Scripture
References for Further Study:
Berkhof, Reformed Dogmatics, Introductory Volume, pp. 123–146; McPherson, Christian Dogmatics, pp. 18–24; Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, pp. 3–50; Orr, Revelation and Inspiration, pp. 1–
154; Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, I, pp. 61–84.
SCRIPTURE
From the discussion of special revelation we pass on to that of Scripture. The transition is natural and easy, since Scripture is the book of God's special revelation. Three points call for consideration here, namely, the relation of Scripture to special revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, and the perfections of Scripture.
A. The Relation Between Special Revelation and Scripture. In general it may be said that God's special revelation assumed a permanent form in Scripture, and was thus preserved for posterity. God intended that his revelation should be His perennial speech to all the successive generations of men, and therefore had to guard it against loss, corruption, and falsification. He did this by providing an infallible record of it, and by watching over this with providential care. It cannot be said that special revelation and Scripture are in every respect identical. The term "special revelation" is not always used in the same sense. It may denote a series of divine selfcommunications, but it may also serve as a designation of Scripture.
1. THE SENSE IN WHICH SPECIAL REVELATION AND
SCRIPTURE DIFFER. If the term "special revelation" is used to designate the direct self-communications of God, then it cannot be regarded as simply another name for the Bible. This is perfectly evident from the fact that Scripture contains a great deal that was not
communicated in a supernatural way, but was learnt by experience or gathered by historical study and from the additional fact that prophets and apostles often received the divine communications given unto them long before they committed these to writing, Jer.
25:13; 30:1; 36:2; John 20:30; 21:25. Using the term "special revelation" in this specific sense, we cannot say that the Bible is
God's Word, but only that God's Word is contained in the Bible. It should be noted, however, that this does not justify the distinction between the Word of God as divine and its record as human. Neither does it warrant the unqualified statement that the Bible is not but contains the Word of God. The terms "Word of God" and "special revelation" are also used in a sense in which they are identical with "Scripture."
2. THE SENSE IN WHICH SPECIAL REVELATION AND
SCRIPTURE ARE IDENTICAL. The term "special revelation" may also be applied to that whole complex of redemptive truths and facts, with its proper historical setting, that is found in Scripture and has the divine guarantee of its truth in the fact that the whole Bible is infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit. In that sense the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and it only, is for us God's special revelation. If the term is understood in this sense, then it is proper to maintain that the Bible not only contains but is the Word of God.
Scripture derives its significance exactly from the fact that it is the book of revelation. It is not merely a narrative of what happened years ago, but the perennial speech of God to man. Revelation lives on in Scripture and brings even now, just as it did when it was given, light, life, and holiness.
B. The Inspiration of Scripture. The Bible is and will continue to be the Word of God for all the successive generations of man only in virtue of its divine inspiration. The whole of Scripture is given by
inspiration of God. This makes it the infallible rule of faith and practice for mankind. Since this inspiration is often denied and even more frequently misrepresented, it calls for particular attention.
1. SCRIPTURE PROOF FOR INSPIRATION. The doctrine of inspiration, just as every other doctrine, is derived from Scripture.
The Bible itself testifies abundantly to its inspiration, and favors the strictest view of inspiration, as even rationalists are willing to admit.
Writers of the Old Testament are repeatedly commanded to write what the Lord commands them, Ex. 17:14; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Isa.
8:1; 30:8; Jer. 25:13; 30:2; Ezek. 24:1 f.; Dan. 12:4; Heb. 2:2. The prophets were conscious of bringing a divine message, and therefore introduced it by some such formula as "Thus saith the Lord"; "The word of the Lord came unto me"; "Thus the Lord Jehovah showed me"; etc. These formulæ frequently refer to the spoken word, but are also used in connection with the written word, Jer. 36:
27, 32; Ezek., chapters 26, 27, 31, 32, 39. Isaiah probably even speaks of his own written prophecy as "the book of Jehovah," Isa. 34:16. The writers of the New Testament frequently quote passages from the Old Testament as words of God or of the Holy Spirit, Matt. 15:4; Heb.
