6. The history of the doctrine of inspiration.
That Christ and the apostles taught the verbal inspiration of both the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures had to be stated many times in defining the concept of Christian theology and then demonstrated in more detail under the sections "The Holy Scriptures, as distinguished from all other writings, are the Word of God" and "The Holy Scriptures are God's Word because they are given, or inspired, by God."884) . Even Rothe, who is widely regarded as a leader in the field of the right modern view of Scripture,885) admits that the apostles identified Scripture and the Word of God, though he stands sufficiently to the left to openly confess that the apostle's judgment is not authoritative for him."886) When Hofmann — following Schleiermacher's processes — claims,887) that Christ and the apostles do not refer to "individual sayings" and "individual words," but always to "the whole of Scripture" or the "unified whole of Scripture," i.e., that they do not teach verbal inspiration either, Kliefoth rightly called this, as has already been reminded, an "incomprehensible phrase."888) Hofmann's assertion belongs to the class of assertions that astound by their boldness, because every reader of the Gospels and the letters of the Apostles knows that the opposite is the case.889) — That the Church Fathers taught verbal inspiration is so evident that Cremer
884) pp. 256 ff. 262 ff.<w:t xml:space="preserve">885) Nitzsche-Stephan, pp. 255 ff.
886) Cf. Philippi, Glaubenslehre 3, p. 299: "The fact that the apostles regard the entire Old Testament Scriptures as the Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit, God Himself therefore as auctor primarius Scripturae Sacrae, is indeed so irrefutable that even Rothe, p. 180 ff. (in his writing "Zur Dogmatik", 1863), does not deny it, and even admits that our church-dogmatic doctrine of inspiration can invoke the authority of the apostles. Nevertheless, he does not want to be bound to the doctrine of the origin and nature of the Old Testament any more than to the doctrines of the apostles in general." Meusel III, 459 also refers to Rothe's concession: "Rothe acknowledges that the entire exegesis and hermeneutics of the New Testament in relation to the Old rests on such a view of inspiration. For this reason, his exegetical conscience refuses to bind him to the doctrine of the apostles on this point, and he contrasts it with another theory of inspiration. For us, the testimony of Scripture is more important.
887) Schriftbeweis 2 I, 671 ff.
888) Cf. the more detailed explanation on pp. 243 f.
889) Matt. 4:4. 7. 10; Jn. 10:35 etc. — Rom. 4:3. 6- 7; Gal. 3:16 etc.
321 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 266]
accuses them of having "the doctrine of inspiration of the older Protestant dogmatics". 890) Of more recent theologians, Rudelbach gives the same proof with respect to the Church Fathers, admittedly not blaming, but approving and praising.891) — As for Luther and the dogmatists, modern theology generally admits and regrets that they "identified" Scripture and the Word of God, thus taking over an evil inheritance from the early church and unfortunately passing it on to the detriment of the church.892) In order to gain at least a particeps criminis in nuce in the Reformer of the church, most of the newer theologians claim that here and there an approach to a "more liberal view of Scripture" can be found in Luther.893) This assertion contradicts historical truth, as will be shown in the following section. — That in the symbols of the Lutheran church the verbal inspiration is presupposed as an undoubtedly fixed doctrine, because in it the word of Scripture and the word of the Holy Spirit are used as synonymous expressions, 894)
890) RE. 2 VI. 751.
891) Zeitschrift für d. luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1840, 1. issue, p. 18 f. Also in Baier's Compendium Theologiae Historicae (published after his death by his son, 1690) is the proof by sufficient quotations that the church fathers teach the verbal inspiration. Quenstedt on Augustine's doctrine of Scripture, Systema I, 116. Cf. in Chemnitz' Examen the long section: Testimonia veteris ecclesiae de Scriptura, Geneva ed. 1667, p. 39 sqq. Before that Chemnitz takes what the doctrines of Scripture teach about themselves. From this exposition Chemnitz' position on Scripture is clearly discerned. Chemnitz says about the proof from the Scripture for the Scripture a. a. O.: Quae hactenus ex ipsis Scripturae verbis adduximus, firmissima sunt testimonia, quibus pia mens tuto niti potest. Proponunt enim nobis ipsius Spiritus Sancti iudicium de Scriptura. Sicut enim veteres dicunt, de Deo nihil credendum esse, nisi ipso Deo revelante et testificante, ita etiam de Scriptura id credamus, quod ipsa Scriptura de se, imo quod ipse Spiritus Sanctus de opere suo iudicat et pronunciat. [Google] Chemnitz thus does not speak "reservedly" about the inspiration of Scripture, as has been asserted here and there by more recent theologians.
