SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

BIBLIOLOGY

DR. E. C. BRAGG
 BIBLIOLOGY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Definition of Christian Doctrine

II. Some Distinctions

A. Morality is a law; Christianity is a life.

B. Theology is a creed; Christianity is a life.
C. Worship is an art; Christianity is a life.

III. Two True Sources of Doctrine

A. Nature
B. The Scriptures

IV. Four Mistaken Sources of Doctrine

A. Traditionalism
B. Rationalism
C. Confessionalism
D. Mysticism

V. Bibliology Introduction

A. Revelation
B. Inspiration
C. Illumination

VI. A Consideration of Revelation

A. The two Methods of Giving a Divine Revelation

B. Some Reasons for Believing in a Special Divine Revelation.

1. It is Possible
2. It is Probable
3. It is Credible
4. It is Necessary
5. There is a book that fulfills all the claims of reason for such a revelation.

C. God has set up two proofs of His revelation, (That it is sent from Him.)
 1. Attested miracles prove the divine source of the Word of God.
2. Rationalists and modernists viewpoint

VII. Fulfilled Prophecy Attests the Messenger as Being Sent from God.

VIII. A Consideration of the Canonicity

A. Definitions
B. The Law of Canonicity for the Old Testament
C. The Law of Canonicity for the New Testament
D. The Method Used in Forming the Sacred Canon

1. The Old Testament Canon

2. The New Testament Canon

E. Genuineness and Authenticity.

1. Definitions
2. The Genuineness and authenticity of the Old Testament
3. The Genuineness and Authenticity of the New Testament

a. Internal Evidences
b. External Evidences

4. The Integrity of the New Testament Text, or the Authenticity

IX. Inspiration

A. Definitions
B. Theories of inspiration

1. The Intuitional or Natural Inspiration Theory

2. The Illumination Theory or Universal Christian Inspiration
3. The Mechanical Theory
4. The Concept or Thought Inspiration Theory
5. The Partial Inspiration Theory
6. The Verbal, Plenary Inspiration Theory or Full Inspiration

C. Proofs of Inspiration

1. Internal Evidences for Inspiration

2. External Evidences for Inspiration
 BIBLIOLOGY

We shall not concern ourselves in this course with the distinctions usually made between various
kinds of theology nor the history of the usage of the term theology. Any comprehensive work on
the subject of systematic theology will furnish this data for ready reference without burdening
the mind with much that is just as readily forgotten. We might merely name some of the intricate
distinctions usually made just to illustrate: There is that of natural and revealed, sometimes called
natural and supernatural. There is the distinction between True and False Theology; Theoretical
and Practical; Dogmatic and Moral; Thetic and Antithetic; Didactic and Polemic; Critical and
Electic; Subjective and Objective; Scholastic and Positive. This is enough for our purpose.
The study of Christian Doctrine is the foundation of all Bible study. It forms firm bedrock for all
other Bible studies or subjects. It should straighten our loose thinking, strengthen our faith,
increase our love of the Word of God, and formulate into one coherent system all of our beliefs
so that the Word of God will reveal itself as One Grand Harmony. Many have derided the study
of Doctrine as unnecessary, and particularly deadening to religious life; when, in truth, the very
opposite is true. A tree is known by its fruit. A good tree, like the systematic study of the Word
of God, must only bring forth good fruit. Any constant handling of the Word of God; any deep
study in the Word of life must of necessity strengthen, and nourish that new life of God in the
soul. Peter says that it is "the sincere milk of the Word" that causes the growth in our spiritual
life. By way of illustration, one may note within any given congregation, the ratio of real meaty
Bible exposition is the index of spirituality in the hearers. I have heard several times the boast by
a preacher, "I do not have any doctrine in my sermons." How any man can preach the Word of
God and not include doctrine is a mystery. If by doctrine, he means great theological definitions
and vagaries I could give a hearty "Amen," but we shall see by our definition of what we
sincerely believe true Systematic Theology to include; a man cannot preach the Word of God and
not include doctrine.
Most opposition to the study of Doctrine may be traced to a desire to get away from the
restrictions it would place upon unbridled thinking and license of speculation. As far as doctrine
formulating a creed, every man must have a creed. It may be negative or positive; it may be a
creed denying the possession of a creed, but nevertheless it is a creed.

