. Organic evolution, for instance, as it is usually setforthrulesoutthesupernaturalandcontradictstheBible.Butitmustberememberedthatorganicevolutionisnotscience,butonlya theory,anhypothesis.Notoneofthefiveargumentsusuallyadvancedtosupportitissound,andmanydistinguishedscientistsdonotbelieveinthetheoryoforganicevolutionbut in fiat creation as taught in theBible.Aministerwhohasnotstudiedsciencehasnorighttoinvadethedomainofscienceand speak freely about it. Neither does a scientist who has had noexperience in themotivating and regeneratingpowerof theHolySpirithaveanyrighttoinvadethefieldofreligionandspeakfreelyaboutthat.Therehavebeennumerous instances inrecentyearswhereoutstandingscientists,withno special religious training, havepresumed towrite orspeak theirminds quite freely on religious subjects. But their opinionsconcerningreligionareworthnomorethanarethoseofanyotherperson-forthesimplereasonthattheyareassumingtospeakconcerningthingsoutsideoftheirlegitimatefield.Themerefactthatamanisanauthoritywithin his own field does not entitle him to speak authoritatively onsubjects outside of that field. True religion and true science nevercontradict each other but individualministers and individual scientistswilldifferendlessly.Sciencehasindeeddonemanymarvelousthings.But

its domain is strictly limited to the material side of life. It has noauthoritytospeakconcerningspiritualthings.WhereithasbeenmadeasubstituteforreligionithasinvariablyturnedouttobeafalseMessiah.

TherelationshipbetweentheBibleandsciencehasbeenquiteclearlysetforthbyDr.SamuelG.Craiginthefollowingparagraph:

"It is one thing to say that the Scriptures contain statements out ofharmony with the teachings of modern science and philosophy and adistinctlydifferent thing to say that they containprovederrors.Strictlyspeaking there is no modern science and philosophy but onlymodernscientistsandphilosophers--whodifferendlesslyamongthemselves.Itis only on the assumption that the discordant voices of present-dayscientistsandphilosophersaretobeidentifiedwiththevoiceofScienceandPhilosophy thatwearewarranted in saying that theBible containserrors because its teachings do not always agree with the teachings ofthese scientists and philosophers. Does any one really believe thatScienceandPhilosophyhaveyetreached,evenapproximately,theirfinalform?Mayitnotratherbecontendedthattheyaresofarremovedfromtheir ultimate form that if the teachings of the Bible were in completeharmonywithpresent-dayscienceandphilosophyitisaltogethercertainthattheywouldbeoutofharmonywiththescienceandphilosophyofthefuture?If,forexample,theanti-supernaturalismofthedominantscienceandphilosophyoftodayistobecharacteristicofscienceandphilosophyintheirfinalforms,then,unquestionablytheBiblecontainsmanyerrors.Who, however, is competent to assert that this will be the case? Butunless it is certain that the scienceandphilosophyof the futurewillbeessentiallyonewiththedominantscienceandphilosophyoftoday,wegobeyond theevidencewhenwesay that theBiblecontainsprovederrorsonthegroundthat its teachingscontradict the teachingsofpresent-dayscientistsandphilosophers"(ChristianityRightlySoCalled,p.217).

5.TheTrustworthinessoftheBible

Afterasurveyoftheallegederrorsanddiscrepancies,includingnotonlythetypicalonesjustmentioned,butalsomanyothers,weassert,withoutfearofsuccessfulcontradiction,thatnooneoftheseisreal.AsChristianswe call this book the "HolyBible." But if itwere only a relatively goodbook, setting forth many valuable moral and spiritual truths, but alsocontainingmanythingswhicharenottrue,wewouldthenhavenorighttoapplytoittheadjective"holy."Itwouldthenbeonalevelwithotherbooks,andwoulddifferfromthemnotinkindbutonlyindegree.

But howdifferent is our attitude toward itwhenwe approach it as theverywordofGod,an inspired, infallibleruleof faithandpractice!Howreadilyweacceptitsstatementsoffactandbowbeforeitsenunciationsofduty!Howinstinctivelywetremblebeforeitsthreatenings,andrestuponitspromises!Asweproclaim thewordof life from thepulpit, or in theclassroom;asweattempttogivecomfortatsomebedofsickness,orinabereaved home; or as we see our fellow men struggling againsttemptation or weighed down with care, and would give themencouragement andhope for thisworld and the next, how thankfulwethenareforafullytrustworthyBible!Insuchcaseswewanttoknowthatwe have not merely something that is probable or plausible, butsomethingthatissure.

