As early as the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, papists, Socinians, Arminians, and enthusiasts assumed that Holy Scripture contains certain errors. Even Calvin occasionally imputed to the evangelists general inaccuracies and incorrect quotations from the Old Testament. Within the Lutheran Church, as already stated, George Calixtus, in the seventeenth century, departed from the Scriptural doctrine of inspiration by teaching that in all matters that are not essential or that were known to the holy writers they were not inspired, but merely directed or preserved from error. At the close of the eighteenth and at the beginning of the nineteenth century the prevailing rationalism resulted in the complete surrender of the entire Christian doctrine, including that of the divine inspiration of the Bible. Present-day Modernism is a direct excrescence of this crass rationalism. Modern "positive" or "conservative" theology, which rejected the bland and stupid rationalism of the preceding era, failed to return to the Scriptural doctrine of inspiration, and even modern "Lutheran" theologians in Germany reject the verbal inspiration of the Bible, or the doctrine that Holy Scripture is a priori God's Word, maintaining that the character of Scripture must be determined historically, or a posteriori, by way of human investigation.
The result of their "investigation" therefore is that the Holy Scripture is not the Word of God, but rather a human account of divine revelations ("Offenbarungsurkunde"), which, though more or less influenced by the Holy Spirit, is not without error and must therefore be subjected to the critical judgment of Bible scholars. These theologians still speak of "inspiration"; yet they do not mean that true inspiration by which Holy Scripture has become the unique source and norm of faith until the end of time (John 17,20; Eph.2,20), but merely an intensified illumination, which is found more or less in all Christian authors.
The same may be said of most American theologians, although among them Charles Hodge, William Shedd, and Benjamin Warfield have defended the Scriptural doctrine of verbal and plenary inspiration. In Germany there is at the present time hardly a single outstanding university professor who still upholds the doctrine of verbal and plenary inspiration. This all but universal denial of inspiration is one of the saddest chapters in the history of the Christian Church; for every one who repudiates the inspiration of the Bible subverts the foundation upon which the Christian faith rests and falls under the condemnation of God, Matt. 11, 25. In the last analysis all objections to the inspiration of the Bible flow from the carnal, unbelieving heart, Rom. 8, 7; 1 Cor. 2, 14.
Among the objections raised against the Biblical doctrine of inspiration the following may be noted : -
a. The different style in the various books of the Bible, or more exactly, the claim that God's peculiar style would be found throughout the Bible were He really its divine Author. Our reply to this criticism is that in general God's unique style is indeed noticeable throughout Holy Scripture, which bears the ineffaceable imprint of its divine Author on every page. The simplicity, majesty, and sublimity of the Biblical style are found in no book written by men; in fact, the style of the Bible is so unique that there is only one Holy Bible in the world. We may apply to Scripture the words that were spoken with regard to our Savior: "Never man spake like this man," John 7, 46. If within this general scope the various books of the Bible differ from one another somewhat in style and diction, we must remember that the Holy Spirit, in giving His holy Word to men, always accommodated Himself to the holy writers whom He employed in His holy service. Calov says very fittingly: "There may be recognized in it (the Bible) a condescension of the Holy Spirit; for He sometimes accommodated Himself to the ordinary method of speaking, allowing the writers their own style of speech." This, correctly understood, is the "human side" of Scripture. This expression, however, must not be taken in the sense of modern rationalistic theologians, who apply it to certain portions of Holy Writ, which they reject as "erroneous" and therefore as "uninspired."
In opposition to modern rationalistic theology the Christian believer stands firm upon the vital truth that Holy Scripture has no "uninspired parts" whatsoever, but that it is in all its parts the inerrant Word of God, given by divine inspiration. Instead of criticizing the different styles of Scripture, men ought to recognize in this fact God's gracious condescension and wonderful love; for by giving us His heavenly doctrines through so many different writers, who address us in so many different ways, He rendered His sublime Word all the more intelligible and acceptable to mankind. Had God spoken to us in the language which is used in heaven, not a single person in this world could have understood His Word and learned from it the way of salvation, 2 Cor. 12, 4.
