Section One - Inspiration
Inspiration is defined as that work of the Holy Spirit of God upon
the minds, souls, and bodies of the Scripture writers which makes
their writings the record of a progressive divine revelation. When
God determined to give to His creation the Self-revelation that we
today call the Bible, He selected the Prophets of the Old
Testament, and the Apostles of the New Testament, and through the
agency of His indwelling Holy Spirit so over came the sin nature of
these men that the words which He selected from the reservoir of the
culture, education, experience, and personality of the man were His
chosen words, and no others. This process of inspiration was two
fold: Verbal, the very words that God selected were the very words
that best revealed the mind and will of God to His creation. Thus,
every word so inspired was in fact, the Word of God. Plenary, the
collection of words that we call the Bible is, in its whole, the
complete Word of God, without error or contradiction. The entire
Bible, regardless of subject matter, is the infallible, unfailing,
Revelation of God.
Now let's look at some of the various theories of inspiration that
have been common in historic Christendom.
The Intuition or Natural Theory is held by the typical Modernist
today, who believes that inspiration is merely a higher development
of that natural insight into truth which all men posses to some
degree. In other words, the Bible is merely a book by men with
highly religious motivation, and is similar to a book about science
written by men with highly scientific motivation. This theory,
holding as it does that natural insight is the only source of
religious truth, involves a serious self-contradiction; if the
theory is true, then one man is inspired to utter that which
another man is inspired to condemn. The Koran and the Bible cannot
both be inspired Truth, as they contradict each other. This theory
reduces moral and religious truth to the subjective - a matter of
private opinion - having no objective reality apart from the
opinions of men.
The Illumination or Mystical Theory regards inspiration as merely
an intensifying and elevating of the religious perceptions of the
believer, the same in kind, though greater in degree, as the
illumination of every believer by the Holy Spirit. This position
holds that the Bible is not the Word of God, but only contains the
Word of God, and that not the writings, but only the writers were
inspired. Of course, we must admit that there is an illumination
of the mind of the believer by the Holy Spirit as we look into the
Word of God, but this illumination only allows us to understand
that which has already been written, and cannot impart new truth.
The Dictation or Mechanical Theory holds that inspiration consisted
in such a possession of the minds and bodies of the Scripture
writers by the Holy Spirit, that they became passive instruments,
not participating in any way in the process of inspiration. This
theory fails to explain the medical terms used by Luke, the
military and sporting terms used by Paul, and the distinct
differences between the books written by the various Old and New
Testament writers. Of course, we must grant that there are
instances when God's communications to mankind were in an audible
voice, and took the form of spoken words, and that sometimes God
commanded men to commit these words to writing for the edification
of all men. However, the Dictation Theory would force this
occasional event upon all of Scripture, quite apart from the
evidence to the contrary.
The Dynamic or Conceptual Theory states that inspiration is not
simply a natural, but also a supernatural fact, and that it is the
immediate work of a personal God in the soul of man. This theory
holds that the Scriptures contain a human as well as a divine
element, so that while they present a body of divinely revealed
truth, this truth is shaped in human molds and adapted to ordinary
human intelligence, and is thus conceptual (the idea, or thought,
or concept is inspired) rather than verbal (the very words are
inspired) in its view of inspiration. This is the view held,
unfortunately, by many fundamentalists today, and is the basis for
the proliferation of the many English language translations of the
Scriptures now on the market, each one trying to put into different
words the inspired thought, or idea, or concept of the original,
while glossing over or even ignoring the words inspired by God.
The Verbal and Formal Inspiration position believes that first of
all the Holy Spirit worked in the Prophets of the Old Testament and
the Apostles of the New Testament in such a way that the very words
of God were selected from the vocabulary of the man, taking into
account his culture, education, and experience, and that not only
the very words, but also the forms of the words, such as noun,
pronoun, verb, adverb, singular, plural, etc., were written at the
prompting of the Holy Spirit. This view is the only one that can
give us a completely inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved
Bible, as well as account for such statements as Paul saying that
the very form of a word was inspired by God for a specific purpose
as in Galatians 3:16, and Christ saying in Matthew 5:18 that not
only was each word inspired, but every letter of every word was
inspired. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the
perfect mirror of the Lord Jesus Christ, which reflects Him and
leads us to Him. Authority resides in the Scriptures just as it does
in Him. Just as all authority is given to Christ (Matthew 28:18),
the living Word, all authority is bound up in the Scriptures, the
reflection of Him, the written Word of God.