WhatmightbecalledTheLawofAncientDocuments,generallyacceptedby scholars in the study of either religious or secular books, is that"Documentsapparentlyancient,notbearingupontheirfacethemarksofforgery,andfound inpropercustody,arepresumed tobegenuineuntilsufficient evidence is brought to the contrary." Now we submit thatjudgedbythisprinciplethebooksofboththeOldandtheNewTestamentarewhattheyprofesstobeandthattheyshouldbeacceptedatfacevalue.We are confident that when the critics are through, when the battle isoverandthesmokehasallbeenclearedaway, thebooksof theBible, iftheycouldbut speak,wouldsay tousWhatPaulSaid to thePhilippianjailor:"Dothyselfnoharm:formeareallhere."

Itseemsratherdifficultatfirsttounderstandwhysomanypersonshavebusied themselves topoint out errors in theBible.Butwhenwe look alittlemorecloselywefindthatthisisabookwhichjudgesmenandpointsoutthesinoftheheart.Unconvertedmandoesnotlikethis,andwould

muchprefertoreadanewspaperorasensationalnovel.Anaccountofatrial inoneof our criminal courts interestshimagreatdealmore thandoesachapterintheNewTestament.Andsincehedoesnotliketohavethetruthtoldabouthimselfandtheworld inwhichhe lives,he tries topickflawsintheblessedBook.Thereasonthathecannotleaveitaloneisthatitdoesnotleavehimalone.Infidelsineveryageandfromeveryclasshave labored hard to find out some errors which would convict theScripturesof falsehood.They findnopleasure inpointingout errors inVirgil,orCicero,orShakespeare;buttheBibletheycannotendure.And,sadtosay,thedeterminedenemiesoftheWordaretobefoundnotonlyin the ranks of the vulgar and coarse, but also among the refined andcultured.Timeand again thosewhohavenothing else in commonwill,nevertheless,agreeintheirdeterminedoppositiontotheBible.

TESTIMONYOFOUTSTANDINGSCHOLARS

In modern times there are, of course, many scholars who for variousreasons attempt to discredit the written word. They usually begin byattackingtheOldTestamentandthencarrytheirattackoverintotheNewTestament. We are glad to say, however, that there are many otherscholarsofatleastequallearningandskillwhodeclarethattheBible isfully reliable. The late Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield. who for thirty-threeyears was Professor of Systematic Theology in Princeton TheologicalSeminary,was,webelieve,thegreatestsystematictheologianandGreekscholarthatAmericahasproduced.Afterhavingexaminedtheevidenceon which the destructive critics base their conclusions he had nohesitationwhatever inpronouncingthatevidenceutterlyworthless,andindeclaringthattheBiblefromGenesistoRevelationiswhatitclaimstobe, the veryword ofGod.His recently published book, Revelation andInspiration, is undoubtedly the best book on the subject.' The SundaySchoolTimeshadabundantreasonforpronouncingit"themostlearned,exhaustiveandconvincingdefenseof theverbal inspirationof theBiblewhichhasappearedinmoderntimes,"andinaddingthat"Dr.Warfield'sacquaintancewith sources, andhis pointing out errors of opponents inquoting sources, seems fairly uncanny. If this bookwerewidely read itwould serve as adecisive checkupon themanyvagariesof 'inspiration'withwhichthebelieverisnowconfronted."

InregardtotheOldTestamentwefeelreasonablysafe inassertingthatno greater authority has arisen in modern times than Dr. Robert D.Wilson. Possessed of a working knowledge of forty-five languages anddialects,andprobablyknowingmoreabout theOldTestamentthandidanyotherman,hisconclusionwassetforthinthefollowingwords:"Forforty-fiveyearscontinuouslyIhavedevotedmyselftotheonegreatstudyoftheOldTestamentinall itslanguages,inall itsarchaeology, inall itstranslations,and,sofaraspossible,everythingbearinguponitstextandhistory... The evidence in our possession has convinced me that 'atsundrytimesandindiversmannersGodspakeuntoourfathersthroughtheprophets,'andthattheOldTestamentinHebrew,'beingimmediatelyinspiredbyGod,'has'byHissingularcareandprovidencebeenkeptpurein all ages'." Dr. Wilson's book, A Scientific Investigation of the OldTestament,inwhichhisevidenceandconclusionsaresetforthinsimpleand convincing language, and a more recent book, The Five Books ofMoses, by Dr. Oswald T. Allis, who probably is the outstanding OldTestamentscholarofthepresentday,shouldbereadbyeverypersonwhowouldbewellinformedconcerningthesematters.

