The Fundamentals

A Testimony to the Truth

"To the Law and to the Testimony ’ * Isaiah 8:20

VOLUME II

Published by THE BIBLE INSTITUTE OF LOS ANGELES 536-558 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CAL.

Copyrighted by Bible Instituteof LosAngeles 1917

' j

CONTENTS VOLUME II (The Fundamental set contains four volumes)

Chapter

Page

I. THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE - — DEFINI- TION, EXTENT AND PROOF ..................................

By Rev. James M. Gray, D. D ., Dean of Moody Bible. Institute, Chicago, Ill.

44 ..... . ..................... ....... ................. .... ..... . .

II. INSPIRATION

By Evangelist L. W. Munhall, M. A ., D. D., Ger- 111antown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Author of "Highest Cr itics vs. H igher Critics." III. THE MORAL GLORY OF JESUS CHRIST, A PROOF OF INSPIRATION By Rev. William G. Moorehead, D. D., President of Xenia Theological Seminary. Xenia, Ohio. IV. TIIE TESTIMONY OF THE SCRIPTURES TO THEMSELVES By Rev. George S. Bishop, D. D ., East O range, New Jersey. V . TESTIMONY OF TIIE ORGANIC UNITY OF THE BrnLE TO lTs INSPIRATION By the late Arthur T . Pierson. VI. FULFILLED PROPHECY A POTENT ARGUMENT FOR THE BIBLE

61 .. ................................................

80 ·········· ······ ··················· ···· ··············· ··

97 .. ................................

112 ....................................................

By Arno C. Gaebelein, Editor "Our Hope," New York City.

144 ..................... .............................

VII. LIFE IN THE WORD

By Philip Mauro Attorn.ey at Law, New York City. THEOLOGY

209 ...... .... . .......................................... .

VIII. Is THERE A Gon?

By Rev. T homas Whitelaw, M. A., D. D., K ilmarnock, Scotland. IX. Goo IN CI-rnrsT THE ONLY R EVELATION OF THE FATHERHOOD OF Gon By Rober t E. Speer, Secretary of The Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church, U . S. A., New York City.

224 ............ ..................... .

CONTENTS

Chapter

Page

X. T h e D eity of C h r i s t

239 ..................................................

By Professor Benjamin B. Warfield, D. D., LL.D., Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey.

XI. T h e V irgin B irth of C hr ist .

247 ....................................

By Rev. Professor James Orr, D. D., United Free Church College, Glasgow, Scotland.

XII. T h e G od -M an ........... By the Late John Stock. XIII. T h e P erson and W ork of J esus C hr ist

261

..... .I.V From “Some Recent Phases of German Theology,” By Bishop Nuelsen, D. D., M. E. Church, Omaha, Nebraska. XIV. T h e C ertainty and I mportance of th e B odily R esurrection of J esus C hrist f r o m t h e D ea d 298 ..................................................... By Rev. R. A. Torrey, D. D. XV. T h e P ersonality and D eity of th e H oly S p ir it 323 ......................... ............................................... By Rev. R. A. Torrey, D. D. XVI. T h e H oly S p ir it and T h e S ons of G od 338 .............. By Rev. W. J. Erdman, D. D., Germantown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. XVII. O bservations on th e C onversion and A pos - t l e s h i p o f S t . P a u l 353 ....... ...................................... By Lord Lyttelton, Analyzed and Condensed by Rev. J. Li. Campbell, D. D., Cambridge, Mass. XVIII. C hr ist ian ity N o F able 367 .Jg................................... By Rev. Thomas Whitelaw, M. A., D'. D., Kilmarnock, Ayreshire, Scotland. -

282

P R E F A C E In 1909 God moved two Christian laymen to set aside a large sum of money for issuing twelve volumes that would set forth the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and which were t9 be sent free to ministers of the gospel, missionaries, Sunday School superintendents, and others engaged in aggressive Christian work throughout the English speaking world. A committee of men who were known to be sound in the faith was chosen to have the oversight of the publication of these volumes. Rev. Dr. A. C. Dixon was the first Executive Secre tary of the Committee, and upon his departure for England Rev. Dr. Louis Meyer was appointed to take his place. Upon the death of Dr. Meyer the work of the Executive Secretary devolved upon me. We were able to bring out these twelve volumes according to the original plan. Some of the volumes were sent to 300,000 ministers and missionaries and other workers in different parts of the world. On the completion of the twelve volumes as originally planned the work was con tinued through The King’s Business, published at 536 South Hope St,, Los Angeles, California. Although a larger number of volumes were issued than there were names on our mailing list, at last the stock became exhausted, but appeals for them kept coming in from different parts of the world. As the fund was no longer available for this purpose, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, to whom the plates were turned over when the Committee closed its work, have decided to bring out the vari ous articles that appeared in The Fundamentals in four volumes at the cheapest price possible. All the articles that appeared in The Fundamentals, with the exception of a very few that did not seem to be in exact keeping with the original purpose of The Fundamentals, will be published in this series. R. A. TORREY, Former Executive Secretary of the Testimony Publishing Company.