1:5 ff.; 3:7; 4:3; 5:6; 7:21, etc. Paul speaks of his own words as Spirittaught words, 1 Cor. 2:13, and claims that Christ is speaking in him, 2
Cor. 13:3. His message to the Thessalonians is the word of God. 1
Thess. 2:13. Finally, he says in the classical passage on inspiration:
"Every Scripture (referring to the sacred writings of the Old Testament of which he speaks in the preceding) inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness," 2 Tim. 3:16. The rendering here given is that of the American Revised Version. That of the Authorized Version deserves preference, however: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." It is favored even by the rendering given by Moffatt.
2. THE NATURE OF INSPIRATION. In discussing the nature of inspiration attention should be called first of all to two erroneous views. a. Mechanical Inspiration. The process of inspiration has often been conceived in a rather mechanical way. It was represented as if God simply dictated what the human authors of the books of the Bible had to incorporate in their writings. The latter were mere penmen of the Holy Spirit, recording His thoughts in words of His choosing.
Their mental life was in repose, and did not in any way contribute to the contents or form of their writings. Thus even the style of Scripture is the style of the Holy Spirit. Further investigations have shown, however, that this position is quite untenable. It clearly appears from Scripture itself that the writers were not mere passive instruments in the production of their books, but were real authors.
In some cases they evidently gave the fruits of historical investigations, for they refer to these investigations, Luke 1:1–4, and sometimes even mention their sources, as in the books of Samuel,
Kings, and Chronicles. In other cases they record their own personal experiences, as in the psalms and frequently also in the prophetic books, in Acts, and in the epistles. Moreover, each one of them writes in his own individual style. The style of Isaiah is not like that of Ezekiel, nor the style of Paul like that of John. b. Dynamical Inspiration. In opposition to the mechanical conception of inspiration, many in the eighteenth and nineteenth century advocated what they called dynamical inspiration. This theory renounces the idea that there was any direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the production of the books of the Bible, an operation
that finds its purpose precisely in the production of those books; and substitutes for it the idea of a general inspiration of the writers. This inspiration was a permanent characteristic of the writers, and therefore incidentally also influenced their writings. It does not differ essentially but only in degree from the spiritual enlightenment of believers in general. It penetrates all parts of Scripture, but not all in the same measure. The historical books of the Bible do not share it in the same measure as the doctrinal books. And while it renders the Biblical writings generally trustworthy, it allows for the possibility of errors, especially in the historical books. This theory certainly does not do justice to the Biblical data on inspiration. It robs the Bible of its supernatural character, reduces it to the level of general revelation, and destroys its infallibility. c. Organic Inspiration. The theory of inspiration which is now generally accepted in Reformed circles is usually called "organic inspiration," though some designate it as "dynamical inspiration."
The term "organic" serves to stress the fact that God did not employ the writers mechanically, but acted on them in an organic way, in harmony with the laws of their own inner being. He used them just as they were, with their character and temperament, their gifts and talents, their education and culture, their vocabulary, diction, and style; illumined their minds, prompted them to write, repressed the influence of sin on their literary activity, and guided them in the choice of their words and in the expression of their thoughts. This view is clearly most in harmony with the representations of Scripture. It represents the writers of Scripture not as mere amanuenses but as real authors who, while sometimes recording direct communications of God, yet on other occasions set down in writing the results of their own historical investigations or register their experiences of sin and forgiveness, of joy and sorrow, of threatening dangers and gracious deliverances. It also accounts for
the individuality of the books of the Bible, since each writer naturally had his own style and put on his literary productions his own personal stamp and the stamp of the time in which he lived.
3. THE EXTENT OF INSPIRATION. There are differences of opinion, not only regarding the nature of inspiration, but also with respect to its extent. a. Some Claim Inspiration for the Thoughts but not for the Words.
