The inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy on the Holy Scriptures is one of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. He who denies this doctrine makes God a liar, and is an apostate from the faith, no matter his pretensions to the contrary. “All scripture,” it is written “is given by inspiration of God.” All books, magazines, articles, etc., which instil doubts in the mind as to the authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures are from the devil. The writers of all such, whatever their status or claims, are agents of Satan. They may appear to be stars in the firmament of the visible church, but for them is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
The following extract from the writings of the late Bishop Ryle clearly sets forth the orthodox view of inspiration. “The view,” he writes, “for which I contend — that every word of the Bible is inspired — this is the same ground which almost all the fathers occupied; which Calvin, Cranmer, Jewell, Hooker and Owen took up long ago; which Chalmers, Robert Haldane, Gaussen, Bishop Wordsworth, Burgon and Archdeacon Lee, of the Irish Church, have ably defended in modern days. Here are some of the reasons which satisfy me:—
(a) I cannot see how the Bible can be a perfect rule of faith and practice if it is not fully inspired, and if it contains any flaws and imperfections. If the Bible is anything at all, it is the statute-book of God’s kingdom, the code of laws and regulations by which the subjects of that kingdom are to live, the register-deed of the terms on which they have peace now, and shall have glory hereafter. Every lawyer can tell us that in legal deeds and statutes every word is of importance and that property, life, or death may often turn on a single word. If God’s statute-book is not inspired, and every word is not of divine authority, His subjects are left in a pitiable state.
(b) If the Bible is not fully inspired, and contains imperfections, I cannot understand the language which is frequently used about it in its own pages. Such expressions as ‘The oracles of God’, ‘He saith’, ‘God saith’, ‘The Holy Ghost spoke by Esaias the prophet’, would appear inexplicable and extravagant if applied to a book containing occasional blemishes and defects. Once grant that every word of Scripture is inspired, and there is an admirable propriety in the language.
(c) The theory that all the words of the Bible were not given by inspiration of God appears utterly at variance with several quotations from the Old Testament which are found in the New. Consider those quotations in which the whole force of the passage turns on one single word, and once even on the use of the singular instead of the plural number eg., Matt. xxii 44; John x 4; Gal. iii 16; Heb ii 11, 12. In every one of these cases the whole point of the quotation lies in a single word. But if this is so, it is hard to see on what principle we can deny the inspiration of all the words of Scripture. At any rate, those who deny verbal inspiration will find it difficult to show us exactly which words are inspired and which are not. Who is to draw the line, and where is it to be drawn?
(d) If the words of Scripture are not all inspired, the value of the Bible as a weapon in controversy is greatly damaged, if not entirely taken away. Who does not know that in arguing with Jews, Arians, Socinians, the whole point of the texts we quote against them often lies in a single word? What are we to reply if an adversary asserts that the special word of some text, on which we ground an argument, is a mistake of the writer, and therefore of no authority? To my mind it appears that the objection would be fatal. It is useless to quote texts if we once admit that not all the words of which they are composed were given by inspiration”.
The late Principal J. Willoughby, one-time Vice-President of the Sovereign Grace Union, wrote: “In recent times many scholars have attempted to discredit the written Word, especially of the Old Testament. Many other scholars of repute, however, have found that the evidence on which the destructive critics base their conclusions are utterly worthless. The late Professor Dick Wilson was a scholar of massive learning. At the age of twenty-five he could read the New Testament in nine different languages. He could repeat from memory a Hebrew translation of the entire New Testament without missing a single syllable. He could do the same thing with large portions of the Old Testament also. He says: ‘For forty-five years continuously since I left college I have devoted myself to the one great study of the Old Testament in all its languages, in all its archaeology, in all its translations, and, as far as possible, everything bearing upon its text and history’. He was acquainted with about forty-five languages and dialects. He probably knew more about the Old Testament and everything connected with it than did all the destructive critics put together. Professor Wilson, having long and thoroughly examined the evidence on which the destructive critics base their conclusions, found that it was utterly worthless. Concerning the evidence for the orthodox position he writes: ‘The evidence in our possession has convinced me that “at sundry times and in divers manners God spoke unto our fathers through the prophets”, and that the Old Testament in Hebrew, “being immediately inspired by God”, has “by His singular care and providence been kept pure in all ages”’.
W.M.