DED I CAT I ON To the two laymen whose generosity made it possible to send several millions of volumes of “The Fundamentals” to ministers and missionaries in all parts of the world, for their confirmation and upbuilding in the faith, these volumes are dedicated.

THE FUNDAMENTALS VOLUME II '

CHAPTER I THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE—DEFINITION, EXTENT AND PROOF

BY REV. JAMES M. GRAY, D. D., DEAN OF MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE, CHICAGO, ILL.

In this paper the authenticity and credibility of the Bible are assumed, by which is meant (1), that its books were writ ten by the authors to whom they are ascribed, and that their contents are in all material points as when they came from their hands; and (2), that those contents are worthy of entire ac ceptance as to their statements of fact. Were there need to prove these assumptions, the evidence is abundant, and abler pens have dealt with it. Let it not be supposed, however, that because these things are assumed their relative importance is undervalued. On the contrary, they underlie inspiration, and, as President Patton says, come in on the ground floor. They have to do with the historicity of the Bible, which for us just now is the basis of its authority. Nothing can be settled until this is settled, but admitting its settlement which, all things considered, we now may be permitted to do, what can be of deeper interest than the question as to how far that authority extends ? This is the inspiration question, and while so many have taken in hand to discuss the others, may not one be at liberty to discuss this? It is an old question, so old, indeed, as again in the usual recurrence of thought to have become new. Our 9

10 The Fundamentals fathers discussed it, it was the great question once upon a time, it was sifted to the bottom, and a great storehouse of fact, and argument, and illustration has been left for us to draw upon in a day of need. For a long while the enemy’s attack has directed our ener gies to another part of the field, but victory there will drive us back here again. The other questions are outside of the Bible itself, this is inside. They lead men away from the con tents of the book to consider how they came, this brings us back to consider what they are. Happy the day when the inquiry returns here, and happy the generation which has not forgot ten how to meet it. I. DEF IN IT ION OF INSPIRATION 1. Inspiration is not revelation. As Dr. Charles Hodge expressed it, revelation is the act of communicating divine knowledge to the mind, but inspiration is the act of the same Spirit controlling those who make that knowledge known to others. In Chalmer’s happy phrase, the one is the influx, the other the efflux. Abraham received the influx, he was granted a revelation; but Moses was endued with the efflux, being in spired to record it for our learning. In the one case there was a flowing in and in the other a flowing out. Sometimes both of these experiences met in the same person, indeed Moses him self is an illustration of it, having received a revelation at an other time and also the inspiration to make it known, but it is of importance to distinguish between the two. 2. Inspiration is not illumination. Every regenerated Christian is illuminated in the simple fact that he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but every such an one is not also inspired, but only the writers of the Old and New Testaments. Spir itual illumination is subject to degrees, some Chrisitans pos sessing more of it than others, but, as we understand it, inspi ration is not subject to degrees, being in every case the breath of God, expressing itself through a human personality.

The Inspiration of the Bible 11 3. Inspiration is not human genius. The latter is simply a natural qualification, however exalted it may be in some cases, but inspiration in the sense now spoken of is supernatural throughout. It is an enduement coming upon the writers of the Old and New Testaments directing and enabling them to write those books, and on no other men, and at no other time, and for no other purpose. No human genius of whom we ever heard introduced his writings with the formula, “Thus saith the Lord,” or words to that effect, and yet such is the common utterance of the Bible authors. No human genius ever yet agreed with any other human genius as to the things it most concerns men to know, and, therefore, however exalted his equipment, it differs not merely in degree but in kind from the inspiration of the Scriptures. In its mode the divine agency is inscrutable, though its effects are knowable. We do not undertake to say just how the Holy Spirit operated on the minds of these authors to pro duce these books any more than we undertake to say how He operates on the human heart to produce conversion, but we accept the one as we do the other on the testimony that appeals to faith. 4. When we speak of the Holy Spirit coming upon the men in order to the composition of the books, it should be further understood that the object is not the inspiration of the men but the books —not the writers but the writings. It termi nates upon the record, in other words, and not upon the human instrument who made it. To illustrate: Moses, David, Paul, John, were not always and everywhere inspired, for then always and everywhere they would have been infallible and inerrant, which was not the case. They sometimes made mistakes in thought and erred in conduct. But however fallible and errant they may have been as men compassed with infirmity like ourselves, such fallibility or errancy was never under any circumstances communicated to their sacred writings.