Now comes the problem we face in fundamental circles today. What
exactly was it that God inspired. Was it men? Was it manuscripts?
Was it languages? One of the greatest failings of fundamentalism
today is this confusion concerning the doctrine of inspiration. If
you were to ask every independent, fundamental Baptist Pastor what
it was that God inspired, most would reply "the original
manuscripts." However, you can search the scriptures forever, and
never find a reference to the "original manuscripts." But you will
find, over and over again references to the "words" that God has
spoken. God did not inspire men or manuscripts, He inspired words!
God did not concern Himself with parchment, vellum, papyrus, and
ink, but with words! It was, and still is, the words of God that
are inspired. It makes absolutely no difference if those inspired
words are written by the hand of Moses, Samuel, David, Daniel,
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, or if they were
carefully copied by a copyist in his own handwriting, or if they are
scrawled on the rest room wall! If they are the same words, they
are God's words, and if they are God's words, they are inspired
words!
Unfortunately many object to this view of Scripture for various
reasons. Some say that factual errors in the Bible disprove this
verbal and formal view of inspiration. Now we must ask, does the
Bible contain factual errors? Yes, it does, but before you get out
the tar and feathers, allow me to elaborate! The pious speeches
made by Job's "comforters" contain factual errors. However,
inspiration guarantees the accurate recording of these speeches,
but not the truthfulness of the content. Satan said "Ye shall not
surely die," in Genesis 3:4. That statement is a lie, but is
accurately recorded by the Holy Spirit. The Bible speaks of "the
four corners of the Earth" in Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1,
apparently ignorant of the scientific fact that the earth is round.
However, this so-called error is nothing more than using the
language of appearance. We still say today that the sun rises and
sets. However, we know that scientifically speaking, the sun
neither rises nor sets, but it is the Earth that rotates upon its
axis, producing the appearance of the sun rising and setting. Are
we in error then to say that the sun rises and sets? No, the sun
still appears to rise and set, and I for one will continue to enjoy
watching the beauty of the swollen red sun setting in the Pacific
Ocean, and even though I may be unscientific in my description of a
sunset, it remains just as beautiful. Besides which, the Bible
clearly teaches that the Earth is round in Isaiah 40:22. Also, we
still describe our world as having four directions North, South,
East, and West, or some combination thereof. Is it wrong to say
that there are four primary directions (corners?), I don't think so.
So then, the honest reader will see that when viewed properly, the
Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and all sufficient
Word of God, totally worthy of our full trust and confidence in all
matters of faith, practice, knowledge, and understanding, and is
able to "make us wise unto salvation", as well as "lead us into all
truth."
Section Two - Preservation
The doctrine of preservation is one that is receiving much
attention today, and has become as controversial as the doctrine of
inspiration was fifty years ago, and will, in all probability have
the same effect on Christendom. In the near future, the lines of
demarcation will be more boldly drawn, and a new separatism will
develop around the proper understanding of the doctrine of Bible
preservation. Those who decide on a preserved Scripture and believe
that the local "church of the living God [is] the pillar and ground
of the truth" will be the fundamentalists of tomorrow, and those
who continue to hold to the idea of a higher "critical" text, and
the authority of so-called "scholars" to determine what is, and
what is not the Word of God, will go the way of Liberal and
Modernistic Christendom, into decline and eclipse. We are already
seeing a tendency toward this decline in many of the Christian
Colleges that were great preacher training schools in the past, but
are now turning out more accountants or other professionals then
they are preachers.
We must first ask ourselves, does the Bible teach that God has
promised to preserve His word? I contend that it does, and does so
quite emphatically! I believe when God promises something, He
keeps and performs that promise. In Psalm 12:6-7 God says: "The
words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of
earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou
shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Here is a plain
and simple statement concerning the doctrine of Bible preservation.
