Orthodoxy: Its Truths And Errors Part 42

"We aim," says he, "to establish, by the word of G.o.d, that the Scriptures are from G.o.d-that all the Scriptures are from G.o.d-and that every part of the Scripture is from G.o.d."

Let us consider the arguments in support of this kind of inspiration, and the objections to them.

_Argument I. Plenary Inspiration is necessary, that we may know with certainty what we ought to believe._

Great stress is laid upon this supposed _necessity_, both by Gaussen and Kirk.

"The book so written," say they, "is the Word of G.o.d, and binds the conscience of the world; and nothing else does so bind it, even though it were the writings of Paul and Peter.

"With the Infidel, whether he be Christian in name or otherwise, the sharp sword of a perfect inspiration will be found, at last, indispensable. If the ground is conceded to him that there is a single pa.s.sage in the Bible that is not divine, then we are disarmed; for he will be sure to apply this privilege to the very pa.s.sages which most fully oppose his pride, pa.s.sion, and error. How is the conscience of a wicked race to be bound down by a chain, one link of which is weak?"

_Reply to Argument I._-It is no way to prove a theory _true_ to a.s.sume its _necessity_. The only legitimate proof of a theory is by an induction of facts. This method of beginning by a supposed necessity, this looking first at consequences, has always been fruitful of false and empty theories. The great advance in modern science has come from subst.i.tuting the inductive for the ideological method. Find what the facts say, and the consequences will take care of themselves. An argument from consequences is usually only an appeal to prejudices.

Again: This argument is fatal to the arguments drawn from the Scriptures themselves. In arguing from the Scripture to prove that every pa.s.sage is divine, we have, of course, no right to a.s.sume that every pa.s.sage is divine, for that is the very thing to be proved. Then the texts which we quote to prove our position may themselves not be divine, and if we grant that, "we are disarmed." For, according to this argument, nothing can be proved conclusively from Scripture except we believe in plenary inspiration-then plenary inspiration itself cannot be proved from Scripture. But Gaussen admits that this doctrine can be proved "only by the Scriptures;" therefore (according to this argument) it cannot be proved at all.

If, therefore, the doctrine of plenary inspiration is necessary "to bind the conscience of the world," it is a doctrine incapable of proof. If, on the other hand, it can be proved, it is then clearly not necessary "to bind the conscience of the world."

But again. This theory of plenary inspiration does _not_ bind the consciences of men. If men are naturally disposed (as Messrs. Gaussen and Kirk maintain) to deny and disbelieve the doctrines and statements of the Bible, they have ample opportunity of doing so, notwithstanding their belief in this theory. For, after admitting that the words of Scripture, just as they stand, are perfectly true and given by G.o.d, the question comes, What do they mean? For instance, I wish, we will suppose, to deny the doctrine of the Deity of Christ. Now, you quote to me the text Rom.

9:5. "Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, G.o.d, blessed forever,"-which is the strongest text in the Bible in support of that doctrine. Now, though I believe in the doctrine of plenary inspiration, I am not obliged to accept this pa.s.sage as proof of the Deity of Christ. For I can, 1. a.s.sert that the verse is an interpolation; 2.

a.s.sert that it is wrongly pointed; 3. a.s.sert that it is mistranslated; 4.

a.s.sert that Christ is called G.o.d in an inferior sense, as G.o.d over the Church. And, as a matter of fact, these are the arguments always used, even by those who deny the doctrine of a plenary inspiration. They seldom or never accuse the writer of a mistake, but always rely on a supposed mistranslation, or misinterpretation, in order to avoid the force of a pa.s.sage. Hence, also, we find believers in this doctrine of plenary inspiration, differing in opinion on a thousand matters, and with no probability of ever coming to an agreement.