892) Ihmels, Zentralfragen 2, p. 56 ff.
893) So also R. Seeberg, Dogmengesch. II, 285 ff.
894) Augsb. Konfession, M. 66, 49 [Trigl. 91, 49 🔗]: Cur toties prohibet Scriptura condere et audire traditiones? Cur vocat eas doctrinas daemoniorum (1 Tim. 4:1)? Num frustra haec praemonuit Spiritus Sanctus? The Apology, 107, 108: Num frustra existimant toties idem repeti? Num arbitrantur, excidisse Spiritui Sancto non animadvertenti has voces? Same, 74, 9: Habes igitur, lector,
322 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 267]
is also generally conceded in the present. If the deniers of inspiration who call themselves Lutheran find comfort in the fact that in the Lutheran symbols the verbal inspiration is presupposed as a fixed truth, but is not taught in a special article, it is neither logically nor psychologically recognizable how this can be a comfort for them. That among the Lutheran theologians of the seventeenth century Georg Calixt († 1656) abandoned the scriptural doctrine of inspiration cannot be denied, because he restricted inspiration to the main matters and to those things previously unknown to the sacred writers, but in secondary matters and in those things previously known to the writers he assumed only a preservation from error.895) It must also be admitted that Johann Musaeus († 1681) occasionally expressed that the verbal inspiration was a hypothesis not yet sufficiently proven. Musaeus took this back with the explanation that those words were not written from his own sense, but from the sense of the opponent.896) Rationalism, which began with power after the middle of the 18th century, gave up with the Christian doctrine in general, namely with the satisfactio Christi vicaria, also the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.897) The denial of the satisfactio vicaria gives up the differentia specifica of Christianity and puts the Christian religion in a class with the pagan doctrine of works. What then is the use of a Holy Scripture inspired by God?
nunc apologiam nostram, ex qua intelliges, et quid adversarii iudicaverint (retulimus enim bona fide), et quod articulos aliquot contra manifestam Scripturam Spiritus Sancti damnaverint.
895) Quenstedt I, 100.
896) Quenstedt reports 1, 106: Vide disquisitionem Musaei de stylo Novi Testamenti observationibus Apologeticis M. Iac. Grossii oppositam anno 1641, in qua § 16 ait: Ad argumentum Grossii ab adversario responderi posse, quod nitatur hypothesi nondum concessa nec satis probata, scii. Spiritum Sanctum apostolis non solum res, sed ipsa etiam verba inspirasse. Item § 39: Sermonem apostolorum non esse sermonem Dei quoad materiale seu ipsa verba, sed quantum ad formale, scii, id, quod per sermonem revelatur. Conf. of the Jena theologians detailed explanation Loc. 1, De Scriptura Sacra, p. 31 sq., ubi idem D. Musaeus monet, se hoc non ex sua, sed ex antagonistae personam gerentis mente dixisse. [Google] On Musaeus cf. Philippi, Glaubenslehre. 3 I, 252.
897) Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 33 ff. 556. on Töllner also RE. 2 XV, 711 ff. Töllner argues in such a way that he rejects not merely the obedientia activa, but the vicarious satisfaction of Christ in general.