Many deny the inspiration of Scripture altogether. Others, however, are averse to such a complete denial, but feel that the advocates of the doctrine should retrench somewhat and speak of thought-rather than of word-inspiration. The thoughts, they say, were divinely inspired, but the words depended simply on the choice of the human authors. This is not a very plausible view, however. Thoughts cannot be dissociated from words. Says Dr. Orr: "Thought of necessity takes shape and is expressed in words. If there is inspiration at all, it must penetrate words as well as thought, must mould the expression, and make the language employed the living medium of the idea to be conveyed," Revelation and Inspiration, p. 209. b. Others Maintain that Inspiration Pertains Only to Certain Parts of Scripture. Under the influence of eighteenth century Rationalism lax views of inspiration found ready acceptance. It became rather common to deny the inspiration of the historical books of the Bible, and to limit it to the doctrinal writings. And even the inspiration claimed for the doctrinal books, though at first still regarded as supernatural in character, was finally conceived as a purely natural process, consisting in a special spiritual enlightenment. It had the effect of making the writers trustworthy witnesses in moral and spiritual matters, but offered no guarantee against all kinds of historical, chronological, and scientific mistakes. There is no
agreement in the camp as to the exact extent of inspiration. Some limit it to doctrinal matters others to the New Testament, still others to the words of Jesus, and, finally, there are those who regard only the Sermon on the Mount as inspired. In the last analysis every individual makes out for himself which parts of Scripture are and which are not inspired. The moment one accepts this view, he has virtually lost his Bible. c. According to Scripture Inspiration Extends to Every Part of the Bible. Jesus and the apostles speak of the books of the Old Testament as "Scripture" or "the Scriptures," and frequently appeal to them as such, in order to substantiate their teachings. For them an appeal to "Scripture" is clearly equivalent to an appeal to God. It is the end of all controversy. Besides, as we have seen in the preceding, some of the New Testament writers repeatedly quote passages of the Old
Testaments as words of God or of the Holy Spirit. This is especially the case in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Moreover, Peter places the epistles of Paul on a level with the writings of the Old Testament.
And, finally, the New Testament contains quotations from twentyfive Old Testament books all regarded as "Scripture," though some of them are taken from historical books. We cannot divide Scripture into two parts, the one divine and the other human. It is just as impossible to say where in Scripture the human ends and the divine begins or vice versa, as it is to tell where in man the body ends and the soul begins. The two interpenetrate, and as a result of this interpenetration the Bible is in its entirety, on the one hand, a human production, and on the other, a divine creation. d. Inspiration Extends to the Very Words of Scripture. The Bible is verbally inspired. It should be noted particularly that this is not the same as saying that it is mechanically inspired, though opponents frequently insist on identifying the two. The doctrine of verbal
inspiration does not assume that God dictated the words of the Bible, but that He guided the writers of the Biblical books in the choice of their words and expressions so as to keep them from errors, without in any way disregarding their vocabulary or suppressing their individuality of style and expression. Some prefer to call it plenary inspiration, in order to guard against the danger of identifying it with mechanical inspiration. This doctrine is fully warranted by Scripture.
In many instances the Lord told Moses and Joshua exactly what to write, Ex. 3 and 4; 6:2; 7:1; 12:1; Lev. 4:1; 6:1, 24; 7:22, 28; Jos. 1:1;
4:1; 6:2, etc. The prophets speak of Jehovah as putting His words in their mouth, Jer. 1:9, and as directing them to speak His words to the people, Ezek. 3:4, 10, 11. Paul speaks of his words as Spirit-taught words, 1 Cor. 2:13, and both he and Jesus sometimes base an argument on the use of a single word, Matt. 22:43–45; John 10:35;
Gal. 3:16.
C. The Perfections of Scripture. The Reformers deemed it necessary to develop the doctrine of Scripture, in order to off-set the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. They stressed particularly the following points:
1. THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. The Church of Rome as well as the Reformers ascribed divine authority to Scripture; yet they did not both mean exactly the same thing. The Roman hierarchy insisted on it that the Bible has no authority in itself, but owes its existence and therefore also its authority to the Church. Over against this position of Rome, the Reformers emphasized the fact that Scripture has inherent authority in virtue of its inspiration by the Holy Spirit. The Bible must be believed for its own sake; it is the inspired Word of God and therefore addresses man with authority.
