From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: VanTil/4
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:12:17 GMT
Organization: FNAL

Taken from: In Defense of the Faith, Vol 5.  "An Introduction to Systematic
Theology,"  Ch. 12, "The Inspiration of Scripture."  Pp. 146-158.  Cornelius
VanTil.  Copyright, 1974, den Dulk Christian Foundation.  Presbyterian & Reform
Publishing Co. Used by permission.


THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE

I. The Orthodox Doctrine of Inspiration.
  
II Forms of Inspiration.
  A.  Lyrical Inspiration.
  B.  Chokmatical Inspiration.
  C.  Prohetical Inspiration.
  D.  Christ's Inspiration.
  E.  Apostles Inspiration.


In this connection, we may briefly mention what are usually called the various
forms of inspiration:

A.  Lyrical inspiration. In lyrical inspiration, such as we find especially in
the Psalms, the personality of the secondary author stands forward distinctly. 
In the Psalms and similar portions of Scripture, we have the subjective
reaction from the body of the redeemed to the objective and subjective acts of
redemption.  In it, the voice of the bride responds to the voice of the
bridegroom It is to be expected that here the activity of the secondary author
will be very pronounced.  But it is to be noticed that this in no wise reduces
the distinction between Shakespeare and David Shakespeare can give most
beautiful expression to the most individual, and therefore to the most
basically human emotions, singing of its joys and sorrows, but he works within
the field of the general principle only.  David, the singer of Israel, sings
the songs of the redeemed That is, he works within the field of the special
principle.  His joys and sorrows fluctuate with his individual, and therefore
with his people's, measure of salvation received and to be received of the
covenant God.  David is therefore inspired by the Spirit of creation and
regeneration and special revelation, while Shakespeare cannot even do justice
to the work of creation, because he does not recognize man' s sin against God.

B. Chokmatical inspiration.  This often expresses itself in poetry, but may
also do so in prose. It is didactical in character.  The didactic writers of
Scripture gave expression to the wisdom of God.  They sing of the wisdom of God
displayed in creation and in redemption.  There is great similarity between the
wisdom literature of Scripture and the wisdom literature of the pagan world.
But here also the difference is fundamental.  The wise man of Israel, as he
speaks in Proverbs, in Job, etc., presupposes absolute Wisdom.  The wise man
does not claim to have a ready solution, e. g., for the problem of evil, but
when he comes to the end of his reflections, he feels with certainty that in
Wisdom the solution is found.  Failure to find ready solutions does not drive
the wise man to pessimism, but to greater faith in Wisdom.  This in itself
indicates the difference between theism and anti-theism, a difference which
sets the wisdom literature of Scripture in opposition to the wisdom literature
of paganism.  Add to this the fact that the Wisdom of Scripture is finally
identified with Christ as the incarnate Word (I Cor. 1:20) and we see that the
wisdom literature of Scripture is based upon the presupposition of the second
person of the Trinity as the Logos of creation and Christ as the Logos of
redemption.  Still further, add to this the fact that, subjectively, ''the fear
of the Lord'' is the beginning of wisdom, so that only those that are
regenerate can be truly wise, and the picture of the wisdom literature of
Scripture reveals such lineaments as are seen nowhere else.  In view of these
considerations we can also understand that the auctor primarius, the Holy
Spirit, is using the writers of Scripture wisdom literature for the insertion
of the special principle into the general principle, and the very gradualness
with which he does it is but evidence of the hand of the great Physician
knowing the critical position of his patient.

C. Prophetical inspiration.  In prophetical inspiration, the secondary authors
are often more passive than in lyrical and chokmatic inspiration.  In all forms
of inspiration, a higher personality, even a personality from above comes to
and speaks through the secondary authors, but in the case of prophecy this fact
is more clearly apparent than elsewhere. Jeremiah (chapter 20) and Ezekiel
(chapter 3) seemed at times even to be antithetical with respect to the auctor
primarius.  The prophet's personality is an instrument of the Holy Spirit.  But
even so there is great variety.  The Holy Spirit chose various instruments for
various purposes, and these various instruments were at hand by the preparation
of providence and the Spirit of creation.  Accordingly, the Holy Spirit
utilized, e. g., the keen judgment, the political knowledge and insight, the
enthusiasm of genius, of peculiarly gifted spirits, for all these were his own
to use by virtue of creation.  But through them all the Holy Spirit speaks.
Their theme is again the creative-redemptive One, such an One as was not spoken
of elsewhere .

     From another viewpoint, we may say that prophetic inspiration is epical
instead of lyrical inspiration.  Epic poets do not so much reveal their own
persons as picture the panoramic movement of events.  So the prophets interpret
to us the history of the kingdom of God.  Of the past, they speak in the
historical books, but always with the purpose of revealing the progress of God'
s kingdom.  Of the present, they speak in order to make kings and potentates
conform their plans to God's.  Of the future they speak showing the culmination
of history as the realization of the counsel of God through the Lamb slain
before the foundation of the world.  They picture particularly the struggle of
the special principle as it seeks to insert itself into the general principle,
and the great opposition it meets with on the part of the general principle. 
The prophet himself stands in the midst of the drama.  All history he divides,
true Semite that he is, into two parts, the factum and the fiens.

D. The inspiration of Christ is univocal in character because he was himself
divine. Yet we must not off-hand identify Christ's human consciousness with his
divine consciousness. He tells us that the words he speaks have been received,
John 14:10, 24. This accords with his acceptance of human nature, and that in
its weakened condition.  He grew in wisdom, through the reading of Scripture,
etc. In order that he might be the true and great Prophet, the Spirit of God
was given to him without measure, John 3:34. Jesus' finite consciousness offers
no opposition, in the form of error, to the work of the Spirit.  So also he is
not dependent upon the many means used by other prophets.  The universal, the
generally human significance of his prophecy is not refracted through a greatly
limited individuality.  Christ was the Prophet, the source of other prophets,
and received centrally, by the inspiratio unionis, that which others passed on
to the periphery of the special principle.

E.  The inspiration of the apostles can best be understood if we first recall
(a) that the Holy Spirit was now poured out upon the church, (b) that the
inspiration of the apostles terminated upon their official position and service
as apostles, and (c) that the incarnation of Christ was now an accomplished
fact.  These facts explain to a large extent the differences between prophets
and apostles on the matter of inspiration.  Only for exceptional matters, such
as the visions of revelation and material unknown to Paul because he had not
from the beginning been an apostle, do they make appeal to special
communication given them.  For the rest, they speak of things they have seen
and their hands have handled in a very ordinary fashion. In I Corinthians
11:23, e.g., Paul makes a distinction between what he had directly received
from the Lord and what he knew by the regular process of apostolic inspiration.
 Cf. 1 Corinthians 7:10.  The descent of the Holy Spirit in the midst of the
people of God as the principium formans of the church, would naturally also
change the mode of the inspiration of the organs of special revelation.  The
Spirit worked more internally now than he did in the Old Testament
dispensation.  Similarly, the apostolic office was less aphoristic than the
prophetic office.  The prophets might be called prophets even while not
prophesying, yet, strictly speaking their office lay in the acts of prophesying
itself. They spoke when driven by the Spirit.  The apostles, on the other hand,
have a steady office; they speak because they are apostles and are inspired
because they are apostles, instead of vice versa.  Accordingly, those abrupt
assumptions of the prophets into the Spirit's service are not seen in the case
of the apostles.  Then, lastly, with respect to the center of the special
principle, the incarnation of Christ, the prophets and apostles assume
different attitudes.  With the former it was a matter of imagination and
vision, with the latter, a matter of simple memory.  Thus the apostles speak
more concretely than did the prophets.  The work of the Spirit could largely be
limited to a bringing into remembrance, or guiding the memory from the
corroding results of sin (John 14:26).  Only when they spoke of the things that
should come did they receive visions, or when they had to explain the
significance of the facts of redemption would they be guided by the Spirit into
the depths of God (I Cor. 2:10-12), but for the facts of redemption, the work
could be limited to guidance of the memory.

Now in view of the fact that apostolic inspiration differs so little in form
from that of the ordinary historian, and especially resembles the inspiration
of a sympathetic, i e, a Christian historian, it is again significant to note
that the difference is fundamental.  The work of the Holy Spirit upon the heart
of the believer through which he receives affinity to the special principle is
called enlightenment  But this enlightenment is never perfect on this earth. 
The apostles themselves do not ascribe their inspiration to the fact that they
in their own lives have reached perfect affinity to the special principle. 
Rather the contrary.  They include themselves among those that remain sinful to
the end.  Their enlightenment could accordingly not be the causa sufficiens for
the absolute authority with which their apostolic message is clothed.  Only a
special inspiration equal to that of the prophets could explain apostolic
authority.

     In view of all this the orthodox believer may say that he believes in an
organic view of inspiration.  The organism of the special principle is
organically inserted into the organism of the general principle.  The charge of
mechanism drops herewith  The amanuensis view which some believers have held to
in the past, and perhaps hold to now, has been accepted in only one of the many
Reformed confessions (Consensus Helvetica, 1675), which confession was accepted
by only a few cantons in Switzerland against the liberalizing movement of the
Saumur school of Theology.  And even those that did accept this view for a
while soon rejected it again.  It scarcely seems fair on the part of
unbelieving scholars to charge the church today with any dictation view of
inspiration.  Insofar as the insertion of the special principle required a
suppression of certain activities of the organs of revelation, we are not
ashamed to hold that such suppression took place.  To the extent, however, that
such was not necessary, because of the advancement of the history of
redemption, and because of the increased affinity for and understanding of the
special principle, such suppression was diminished until, in the case of the
apostles, it is scarcely discernible.

III. Scriptural Inspiration and Phenomena Outside of Scripture