TheworldstillawaitsatheorywhichwillrenderanadequateaccountoftheoriginandauthorityoftheBibleonanyotherhypothesisthanthatitcame from God. One after another of the theories which have beenadvancedhavefallenoftheirownweightorhavebeendisprovedbyotherdestructiveschemes.Uptodatenohypothesisexceptthatofdivineoriginhas been able tomaintain itself for asmuch as half a century. This initself isaconfessionthattheoriginofthebookcannotbeaccountedforbyanyothermeansthanthatgivenbytheprophetsthemselves.Norhavewe reason to believe that any more successful theory will arise in thefuture.Hence the only rational course for us to follow is to accept theBibleforwhatitprofessestobeuntilwecanaccountforitbysomeothermeans.

It is interesting to note that down through the ages the orthodoxChristianfaithhasbeendevelopedandsetforththroughthereverentandpatientandanxiouscareoftheOrigensandAugustines,theLuthersandCalvins, the Hodges and Warfields, who believed the Bible to be fullyinspired, andnot by thePelagians and Socinians, theWellhausens and

Fosdicks, with their superficial doubts as to whetherMoses or Paul orevenChrist and the apostlesmeant verymuch bywhat they said.Maythereneverbeoccasionforpeopletosayofuswhatwassaidofthoseofoldtime,thatwereceivedthewordofGodasitwasordainedbyangels,andkeptitnot.

GROUNDS FOR OUR BELIEF THAT THE BIBLE ISINFALLIBLE

When we assert that the Bible is completely trustworthy whether asregards its factual,doctrinalorethical representations,wedonotmeanthatwehavepersonallyexaminedeachandeverystatementoftheBiblewithsuchcarethatwefeeljustifiedinassertingthattheyarealltrue,nordo we imply that we are possessed of omniscience. We reach thatconclusionby firstnoting theclaimswhich theBiblemakes for its owninspiration and trustworthiness, and then testing those claims by thefactswhicharegivenusthroughBiblicalcriticismandexegesis.Inviewofthemanyevidenceswhichsubstantiatethisclaim,suchastheloftymoraland spiritual level which is maintained through out the book, thepromisedguidanceof theHolySpirit, themanyprophecieswhichweremade in certain ages and fulfilled in detail in later ages, the inherentunity of the book, the simple and unprejudiced manner in which theaccounts are given, etc., and in the absence of any proved errors, weconcludethattheBibleiswhatitclaimstobe,afullyinspiredbook.Thisseemstobetheonlylogicalandproperwaytoapproachtheproblem.Ifwereject thismethod, then, inorder toarriveataconclusion,wemustmakea comprehensiveexaminationof everypartofScripture, taking itversebyverse,statementbystatement,andproveitstruthorfalsity.Butifweattemptthismethodit isnotlonguntilwecomeupagainstthingshard to understand, statements concerning which we do not haveadequate information, and prophecies which are as yet unfulfilled.Wesoonfindourselves,likecertainpersonsofold,wrestingtheScripturestoourownintellectualdestruction.

The position of Conservative scholarship concerning this question hasbeen presented clearly and convincingly by Dr. Samuel G. Craig. Afterstating that "the Bible bears witness to its own complete trustworthiness," he adds: "If that were not the case, the most we could