323 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 267-268]
The theological activity of the rationalists is to prove that the Scripture interpreted rightly, that is, according to reason, is nothing more than a sublime moral doctrine exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. — "The reformer of the church of the nineteenth century," Schleiermacher († 1834), did not, like the Reformer of the sixteenth century, lead theology back to Scripture, but led it into the mire of emotional rationalism. The source and decisive norm of theology should not be Scripture, but the pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject, the Christian experience, etc. According to the "Schleiermacher" method, albeit with deviations with respect to the content of "pious self-consciousness," truly and admittedly the entire modern theology, liberal and positive, conducts its theological activity. Because it has not returned to the scriptural doctrine of Christ's vicarious satisfaction, it stands thereby outside the sphere from which Christ's Word, which we have in the writings of the apostles and prophets, is recognized as Christ's or God's Word. Whoever does not believe Christ and His apostles in what they teach about the reconciliation of the world through the substitutionary satisfaction of Christ, will consequently also not believe Christ and the apostles in what they say about the Holy Scriptures. He who, rejecting the divine thoughts, makes his own thoughts about God's reconciliation of the world of sin, will consequently also make his own thoughts about God's Word, the Holy Scriptures, even with explicit rejection of the divine judgment on the Scriptures.898) We can
898) This point was also recalled in L. u. W. (1893, p. 163 f.) on the occasion of the Briggs trial: "If someone denies the inspiration of the Scriptures as decisively as D. Briggs, one has every reason to ask whether Briggs still believes anything at all of the Christian doctrine. By Christian doctrine, of course, we do not mean the law — for parts of the law are still in all pagan religions — but the gospel, that is, the doctrine that a man is saved by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith and not by his own works. If a person really believes this gospel, believes that God has saved men from eternal damnation through His Son's vicarious suffering and death, then he has little desire to doubt that God has also done this to men, giving them the Holy Scriptures as His infallible Word. Those who believe the doctrine of justification may well be temporarily challenged with doubts concerning the divinity of Scripture, but that they can persist
324 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 269]
describe the position of modern theology towards Scripture in summary thus: Modern theologians do not want to believe Scripture for what it says about itself, but they want to determine a posteriori, by way of human investigation and criticism, the character of Scripture.899) In this modus procedendi they come to the conclusion that Scripture is not God's infallible Word, but a historical account, more or less influenced by the Holy Spirit, of God's revelation in the Word (revelatory document). In this historical report, because it comes partly from the Holy Spirit, partly from men (the "early church", primitive church) (therefore: "God-human" report), errors are naturally not excluded. Therefore it is the task of modern theology, which to a high degree has a sense for "reality", to criticize the Scriptures according to content and wording, even if it
in denying the same and yet hold fast the Christian doctrine of the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ's merit is difficult to suppose. Dr. Briggs has — according to his clear explanation — thrown the Christian faith overboard. ... He states this clearly in the more detailed exposition of the 'progressive sanctification' he adopts. He justifies his doctrine that the 'sanctification' of the soul must continue to develop after death by saying that one cannot possibly suppose that 'father and child, mother and infant, the teacher and the pupil, the self-sacrificing missionary and the new convert, the zealous evangelist and the thief and murderer who still turns to Christ from the gallows in his last hour, — that these should all be treated alike'. Underlying this argument is the denial of Christianity, namely, the denial of the doctrine: ‘For there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:.' Dr. Briggs does not want the thief on the cross to go to paradise at the same time and immediately as the 'zealous evangelist', but still wants him to go through 'progressive sanctification', because he does not believe at all that the forgiveness of sins is for Christ's merit alone, and therefore, if the believer believes and as soon as he believes, all iniquities are blotted out like a cloud and his sins like a mist. Briggs has thus apostasized from the Christian faith in the center. That now also the scriptural passages, which testify that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, no longer make any impression on him, need not surprise us. He would have fallen away from the Christian faith in his doctrine of the way of salvation, if he still outwardly let the Scriptures stand as the Word of God."
899) Hastings VII, 346 gives an accurate description of this a posteriori method of modern theology.