This view of the supreme authority of Scripture was generally accepted by the Churches of the Reformation until the chill winds of
Rationalism swept over Europe and reason was enthroned as the arbiter of truth. Under its influence many now place the Bible on a level with other books and deny its divine authority. It is of the utmost importance, however, to maintain this authority. Scripture has first of all historical authority, that is, it is a true and absolutely reliable record, and as such entitled to a believing acceptance of all that it contains. But in addition to that it also has normative authority as a rule of life and conduct, and as such demands absolute subjection on the part of man.
2. THE NECESSITY OF SCRIPTURE. While the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the importance and usefulness of Scripture, it does not regard it as absolutely necessary. In its estimation it is more correct to say that Scripture needs the Church than that the Church needs Scripture. Some of the mystical sects, such as the Montanists, the Anabaptists, and the Libertines of Geneva, also denied the necessity of Scripture, and ascribed far more importance to the "inner light," the word of the Holy Spirit spoken in the hearts of God's people. The Reformers joined issue with them on this point.
They did not deny that God might have dispensed with the use of the written Word, but defended the position that the Word was necessary in virtue of the divine good pleasure to make the Word the seed of the Church. From that point of view Scripture is and remains necessary to the very end of time.
3. THE PERSPICUITY OF SCRIPTURE. In the estimation of the Church of Rome the Bible is obscure and is badly in need of interpretation even in matters of faith and practice. For that reason an infallible interpretation is needed, and this is supplied by the Church. Over against this position of Rome the Reformers emphasized the perspicuity or clearness of Scripture. By doing this they did not deny that there are mysteries in the Bible which the
human mind cannot fathom, did not claim that man can very well dispense with the labours of commentators, and did not even mean to assert that the way of salvation is so clearly revealed in Scripture that every one can easily understand it, irrespective of his spiritual condition. Their contention was simply that the knowledge necessary unto salvation, though not equally clear on every page of Scripture, is yet communicated to man throughout the Bible in such a simple and comprehensive form that anyone who is earnestly seeking salvation can easily gather this knowledge for himself, and need not depend for it on the Church or the priesthood. The perspicuity of Scripture follows from such passages as Ps. 19:7, 8; 119:105, 130, and the spiritual man is said to be able to judge and understand it, 1 Cor.
2:15; 10:15; 1 John 2:20.
4. THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE. Neither the Church of Rome nor the Anabaptists regard the Bible as a sufficient revelation of God.
The latter have a low opinion of Scripture and assert the absolute necessity of the inner light and of all kinds of special revelations, while the former regards oral tradition as a necessary complement of the written Word. According to Roman Catholics this tradition embodies truths which the apostles preached but did not commit to writing, and which were handed down in the Catholic Church, without interruption, from generation to generation. These are now contained chiefly in the decrees of the councils, in the writings of the holy fathers, in the deliverances of the Pope, and in the words and usages of the sacred liturgy. In opposition to this position the Reformers maintained the perfection or sufficiency of Scripture. This does not mean that everything that was spoken or written by the prophets, by Christ, and by the apostles is contained in Scripture, but simply that the written Word is sufficient for the moral and spiritual needs of individuals and of the Church. It involves the denial that
there is alongside of Scripture an unwritten Word of God of equal or even superior authority.
Questions for Review:
What is the relation between special revelation and Scripture? What different meanings has the term "special revelation"? Is it correct to say that special revelation and Scripture are identical? What
Scripture proof can you give for the inspiration of the Bible? What is mechanical inspiration and what objections are there to it? What is meant by "dynamical inspiration"? Why is it unacceptable as applied to Scripture? How would you describe the theory of organic inspiration? What advantages has it? What would you say to the theory that the thoughts and not the words of Scripture are inspired?
What objections are there to the notion of a partial inspiration? How would you prove that inspiration extends to every part of Scripture, and even to the very words? What is the nature of the authority of Scripture? In what sense are the Scriptures necessary, perspicuous and sufficient? What is the position of the Church of Rome on these joints?
References for Further Study:
Berkhof, Reformed Dogmatics, Introductory Volume, pp. 147–179; McPherson, Christian Dogmatics, pp. 24–29; Patton, The Inspiration of the Scriptures; Orr, Revelation and Inspiration, pp. 159–218;
Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, pp. 169–226.