Notice that God has not just promised to preserve His word, but has
promised to preserve it from "this generation (the time of David)
for ever." God has promised that every generation from the time of
David until the end of eternity will have a preserved authoritative
Bible. In Psalm 78:5-7 God states that he has established His
testimony and appointed His law for the purpose of teaching each
succeeding generation. Every generation has the promise of a
preserved Bible, that they "not forget the works of God, but keep
His commandments." "Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in
heaven," says the psalmist in Psalm 119:89. God's word has been
settled, kept pure, preserved, according to this verse. Some have
argued that it is settled in heaven, but not on earth! How
foolish! God's word is a revelation from God to man. It is man
that needs God's word, mankind right here on earth, not God, or the
already redeemed in heaven. God has promised to preserve His word
from generation to generation. Those generations are generated
right here on earth, not in heaven! In Matthew 4:4, when Jesus was
tempted by the Devil, He replied, "Man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
How can a man live by the Word of God, if he doesn't have it? In
order for men and women to live by the Word of God, it must be
available to them, God must have preserved it! By the way, I don't
want to get too technical with you, but the word "written" is in the
perfect tense, meaning that it was written in the past, and has
continued right down to the time of Christ, and of course down to
this present time also. In other words, God has preserved it!
Let's stick to the truth! There have been many strange statements
made of late by both sides of this debate that need to be
addressed. The proponents of the Critical Text often assert that
the Traditional Text originated with the cleric Erasmus. There is a
fundamental dishonesty inherent in that statement. The Traditional
Text of the Greek New Testament existed in the vast majority of
Greek manuscripts back to at least 450 A. D., and Traditional
readings existed in the below mentioned versions and lectionaries
back to at least 150 A. D. It must also be noted that the
adherents to the Traditional Text sometimes attribute the Critical
Text to Westcott and Hort, knowing full well that examples of this
text existed at about 350 A. D. Both sides ought to be very careful
concerning such statements. If we believe that our respective
position is so weak that it cannot be supported by the facts,
resorting to such deceitful tactics will do nothing to advance
either position, and certainly will not honor and glorify God, which
ought to be our ultimate goal! The Traditional Text of the New
Testament, sometimes called the Textus Receptus, or Byzantine Text,
or Syrian Text, is incontestably admitted to have existed virtually
unchanged from about 450 A. D. and reigned spreme, without serious
challenge, until about 1850 when a copy of the Alexandrian text was
discovered in St. Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai (another had
previously been found in the basement of the Vatican library in
Rome in about 1450.) Since 1880 the Alexandrian text has enjoyed a
rapid rise to ascendancy in the English speaking Christian world.
The Alexandrian, Caesarean, and Western Greek texts were virtually
unknown for the fourteen centuries between 450 and 1850. If God
promised to preserve His word unto all generations (Psalm 12), those
generations between 450 and 1850 must be included in that promise.
The argument of some that the Latin Vulgate (which primarily
follows the Alexandrian text) was much more widely published and
circulated during these fourteen centuries and therefore represents
the "preserved text", begs the question: Does God preserve His
Words, or the Words of a translator? The Latin Version was a
translation done by men, and not the original language words
inspired and preserved by God. If these men can claim preservation
for a Latin translation, then they have no grounds for objection
when others claim preservation for an English translation. The
question is not "which language", the question is "which text." The
only Greek text that has been in continuous use from the early
second century to the present was, and is, the Traditional Text!
The Traditional readings found in the Syriac Version, the Old Latin
versions, and the Greek lectionaries provide strong evidence to the
open minded and honest researcher as to the existence of the
Traditional Text clear back to the mid-second century, or to about
150 A. D. It is quite clear then to the honest, open minded
researcher that the Traditional Text is the only text that has been
in constant, uninterrupted usage from the first century until the
present time, and therefore is the only text that qualifies for the
term "preserved."