General Introduction:

If it is the soul's belief, whether positive or negative, then it is the man's creed; it is the regulator
of his life. Someone has aptly said, "A creed is like a backbone, a man doesn’t need to wear his
backbone in front of him, but he must have one, and that a correct one." It holds the figure erect
and gives shape to the body. Such is the underlying purpose of the study of Doctrine.

I. The Definition of Christian Doctrine

 Christian Doctrine is the aggregation of all that the Bible has to say upon any one subject. II
Peter 1:20-21 (Rotherham Translation) "Of this first taking note, that no prophecy of Scripture
becometh self-solving; for not by will of man was prophecy brought in at any time, but as by the
Holy Spirit they were borne along spake men by God." (John Nelson Darby's Translation)
"Knowing this first (first principle) that the scope of no prophecy of Scripture is had from its
own particular interpretation, for prophecy was not even uttered by the will of man, but holy men
of God spoke under the power of the Holy spirit."
This is the principle of truth in the Word of God that nowhere in any one place does the Holy
Spirit give a complete outline of any particular truth. Since there is only one Author of the Bible,
though many writers, He could give to whomsoever He willed a little more of the particular
doctrine until through the centuries the teaching is compete. Throughout the whole Bible, many
terms quite removed from each other, various writers, in various times, under different
circumstances, by varying means, the Holy Spirit moved or carried Holy men of God along to
add here and there different facets to the diamond of some truth until the finished Doctrine
emerges. Here is the need for the study of Doctrine; gathering from all the Scriptures all that is
taught on any one subject, systematizing them into one coherent Doctrine; that is Systematic
Theology.

II. Some Distinctions between Doctrine and Experience

There must be kept in mind the difference between the study of Doctrine and experience.

A. Morality is a law; Christianity is a life.

Morality is conforming to an abstract law of right, while Christianity is a relationship in

communion with God. We judge a man's theology by his creed, but his Christianity by his
life. Theology is of the head, Christianity is of the heart. The prime danger in the study of
theology, as in all Bible study, is the advancement of the head while the heart stands still.
The words of Jesus still resound, "If ye know those things, happy are ye if ye do them. And
except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in
no wise enter the kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 5:20). They had morality, human
righteousness but no real relationship with God. The Scribes and Pharisees knew the Law
of God frontwards and backwards, the latter more than the former, but they didn't know the
God of the Law.

B. Theology is a creed; Christianity is a life.

A man may be a theologian and yet not be a Christian. He may know something about God
and yet not know God. Many a man, who knew nothing of the five points of Calvin or the
thirty articles, may yet be in Heaven, while another well-versed in the Westminster
Catechism and well-schooled in Theology may find himself in Hell damned in spite of his
theology. Sam Jones well said, "I'd rather know my a.b.c.'s in Heaven than Greek and
Hebrew in Hell."

C. Worship is an art; Christianity is a life.

 Worship is but the outward expression of the God-given instinct to reverence the Supreme
Being. A pagan worships, but according to God's Word, "the things that the heathen
sacrifice they sacrifice not unto God but unto demons." A man may worship "He knows not
whom," he may erect "an altar to the unknown God," but Paul says, "Whom ye therefore
ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you." The Christian worship is "in the Spirit, for
The Father seeketh such to worship Him" for his spirit has been made alive by God's Holy
Spirit and now has a living worshiping communion.

III. Two True Sources of Doctrine

A. Nature, which is very limited. In the story of Christian Evidence we shall see that it
only shows forth, "His eternal power and Godhead" as Paul says in Romans 1:20;
Psalm 19. The inadequacy of Nature as a source of Doctrine may be seen from Acts
17:23.
B. The Scriptures. Doctrine must from the very necessity of the case be a subject of Divine
revelation. "Man by searching cannot find out God," God must reveal Himself to man.
Man lacks the proper faculties and the ones he has by nature are fallen or depraved and
deformed to give a contorted distorted picture of God. God must by bearing along Holy
men of God by His Holy Spirit give to us through the Scriptures a revelation of
Himself."