The Fundamentals Ecclesiastes is a case in point, which on the supposition of its Solomonic authorship, is- giving us a history of his search for happiness “under the sun.” Some statements in that book are only partially true while others are altogether false, there fore it cannot mean that Solomon was inspired as he tried this or that experiment to find what no man has been able to find outside of God. But it means that his language is inspired as he records the various feelings and opinions which possessed him in the pursuit. This disposes of a large class of objections sometimes brought against the doctrine of inspiration—those, for exam ple, associated with the question as to whether the Bible is the Word of God or only contains that Word. If by the former be meant that God spake every word in the Bible, and hence that every word is true, the answer must be no; but if it be meant that God caused every word in the Bible, true or false, to be recorded, the answer should be yes. There are words of Satan in the Bible, words of false prophets, words of the enemies of Christ, and yet they are God’s words, not in the sense that He uttered them, but that He caused them to be recorded, infallibly and inerrantly recorded, for our profit. In this sense the Bible does not merely contain the Word of God, it is the Word of God. Of any merely human author it is the same. This paper is the writer’s word throughout, and yet he may quote what other people say to commend them or dispute them. What they say he records, and in doing so he makes the record his in the sense that he is responsible for its accuracy. 5. Let it be stated further in this definitional connection, that the record for whose inspiration we contend is the orig inal record— the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter, as the case may be, and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless

The Inspiration of the Bible 13 God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it. But does this make nugatory our contention ? Some would say it does, and they would argue speciously that to insist on the inerrancy of a parchment no living being has ever seen is an academic question merely, and without value. But do they not fail to see that the character and perfection of the God head are involved in that inerrancy? Some years ago-a “liberal” theologian, deprecating this discussion as not worth while, remarked that it was a matter of small consequence whether a pair of trousers were originally perfect if they were now rent. To which the valiant and witty David James Burrell replied, that it might be a matter of small consequence to the wearer of the trousers, but the tailor who made them would prefer to have it understood that they did not leave his shop that way. And then he added, that if the Most High must train among knights of the shears He might at least be regarded as the best of the guild, and One who drops no stitches and sends out no imperfect work. Is it not with the written Word as with the incarnate Word? Is Jesus Christ to be regarded as imperfect because His character has never been perfectly reproduced before us ? Can He be the incarnate Word unless He were absolutely without sin ? And by the same token, can the scriptures be the written Word unless they were inerrant? But if this question be so purely speculative and valueless, what becomes of the science of Biblical criticism by which properly we set such store today? Do builders drive piles into the soft earth if they never expect to touch bottom ?, Do scholars dispute about the scripture text and minutely examine the history and meaning of single words, “the delicate color ing of mood, tense and accent,” if at the end there is no ap proximation to an absolute? As Dr. George H. Bishop says, does not our concordance, every time we take it up, speak loudly to us of a once inerrant parchment? Why do we not possess concordances for the very words of other books ?

14 The Fundamentals Nor is that original parchment so remote a thing as some suppose. Do not the number and variety of manuscripts and versions extant render it comparatively easy to arrive at a knowledge of its text, and does not .competent scholarship today affirm that as to the New Testament at least, we have in 999 cases out of every thousand the very word of that orig inal text? Let candid consideration be given to these things and it will be seen that we are not pursuing a phantom in con tending for an inspired autograph of the Bible. II. EXTENT OF INSPIRATION 1. The inspiration of scripture includes the whole and every part of it. There are some who deny this and limit it to only the prophetic portions, the words of Jesus Christ, and, say, the profounder spiritual teachings of the epistles. The historical books in their judgment, and as an example, do not require inspiration because their data were obtainable from natural sources. The Bible itself, however, knows of no limitations, as we shall see: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” The historical data, most of it at least, might have been obtained from natural sources, but what about the supernatural guid ance required in their selection and narration? Compare, for answer, the records of creation, the fall, the deluge, etc., found in Genesis with those recently discovered by excavations in Bible lands. Do not the results of the pick-axe and the spade point to the same original as the Bible, and yet do not their childishness and grotesqueness often bear evidence of the human and sinful mould through which they ran? Do they not show the need of some power other than man him self to lead him out of the labyrinth of error into the open ground of truth? Furthermore, are not the historical books in some respects the most important in the Bible? Are they not the bases of its doctrine ? Does not the doctrine of sin need for its starting

The Inspiration of the Bible 15 point the record of the fall? Could we so satisfactorily un derstand justification did we not have the story of God’s deal ings with Abraham? And what of the priesthood of Christ? Dismiss Leviticus and what can be made of Hebrews ? Is not the Acts of the Apostles historical, but can we afford to lose its inspiration ? And then, too, the historical books are, in many cases, prophetical as well as historical. Do not the types and symbols in them show forth the Saviour in all the varying aspects of His grace ? Has not the story of Israel the closest relation as type and anti-type to our spiritual redemption ? Does not Paul teach this in 1 Cor., 10:6-11? And if these things were thus written for our learning, does not this imply their inspiration ? Indeed, the historical books have the strongest testimony borne to their importance in other parts of the Bible. This will appear more particularly as we proceed, but take, in pass ing, Christ’s use of Deuteronomy in His conflict with the tempter. Thrice does He overcome him by a citation from that historical book without note or comment. Is it not diffi cult to believe that neither He nor Satan considered it in spired ? Thus without going further, we may say, with Dr. DeWitt of Princeton, that it is impossible to secure the religious infal- liability of the Bible—which is all the objector regards as nec essary—if we exclude Bible history from the sphere of its in spiration. But if we include Bible history at all, we must include the whole of it, for who is competent to separate its parts? 2. The inspiration includes not only all the books of the Bible in general but in detail, the form as well as the substance, the word as well as the thought. This is sometimes called the verbal theory of inspiration and is vehemently spoken against in some quarters. It is too mechanical, it degrades the writers to the level of machines, it has a tendency to make skeptics, and all that. This last remark, however, is ncft so alarming as it sounds.