b. The variant readings in the copies of Scripture. Variant readings (variae lectiones) are indeed found in the copies of the holy writings of the prophets and apostles that have been preserved to us. However, since the variant readings occur only in the copies, they furnish no argument whatsoever against the divine inspiration of the Bible, since the variants owe their origin to lapses in transcription. In spite of the variant readings, however, the texts which we have to-day contain the Word of God both in its original purity and its original entirety. This we know a priori from Christ's direct promise (John 17,20; 8, 31. 32; Matt. 28,20; John 10, 35; Matt. 24, 35; Luke 21, 33; 16, 17) and a posteriori from the fact, ascertained by scientific investigation, that in spite of the numerous variae lectiones not a single doctrine of God's Word has been rendered doubtful or uncertain. God, who has given us His Word, has also graciously preserved it to the present day and will preserve it to the end of time (gubernatio divina) . We recognize God's providence also in the many repetitions of His doctrines throughout the Bible. As a result of this, even if entire books (Antilegomena) or entire passages (Mark 16, 9-20) are called into question, we may still prove the divine doctrines from other books and passages in the Bible, which are universally acknowledged as authentic and canonical (Homologume11a).
c. The study and research of the holy writers. Independent study and historical research were indeed carried on at times by the holy writers; for they themselves tell us that they were prompted to write not only new revelations, but also such things as they knew in consequence of their general study and their special experience, Gal. 1, 17-24; Luke 1, lff. However, this fact does not disprove the doctrine of inspiration, since the Holy Spirit utilized for His beneficent purpose of giving to fallen man the Word of God also the general know ledge of the sacred penmen, just as He utilized their natural gifts and talents (experience, style, culture, etc.). Inspiration is not mere revelation, but the divine prompting (impulsus scribendi) to record the truths which God desired that men should know in words He Himself supplied, 2 Sam. 23, 2ff. Some of these truths were given the holy writers by direct revelation, 1 Cor. 11, 23; 14, 37; 2, 7-13; others were known to them by experience, Acts 17,28; Gal. 2, 11-14; others, again, by direct investigation and special research, Luke 1, 1 ff.
In the treatment of the doctrine of divine inspiration the question is not: "How did the holy writers obtain the truths which they wrote?" but rather: "Did the Holy Ghost prompt the sacred writers to write down certain words and thoughts which God wanted men to know?" The fact that this was actually the case is clearly taught in Holy Scripture, 2 Tim. 3, 16; 2 Pet. 1, 21, so that the doctrine of inspiration is beyond dispute. When on Pentecost the apostles proclaimed to the multitude salvation by the risen Savior, who had suffered and died for the sins of the world, they announced facts which to a large extent were known to them by experience, John 20, 20f.; 21, 12; yet of all the words which they proclaimed Scripture says: "They began to speak •.. as the Spirit gave them utterance.'' .Acts 2, 4. Not only in that Pentecostal preaching, but in the composition of all their writings the Holy Spirit "gave utterance" to the apostles.
d. Alleged contradictions in the Bible. In connection with this point we distinguish between external and internal contradictions. By external contradictions we mean the seeming historical discrepancies in the Bible. Internal contradictions pertain to doctrines. With regard to real contradictions in doctrine, we know a priori that none can occur,- though to human reason this often appears to be the case,- since the whole Bible is the Word of the infallible God, 2 Tim. 3, 16; 2 Pet. 1, 21. Even if two doctrines of Scripture seem to contradict each other (e. g., gratia universalis, electio particularis), the Christian theologian never admits a real contradiction, 2 Cor. 1, 18-20, but only a partial revelation, 1 Cor. 13, 9, which will be perfected in glory, 1 Cor. 13, 10. 12. For this reason the Christian believer teaches both doctrines side by side in their given purity, without any attempt on his part to bridge over the gap or to solve the apparent discrepancy, Rev. 22, 18. 19.
External contradictions~ or seeming historical discrepancies, occur in Scripture especially in quotations from the Old Testament, 1 Cor. 10, 8 and N urn. 25, 9. The variants in the manuscripts, owing to faulty transcription, add to the number of these seeming contradictions. The wonder, however, is not that such seeming contradictions do occur in the Bible, - for we must not forget that the copyists were fallible men, who were subject to error in transcribing the sacred text, - but rather that, relatively speaking, there are so few of them and that in most cases they can be satisfactorily adjusted. (Cf. Dr. W. Arndt's Does the Bible Contradict Itself ?)