IV. Four Mistaken Sources of Doctrine.

A. Traditionalism. Traditionalism is the accumulation of the ages of certain beliefs of

the great men and institutions, until they partake of an aroma of infallibility on par with
the Scriptures and in certain pet beliefs superior to, and superseding the Scriptures.
Many times they are contradictory to the Scriptures. One of the classical examples is to
be found in the Gospels when Jesus came to His own people and accused them of
making void the Word of God by their traditions, as included in their Targums, Talmud,
and Kabalistic writings. See Matthew 15:2-9. Note verse 9 carefully. This same
Traditionalism setting aside the Word of God as a source of Doctrine may be brought
up to date by considering the Catholic Theology by the so-called infallibility of the
Pope and the College of Cardinals when they are speaking, "ox cathedra" (that is, in
their office). How many times are the very plain teachings of Scripture set at naught
and a diametrically opposing doctrine taught by the substitution of their traditions?

B. Rationalism. This is the source of doctrine of modernism and higher criticism. It

would subject all of the teachings of the Bible to the criterion of human reason, and
reject anything in the Bible that is contrary to their own slant of reasoning. How
dangerous that can be is easily seen when we consider how biased toward evil the
natural unconverted man is, how darkened his intellect is. Even in the converted man,
there is a dangerous tendency to twist the Scriptures to fit man's opinions, how much
more is this true of the unconverted. Rationalism would make man a critic of the Bible
rather than the Bible the critic of man as God declares that it is (Hebrews 4: l2).
C. Confessionalism. This is the creeds of the various denominations. Many times these
are appealed to as sources of doctrine to prove various points of dispute. John Calvin,
for an illustration, is more quoted to prove some extreme Calvinistic points than is the
Bible. It seems to be forgotten by many, however, that whatever truth Calvin taught,
whatever authority he might have had was derived from the Word of God. He had no
authority of his own. Many set more store by the great confessions of the church such
as the Westminster Confession, Augsburg or Heidelberg Confessions, etc., than by the
Scriptures themselves. They say, “This is the teaching of our church as determined by
that particular Synod or group meeting together to formulate a "confession of faith,"
and woe be to the man or woman who would dare to differ with them on any point of
interpretation of the Word of God by the claiming of any independence of thought.”
The only point of truth in that stand is to be found in the general tenor of interpretation
of the church throughout the church dispensation. How many times has there been error
taught for centuries, only to be discovered and exposed by some daring "Protestant"
who many times paid for it by excommunication and sometimes by death? Remember
this truth, the confessions of faith are themselves derived (if they are worth anything at
all) from the Scriptures, and whatever authority they may have is according to how true
to the Scriptures they are, and are derived from the Scriptures; but they themselves have
no independent authority.

D. Mysticism. That is, Christian experience may and does witness to the truthfulness of
the Scriptures, but isn't within itself either a source of doctrine or authority independent
of the Scriptures. How many there are who would build a doctrine upon their
experiences, and then go to the Scriptures to find something to prove it. And many
times they must wrest the Scriptures to prove their experience. This is true many times
of many Doctrines about the Holy Spirit, and Prophecy. If your experience doesn't jive
with the Bible, don't try to change the Bible to fit your experience. You change your
experience to fit the Bible. Do not interpret Doctrine by your experience, but interpret
your experience to fit the Bible. One of the classical illustrations of Mysticism as a
mistaken source of Doctrine is to be found in some Quaker sects who follow what they
call "the inner light" as a source of doctrine.
I would like to give you Bacon's beautiful illustration applied to the difference between the
Catholic Traditionalism, the Rationalists’ human reasoning and Christian's direct study of
the Word. "The Romanists are like the pismires (ant). They only lay up and use their own
store. The rationalists are like the spiders; they spin all out of their own bodies. Give me,"
he adds, "the bee (as the humble Christian who studies the Bible for himself) who hath a
middle faculty, gathering from abroad, but digesting that which is gathered by his own
virtue." Such is the principle John announces I John 2:20, 27 - "Ye have an unction
(anointing) from the Holy One and ye know all things....but the anointing which ye have
received of His abideth (dwelleth) in you and ye need not that any man teach you: but as
the same anointing teacheth you all things."
The Christian has no external officiating, infallible oracle of human source, but is himself a
king and priest unto God, with direct access to the Word of God for himself with the same
 infallible teacher, the Holy Spirit, abiding within as God's particular anointing to teach you
all things. Lean heavily upon Him, "He will guide you into all truth."