The Fundamentals The doctrine of the eternal retribution of the wicked is said to make skeptics, and also that of a vicarious atonement, not to mention other revelations of Holy Writ. The natural mind takes to none of these things. But if we are not prepared to yield the point in one case for such a reason, why should we be asked to do it in another ? And as to degrading the writers to the level of machines, even if it were true, as it is not, why should fault be found when one considers the result? Which is the more important, the free agency of a score or two of mortals, or the divinity of their message? The whole argument is just a spark from the anvil on which the race is ever trying to hammer out the deification of itself. But we are insisting upon no theory—not even the verbal theory—if it altogether excludes the human element in the transmission of the sacred word. As Dr. Henry B. Smith says, “God speaks through the personality as well as the lips of His messengers,” and we may pour into that word “personality” everything that goes to make it—the age in which the person lived, his environment, his degree of culture, his temperament and all the rest. As Wayland Hoyt expressed it, “Inspira tion is not a mechanical, crass, bald compulsion of the sacred writers, but rather a dynamic, divine influence over their freely-acting faculties” in order that the latter in relation to the subject-matter then in hand may be kept inerrant, i. e., without mistake or fault. It is limiting the Holy One of Israel to say that He is unable to do this without turning a human ■being into an automaton. Has He who created man as a free agent left himself no opportunity to mould his thoughts into forms of speech inerrantly expressive of His will, without de stroying that which He has made? And, indeed, wherein resides man’s free agency, in his mind or in his mouth? Shall we say he is free while God controls his thought, but that he becomes a mere machine when that control extends to the expression of his thought?

The Inspiration of the Bible 17 But returning to the argument, if the divine influence upon the writers did not extend to the form as well as the substance of their writings; if, in other words, God gave them only the thought, permitting them to express it in their own words, what guarantee have we that they have done so ? An illustration the writer has frequently used will help to make this clear. A stenographer in a mercantile house was asked by his employer to write as follows: “Gentlemen: We misunderstood your letter and will now fill your order.” Imagine the employer’s surprise, however, when a little later this was set before him for his signature: “Gentlemen: We misunderstood your letter and will not fill your order.” The mistake was only of a single letter, but it was entirely subversive of his meaning. And yet the thought was given clearly to the stenographer, and the words, too, for that mat ter. Moreover, the latter was capable and faithful, but he was human, and it is human to err. Had not his employer con trolled his expression down to the very letter, the thought intended to be conveyed would have failed of utterance. In the same way the human authors of the Bible were men of like passions with ourselves. Their motives were pure, their intentions good, but even if their subject-matter were the commonplaces of men, to say nothing of the mysterious and transcendent revelation of a holy God, how could it be an ab solute transcript of the mind from which it came in the absence of miraculous control? In the last analysis, it is the Bible itself, of course, which must settle the question of its inspiration and the extent of it, and to this we come in the consideration of the proof, but we may be allowed a final question. Can even God Himself give a thought to man without the words that clothe it? Are not the two inseparable, as much so “as a sum and its figures, or a tune and its notes ?” Has any case been known in human his-

18 The Fundamentals tory where a healthy mind has been able to create ideas with out expressing them to its own perception ? In other words, as Dr. A. J. Gordon once observed: “To deny that the Holy Spirit speaks in scripture is an intelligible proposition, but to admit that He speaks, it is impossible to know what He says except as we have His Words.” I II . PROOF OF INSPIRATION 1. The inspiration of the Bible is proven by the philosophy, or what may be called the nature of the case. The proposition may be stated thus: The Bible is the his tory of the redemption of the race, or from the side of the individual, a supernatural revelation of the will of God to men for their salvation. But it was given to certain men of one age to be conveyed in writing to other men in different ages. Now all men experience difficulty in giving faithful reflections of their thoughts to others because of sin, ignorance, defective memory and the inaccuracy always incident to the use of language. Therefore it may be easily deduced that if the revelation is to be communicated precisely as originally received, the same supernatural power is required in the one case as in the other. This has been sufficiently elaborated in the foregoing and need not be dwelt upon again. 2. I t may be proven by the history and character of the Bible, i. e., by all that has been assumed as to its authenticity and credibility. All that goes to prove these things goes to prove its inspiration. To borrow in part, the language of the Westminster Con fession, “the heavenliness of its matter, the efficacy of its doc trine, the unity of its various parts, the majesty of its style and the scope and completeness of its design” all indicate the divin ity of its origin. The more we think upon it the more we must be convinced that men unaided by the Spirit of God could neither have con-