_Argument II. Several Pa.s.sages of the New Testament plainly teach the Doctrine of the Plenary Inspiration of the Bible._

The pa.s.sages quoted by Gaussen, and mainly relied upon, are 2 Tim. 3:16.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration," &c.; 2 Peter 1:27, "Holy men of G.o.d spake as they were moved," &c. Besides these, he refers to many pa.s.sages in the Old and New Testaments, but his chief stress is laid on these.

_Reply to Argument II._-It is well known that both these pa.s.sages refer only to the Old Testament Scriptures. It is well known that the first may be translated so as to read, "All Scripture, given by inspiration, is profitable," &c. But it is reply enough to both these pa.s.sages, to say, that neither of them indicates what kind of inspiration is intended. They a.s.sert an inspiration, which we also maintain. But they do _not_ a.s.sert a verbal inspiration, nor one which makes the Scriptures _infallible_, but simply one which makes them _profitable_.

The stress laid on the pa.s.sage 2 Tim. 3:16, "All Scripture," &c., is itself an argument against the theory of plenary inspiration. The most which can be made of this text, by _any_ punctuation or translation, is, that all the Scripture is written by inspired men. What was the degree or kind of their inspiration, is not in the least indicated. It might have been verbal, it might have been the inspiration of suggestion, or of superintendence, or the general inspiration of all Christians.

Gaussen's only argument on this point is, "that it is the _writing_ which is said to be inspired, and writing must be in words; hence the inspiration must be verbal." To this we must reply, that inspired writing can only mean what is written by inspired men. The writing itself cannot be inspired. This argument is too flimsy to be dwelt upon.

But further still. There is another argument which lies against every attempt to prove plenary inspiration out of the Scripture. _Every such attempt is necessarily reasoning in a circle._ Gaussen and Kirk have labored earnestly to reply to this argument, but in vain. The answer they make is, "We are not reasoning with Infidels, but with Christians. We address men who respect the Scriptures, and who admit their truth. The Scriptures are inspired, we affirm, because, being authentic and true, they declare themselves inspired; and the Scriptures are plenarily inspired, because, being inspired, they say that they are so totally, and without any exception."

But we answer Messrs. Gaussen and Kirk thus: "You are indeed reasoning with Christians, not with Deists; but you are reasoning with Christians who do not believe that _every pa.s.sage_ of Scripture is infallibly inspired. To prove your doctrine from any particular pa.s.sages or verbal expressions, you must prove that those particular pa.s.sages and expressions are not themselves errors. You yourselves a.s.sert that this cannot be done, except we believe these pa.s.sages to be infallibly inspired. Therefore you must a.s.sume infallible inspiration in order to prove infallible inspiration. In other words, you beg the question instead of arguing it."

In this vicious circle the advocates of a verbal inspiration of infallibility are necessarily imprisoned whenever they attempt to argue from the words of Scripture. They contend that one must believe their theory in order to be sure that any pa.s.sage is absolutely true, and then they quote pa.s.sages to prove their theory, as if they were absolutely true.

_Argument III. The theory of plenary inspiration is simple, precise, intelligible, and easy to be applied._

We admit this to be true. It has this merit in common with the opposite theory of no inspiration. Both are simple, precise, and very easy of application. But simplicity is not always a sign of truth. The facts of nature and life are more apt to be complex than simple. Theories distinguished by their simplicity most commonly ignore or omit a part of the facts. Simplistic theories are generally one-sided and partial.

Materialism, Atheism, Idealism, Fatalism, are all very simple theories, and explain all difficulties with a marvellous rapidity. This makes them, at first, attractive to the intellect, which always loves clear and distinct views; but afterwards, when it is seen that they obtain clearness by means of shallowness they are found unsatisfactory.

_Argument IV. The quotations from the Old Testament, by Jesus and his apostles, show that they regarded its language as infallibly inspired._

This argument, upon which great stress is laid, both by Prof. Gaussen and Dr. Kirk, though plausible at first sight, becomes wholly untenable on examination.