I must also now address the reluctance on the part of many
fundamentalists to refer to the English Bible as "inspired." Many
today insist that the term inspired applies only to the original
languages, and that referring to the King James Bible as inspired,
is to be a "Ruckmanite" or to believe in "double inspiration." (By
the way, I have never met Dr. Ruckman, never listened to one of his
tapes, never read one of his books. I came to my present position
by studying the Bible, not Dr. Ruckman or his writings.) God did not
inspire the Bible twice. He didn't have to, He did it right the
first time! The theological term for the inspiration of the
English Bible is "derivative inspiration." This simply means the
English Bible is inspired because the Hebrew and Greek texts from
which it is derived are inspired. Things that are equal to the
same thing, are equal to each other. The verbal and formal
translation technique provides for the English words to be equal to
the Hebrew and Greek in meaning and form. If the Hebrew and Greek
are inspired, and the English equals the Hebrew and Greek in form
and meaning, the English is also inspired. The only alternative to
an inspired Bible is an expired Bible. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to know that expired means dead! Those who refuse to call
the English Bible inspired, are admitting they preach and teach
from a dead book! This will be dealt with more completely in the
next section, Translation.
Now let's look at the position that is taken by others that there
are deliberate deceptions in the Authorized King James Bible.
These men state in part, "...When the King James translators came
to the Greek word baptizo, they did not translate the word. Rather,
they transliterated the word. If they had translated the word,
they would have had to translate it to 'dip', or to 'immerse.'
However, the Church of England at that time taught sprinkling for
baptism. If the translators had translated the word 'immerse,' they
would have been in trouble with the Church of England. So in order
to avoid the trouble and to hide the true meaning of Baptizo, they
transliterated the word. To claim that God inspired the
translators in that deception borders on blasphemy. If someone
wishes to accuse God of that kind of deception, that is his
business. But that is not a position that we at 'The Sword Of The
Lord' wish to take." I realize that I have already dealt with this
kind of statement from another source, but it is so common I believe
it needs to be restated before we go on. This sort of statement is
an exact illustration of the main problem in fundamentalism today.
Far too many preachers are ignorant of the simple truths of Bible
inspiration and preservation. God did not inspire men, he inspired
His Word, and those inspired words we call Scripture. 2 Timothy
3:16 tell us that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God,"
if the King James Bible is Scripture, then it must be inspired, or
God is a liar! Furthermore, we are not accusing God of deception, we
are accusing these foolish men of deception through ignorance. As
far as their criticism of the word Baptism is concerned, let me
again point out a few facts, not opinions. First, our English word
baptism was not transliterated from the Greek word baptizo
(baptizo), by the King James translators, but was an English word
in common usage since five hundred years before the King James
translators began their work. The word did not come into the
language as a transliteration of the Greek, but from the French
"Baptiste", at the time of the Norman conquest in 1066! The French
got it from the Romans (Latin) as the Romans moved north into Gaul
(present day France). It was the Romans who got it from the Greek,
and carried it throughout their empire, where it has lived on in
French, Italian, Spanish, English, and other languages, even after
the death of the Latin language. Second, it is ridiculous to say
that the translators "would have had to translate the word to 'dip'
or to 'immerse'. Any competent researcher can see from a quick
look into the standard reference book on the origin and usage of
the English language, "The Oxford English Dictionary", (any good
library will have one) that "immerse" did not appear in English
until 1605, the year after the King James translators started their
work, and even then, did not have the same meaning as it does
today. The word "immerse" originally meant to "merge with", and
only came to mean "submerge in" in 1613, two years after the King
James Bible was published. As far as "dip" is concerned, the word
is used ten times in the King James Bible, and never once is it
used to describe Christian Baptism. It is used nine times in the
Old Testament, and only once in the New Testament to describe what
the rich man in hell requested Abraham to have Lazarus do with his
finger because of his terrible thirst. Third, great ignorance and
inconsistency is shown by criticizing the word baptism, while
calling yourself a Baptist, which comes from the same word! If we
are to remove the word baptism from our King James Bibles, we must
also remove "angel," "apostasy," "apostle," "blaspheme,"
"blasphemous," "blasphemy," "paradise," "psalm," "prophecy," and
"prophet!" In fact, you are going to have to remove about seventy
percent of the English language, for it is just about that much
that has come from foreign sources.
One thing we as Christians must never forget is that God the Holy
Spirit has the same power to preserve His Word as He had to inspire
it. If God could inspire His Word, but has not been able to
preserve it for us, intact, then He is not the Omnipotent God of
Creation, but a mere imposter, posing and posturing in cheap
imitation of the Almighty. That does not describe my great God and
Savior! My God is able to do all that He has promised, without
exception!
|