The Inspiration of the Bible 19 ceived, nor put together^ nor preserved in its integrity that precious deposit known as the Sacred Oracles. 3. But the strongest proof is the declarations of the Bible itself and the inferences to be drawn from them. Nor is this reasoning in a circle as some might think. In the case of a man as to whose veracity there is no doubt, no hesitancy is felt in accepting what he says about himself; and since the Bible is demonstrated to be true in its statements of fact by unassailable evidence, may we not accept its witness in its own behalf ? Take the argument from Jesus Christ as an illustration. He was content to be tested by the prophecies that went before on Him, and the result of that ordeal was the establishment of His claims to be the Messiah beyond a peradventure. That complex system of prophecies, rendering collusion or counter feit impossible, is the incontestable proof that He was what He claimed to be. But of course, He in whose birth, and life, and death, and resurrection such marvelous prophecies met their fulfilment, became, from the hour in which His claims were established, a witness to the divine authority and infalli ble truth of the sacred records' in which these prophecies are found.—(The New Apologetic, by Professor Robert Watts, D. D.) It is so with the Bible. The character of its contents, the unity of its parts, the fulfilment of its prophecies, the miracles wrought in its attestation, the effects it has accomplished in the lives of nations and of men, all these go to show that it is divine, and if so, that it may be believed in what it says about itself. A. ARGUMENT FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT To begin with the Old Testament, (a) consider how the writers speak of the origin of their messages. Dr. James H. Brookes is authority for saying that the phrase, “Thus saith the Lord” or its equivalent is used by them 2,000 times. Sup-

20 The Fundamentals pose we eliminate this phrase and its necessary context from the Old Testament in every instance, one wonders how much of the Old Testament would remain. ( b ) Consider how the utterances of the Old Testament Writers are introduced into the New. Take Matthew 1 :22 as an illustration, “Now all this was done that it might be ful filled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet.” It was not the prophet who spake, but the Lord who spake through the prophet. (c) Consider how Christ and His apostles regard the Old Testament. He came “not to destroy but to fulfill the law and the prophets.” Matt. 5 :17. “The Scripture cannot be broken.” John 10:35. He sometimes used single words as the bases of important doctrines, twice in Matthew 22, at verses 31, 32 and 42-45. The apostles do the same. See Galatians 3:16, He brews 2 :8, 11 and 12:26, 27. (if) Consider what the apostles directly teach upon the subject. Peter tells us that “No prophecy ever came by the will of man, but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, R. V.). “Prophecy” here applies to the word written as is indicated in the preceding verse, and means not merely the foretelling of events, but the utterances of any word of God without reference as to time past, present or to come. As a matter of fact, what Peter declares is that the will of man had nothing to do with any part of the Old Testament, hut that the whole of it, from Genesis to Malachi, was inspired by God. Of course Paul says the same, in language even plainer, in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable.” The phrase “inspiration of God” means literally God-breathed. The whole of the Old Testament is God-breathed, for it is to that part of the Bible the language particularly refers, since the New Testament as such was not then generally known.

The Inspiration of the Bible 21 As this verse is given somewhat differently in the Revised Version we dwell upon it a moment longer. It there reads, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable,” and the caviller is disposed to say that therefore some scripture may be inspired and some may not be, and that the profitableness extends only to the former and not the latter. But aside from the fact that Paul would hardly be guilty of such a weak truism as that, it may be stated in reply first, that the King James rendering of the. passage is not only the more consistent scripture, but the more consistent Greek; Several of the best Greek scholars of the period affirm this, including some of the revisers themselves who did not vote for the change. And secondly, even the revisers place it in the margin as of practically equal authority with their preferred transla tion, and to be chosen by the reader if desired. There are not a few devout Christians, however, who would be willing to retain the rendering of the Revised Version as being stronger than the King James, and who would interpolate a word in applying it to make it mean, “Every scripture ( because ) in spired of God is also profitable.” We believe that both Gaus- sen and Wordsworth take this view, two as staunch defenders of plenary inspiration as could be named. B. ARGUMENT FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT We are sometimes reminded that, however strong and con vincing the argument for the inspiration of the Old Testament, that for the New Testament is only indirect. “Not one of the evangelists tells us that he is inspired,” says a certain theo logical professor, “and not one writer of an epistle, except Paul.” We shall be prepared to dispute this statement a little fur ther, but in the meantime let us reflect that the inspiration of the Old Testament being assured as it is, why should similar evidence be required for the New? Whoever is competent to speak as a Bible authority knows that the unity of the Old