325 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 269-270]
has not yet succeeded in determining the boundaries between truth and error. In the main thing they agree, namely, that the Scriptures are not to be regarded as God's infallible Word, and that the Scriptures, regarded as the infallible Word of God, cannot produce "life-warming" Christianity; rather, with the old conception of the Scriptures, "intellectualism" is the natural consequence. If the newer theologians still speak of "inspiration", they do not understand by it the unique divine action by which God gave His Word of God to the holy writers so that it would be the foundation of faith for His Church until the Last Day (Eph. 2:20; Jn. 17:20), but they understand by "inspiration" only a spiritual enlightenment, even if increased, which is given to all Christians. Just as the enlightenment that belongs to all Christians does not include complete freedom from error, the increased enlightenment of the holy writers does not make them free from error. It is also a characteristic of modern theology that the majority of its representatives claim that it is "evident" to assume degrees in the inspiration of the Scriptures. But this assumption of degrees in inspiration has no more sense than the assumption of degrees in the Godhead. When Subordinatians call the Son of God God "in the second sense of the word", they thereby abolish the concept of God, and when newer theologians address degrees of inspiration, they thereby abandon the scriptural concept of inspiration. Kahnis binds the two together: degrees in the Godhead and degrees in the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. He assumes three degrees of inspiration, even if he confesses not to be completely sure about it. He writes (quoted in Baier-Walther, p. 103): "Among these prophetic and apostolic writings there are differences both from the standpoint of origin and content. We cannot equate Deuteronomy with the first four books. Among the prophets, Obadiah and Jonah stand below Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel. In the New Testament, the Pastoral Epistles and the Epistle to Philemon enter a second line. The word of the revelation, which goes out within the kingdom of the Old and New Covenant, is to be understood only in the context of the history of the same. And so the history books of Old and New Covenant enter into their canonical right, but a right of second degree. As the content of the same is the interaction of the divine and the human in the kingdom of God, so also the sacred
326 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 270-271]
historians are not necessarily men of revelation, but men who stand in the spirit of the kingdom of God. In the Old Testament the prophetic history books belong to this in the first line, the hagiographic Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah in the second, the books Esther and Chronicles in the third. In the New Testament, the first three Gospels fall into this second class in the first place, the Acts of the Apostles in the second. A third class is formed by the Old and New Testament hagiographers, whose content is neither revelation nor history of the kingdom, but life in the kingdom of God as it is presented in detail. In the Old Testament, the Psalms belong to the first class, in the second class the Proverbs of Solomon, Job and Lamentations of Jeremiah, in the third class the Song of Songs, Koheleth and Daniel, in the New Testament primarily the Epistle to the Hebrews and the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of John, which in all probability are not certainly of Johannine origin and moreover have a more personal content, in the second class the other Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse. If personality is of essential importance in the first class, it is of secondary importance in the second, since here everything depends on objective truth and the spirit of presentation. But it is in the nature of the third class that the subject becomes important. It is not indifferent whether a psalm is by David or not, the passages are by Solomon or alter, Daniel genuine or spurious, etc. But one must be careful with these writings of the third rank to want to put too much on authenticity. May this attempt, from the standpoint of inspiration, to divide the Scriptures into three classes be defective, at any rate a distinction of degrees of inspiration is in the spirit of Scripture, as then it has significant authorities for itself in ancient and modern times." As is well known, this distinction is not in the sense of Scripture. It is said in Scripture 2 Tim. 3:16: πάσα γραφή θεόπνευστος [“all scripture is inspired”] by which all the writings of the Old Testament (τά Ιερά γράμματα, v. 15) are indiscriminately placed in one class. Christ quotes Jn. 10:34 from the Psalms, Ps. 82:6: "Ye are gods," but does not add that it is only a Scriptural word "of the third class," as Kahnis thinks, but says: "The Scripture cannot be broken." The whole distinction of degrees in inspiration is a human invention, the sole purpose of which is to free the human theologizing subject from the burdensome fetter of the divine authority of Scripture.
327 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 271]
Thus, it is unfortunately correct when Nitzsch-Stephan (p. 258) says about "the present situation": "In the present, the orthodox doctrine of inspiration has hardly any dogmatic significance. But it is still asserted by individuals, such as Kölling and Nösgen, with individual variations. ... The remaining theologians — even the conservative ones — reject the old doctrine." Zöckler names900) as lonely representatives of the old doctrine: Kohlbrügge, Gaußen, Kuyper, and "on the Lutheran side especially Walther in St. Louis and the Missouri Synod led by him." Most recent American theologians in Reformed church fellowships have also abandoned the inspiration of Scripture.901) Well-known exceptions are Charles Hodge of Princeton, William Shedd of Union Seminary, New York, and Benjamin B. Warfield of Princeton.902) In Germany, of the theologians who generally.
900) Handbuch der theol. Wissenschaften 2 III, 149.
901) Hence the call of the "fundamentalists" addressed to "the laity" to form a union against the unbelieving generation of pastors raised in the "skeptical schools and seminaries of to-day". Cf. L. u. W. 1923, 89 f. From among the fundamentalists, John Horsch has recently written an excellent paper in which American liberalism is resolutely opposed. The title of the writing is: Modem Religious Liberalism. The Destructiveness and Irrationality of the New Theology. Fundamental Truth Depot, Scottdale, Pa. 331 pages. Cf. the notice of this writing in L. u. W. 1922, pp. 179 ff. [F.B.]
902) Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1873, 3 vols. He says 1, 170: "Admitting that the Scriptures do contain, in a few instances, discrepancies which, with our present means of knowledge, we are unable satisfactorily to explain, they furnish no rational ground for denying their infallibility. The Scripture cannot be broken. (John 10:35.) This is the whole doctrine of plenary inspiration, taught by the lips of Christ Himself." But Hodge makes unnecessary bows to geologists and astronomers here and there, weakening his point. — William Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2 vols. and 1 supplement 2 1889, I, 93. 103: "Scripture itself asserts verbal inspiration. ... Those who contend that the Bible is fallible because it contains a human element commit the same error in kind with those who assert that Jesus Christ was sinful because He had a human nature in His complex person. The human element ... is not a fallible element, because it is blended with the divine element of inspiration and kept free from human error." But the same remark applies to Shedd as to Hodge. — Benjamin B. Warfield, to our knowledge, taught the inspiration and absolute inerrancy of Scripture until his recent death († 1921), a position he held as early as his inaugural address at Princeton (1887) (reprinted in the Presbyterian Quarterly, p. 389 sqq).
328 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 272]
known, only Philippi has so far returned to the scriptural doctrine of inspiration in the last period of his life.903)
If we look further, we find that within the Roman Church some theologians, and those of eminent name, have limited inspiration to the mysteries of the faith or to the main things, but in other things have assumed a mere preservation from error.904) Some others have gone further and have expressly admitted the possibility and reality of error.905) Socinians and
He had to experience hostility and ridicule from within his own ranks, although he was comforted by the fact that an "entire Lutheran synod" unanimously confessed to the inspiration of Scripture.
903) That Philippi revoked his earlier position, according to which he still admitted the possibility of an error in the Scriptures, in the third edition of his Glaubenslehre”, was already mentioned above (p. 270). Of lesser-known German theologians, Wilhelm Rohnert (Dogmatik der ev.-luth. K., 1902) confesses to "the much-maligned old-church doctrine of inspiration." — A detailed exposition and evaluation of the modern-theological doctrine of inspiration is found in the 11th Report of the Synodical Conference, 1886." [English translation here.]
904) Thus the Jesuit Franz Suarez († 1617). Quenstedt quotes, Syst. I, 106, from Suarez's treatise De Fide, disp. 5, sect. 3, § H 5 and 15: Hic modus (whereby the Holy Spirit also presents the words) est maxime proprius et perfectus et verisimilius est, observari a Spiritu Sancto, quoties mysteria, quae scribuntur, supernaturalia sunt et captum humanum excedunt. [“This method (whereby the Holy Spirit also presents the words) is most proper and perfect and is more likely to be observed by the Holy Spirit whenever the mysteries that are written are supernatural and exceed human comprehension.”] Suarez adds, however: Non videtur autem necessarium, ut semper dictentur verba hoc peculiari modo; quando enim Autor Canonicus scribit aliquid, quod secundum se humanum est et subiacet sensibus, satis videtur, quod Spiritus illi specialiter assistat et custodiat illum ab omni errore et falsitate et ab omnibus verbis, quae non expediunt vel decent talem Scripturam. [Google] Quenstedt adds: Suaresii sententiam laudat et approbat D. Georgius Calixtus Exercit. de autoritate Scripturae, thes. 47. [“Dr. Georgius Calixt gives praises and approves the opinion of Suarezius. on the authority of Scripture, thes. 47.”]