V. Bibliology Introduction

The Doctrine of Bibliology is the Doctrine of the Bible. The primary object in this Doctrine is the
discussion of the question, "Why we believe the Bible to be the Divine Revelation of God to
man." This we shall do from a primary discussion of the internal evidences but we shall also
refer to the external evidences of its inspiration. We shall not very much overlap the Christian
evidences standpoint from an apologetical viewpoint. We shall consider why we believe this
book to be the very Word of God after the last word was written almost 2,000 years ago, and yet
it still presents itself to us as the "Word of God." We shall see that our foremost consideration
shall be the genuineness and authenticity of its various Books. "Why are some Books included as
inspired of God and others are excluded?" Again, "Why was the canon of sacred Scriptures
closed with the death of the Apostles?" "Why isn't Scripture still being given?"
There is a wealth of critical material, which we shall not have opportunity to use, as it belongs to
the province of another course than this one. There is the critical analysis of the text to determine
its relative purity, including the various readings of the different manuscripts (we shall only
illustrate from these) and then there is the subject, which should be a course within itself,
namely, "How did we get our English Bible?" This would study the history of the translations of
the Bible through the ages.
Within this introduction we would like to include as a preliminary dissertation some definitions.
Two of these we shall deal with in separate chapters.

A. Revelation. Revelation is the act of God whereby He communicated to man new

truth, which man unaided could not discover for himself, or the discovery by God of
Himself to man.

B. Inspiration. Inspiration is that Divine Influence which renders a speaker or writer

infallible (unable to err) in the communication of truth. We shall deal with this under
the same infallible purity, with which it was revealed. No matter how good the prophet
gets it, if it is tainted with his infirmity, imperfections of mental activity, his own
depravity, and biased opinions, then it would be but an imperfect revelation when we
receive it, and wrong in many places. It could then be worthless or imperfect at best.
Not only must it be by divine revelation, God revealing it, but He must also keep or
"bear along by the Holy Spirit" to render the revelation in transmission as perfect as He
gave it originally. Revelation is the communication of that discovery infallibly to man,
primarily in writing.

C. Illumination. Illumination is the divine quickening of the human mind to understand

the revealed truth. Such a Divine God-given Revelation as we have been referring to,
given or communicated by Divine Inspiration infallibly, must perforce be supernatural
and the need arises for divine help to understand its deeper truths; this the Holy Spirit
does by divinely illuminating the mind to grasp God's divine Revelation. Illumination is
the understanding of that discovery by Divine enablement.
 The first two of these ceased with the completion of the Divine Canon of Sacred Scriptures
except as God may give an immediate revelation by dream or vision, but there is no need
for infallibility or inspiration in the giving of that to others as it only has personal import.
We do not believe that God is giving more Scripture today nor gifting men and women
with inspiration or infallibility. Strictly speaking we should not call songs or poems, etc.,
inspired (gifted with infallibility). They may be so blessed of God as to be used of Him to
bless His saints, but as long as we are in this imperfect state we shall need the illumination
of the Holy Spirit to rightly understand God's Words; ours should be a constant dependence
upon the Spirit of Truth to lead us into all truth.

The study of the doctrine of Bibliology is placed first, even before the Doctrine of Theology or
the Doctrine of God because most of what we can know of God Himself is what He has been
pleased to reveal in His Word. Therefore, we must study the doctrine of the Word first, to
establish its authority and Divine origin, so that it may give its voice to every other doctrine
without question.

VI. A Consideration of Revelation

"Revelation is a discovery by God to Himself, or of His will to man over and above
what He has made known by the light of nature or reason.

A. The two Methods of Giving a Divine Revelation

1. An immediate revelation to each person. There are a number of illustrations of

such. In Hebrews1:1, "Sundry times in divers manners." Rotherham - "In many parts
and in many ways God spoke to the fathers by the prophets." There was the usage of
signs, portents, and symbols; there were dreams and visions; He spoke face to face with
others; He used angels to carry His message; there was "Urim and Thummin"
mentioned seven times in the Old Testament as a means of communicating the will of
God, and mentioned a number of times as being "the Ephod" for the same purpose.
These were the seine. It was the golden Ephod with the 12 manner of precious stones
worn as a breastplate by the High Priest of Israel. There is much mystery as to how this
Ephod determined the message (Numbers 27:21; I Samuel 14:3, l8; 19:2; 3:2, 4, 9, 11-
12; 28:6; Judges 20:28; II Samuel 5:23). Many believed that the changing color of the
stones gave the message. Perhaps, however, the message was given to the High Priest
by a direct revelation of God because He wore the breastplate as a badge of his office as
Exodus 28:30 would show. There was also the casting of the lot to obtain a direct
revelation as the choosing of Matthias in Acts. The requiring of a direct revelation to
every person carries these objections as a permanent method.

