inspiration of the total portion of the Old Testament canon. Another point of interest is the singular num ber of “all Scripture” (literally, “ every Scripture” ) in verse 16. In contrast to the plural of the previous verse, this singular expression points to the individual por tions or smallest components of Scripture. In this term there is established a principle to accord with “ verbal” inspiration, the words themselves looked upon as being inspired. Verse 16 itself is proof of what is stated in verse 15. Timothy is told that the Holy Scriptures are able to make one wise to salvation; the whole of the Old Testament is able to make one wise unto salvation because of the inspiration of its smallest components. The words “ inspired by God” are a rendering for the Greek word theojmeustos; literally it means “God- breathed.” This idea is to be distinguished from that of having an inspiring effect on the reader. This latter is a subjective inspiration instead of an objective one. That to which the word actually refers is an objective fact about the writings themselves. What Paul is refer ring to is the source of the Scriptures, and this source is identified as God Himself. See Acts 28:25; Hebrews 10:15; II Peter 1:21. It now remains to compare the Scriptural idea of inspiration and inerrancy with what has been given forth in recent days by men in positions of leadership. I I . T h e I n s p i r a t i o n o f t h e S c r ip t u r e s As hinted above, the doctrine of inspiration falls naturally into two areas: A. The first is that of “plen ary inspiration,” which means that the whole Bible is inspired (II Tim. 3:15). There is no substantial dis agreement with this position from anyone who professes to be orthodox in his theology. On almost every hand, scholars will admit to the inspiration of the whole Bible, but what they mean by inspiration is not evident until compared to the second area of the subject. B. The second area is “verbal inspiration.” Loud and numerous have been the objections to verbal in spiration. One reason for rejecting such a position has been given in a past generation by a New Testament scholar named Alfred Plummer. “We have no reasons for believing in verbal inspiration, and have many rea sons for not believing in it. For no one believes that copyists and printers are miraculously preserved from making verbal mistakes. Is it, then, reasonable to sup pose that God would work a miracle to produce what He takes no care to preserve?” (Plummer, Pastoral Epistles, pp. 393-94). A more recent opinion among reputed conservatives is typified in the following quotation of a contemporary theologian, Ralph Earle of the Nazarene Theological Seminary: “ The words are not the ultimate reality, but the thoughts which they seek to convey. . . .” Paul’s struggle to find adequate words “ accords well with the view of plenary dynamic inspiration — much better than it does with plenary verbal inspiration. That is why some of us prefer the term plenary inspiration to verbal inspiration” (Ralph Earle, Evangelical Theologi cal Society Bulletin, Winter, 1963, p. 16). The first of the above objections to verbal inspira tion resorts to human reason to suggest what God must
have done under a given set of circumstances. But what may seem obvious to distorted human reason would not necessarily be determinative of the purpose of God. Apparently God saw real danger in allowing a perfect product to be preserved down through the centuries by the Christian church. Whatever may be His reason, we cannot decide against verbal inspiration on the basis of the fact that there have been slip-ups in the preserva tion of the Scriptures through the centuries. In regards to the viewpoint echoed by Earle, the peril is in thinking that the ideas are the important thing in Scripture, and beyond this we do not have to worry about its accuracy. Packer, however, clearly shows the inadequacy of the “ dynamic inspiration” viewpoint. He speaks of the “ importance of insisting that the inspiration of Scripture is verbal. Words sig nify and safeguard meaning: the wrong word distorts the intended sense” (Fundamentalism and the Word of God, pp. 89-90). To one who is familiar with language, this conclusion will be inevitable: the inspiration of spe cific thoughts is impossible without the inspiration of the words themselves because the slightest change in the wording results in a change in thought also. The expres sions of a Lutheran scholar are helpful at this point: “ Actually the content of Scripture cannot be separated from its words. The meaning of God’s self-communica tion to us is inextricably bound to the words of Scrip ture. . . . We can never be certain of what the Spirit of God means in Scripture unless we can be sure that the words of Scripture were expressly given by Him” (Rob ert Preus, The Inspiration of Scripture, p. 45). Most important of all, however, is the outlook of the Scriptures themselves. What other viewpoint could agree with Paul’s formula for introducing an Old Tes tament quotation in Acts 28:25: “Well spake the Holy Spirit through Isaiah the prophet unto your fathers.” If the Holy Spirit spoke it, who is there to doubt that the words themselves are correct? See Hebrews 10:15. In Matthew 5:18, the Lord draws even finer distinctions than the words themselves; this statement singles out as inspired the smallest part of a letter of a word. Each detail is present in Scripture because God Himself put it there. The matter of verbal inspiration presents a question where the answer must be either black or white. There is no room for a middle position. No gray area is pos sible. Either the words are God-given, or they are not God-given. Either they are inspired, or they are not inspired. Either they are right, or they are wrong. One’s decision on this issue will determine his position in this crucial area. I I I . T h e I n e r r a n c y o f t h e S c r ip t u r e s As indicated already, another issue closely related to the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures is the matter of whether or not they contain errors. Unfortunately a problem of semantics has clouded the thinking of Chris tians in the area of inerrancy, in that two definitions of inerrancy have come into use in current theological discussions. The first definition presupposes that the writers of Scripture were without error in the use of their sources. It will be noticed that according to this
40
THE KING'S BUSINESS
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online