905) Quenstedt refers I, 114 from Pighius († 1542) and quotes from his treatise on the Hierarchy Ecclesiastica, 1. 1, c. 2: Matthaeus et Iohannes evangelistae potuerunt et labi memoria et mentiri. … Quis certos nos reddet vera esse et certa, quae scribunt omnia de Christo (praesertim Marcus et Luke), quae nunquam viderant, sed crediderunt narrantibus aliis? [Google] Quenstedt also reminds us that Erasmus, in his remarks on ch. 2 and 27 of the Gospel of Matthew, says: evangelistas testimonia huiusmodi non e libris deprompsisse, sed, memoriae fidentes, ita ut fit, lapsos esse.... However, Quenstedt also reports 1, 117, that D. Eck, acerrimus alias errorum et superstitionum papisticarum propugnator, attacked Erasmus very sharply in a public letter. This has rightly been cited as proof of the fact (so also by Walther in L. u. W. 1886, p. 35 f.) that in the papacy the inspiration of Scripture was considered a fixed doctrine. We put here the beginning
329 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 272-273]
Arminians assume errors in Scripture in "incidental matters."906) It may also be pointed out here that old and new enthusiasts, such as the Quakers, etc., in the interest of their
of the longer quotation that Quenstedt: Istis verbis innuere videris, evangelistas more humano scripsisse et quod memoriae confisi haec scripserint, quod libros videre neglexerint, quod ita, hoc est, ob eam causam lapsi sint. Audi me, Erasme, arbitrarisne, Christianum patienter laturum, evangelistas in evangeliis lapsos? Si hic vacillat Sacrae Scripturae autoritas, quae pars alia sine suspicione erroris erit? ut pulcherrimo argumento Aur. Augustinus collegit. [Google]
906) Faustus Socinus in De Auctoritate Scripturae, c. 1, p. 15: Quaedam in Scriptura per se ipsa falsa apparere, sed quae parvi sint momenti, p. 71: fieri potuisse, ut evangelistäe et apostoli in aliquibus leviter errarint.[“ Certain things in Scripture appear to be false in themselves, but which are of little importance, p. 71: it was possible that the evangelists and apostles erred slightly in some respects.”] (In Quenstedt 1, 114. More detailed in Günther, Symbolik 4, p. 97.) On the position of the Socinians on Scripture also Schneckenburger, "Kleinere Protest. Kirchenparteien," p. 34 f.: "Socinus limits the reliability (of Scripture) to that which belongs to the doctrine. ... On subordinate points he admits errors." It is precisely "what belongs to the doctrine of Scripture," Christ's deity and vicarious satisfaction, that Socinus denies, and from this then naturally flows the denial of the inspiration of Scripture. If we consider what more recent Unitarians teach of the doctrines of Scripture, we are confronted here with a completely factual agreement with modern theology, even that which calls itself positive. Günther, op. cit., p. 96 f.: "In C. W. Wendte's What do Unitarians Believe? it is said: 'To me the Bible is not a fetish, a literally inspired and infallible oracle of God.' (p. 15.) Unitarian Principles and Doctrines states: 'The Unitarians hold the books of the Bible to be the deed of God's doctrine to the Jewish people and to the early Christians through their wise men and their prophets. Their doctrine of the Bible is that it is a collection of books on various subjects — historical, biographical, poetical, and moral, of varying value, but mostly with a religious attitude and purpose. The inspiration they find in the Bible is an inspiration of the men whose story is told, not an inspiration of the words and letters. The Old Testament is the literature of the Jewish people, the New Testament the early Christian literature. The Unitarians value the Bible as much as any sect; they use it in their churches, use it in their families, help gladly in its distribution, but they do not make an idol of this sacred book, nor do they revere its name. They esteem it for the ideas it asserts and for the truth it contains, and do not make more of it than it really is, nor do they claim it to be something it never claims to be.' (p. 23.) Scriptural Belief of Unitarian Christians states: 'Unitarians believe that the Bible contains the Word of God, not that every word it contains is God's Word.'" — On the Arminian doctrine of Scripture Schneckenburger op. cit. p. 10 f. Günther l. c., p. 97. Episcopius asserts Inst. Theol. IV, 1, 4: scriptores sanctos potuisse labi et reipsa läpsos esse memoria in rebus levibus et nihil ad salutem pertinentibus.