a. It would require a continuous repetition to every person and for each occasion.
b. Because of our poor memories, it would have to be repeated often for
refreshing our memories or it would fade away.
 c. Greatest of all, it would open the way for all manner of imposture and
contradictions. Because of the shortness of human memory, a revelation given
yesterday or last year would be forgotten in part, and changed by the coloring
of events and lapses of memory even on the part of the most honest minded,
where there would be no intent to deceive. On the part of the willfully
dishonest we see in the cults where a direct revelation is claimed contradictory
to each other and to revealed truth. Human nature, being what it is, outright
fraud could be easily pawned off as a revelation from God, if there were no
sure infallible external standard or rule by which to test it. I personally am
leery of any man or woman purporting to have a vision or new revelation or
new light. God only used this direct communication as individual cases
warranted, and then never contrary to His written revelation; and then to the
most part where there was no written revelation as yet. If God has revealed
His will in His Word why the need of some special dream or vision or
angelical visitation? The Holy Spirit can quicken the living Word of God to
each heart as it individually needs it. He thus serves two purposes, not only
revealing the mind of God to us, but feeding our souls on heavenly manna at
the same time.

2. The second method of giving a Divine Revelation is by giving a Divine

Revelation once given and thoroughly accredited, that is fixed in literature and attested,
thus it is in permanent form for analysis, examination, proving, and attesting. Instead of
every man being a law unto himself, there is but one standard for all, unchanging to
give its same voice today, tomorrow, and forever. It is this attesting of this written
revelation that forms the basis for Bibliology - that the Bible claims to be that
revelation there is no doubt as we shall shortly see; the only thing remaining is to test
those claims. There are a number of methods of accrediting a written revelation and
innumerable methods of detecting a fraud. It is so much more permanent than an
immediate revelation - firmly fixed as coming from God, and then the written
revelation can form a fixed rule or standard to judge faith, practice, and use as doctrine.
The importance of the subject, the most important subject in the world, demands a
permanent, unchanging revelation. That this is so, even those denying its inspiration
attest by quoting it for authority as much as they can even though denying the most
important parts of it.

B. Some Reasons for Believing in a Special Divine Revelation.

1. It is Possible. Certainly a God as powerful as shown in nature, a God of infinite

wisdom as displayed by the almost infinite detail displayed in the designs in
nature, a God who governs this universe with Intelligence, could make known
unto other beings of intelligence, creatures of His own fashioning, His own will
for them. As the Scriptures themselves say, "He who made the intellect, shall He
not know?" Here are those who stumble over the spirituality of God as being able
to communicate with man. They would deny to the Creator of all the same ability
they themselves display when they communicate with one another. There is
 nothing in the way of the possibility of God's revealing Himself and His will to
man.

2. It is Probable. It is more than passing strange how universally man expects

God, or gods of some kind, to communicate with Himself. All the false religions
give one voice in claiming some type of revelation from their gods or God. Given
the only possible explanation of the very facts of the case, that man is only a
creature of God's fashioning, and you have the very probability of a Divine
revelation having been given. In fact, if it could be proven the Bible was not such
a revelation, the mind would naturally hunt a field for another one somewhere.
The goodness and benevolence of the God of nature would prompt Him to
communicate with and unto man. Can you conceive of an earthly king
undertaking to rule an earthly country without prescribing laws so that his
subjects could know his will for them? If such a thing is inconceivable in earthly
things, how absurd to think of the King of Heaven, the Ruler of all not giving a
code of laws or principles to govern the works.

3. It is Credible. With the thought of a Divine revelation as possible and probable,

it is natural to believe such a revelation was given. It is not only improbable and
inconceivable but unbelievable to think of God leaving His vast moral universe to
drift without law and intelligent direction. How remarkable and unbelievable it is
to imagine that here would be no revelation!