22 The Fundamentals and New Testaments is the strongest demonstration of their common source. They are seen to be not two books, but only two parts of one book. To take then the analogy of the Old Testament. The fore going argument proves its inspiration as a whole, although there were long periods separating the different writers, Moses and David let us say, or David and Daniel, the Pentateuch and the Psalms, or the Psalms and the Prophets. As long, or long er, than between Malachi and Matthew, or Ezra and the Gos pels. If then to carry conviction for the plenary inspiration of the Old Testament as a whole, it is not necessary to prove it for every book, why, to carry conviction for the plenary inspi ration of the Bible as a whole is it necessary to do the same ? We quote here a paragraph or two from Dr. Nathaniel West. He is referring to 2 Timothy 3:16, which he renders, “Every scripture is inspired of God,” and adds: “The distributive word ‘Every’ is used not only to par ticularize each individual scripture of the Canon that Timothy had studied from his youth, but also to include, along with the Old Testament the New Testament scriptures extant in Paul’s day, and any others, such as those that John wrote after him. “The Apostle Peter tells us that he was in possession, not merely of some of Paul’s Epistles, but ‘all his Epistles, and places them, canonically, in the same rank with what he calls ‘the other scriptures,’ i. e., of equal inspiration and authority with the ‘words spoken before by the Holy Prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Savior, through the Apostles.’ 2 Peter 3:2, 16. “Paul teaches the same co-ordination of the Old and New Testaments. Having referred to the Old as a unit, in his phrase ‘Holy Scriptures,’ which the revisers translate ‘Sacred Writings,’ he proceeds to particularize. He tells Timothy that ‘every scripture,’ whether of Old or New Testament production, ‘is inspired of God.’ Let it be in the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Prophets, the Historical Books, let it be a

The Inspiration of the Bible 23 chapter or a verse; let it be in the Gospels, the Acts, his own or Peter’s Epistles, or even John’s writings, yet to be, still each part of the Sacred Collection is God-given and because of that possesses divine authority as part of the Book of God.” We read this from Dr. West twenty years ago, and rejected it as his dictum. We read it today, with deeper and fuller knowledge of the subject, and we believe it to be true. It is somewhat as follows that Dr. Gaussen in his exhaus tive “Theopneustia” gives the argument for the inspiration of the New Testament. (a) The New Testament is the later, and for that reason the more important revelation of the two, and hence if the former were inspired, it certainly must be true of the latter. The opening verses of the first and second chapters of Hebrews plainly suggest this: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son * * * Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard.” And this inference is rendered still more conclusive by the circumstance that the New Testament sometimes explains, sometimes proves, and sometimes even repeals ordinances of the Old Testament. See Matthew 1:22, 23 for an illustration of the first, Acts 13:19 to 39 for the second and Galatians-5 :6 for the third. Assuredly these things would not be true if the New Testament were not of equal, and in a certain sense, even greater authority than the Old. ( b ) The writers of the New Testament were of an equal or higher rank than those of the Old. That they were proph ets is evident from such allusions as Romans 16:25-27, and Ephesians 3:4, 5. But that they were more than prophets is indicated in the fact that wherever in the New Testament prophets and apostles are both mentioned, the last-named is always mentioned first (see 1 Cor. 12:28, Ephesians 2:20,

24 The Fundamentals Ephesians 4:11). It is also true that the writers of the New Testament had a higher mission than those of the Old, since they were sent forth by Christ, as he had been sent forth by the Father (John 20:21). They were to go, not to a single nation only (as Israel), but into all the world (Matthew 28:19). They received the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19). And they are to be pre-eminently rewarded in the regeneration (Matthew 19:28). Such considerations and comparisons as these are not to be overlooked in estimating the authority by which they wrote. (c) The writers of the New Testament were especially qualified for their work, as we see in Matthew 10:19, 20, Mark 13:11, Luke 12:2, John 14:26 and John 16:13, 14. These passages will be dwelt on more at length in a later division of our subject, but just now it may be noticed that in some of the instances, inspiration of the most absolute character was promised as to what they should speak —the inference being warranted that none the less would they be guided in what they wrote. Their spoken words were limited and temporary in their sphere, but their written utterances covered the whole range of revelation and were to last forever. If in the one case they were inspired, how much more in the other ? ( d ) The writers of the New Testament directly claim divine inspiration. See Acts 15:23-29, where, especially at verse 28, James is recorded as saying, “for it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” Here it is affirmed very clearly that the Holy Ghost is the real writer of the letter in question and simply using the human instruments for his purpose. Add to this 1 Corinthians 2:13, where Paul says: “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but whi,ch the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual,” or as; the margin of the Revised Version puts it, “imparting spiritual things to spiritual men.” In 1 Thessa- lonians 2 :13 the same writer says: “For this cause also thank