possibly say would be that the Bible is without proved errors. That isobvious when it is remembered that even the latest parts of the Biblewere written nearly two thousand years ago, that the Bible as a wholedeals with periods of history with which at best we are imperfectlyinformed,that itrelatesthebeliefsandexperiencesofmanyindividualsofwhomwe know but little, that it contains representations alleged tohave been supernaturally revealed, including many predictions not yetfulfilled--not tomentionothermatters.Noone,noteven thegreatestscholar,hasevenafractionofthatknowledgethatwouldberequiredtowarranthim inaffirming,on thebasis ofhis knowledge alone, that theBibleisfreefromerror.Thecase,however,isquitedifferent,itseemstous, if testimonyof theirowncomplete trustworthiness is itself apartofthe phenomena of Scripture. Then the way is open to assert theircompletetrustworthinesswithout firstprovingauniversalnegative.Wewould not be understood as implying that themere fact that the Bibleclaims infallibility relieves us of the responsibility of examining itspassages to ascertain whether its contents accord with the claim.However, if the Bible makes this claim and if even the most carefulexaminationof its contentsdisclosesnothing that contradicts it, it is atleastpossiblethattheclaimisavalidclaim.IfonexaminingtheBiblewefindthatall itsstatements thatweareable toverifyare trustworthywewill bemore andmoredisposed tobelieve that the statements that areincapableofverificationarealsotrustworthy.Ourwarrant, inbrief, forassertingtheinerrancyoftheBibleis(1)theabsenceofprovederrorsand(2)thewitnesswhichtheBiblebearstoitsowncompletetrustworthiness.(Italicsours.)OurconfidenceinthetrustworthinessofthewritersoftheBibleissuchthatwefeelfullywarrantedinacceptingtheirstatementsastrueevenwhenwehavenomeansofverifyingthem."Andagain,"WearedependentontheScripturesforourknowledgeofallthedistinctivefactsanddoctrinesofChristianity. Ifwecannot trust themwhen they tellusabout themselves, how can we trust them when they tell us about thedeity of Christ, redemption in His blood, justification by faith,regeneration by the Holy Spirit, the resurrection of the body and lifeeverlasting?"(ChristianityRightlySoCalled,p.226).

Furthermore, the importanceof the testimonyof theScriptures to theirowntrustworthinessisnotfullyrealizedunlesswekeepinmindthefact

thatthetrustworthinessofChristisequallyinvolved.Inthewords,"TheScripturecannotbebroken,"and"Tillheavenandearthpassaway,onejotoronetittleshallinnowisepassawayfromthelawuntilallthingsbeaccomplished," He ascribed absolute authority to the Scriptures of theOld Testament as an organicwhole andmade them the rule of life. Atthese points there is no question about the purity of the Greek text.Repeatedly He quoted the Scripture as final. Hence the authority ofScripture and the authority of Christ are inseparably connected. Thereare some, of course,whobowbe foreHim and rejoice inHim as theirLordandMasterwhileat thesametimetheyascribenotonlyhistoricalbut moral faults to the Scriptures. But such an inconsistent attitudecannot long be maintained. It seems absurd that we should be at thesame time His worshipers and His critics. Only ignorance or lack ofthoughtmakesitpossibleforanypersontosupposethathecanremainorthodoxinhisconceptionofJesuswhileacceptingmanyoftheviewssetforthby thedestructive critics.Whenwe reach theplacewherewe say,"Jesustaughtsoandso,buttherealtruthofthematteristhusandthus,"wesimplycannotanylongerworshipHimasLordandMaster.Hencethequestion,"WhatthinkyeofChrist?whosesonisHe?"iscloselyparallelto the question, What think ye of the Bible? whose book is it?Investigation convinces us that the Bible, like the Christ which it setsforth,istrulyhumanandtrulydivine.AsHewastrueman,inallpointstemptedlikeasweare,yetwithoutsin,becausealsodivine,sotheBibleisa truly human book, written by men like ourselves, yet without error,becausealsodivine.

WhenwesaythatinspirationextendstoallpartsoftheBiblewedonotmean to say that all parts are equally important. It is readily admittedthatGenesis,orMatthew,orRevelation,forinstance,isofmuchgreaterimportancethanSecondChronicles,orHaggai,orJude.AsPaultellsus,"Onestardifferethfromanotherstaringlory,"--yetGodmadethemall.Inthehumanbodysomeorgansareofvastlygreatervaluethanothers,theeyesorheart, for instance,ascomparedwiththefingers,ortoes,orhair.Infact,wecanevendowithoutcertainorgansifnecessary,althoughawholebody ismuchmorenormal,healthyanddesirable.And so it iswiththeBible;notallpartsareequallyvaluable,butallpartsareequallytrue.