But even if the Christian theologian cannot adjust an apparent historical discrepancy to his full satisfaction, he does not charge Scripture with error, but leaves the matter undecided, mindful of Christ's declaration that "the Scripture cannot be broken," John 10, 35. Particulars with regard to this subject belong to the domain of Christian isagogics, where they receive detailed consideration; but the dogmatician is concerned with the matter in so far as it is his duty to point out the correct principles which must guide the Bible student in his estimation of Scripture as God's inspired Word. Foremost among these is the basic truth that it is unworthy of a Christian theologian to criticize the inerrant Word of God; for it is his function to teach the Gospel, Mark 16, 15. 16; Matt. 28, 20, and not to oppose the infallible Word by his own fallible views and judgments, 1 Tim. 6, 3-5. (Cf. Luther on the historical reliability of Scripture, St. L., XIV, 490 ff.) In passing, we may add that the seeming historical discrepancies in the Bible never affect the doctrines which Scripture teaches for our salvation.
e. Inaccurate quotations in the New Testament. It is asserted that the Bible cannot be the inspired Word of God because the New Testament so frequently quotes the Old Testament "inaccurately" and even "wrongly." The argument is that, if the Bible were the infallible Word of God, the citations from the Old Testament that are given in the New Testament would always be exact, or literal. This, however, is not the case. Sometimes the apostles quote the Old Testament literally; sometimes they quote the reading of the Septuagint; at other times they quote the Septuagint, but correct it according to the Hebrew original; finally, sometimes they reproduce neither the Hebrew text nor the Septuagint, but state the general scope of the text in their own words. This divergent manner of quoting the Old Testament, however, does not disprove the fact of divine inspiration of the Bible; on the contrary, it rather proves it, since evidently the divine Author of the whole Bible quoted His holy words as it pleased Him. Had the New Testament writers been impostors, they would have been obliged to quote the Old Testament literally in every instance; for it would have been in their interest to prove to their readers their extensive acquaintance and perfect agreement with the Old Testament. As it was, the Holy Spirit, who spoke through them, directed them to cite and apply the Word of God as the occasion required and as His holy purposes were best served, Gal. 4, 21-31. It is always the privilege of an author to quote his writings as he sees fit, and this prerogative must not be denied to the Holy Spirit.
f. Trivial matters in Scripture. The inspiration of the Bible has further been denied on the ground that it contains "trivial things" (levicula) and, besides, bad grammar, poor rhetoric, barbarisms, solecisms, and the like. Examples of trivial matters, it is asserted, are the minutely reported domestic affairs of the patriarchs, their manifold sins and failings, the dietetic prescription for Timothy that he should use a little wine for his stomach's sake, 1 Tim. 5, 23, Paul's request for his cloak, books, and parchments, 2 Tim. 4, 13, and others. These levicula, it is said, are unworthy of the Holy Spirit and would not have been mentioned by Him if He really were the Author of Scripture.
However, this argument does not apply; for if God made the vine, should He not prescribe its correct use? If He deigned to establish the home, should He not picture in Scripture a few home scenes for our instruction, warning, and comfort, 2 Tim. 3, 16? If the very hairs on our heads are all numbered, Matt. 10, 30, must not the "trivial things" in the lives of God's saints be regarded as of the greatest concern to Him? Some of the most weighty lessons of faith and piety attach to the "trivial things" which Holy Scripture inculcates (the right use of the divinely prescribed means; the apostle's devotion to the Gospel in spite of his poverty; the apostle's studiousness, which prompted him to demand books even when he was in prison). It is not the business of any theologian to prescribe to God what kind of Bible He should write or to find fault with the Bible which He did write, but to teach with holy reverence and devout submission the entire Word of salvation which God in His infinite grace was pleased to bequeath to lost mankind as the source of faith and the norm of life, Acts 20, 17-28.