The Inspiration of the Bible 25 we God without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth the word of God.” In 2 Peter 3 :2 the apostle places his own words on a level with those of the prophets of the Old Testament, and in verses 15 and 16 of the same chapter he does the same with the writings of Paul, classifying them“with the other scriptures.” Finally, in Revelation 2 :7, although it is the Apostle John who is writing, he is authorized to exclaim: “He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches,” and so on throughout the epistles to. the seven churches. C. ARGUMENT FOR THE WORDS The evidence that the inspiration includes the form as well as the substance of the Holy Scriptures, the word as well as the thought, may be gathered in this way. 1. There were certainly some occasions when the words were given to the human agents. Take the instance of Balaam (Numbers 22:38, 23:12, 16). It is clear that this self-seeking prophet thought, i. e., desired to speak differently from what he did, but was obliged to speak the word that God put in his mouth. There are two incontrovertible witnesses to this, one being Balaam himself and the other God. Take Saul (1 Samuel 10:10), or at a later time, his mes sengers (19:20-24). No one will claim that there was not an inspiration of the words here. And Caiaphas also (John 11:49-52), of whom it is expressly said that when he prophe sied that one man should die for the people, “this spake he not of himself.” Who believes that Caiaphas meant or really knew the significance of what he said? And how entirely this harmonizes with Christ’s promise to His disciples in Matthew 10:19, 20 and elsewhere. “When they deliver you up take no thought (be not anxious) how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak but the Spirit

26 The Fundamentals of your Father which speaketh in you.” Mark is even more emphatic: “Neither do ye premeditate, but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye, for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.” Take the circumstance of the day of Pentecost (Acts 2 :4- 11), when the disciples “began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Parthians, Medes, Elamites, the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, the strangers of Rome, Cretes and Arabians all testi fied, “we do here them speak in qur tongues the wonderful works of God!” Did not this inspiration include the words? Did it not indeed exclude the thought ? What clearer example could be desired? To the same purport consider Paul’s teaching in 1 Corin thians 14 about the gift of tongues. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue, in the Spirit speaketh mysteries, but no man understandeth him, therefore he is to pray that he may inter pret. Under some circumstances, if no interpreter be present, he is to keep silence in the church and speak only to himself and to God. But better still, consider the utterance of 1 Peter 1:10, 11, where he speaks of them who prophesied of the grace that should come, as “searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow, to whom it was revealed,” etc. “Should we see a student who, having taken down the lec ture of a profound philosopher, was now studying diligently to comprehend the sense of the discourse which he had written, we should understand simply that he was a pupil and not a master; that he had nothing to do with originating either the thoughts or the words of the lecture, but was rather a disciple whose province it was to understand what he had transcribed, and so be able to communicate it to others.

The Inspiration of the Bible 27 “And who can deny that this is the exact picture of what we have in this passage from Peter? Here were inspired writers studying the meaning of what they themselves had written. With all possible allowance for the human peculiarities of the writers, they must have been reporters o f ‘what they heard, rather than formulators of that which they had been made to understand.”—A. J. Gordon in “The Ministry of the Spirit,” pp. 173, 174. 2. The Bible plainly teaches that inspiration extends to its words. We spoke of Balaam as uttering that which God put in his mouth, but the same, expression is used by God Him self with reference to His prophets. When Moses would excuse himself from service because he was not eloquent, He who made man’s mouth said, “Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou 'shalt say” (Exo dus 4:10-12). And Dr. James H. Brookes’ comment is very pertinent. “God did not say I will be with thy mind, and teach thee what thou shalt think; but I will be with thy mouth and teach thee what thou shalt say. This explains why, forty years afterwards, Moses said to Israel, ‘Ye shall not add unto the word I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it.’ (Deut. 4:2.)’’ Seven times Moses tells us that the tables of stone containing the commandments were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables (Exodus 31:16). Passing from the Pentateuch to the poetical books we find David saying, “The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in my tongue” (2 Samuel 23:1, 2). He, too, does not say, God thought by me, but spake by me. Coming to the prophets, Jeremiah confesses that, like Moses, he recoiled from the mission on which he was sent and for the same reason. He was a child and could not speak. “Then the Lord put forth His hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold I have put My word in thy mouth’’ (Jeremiah 1 :6-9).

The Fundamentals All of which substantiates the declaration of Peter quoted earlier, that “no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but man spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit. Sure ly, if the will of man had nothing to do with the prophecy, he could not have been at liberty in the selection of the words. So much for the Old Testament, but when we reach the New, we have the same unerring and verbal accuracy guar anteed to the apostles by the Son of God, as we have seen. And we have the apostles making claim of it, as when Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:12, 13 distinguishes between the “things” or the thoughts which God gave him and the words in which he expressed them, and insisting on the divinity of both; “Which things also we speak,” he says, “not in the words which man s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth. In Galatians 3 :16, following the example of His divine Master, he employs not merely a single word, but a single letter of a word as the basis of an argument for a great doctrine. The blessing of justification which Abraham received has become that of -the believer in Jesus Christ. “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews bases a similar argument on the word “all’'’ in chapter 1:8, on the word “one” in 1 :11, and on the phrase “yet once more” in 12:26, 27. To recur to Paul’s argument in Galatians, Archdeacon Farrar in one of his writings denies that by any .possibility such a Hebraist as he, and such a master of Greek usage could have argued in this way. He says Paul must have known that the plural of the Hebrew and Greek terms for “seed” is never used by Hebrew or Greek writers to designate human off spring. It means, he says, various kinds of grain. His artlessness is amusing. We accept his estimate of Paul’s knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, says Professor Watts, he was certainly a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and as to his Greek .he could not only write it but speak it as we know,