And further,wedonotmean to say thathad therebeenno inspirationthere could have been no Christianity. We readily admit that had thewritersofScripturebeenshutup to theirunaided faculties,asordinaryhistorians and teachers, they might, nevertheless, have given us fairlytrue and accurate accounts of the messages they received and of theevents which took place, and that Christianity might have continued,althoughnodoubtinagreatlyimpoverishedform.EveniftheBibleasabookhadbecomecompletelylosttheessentialtruthsconcerningthewayof salvationmight have been handed down to us with some degree ofpurity. But to what uncertainties, and doubts, and errors constantlybegettingworseerrors,wewouldthenhavebeenexposed!Thatwewouldthen have had only a very weak and diluted form of Christianity willhardlybedenied.ToseewhatourfatewouldhavebeenweneedonlylookatsuchgroupsastheRomanCatholicorGreekCatholicChurch,orattheNestorianorCopticchurchesyes,andatpresentdayModernismwithitsuntrustworthyBibleand its endless confusion. In the first two of thesechurches the people have been denied access to the Scriptures; in theothertwotheyhavehadtheScripturesbutwithalargemixtureoferror.Without theBible, then,wemight stillhavehada formofChristianity;but,0,howmuchpoorerweshouldhavebeen!Whataprivilege it is tohaveinourhandsabookeverylineofwhichwasgivenbyinspirationofGod!--tohaveadivinelygivenhistoryofthepast,thepresent,andthefuture!Whocanestimate"arightsuchaprivilegeasthis?Asamatterofpracticalexperiencethestrongestsinglefactormakingforthepersistenceof true Christianity and of righteousness in general down through theages has been a fully trustworthy Bible in the hands of the commonpeople.

WebelievethattheBibleaswenowhaveitiscomplete,andthatnonewbooksareevertobeadded.WebelievethisbecausetheBiblegivesusasufficiently clear account of the relationship which exists between Godandmen,andofGod'splanofredemptionasithasbeenworkedoutbyChristandasitisnowbeingappliedtoHispeoplebytheHolySpirit.ThisistheviewsetforthintheWestminsterConfession:"Thewholecounselof God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man'ssalvation, faith,and life, iseitherexpresslysetdowninScripture,orbygoodandnecessary consequencemay be deduced fromScripture: unto

whichnothingatanytimeistobeadded,whetherbynewrevelationsoftheSpiritortraditionsofmen."

It should be kept in mind that the Protestant doctrine concerning theinspirationandauthorityofScripturediffersconsiderablyfromthatheldby theRomanCatholicChurch.TheCouncilofTrent,whichmet in theItalian city by that name and which concluded its sessions in the year1653, set standards that the Roman Catholic Church has held quiteconsistentlyeversince.ItaffirmedthedivineinspirationandauthorityofScripture,butwithsomereservations.ItdeclaredthattheVulgate,whichwasSt.Jerome'sLatintranslationoftheBible,andwhichwascompletedintheyear405,wasthe"authentic"textofScripture,andthat"nooneisto dare or to presume to reject it under any pretext whatever."Furthermore, and more important, it introduced a fundamentallydifferent estimate of the place of authority in religion, and of religionitself,whenitputalongsideoftheScripturesasofequalauthoritycertaintraditionsofthechurch,consistingmainlyofdecreesissuedbythepopesand by church councils, and declared that the church alone was to beacknowledged as "the judge of the true sense and interpretation of theHoly Scriptures." This, of course, puts the final authority for theinterpretation of Scripture in the hands of fallible and sinfulmen, andopenswidethefloodgatetoallkindsoferror.

6.ThePlenaryInspirationoftheBible

INCONSISTENTPOSITIONOFTHEMODERNISTS

We have already said that so-called Modernists or Liberals have noconsistentstoppingplace.Theymusteithergoclearover to rationalismand barren negation, or theymust turn back again to an authoritativeScripture.ThehistoryofProtestantLiberalismshowsusverydearlythatithashadextremedifficultyinmaintainingitselfevenontheplatformoftheism, to say nothing of that of Christianity. Its tendency has beenconstantlydowngrade,aprogressiverepudiationofallthefundamentals

of the Christian faith. The Modernist, if he proceeds logically in thedirectionwhich his premises carry him, denies, first, the inspiration ofthe Scriptures, then the miracles, then the deity of Christ, then theatonement,thentheresurrection,andfinally,ifhegoestotheendofhisroad, he ends up in absolute skepticism. New England Unitarianismaffordsanexampleofthisverything.Strangeasthewordsmaysoundinourears,itisnotuncommoninsomeplacesinAmericatodaytohearthe"atheistic shade"ofmodern theology spokenof.There is, unfortunatelyforsome,ahappyconsistencyintheprocessesofreasonwhichdrivesthevariousphilosophicalandreligioussystemstotheirlogicalconclusions.