Thus, in the temptation of Jesus, in his reply to the tempter, he says, "Thou shalt not live by bread alone;" the whole force of the argument depending on the single word _alone_.

Replying to the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, he says, "Have ye not read that G.o.d says, I _am_ the G.o.d of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob? G.o.d is not the G.o.d of the dead, but of the living." Then the whole stress of the argument rests on the use of the verb in the present tense, "_I am_."

Arguing with the Pharisees, "How did David, by the Spirit, call him _Lord_, saying, The Lord said to my Lord," &c.? Here the argument depends on the use of the single word _Lord_.

Many more instances could be produced of the same kind; and Gaussen contends, that when Jesus and his apostles thus rest their argument on the force of a single word of the Old Testament, they must have believed that the very words were given by inspiration. For otherwise the writers might not have chosen the right word to express their thought in each particular case. And unless the Jews had also believed in the verbal inspiration of their Scriptures, they would have replied that these particular words might have been errors.

_Reply to this Argument._-Plausible as this argument may seem, it turns out to be wholly empty and worthless. Whenever any writer is admitted to be an authority, then his words become authoritative, and arguments are necessarily based on single words and expressions. In all such cases, we a.s.sume that he chose the best words by which to convey his thought, and yet we do not ascribe to him any inspiration or infallibility.

Thus, go into our courts of law, and you will hear the language of the United States const.i.tution, of the acts of legislature, of previous decisions of the courts, argued from, word by word. Counsel argue by the hour upon the force and weight of single words in the authorities. Judges in their charges instruct the jury to determine the life and death of the criminal according to the letter of the law. And this they do necessarily, according to the rule, "_c.u.m recedit a litera, judex transit in legislatorem_." But will any one maintain that the counsel and court believe that the legislature was infallibly inspired to choose the very language which would convey their meaning?

In this very argument for plenary inspiration, Gaussen and his a.s.sociates rest their argument on the single word "all," in the text, "All Scripture is given by inspiration," &c. Yet, say they, we are not a.s.suming that this text is plenarily inspired, for that, we admit, would be begging the question. If, then, Mr. Gaussen can argue from the force of the single word _all_, without a.s.suming the doctrine of plenary inspiration, why could not Jesus and his apostles argue from single words, without a.s.suming the doctrine of plenary inspiration?

There is, however, a pa.s.sage in Paul (Gal. 3:16), in which the apostle quotes a text from the Old Testament, and lays the whole stress of his argument on two letters. "He says not, 'And to seeds' sp??as??, as of many, but as of one, 'And to thy seed' spe?at?." According to Gaussen's argument, Paul must have believed in the inspiration of the letters. But Gaussen is careful not to adduce this instance, which seems at first so much in his favor. For, in fact, both in Hebrew and Greek, as in English, "seed" is a collective noun, and does mean _many_ in the singular. The argument of Paul, therefore, falls through; and it is evident that he is no example to be imitated here, in laying stress on one or two letters.

Most modern interpreters admit that he made a mistake; and so, among the ancients, did Jerome, who nevertheless, said the argument "was good enough for the foolish Galatians."

Having thus replied, very briefly, but we believe sufficiently, to the main arguments in support of this theory, we say, in conclusion, that it cannot be true, for the following reasons, which we simply state, and do not now attempt to unfold.

1. The New Testament writers nowhere claim to be infallibly inspired to write. If they had been infallibly inspired to write the Gospels and Epistles, they certainly ought to have announced this important fact.

Instead of which Luke gives as his reason for writing, not that G.o.d inspired him to write, but that "inasmuch as others have taken in hand" to write, it seemed good to him also to do the same, and that for the benefit of Theophilus. John and Paul a.s.sert the truth of what they say, but not on account of their being inspired to write, but because they are disciples and apostles.

2. The differences in the accounts of the same transactions show that their inspiration was not verbal.

These differences appear on every page of any Harmony of the New Testament. They are numerous but unimportant; they go to prove the truth of the narrative, and give probability to the main Gospel statements. But they utterly disprove the theory of plenary inspiration.