330 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 273-274]
"inner light" or an "immediate revelation" do not want to "identify" Scripture and the Word of God and in this respect walk in the paths of modern theology. There is a principled agreement here. The enthusiast's familiar addresses of the "Spirit," of "inner light," of "immediate revelation," etc., have the same meaning as the addresses of modern theologians of a "self-certainty" of Christianity and its theology, that is, of a certainty that does not depend on Holy Scriptures but "rests in itself and is immediate truth" (Erlangen Theology). And if the enthusiasts then go on to consider the "spirit," the "inner light," etc. for the "main source" or the "real source of truth" and want to let the Scriptures count only as a "subordinate rule," this corresponds exactly to the position of modern theology, which likewise turns everything upside down in the Christian church by abandoning Scripture as the source and norm of Christian doctrine, withdraws to the "pious self-consciousness" of the theologizing subject, the "experience" as an allegedly "storm-free castle," and from here corrects Scripture.907) —
907) On the Quaker position on Scripture and its connection with the "Orthodox Reformed" position on Scripture, see Schneckenburger, loc. cit. Quakerism represents the consistent implementation of the Orthodox Reformed doctrine, insofar as it allows the saving revelation of grace and the effect of grace of the Holy Spirit to take place not through the external word of Scripture, but apart from and alongside it. "All this the Quakers push a step further and reach quite close to the line beyond which Scripture as a historical book is actually something quite indifferent, accidental, insubstantial in comparison with immediate enthusiasm." (p. 71.) "It (Scripture) stands under this higher (the immediate word) which first establishes its authority." (p. 73.) Detailed evidence on the Quaker position on Scripture in Günther op. cit, S. 93. 97. According to Robert Barclay, the Quaker dogmatist, Scripture arose from the revelation of the Holy Spirit; but he adds: Nihilominus, quominus solummodo sint declaratio fontis et non ipse fons, ideo non existimandae sunt principalis origo omnis veritatis vel cognitionis, nec adaequata primaria regula fidei et morum, licet, cum dent verum et fidele testimonium primae originis, sint et possint existimari regula secundaria, subordinata Spiritui, a quo, quam habent, excellentiam et certitudinem derivant. [Google] Barclay, therefore, also does not want the inner light or immediate revelation to be tested according to Scripture, as if Scripture were a more certain norm, because immediate revelation carries certainty in itself. He writes: Non inde sequitur, quod hae revelationes divinae ad externum Scripturarum testimonium ... tanquam ad nobiliorem aut
331 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 274-
Calvin's position on Scripture has also been discussed quite extensively in more recent times. Seeberg says908) of Calvin: "Calvin is thus the creator of the so-called Old Dogmatic theory of inspiration." Seeberg bases his judgment on the fact that Calvin not only calls the Scriptures Old and New Testaments "oracles" of God, but also explicitly says that the Scriptures, including the historiae in them (historiae), were written didante Spiritu Saneto,909) the holy writers being Spiritus Sancti amanuenses.910) Seeberg also points out that Calvin is very firm in his opposition to critics who raise questions like this: Quis nos certiores fecerit a Mose et prophetis haec fuisse scripta, quae sub eorum nominibus leguntur? Quin etiam quaestionem movere audent, fueritne unquam aliquis Moses? Calvin calls such critics "nebulones" and their wisdom "insania".911) Seeberg declares his dissent from Heppe, who says of Calvin: "There is no address of an actual inspiration of the record." 912) But it must be admitted that Calvin in
certiorem normam et amussim examinari debeant. Nam divina revelatio- et illuminatio interna est quiddam per se evidens et clarum, intellectum bene dispositum propria evidentia et claritate cogens ad assentiendum atque in-superahiliter movens et flectens. [Google] Barclay therefore also wants Christians to let inner direct revelation, rather than Holy Scriptures, be their stronghold or "last refuge." He writes: Illud, ad quod omnes Christianitatis professores, cuiuscunque generis seu speciei sunt, ultimo recurrunt, cum ad extremum pressi sunt et cuius causa cetera omnia fundamenta commendantur et creditu digna habentur et sine quo reiiciuntur: illud, inquam, oportet necessario esse solum certissimum immobile fundamentum omnis fidei Christianae. Sed interna, immediata, obiectiva Spiritus revelatio illud est, ad quod omnes Christianitatis professores ultimo recurrunt etc.. Ergo est solum certissimum immobile fundamentum. A sad self-deception! But the agreement with modern theology, which likewise, contrary to Scripture, declares the "experience" or "self-certainty" of the theologizing subject to be the "storm-free castle" of Christianity, is obvious. Barclay, therefore, just like the modern theologians, does not want Scripture and the Word of God identified. He says in his Animadversiones against Nikolaus Arnold that Scripture is not "actually and absolutely God's Word and must be called so." A quotation from the American Christian Record of the Hicksite Quakers is also given there (p. 93), which shows that this party of Quakers also speaks of Scripture in the terminology of modern theologians.
908) Dogmengesch. II, 385.<w:t xml:space="preserve">909) Inst. IV. 8. 6.
910) Inst. IV, 8, 9.<w:t xml:space="preserve">911) Inst. I, 8, 9.
912) Die Dogmatik d. ev.-ref. K., 1861, p. 16 f.
332 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 275]
contradiction with his direct statements that the Scriptures were written dictante Spiritu Sancto and that the holy writers were to be called Spiritus Sancti amanuenses, occasionally ascribes to the evangelists incorrect quotation of Old Testament scriptural passages.913) Here, then, is an inconsistency on Calvin's part. But there is another point to be made in order not to overestimate Calvin's confession of the inspiration of Scripture. It must be remembered that it is of little practical value for both the older and the newer Calvinist theologians (Hodge, Shedd, Böhl, etc.) to teach verbal inspiration so long as they really remain Calvinists in the doctrines peculiar to Calvinism. As true Calvinists, they teach that the redemption which came through Christ does not extend to all men, but only to a part of them. Consequently, they also teach with Calvin that the purpose of the doctrines of Scripture is not to lead all men to faith and salvation, but to harden the greatest part of men. Calvin writes:914) Quos [Deus] in vitae contumeliam et mortis exitium creavit, ut irae suae organa forent et severitatis exempla, eos, ut in finem suum perveniant, nunc audiendi Verbi sui facultate privat, nunc eius praedicatione magis excoecat et obstupefacit. Furthermore, old and new Calvinists teach that men who are actually enlightened to faith and salvation are not made partakers of this enlightenment through the external word of Scripture, but without it through an immediate illumination of the Holy Spirit. It is obvious that this completely devalues the truth that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God. Calvinists must — as has been pointed out from their own midst —915) become Lutheran, that is, they must forget the gratia partcularis and the immediata Spiritus Sancti operatio if they are to draw comfort from the Word of Scripture as God's Word under the terrors of the law. Such forgetting takes place by God's grace in many cases.916) The same
913) Calvin remarks, Comment, super Ioh. (Tholuck's edition, Berlin 1833, p. 346): Quum illic [Ps. 22] queratur David, se hostibus praedae fuisse, metaphorice sub nomine vestium sua omnia designat, ac si uno verbo dixisset, spoliatum se ac nudatum ab improbis fuisse. Quam figuram dum negligunt evangelistae, a nativo sensu discedunt. [“When there [Ps. 22] David complains that he was a prey to his enemies, metaphorically he designates everything under the name of his ‘clothes’, as if he had said in one word that he had been stripped and stripped bare by the wicked. Which form, while the evangelists neglect, they depart from the native sense.”]
914) Inst. III, 24, 12.<w:t>915) Cf. III, 201 ff.
916) This subject has already been dealt with on other occasions, with the necessary supporting documents, pp. 25-28 and 29-31.
333 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 275-276]
practical devaluation of the inspiration of the Scripture is present with the synergists, in case they still confess the inspiration of the Scripture. Because the synergists make the attainment of God's grace dependent on an achievement on the part of man (self-decision, self-determination, "different behavior", lesser guilt in comparison with other men), and because the required achievement is not to be found in any man,917) , with their restriction of sola gratia they erect just as firm a blockade against the attainment of God's grace as the Calvinists with their restriction of universalis gratia. Christian faith, which is counted by God as righteousness, holds that God justifies the ungodly (τον άσεβή).918) He who thinks himself better or less guilty before God in comparison with other men excludes himself eo ipso from grace.919) Salvation for the synergists lies precisely as for the Calvinists in inconsistency. As the Calvinists forget the limitation of universalis gratia, so the Synergists must forget the limitation of sola gratia if the truth that Scripture is God's own Word of God is to be of any practical use to them. This forgetting, too, no doubt takes place in many cases. But this, too, is due merely to divine grace, which delivers from an error that is in itself pernicious to the soul.920) It is also self-evident that the Roman theologians, in practice, completely devalue their confession of the inspiration of Scripture by leaving the authentic exposition of Scripture to the Pope. By this exegetical method they bring it about, as much as there is in them, that not God speaks to men through his Word, the Holy Scriptures, and teaches and governs them, but the Pope — under the appearance of Scripture — subjects the Church and the world to his papal "I". Luther rightly declares the principle of the "Romanists" that "it behooves no one but the pope to interpret Scripture" to be one of the "three walls" behind which the papacy entrenches itself and seeks to establish and maintain its rule.921)
917) Rom. 3:19: υπόδικος πας δ κόομος τφ ϑεφ. V. 23: ον γάρ εστιν διαστολή.
918) Rom. 4:5.<w:t>919) Luke 18:9-14; Rom. 11:22.
920) This point, too, has already been dealt with on p. 31. Further explanations II, 591 ff; III, 144 ff.
921) To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, X, 269 f.
334 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 276-277]