The argument against the inspiration of Scripture which is based upon the so-called barbarisms, solecisms, grammatical errors, etc., must be rejected as ignoring the well-known fact that the New Testament was written in the κοινή, or the universal popular speech of that time, which differed greatly from classical Greek, but was understood by practically all peoples and tribes in the Roman Empire. The Holy Spirit chose this language because He wished the writings of His holy penmen to be understood by the common people, Col. 4, 16; 1 Thess. 5, 27, from whose ranks the first Christian churches were largely organized, Rom. 16, 3-15. The Greek of the New Testament is not "vulgar" or ''bad" Greek; it was the vernacular of the people (Volkssprache) in the period when Christianity was spread in the heathen world and the Holy Bible was written. The Hebraisms in the New Testament are not anomalies, but are found in all writings where Jewish influence exerted itself upon the common Greek.
g. Special Scripture-passages are said to deny inspiration. Those who deny the divine inspiration of the Bible also point out certain Scripture-passages which allegedly contradict the fact of inspiration. Of these the foremost is 1 Cor. 7', 12: "To the rest speak I, not the Lord," contrasted with 1 Cor. 7, 10: "Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord." Luther explains this passage by saying that here the apostle does not inculcate a divine commandment, but merely gives counsel in a matter which concerned the life of the Corinthian Christians. "He distinguishes his words from those of the Lord in such a way that the Word of the Lord should be a commandment, but his word should be a counsel." This explanation is supported by 1 Cor. 7, 25. Both statements are certainly inspired; but while v. 2 of this chapter gives the principle, v. 12 ff. the apostolic counsel for the contingency. It must not be overlooked that St. Paul wrote this entire epistle as "an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God," 1 Cor. 1, 1, so that "the things that he wrote" were "the commandments of the Lord," 1 Cor. 14, 37. It has been suggested, moreover, that, since Paul was accustomed to support his statements by quotations from the Old Testament or from the teachings of Jesus, he merely wished to indicate that in this instance he bad no definite commandment from the Lord to which he might refer his readers, but was uttering a hitherto unexplained truth as an inspired apostle. This explanation is quite plausible, since manifestly in 1 Cor. 7, 10 be alludes to Matt. 19, 6. 9. Certainly this one passage gives us no right whatever to deny the divine inspiration of Scripture, which is attested in so many clear passages, especially since the apostle himself deprecates this conclusion, 1 Cor. 14, 37.
h. The alleged evil consequences of the doctrine of inspiration. This argument is preferred quite commonly by the exponents of modern theology. Asserting that the "Christian consciousness" or "Christian experience" or human reason must be recognized as a principium cognoscendi and chafing under the divine restraint,. 1 Pet. 4, 11, they allege that belief in the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture would result in "intellectualism," "Biblicism," "letter service," "the constraint of the free spirit of investigation," "the failure to find new religious truths," "the inability of the theologian to accommodate himself to present-day religious thought," "sectarianism," and the like.
All these objections may be traced back to the same source, namely, to the averseness of rationalistic and naturalistic theologians to being bound to divine truth definitely fixed in a Scriptural canon. As a matter of fact, if the Bible is God's holy Book, given to men as the only source and norm of faith and life until the end of time, then any doctrine which is contrary to Scripture is eo ipso condemned and rejected. Rationalism repudiates the doctrine of divine inspiration in order that it may spread its own false teachings and pernicious errors. But just for that very reason the Word of God is so emphatic in condemning every departure from God's holy truth revealed in Scripture, Rom. 16, 17; 2 John 9-11; 1 Tim. 1, 3; 6, 3 ff., and in inculcating the most steadfast adherence to the Bible, Matt. 5, 18-19; Rev. 22, 18. 19. In the last analysis there is only one reason why men reject the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible, namely, unbelief, or revolt against God and His established Word.
4. THE RELATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO THE HOLY WRITERS.
is clearly described in all those passages of Holy Scripture
6. THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION AND CONFESSIONAL LUTHERANISM.
In answer to the claim that the doctrine of inspiration is a "dogmatic construction," we point to the fact at that time the doctrine was not in controversy, so that there was no pressing need for presenting it in detail.