3. Paul declares that some things which he says are "of the Lord," other things "of himself;" that in regard to some things he was inspired, in regard to others, not.

4. Every writer in the New Testament has a style of his own, and there is no appearance of his being merely an amanuensis.

5. While the New Testament writers lay no claim to any such inspiration as this theory a.s.sumes, they do claim for themselves and for all other Christians another kind of inspiration, which is sufficient for all the facts, and which gives them ample authority over our faith and life, and makes them independent sources of Christian truth.

This view we have already sufficiently considered in our chapter on inspiration.

-- 3. Defence of the Doctrine that Sin is a Nature, by Professor Shedd.

In the "Christian Review" for 1852 appeared an article of great power, written by a gentleman who has since become eminent as a thinker and writer-Professor W. G. T. Shedd. The t.i.tle of the article was calculated to attract attention, as a bold attempt to defend an extreme position of Calvinism-"Sin a Nature, and that Nature Guilt." The article was so rational and clear that we consider it as being even now the best statement extant of this thorough-going Calvinism, and therefore devote a few pages here to its examination.(87)

After some introductory remarks, which it is not necessary to notice, the writer lays down his first position, that sin is a nature. His statement is, that we all sin necessarily and continually in consequence of _our nature_, i.e., the character born with us, original and innate.

The proofs of this position are, 1. The language of St. Paul (Eph. 2:3), "We were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." 2. That we are compelled by the laws of our mind to refer volitions to a nature, as qualities to a substance. We cannot stop in the outward act of sin, but by a mental instinct look inward to the particular volition from which the sin came. Nor can the mind stop with this particular volition. There is a steady and uniform state of character, which particular volitions cannot explain. The instinct of reason causes us to look back for one common principle and source, which shall give unity to the subject; and, having attained a view both central and simple, it is satisfied. As our mind compels us to refer all properties to a substance in which they inhere, so it compels us to refer all similar volitions to a simple nature. When we see exercises of the soul, we as instinctively refer them to a nature in that soul, as we refer the properties of a body to the substance of that body. 3. Christian experience proves that sin is a nature. The Christian, especially as his experience deepens, is troubled, not so much by his separate sinful actions and volitions, as by the sinful nature which they indicate, and out of which they spring. We are compelled to believe, as we look inward, that there is a principle of evil within us, below those separate transgressions of which we are conscious. There is a diseased condition of the soul, which these transgressions, indicate. There are secret faults from which we pray to be cleansed. 4. The history of Christian doctrine shows that the Church has in all ages believed in a sinful nature, as distinguished from conscious transgressions.

These are the proofs of the first position, that sin is a nature. We have stated them concisely, but with sufficient distinctness and completeness.

Let us now examine their validity.

The first argument is the text in Ephesians, "We were by nature children of wrath," ?e? t???a f?se? ?????. The word f?s??, the writer contends, "always denotes something original and innate, in contradistinction to something acquired by practice or habit." This text, we know, is the proof-text of original sin, and is considered by many commentators as teaching that man's nature is wholly corrupt. But plainly this is going too far. Granting the full meaning claimed for the word f?s??, the text only a.s.serts that there is something in man's nature which exposes him to the divine displeasure by being the source of sin. It does not a.s.sert the corruption of the whole nature, nor preclude the supposition that we are born with tendencies to good, no less than to evil. That we are so, the writer is bound by his own statement to admit; for if this Greek word "always denotes something original and innate," it denotes this in Rom.

2:14,(88) which declares that the Gentiles "do by nature the things contained in the law." According to this pa.s.sage in Romans, if there be such a thing as natural depravity, it is not total; and if there be such a thing as total depravity, it is not natural. Those who wish to maintain both doctrines can only do it by admitting two different kinds of sinfulness in man, one of which is natural, but not total; the other total, but not natural-a distinction which we esteem a sound one.