Practicallyallevangelicalchurchesrequirethosewhoareordainedtotheministry to takeapublic vow that theyaccept theBibleas theWordofGod.InthePresbyterianChurch,U.S.A.,forinstance,everyministerandelder at his ordination solemnly vows before God and men that he"believestheScripturesoftheOldandNewTestamentstobetheWordofGod,theonlyinfallibleruleoffaithandpractice."(Italicsours.)(FormofGovernment, XIII:IV; XV:XII.) Since this confession is thoroughlyevangelical it means that none but evangelicals can honestly andintelligently accept this ordination. A Modernist has not the slightestright to be a minister or elder in an evangelical church, and anyModernist who does become such lacks goodmorality as well as goodtheology. To declare one thing while believing the contrary is hardlyconsistent with the character of an honest man. And yet while ourordinationvowsaresothoroughlyevangelical,howmanythereareevenamongtheministersofourchurcheswhoeitherdenyorpasslightlyoverthisbasicChristiantruth,theinfallibilityoftheScriptures!

SometimesthosewhoholdalowviewofinspirationattempttoevadetheissuebymerelysayingthattheBiblecontainsthewordofGod.Thislooseformula, however, means practically nothing. A river in India, "rollingdownitsgoldensands,"certainlycontainsgold.Butjustwhattherelativeproportion is between the sand and the gold may be very hard todetermine. If the Bible only contains the Word of God, as even theModernist iswilling to admit, then certainly itmay lackagreatdealofbeinginfallible,andwearethenlefttothemerciesof"HigherCriticism,"or to our own individual opinions, as to just which elements are the

wordsofGodandwhichareonlythewordsofman.

As Dr. Clarence E. Macartney has recently said, "Those who havedepartedfromfaithinaninfallibleBiblehavemadedesperate,bututterlyvain efforts, to secure a suitable substitute and other standing ground.Butastimegoesby,thepathetichopelessnessof thiseffort ismoreandmore manifest. Such catchwords as 'progressive revelation,' 'personalexperience,''devotiontothetruth,'etc.,areonebyonebeingcastintothediscard. Modernism and Liberalism, by the confession of their ownadherents, are terribly bankrupt, nothing but 'cracked cisterns,' intowhichmen lower in vain their vessels for thewater of life. There is noplausible substitute for an inspired Bible. No one can preach with thepower and influence of himwho draws a sword bathed in heaven, andwhogoesintothepulpitwitha'ThussaiththeLord'backofhim...Whenman faces the overwhelming facts of sin, passion, pain, sorrow, death,and thebeyond-death, the glib andeasyphrasesof currentModernismand flippant Liberalism are found to be nothing but a broken reed.Therefore,hewhopreacheshistoricChristianityandtakeshisstanduponadivinerevelationhas,amidthestormsandconfusionsanddarknessofourpresentday,anincomparableposition....Therearenotwantingsignstoday thatmenwill return to theHoly Scripture, to drink again of theWaterofLifeandstrengthentheirsoulswiththeBreadofLife,andthataprodigal Church, sick of the husks of the far country,will return to itsFather'shouse."

Those who reject the Church doctrine of inspiration in favor of somelowered form have never been able to agree among themselves as towhichpartsoftheBibleareinspiredandwhicharenot,ortowhatextentanypartisinspired.Ifthishighdoctrineofverbalinspirationisrejected,there is no consistent stopping place short of saying that the Scripturewriterswere inspiredonlyaswasShakespeare,orMilton,orTennyson;and in fact some of the critics have consistently followed out theirpremisesandhavereachedthatconclusion.Wesubmit,however,thatiftheothermiracles recorded inScripturebe accepted there isno logicalreasonforrejectingthemiracleofinspiration,forinspirationissimplyamiracleintherealmofspeakingorwriting.Mostoftheobjectionswhicharebroughtagainstthedoctrinetodaycanbetracedmoreorlessclearly

totheassumptionthatthesupernaturalisimpossible.