4. It is Necessary.

a. The imperfect light of nature necessitates a further revelation of God to His

creatures, both of His character and will governing the creatures of His
fashioning. There is no revelation in nature of His trinity, of atonement, of
man's moral obligations, his responsibility to God, the regulations of his
worship of God, or of his life after death. Nature has no answer to the question
of maladjustments in nature or the outcome of it all. The fall is evidenced
everywhere but not the love of God. There is too much left unanswered without
a divine revelation. He, who takes only nature as his Bible, will never find the
"Way of Life," nature but reveals death.
b. There are the unfulfilled longings innate in the human soul. It cries out for a
knowable God close at hand. There is the feeling of want for a God Who loves
and cares and will guard and carry the soul over the chasm of death into an
eternal heaven. The soul cries out for immortality as evidenced by every
religion on earth, but only the Bible can tell us what to expect.
c. There is man's deep sense of sin and ill desert, which cries out for
explanation and expiation. Every religion has some method of expiating its
gods, trying by man to get right with God, and he feels out for the way back to
Him, but only wanders into grotesque perversions, rather than the truth. Man
 needs for God Himself to tell him what He expects of man. He must show him
the way back to holiness, peace of mind and heart, and harmony with God.
d. Man needs final authority, a final court of appeal to settle every question of
life and conduct, and divine requirements. Only God Himself could so give that
court of appeal in a written revelation.

5. There is a book that fulfills all the claims of reason for such a revelation. It itself
claims to be that revelation and stands up to every test proving to be God's own
revelation to man. That book is the Bible with its 66n books, forming the
complete sacred Canon of Scripture.

C. God has set up two proofs of His revelation, (That it is sent from Him.)

Only God has dared to base the acceptance of His Divine revelation upon those two solid
foundations - Miracles and Fulfilled Prophecy. There may be quacks that perform acts of
jugglery to imitate and claim supernatural powers, but their artifices are exposed by
superior knowledge. There may be quacks who purport to foretell the future for money, or
notoriety, but their prophecies are ambiguous and given enough time and minuteness, and
they are proven to be only finite guessers. It is recognized by any clear thinkers that only
God can either foretell the future or change the course of nature. Both are supernatural.
Miracles are an attestation of showing divine power. Prophecy is an attestation showing
divine intelligence and foreknowledge. Both are miraculous as being above the human
ability. One displays God's omnipotence, the other His omniscience; the former above
human strength, the latter above human wisdom. Man has tried every way conceivable to
explain away both miracles and prophecy in the Bible, for they know to concede them
would be to establish the supernaturalness of the Word.

1. Attested miracles prove the divine source of the Word of God. Man has had a
downright repugnance to accepting miracles. This repugnance seems to arise out
of a desire to do away with the Divine Authorship of the Bible. To admit the
miraculous is to admit the finger of God in its inspiration. On the one hand, has
raised the infidelity which merely denies the miraculous without explanation.
Hume is the classical example of sophistry without argument, He said, "A miracle
supported by human testimony is more properly a subject of derision than of
argument... A miracle is a violation (sic) of the laws of nature; and as a firm and
unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle,
from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can
possibly be imagined...A miracle, therefore, however attested, can never be
rendered credible, even in the lowest degree."

a. How definition of a miracle is wrong -- "A violation of the laws of nature."

The laws of nature are but the method by which God is working, expressions of
His will. A miracle would be but a different expression of His will without any
violence done to nature.
 b. This repudiates all historical and scientific data, which we ourselves have
not experienced but believe on the basis of evidence and witnesses. All the
characters of history are believed to have existed on the basis of credible
witnesses, so with the vast array of medical and scientific data, one cannot in a
lifetime himself perform all the intricate experiments necessary to any scientific
investigation, but he is not afraid to accept another's works.

2. Then, on the other hand, there are the rationalists and modernists who wish to
keep enough of the Bible to fill the pulpit and bury folks but wish to leave out the
supernatural. They try to explain away the miracles.

a. One method is, "by much telling and over distances of time, common
happenings have grown into the miraculous."
b. Again, "Christ's miracles were not miracles at all but great medical skill
(where did He get that kind of skill? Our modern doctors would like to learn it)
and sometimes the results of accident or good fortune. