From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: VanTil/3 (N.T.)
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:41:23 GMT
Organization: FNAL

The continuing saga of inerrancy.  I hope I am posting this in its entirety. 
If I have skipped a section of the outline, please let me know.  I'm very busy
at the moment and only have a few minutes a day to give to this.  .......Rex

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.
  A. With respect to Personal Inspiration.
  B With Respect to Scriptural Inspiration.
    1.  For the Old Testament.
    *2.  For the New Testament.
 * C. With Respect to Verbal Inspiration.

II Forms of Inspiration.
 
III.  Scriptural Inspiration and Phenomea Outside of Scripture


    2. For the New Testament

    a. The New Testament organs of revelation are equally conscious of the
inspiration of their writings as were the Old Testament organs of revelation. 
To their writings they ascribe the same authority that they ascribe to their
spoken words: e.g., Colossians 4:16.

    b. In II Peter 3:15, Paul's epistles are placed on the level of the Old
Testament Scripture He compares them with "the other scriptures.''

    c. So also Paul himself sets up his epistles as a standard of truth. In I
Corinthians 14:37 we read: "If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet or
spiritual let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that
they are the commandment of the Lord.''

  C. With Respect to Verbal Inspiration

     We must finally prove that the modern theory of inspiration which seeks to
breakup the unity of Scripture bylimiting the concept of inspiration either in
extension or in intension, is mistaken because the auctor primarius (God) in
addition to (a) identifying his revelation with the revelation of his chosen
organs, the prophets and apostles, (b) identifying his and their revelations by
speech with his and their revelations by writing has  (c) even identified his
revelation with the very words of his prophets and apostles. We speak of this
as plenary inspiration.

     Verbal inspiration (l) is a necessity of the consistent activity of the
special principle.  Only the Spirit could give the correct interpretation of
the facts of redemption. Now, since authoritative interpretation of thought can
come through expression in language only, it follows that this expression must
itself be completely accurate.  If it were not, *there would be no
authoritative communication* of the thought or meaning of special revelation
(2). All that is meant by "verbal inspiration'' is that inspiration extends to
the words as well as to the thought.

Footnotes:
[(1) Verbal inspiration is not to be identified with a mechanical view of the
organs of revelation. Verbal inspiration is in consonance with an organic view
of the relation of the divine Spirit to the human organs of revelation. The
Holy Spirit used the various persons through whom he conveyed his revelation,
without suppression of the characteristics of their personality.
(2) Cf. J. 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).]


     Scripture evidence for verbal inspiration may be briefly tabulated as
follows:
  1.  Moses constantly speaks of verbal revelations given him from Jehovah: 
e.g., Exodus 3:4, 5:1. And this is characteristic of the prophets in general.
Jeremiah 1:9: ''Then the Lord put forth his hand and touched my mouth; and the
Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth." Similarly Ezekiel
(3:4, 10,11) is told to receive and speak the words of Jehovah.

  2. In the New Testament (a) Paul says: "Which things also we speak, not in
words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth, comparing
spiritual things with spiritual'' (I Cor. 2:13). (b) In Hebrews, there are many
quotations from the Old Testament: l:5 ff., 2:12,13, 3:7; 4:4,5,7, 8:10,
10:15-17 which are cited, not as words of some individual writer, but as words
of God. (c) In three instances, an argument is based directly upon a single
word.  John 10:35: ''If he called them gods. . .'' Matthew 22:43-45: "How then
doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying the Lord said unto my Lord. . .
'' Galatians 3:16: ''Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed.
He saith not, and to seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which
is Christ."  In this last passage, the argument is based upon the difference
between a singular and a plural.

*****It should be noted in this connection that what Scripture teaches about
inspiration, in the nature of the case, applies to the autographa only. This at
once brings up an exceedingly important practical problem. The autographa have
been lost. The most that textual criticism has done is to approach the accuracy
of the autographa.  So then the question that is asked is whether it is of any
practical significance to insist that the autographa were absolutely inspired. 
Is it not true that for all practical purposes we have to do without them?  Is
it not therefore just as well not to speak about the autographa, and only to
say that the Bible is generally trustworthy?  It is thus that many well-meaning
orthodox men speak today.

     We should distinguish carefully at this point.  We may perhaps illustrate
the difference between a doctrine of scriptural inspiration that holds to this
notion of general trustworthiness and the doctrine of Scripture which holds to
the infallible inspiration of the autographa, though it recognizes the fact
that the autographa are not in our possession, by thinking of a river that
sometimes overflows its banks.  Suppose that we are seeking to cross such a
river while the flood has gone so high as to cover the bridge.  As far as the
surface appearance is concerned, we cannot see whether there is a bridge.  We
have to drive in the water even while we are driving on the bridge.  Yet, if
there were no bridge, we should certainly not be able to cross that river.  We
can drive with comparative ease in water that is a few inches deep as long as
we have a solid bottom under the water.  What the idea of general
trustworthiness without infallible inspiration does in effect is to say that it
really makes no difference whether there is a solid bottom under us, inasmuch
as we have to drive through water in any case.  But we have seen that man needs
absolutely authoritative interpretation.  Hence, if the autographa were not
infallibly inspired, it would mean that at some point human interpretation
would stand above divine interpretation. It would mean that man were, after
all, not certain that the facts and the interpretations given to the facts in
Scripture are true.

     Summing up then we note that: (a) the human subject was created by God so
that it could, by virtue of that fact, be and originally was the perfect medium
of the revelation of God; (b) even after the entrance of sin, the human subject
remained metaphysically accessible to God so that God could, by virtue of that
fact, insert an area of perfect interpretation into the world of false
interpretation; (c) God actually did insert such an infallible interpretation,
or there would be no true interpretation at all; (d) we are actually crossing
the river of life on this bridge of infallible interpretation, even though it
be covered (l) objectively, by the loss of the autographa, and (2)
subjectively, by the inability of any sinner to interpret the truth perfectly
to himself.

II Forms of Inspiration