ASSURANCETHATTHEBIBLEISTHEWORDOFGOD

Thequestionnaturallyarises,Howarewe toknowthat theBible is theWord of God? We reply: By the fitness of the Holy Spirit within ourheartsasweread.As theChristianreads theBiblehe instinctively feelsthatGodisspeakingtohim.TheHolySpiritbearswitnesswithhisspiritthat these things are so, the primary and decisive grounds for hisconvictionbeingnotexternalbutinternal.Tothespiritually illuminatedthe word is self-authenticating. He does, indeed, find much additionalassurancetobehadinnotingthemanyincomparableexcellenciesofthewritings,suchastheloftyspiritualandmoraltruthssetforth,theunityofalltheparts,themajestyofthestyle,theuniformlyupliftinginfluenceoftheBiblewhereverithasgone,itsappealatoneandthesametimetothelearned philosopher and to the poor black man of the jungle, itsstatementoftruthinsuchsimplelanguagethatevenachildcangraspitsmeaningwhileeventhemastlearnedmancannotexhaustitsdepths,theminute fulfillment of prophecies centuries after they were spoken, etc.Theseare,indeed,proofswhichshouldcompelacceptance,andtheycanbe effectively used to stop the mouths of objectors; but in the finalanalysis they are of subordinate value only. Apart from the innerilluminationof theHolySpirit theywillnotconvince theunbeliever,nomatterhowlogicallyandskillfullytheymaybepresented.

The attempt toprove thedivineorigin of theBible from these externalcriteriaissimilartothatofprovingtheexistenceofGodfromtheexternalworld.Wemaycitetheontological,theteleological,thecosmological,andthemoralarguments,andtheevidenceseemsconvincingenoughtothebeliever. Yet none of these arguments are demonstrative and coercive,and they usually leave the skeptics unconvinced. When we consent tostaketheauthorityofScriptureonexternalargumentsweareconsentingto fight thebattleon the fieldofouropponents' choosing, andwe thensimplyhavetomakethebestofavulnerableposition.Theseargumentsinthemselvesareofsuchanatureastoinvitedoubtintheunregeneratemind, and they can never permanently settle the question. When weconsenttofightthebattleonthesegroundswearemakingaconcessiontoRationalism,asystemwhichassumesthatthehumanreasoniscapable

of sitting in judgment upon and evaluating all human experiences, andwhichdeniesthenecessityofanydivinerevelationwhatsoever.

Inourdeepestselvesweareeitherregenerateorunregenerate.Paultellsus that "thenatural (unregenerate)man receivethnot the things of theSpirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot knowthem,becausetheyarespirituallyjudged"(ICor.2:14);andagainhesaysthat thegospelofChrist crucified is "untoJewsa stumblingblock,anduntoGentilesfoolishness";butuntothemthatarecalled,bothJewsandGreeks,itis"thepowerofGod,andthewisdomofGod"untosalvation(ICor. 1:23, 24). Consequently the unregenerate man assumes anantagonistic attitude, and will not be convinced by any amount ofexternal testimony. Ultimately every person has to make a choicebetweenthevoxDeiandthevoxmundi,thevoiceofGodandthevoiceoftheworld;andthequestionas towhichof theseheacknowledgestobethemoreauthoritativeisdeterminedbywhetherthesoulisregenerateorunregenerate. It is as impossible for the unaided human reason tounderstand the deep things of the Spirit as it is for the ordinarypsychologisttogiveanadequateexplanationoftheprocessofconversion.Everyattempt to convince theunregenerate soulof thedivine origin ofthe Bible bymeans of scholarly and historical proof can only result infailure, andmust be given up as completely aswhen Jesus forebore toconvince the members of the Sanhedrin that he was not guilty ofblasphemywhentheyhadmadeuptheirmindstothecontrary.Thiswasthe principle for which the Protestant Church stood at the time of theReformation.While the Roman Catholics acknowledged the Church asthe source of authority, and the Humanists acknowledged the humanreason, the Protestant principle, as it was given typical expression forinstanceintheWestminsterConfession,wasthevoiceofGodspeakinginthe soul. "The authority of theHoly Scripture, forwhich it ought to bebelieved andobeyed, dependethnotupon the testimonyof anymanorchurch,butwhollyuponGod(whoistruthitself),theauthorthereof;andtherefore it is to be received, because it is theWord of God... Our fullpersuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authoritythereof, is from the inwardwork of theHoly Spirit, bearingwitness byand with the word in our hearts" (I:IV, V).We would doubtlessmakebetterprogressinourpresentdaydiscussionsifwekeptthatprinciplein

mind.

In the final analysis, then, the Christian's faith does not depend uponexternalproofs,butuponaninnerexperience.HelivesbytheScriptureand enjoys its light. He has an inner conscious assurance -- call itmysticismorwhateveryouwill--thatheisachildofGod,andthattheScriptures are thewordofGod.The external proofs help to clarify andstrengthen his faith, but his absolute and inescapable proof that theChristiansystemingeneral isthetruesystemis foundinthewitnessofthe Holy Spirit in his heart as he reads and in his experience as aChristian.Althoughhemaynotbepossessedof scholarly and scientificevidencewhichwouldenablehimtomeetthedestructivecriticsontheirown ground, he repels all their doubts in the samemanner as did theblind man who was healed by the Savior, and who replied to everyargumentofthePhariseeswiththeim-movableconvictionofcertainty:"Whetherhe is a sinner, I knownot: one thing I know, that,whereas Iwasblind,nowIsee."Henomoreaskspermissionofthecritictobelievethanheaskspermissionof thescientist tobreathe,but findsbothmostnaturalandspontaneous.Hedoes, indeed, find that truly scientificandscholarly study gives clearer direction to the word, and that it enableshimtosystematizeandunderstanditbetter.Buthisauthorityforbeliefisfromtheheartratherthanfromthereasoningprocessesofthehead.

This does not mean that we deprecate scholarship. Nowhere has theprinciple of sound scholarship and scientific investigation existed in ahealthierstatethanintheloyalsonsoftheEvangelicalchurches.Infact,we are persuaded that except for the service which scholarship hasrendered,theChristianfaithwouldhavebeenwell-nighhelplessagainstthe attacks of unbelief.We desire a solid historical foundation for ourfaith, and our investigation shows thatwe have such.We acknowledgethat the externalproofs,whenpresented tounbelievers in a reasonableway,point theway toGodandoftenprepare theheart for the graciousworkoftheHolySpirit.Butwesimplywishtopointoutthattheseproofswhich are relied upon so heavily by some are ineffective unlesssupplementedbytheworkoftheHolySpiritintheheart.

Our opponents will probably complain that this method of proceduregivesastrongdogmaticcasttothediscussion.Theyforget,however,that

they proceed in exactly the sameway: they too proceed from premiseswhich are as axiomatic, even though they profess to be particularlysubjecttoreason.Theiraxiomisthatthehumanreasoniscompetenttojudgeallthings,eventhedeepthingsofGod.Whileweacknowledgethattheirs isalsoadogmaticprocedure,wedonotcomplainabout it, sincetheycannotdootherwise--themindwhichhasnotbeenenlightenedbytheSpiritisnotabletodiscernthethingsoftheSpirit.AsThornwallhasfittinglysaid,"therealityofevidenceisonething,thepowertoperceiveit,isquiteanother.Itisnoobjectiontothebrilliancyofthesunifitfailstoilluminatetheblind."Weeachhaveourfixedmethodofprocedure.Allwecanaskisthattheseprinciplesbeputtoapracticaltest,andthatwebegivenopportunity to seewhich best squareswith the experiences oflifeandreality.

CONCLUSION

Inconclusion,then,wewouldsaythatitisoftheutmostimportancethatthe Lord's people be thoroughly rooted and grounded in this greatdoctrine of the plenary inspiration of Holy Scripture, and that havingexaminedtheevidencetheybeconvincedthattheBibleistheveryWordof God. Since all of the other Christian doctrines are derived from theBibleandrestuponitfortheirauthority,thisdoctrineis,asitwere,themother and guardian of all the others. We believe that the foregoingstatements are facts which will stand the test of scholarship and ofhistoricalinvestigation,andthattheywillnotbedeniedbyanyinformedandhonest-mindedperson.

WhileinourdaytheBiblehasbeensadlyneglectedeveninmanyofthechurches,webelievethatthetimeiscomingwhentheBibleshallhaveitsrightfulandhonoredplaceintheChurchandintheaffairsofmen.Atanyratewe look forward confident thatwhen the tumult is over,when thepresent stormof unbelief has subsided, the sacredheights of Sinai andCalvarywillagainstandforth,andthatamidthewreckofthrones,extinctnations, and shattered moral principles, mankind, tried by so manysorrows, purified by so much suffering, and wise with so muchunprecedented experience, will again bow before an omnipotent andmercifulGodasHeisrevealedinaninfallibleBible.

Monergism.com