The Inspiration of the Bible 29 and quote what suited his purpose from the Greek poets. But on this supposition we feel justified in asking Dr. Farrar whether a lexicographer in searching Greek authors for the meanings they attached to spermata, the Greek for “seeds,” would not be inclined to add “human offspring” on so good an authority as Paul ? Nor indeed would they be limited to his authority, since Sophocles uses it in the same way, and Aeschylus. “I was driven away from my country by my own offspring” (sper mata)—literally by my own seeds, is what the former makes one of his characters say. Dr. Farrar’s rendering of spermata in Galatians 3 :16 on the other hand would make nonsense if not sacrilege. “He saith not unto various kinds of grain as of many, but as of one, and to thy grain, which is Christ.” “Granting then, what we thank no. man for granting, that spermata means human offspring, it is evident that despite all opinions to the contrary, this passage sustains the teaching of an inspiration of Holy Writ extending to its very words.” 3. But the most unique argument for the inspiration of the words of scripture is the relation which Jesus Christ bears to them. In the first place, He Himself was inspired as to His words. In the earliest reference to His prophetic office (Deut. 18:18), Jehovah says, “I will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak * * * all that I shall command Him.” A limitation on His utterance which Jesus everywhere recog nizes. “As My Father hath taught Me, I speak these things;” “the Father which sent Me,' He gave Me a commandment what I should say, and what I should s p e a k “whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto Me, so I speak;” “I have given unto them the words which Thou gavest Me;” “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” (John 6 :63; 8 :26, 28, 40; 12:49, 50.) The thought is still more impressive as we read of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the God-man. “The Spirit of

The Fundamentals the Lord is upon Me because He hath annointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor;” “He through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles;” “the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto Him;” “these things saith He that holdeth the seven stars in His right hand;” “He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Luke 4:18; Acts 1:2; Rev. 1:1; 2:1, 11). If the incarnate Word needed the unction of the Holy Ghost to give to men the revelation He received from the Father in Whose bosom He dwells; and if the agency of the same Spirit ex tended to the words He spake in preaching the gospel to the meek or dictating an epistle, how much more must these things be so in the case of ordinary men when engaged in the same service? With what show of reason can one contend that any Old or New Testament writer stood, so far as his words were concerned, in need of no such agency.”—The New Apologetic, pp. 67, 68. In the second place He used the scriptures as though they were inspired as to their words. In Matthew 22:31, 32, He substantiates the doctrine of the resurrection against the skep ticism of the Sadducees by emphasizing the present tense of the verb “to be,” i. e., the word “am” in the language of Jehovah to Moses at the b,urning bush. In verses 42-45 of the same chapter He does the same for His own Deity by allud ing to the second use of the word “Lord” in Psalm CX. “The LORD said unto my Lord * * * If David then- call him Lord, how is he his son?” In John 10:34-36, He vindicates Himself from the charge of blasphemy by saying, “Is it not written in yoUr law, I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sancti fied, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” We have already seen Him (in Matthew 4) overcoming the tempter in the wilderness by three quotations from Deuter-

The Inspiration of the Bible 31 onomy without note or comment except, “I t is written!’ Re ferring to which Adolphe Monod says, “I know of nothing in the whole history of humanity, nor even in the field of divine revelation, that proves more clearly than this the inspiration of the scriptures. What! Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and earth, calling to his aid in that solemn moment Moses his serv ant? He who speaks from heaven fortifying himself against the temptations of hell by the word of him who spake from earth? How can we explain that spiritual mystery, that won derful reversing of the order of things, if for Jesus the words of Moses were not the words of God rather than those of men? How shall we explain it if Jesus were not fully aware that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ? “I do not forget the objections which have been raised against the inspiration of the scriptures, nor the real obscurity with which that inspiration is surrounded; if they sometimes trouble your hearts, they have troubled mine also. But at such times, in order to revive my faith, I have only to glance at Jesus glorifying the scriptures in the wilderness; and I have seen that for all who rely upon Him, the most embarrassing of problems is transformed into a historical fact, palpable and clear. Jesus no doubt was aware of the difficulties connected with the inspiration of the scriptures, but did this prevent Him from appealing to their testimony with unreserved confidence? Let that which was sufficient for Him suffice for you. Fear not that the rock which sustained the Lord in the hour of His temptation and distress will give way because you lean too heavily upon it.” In the third place, Christ teaches that the scriptures are inspired as to their words. In the Sermon on the Mount He said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199 Page 200

Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker

The Fundamentals - 1917: Vol.2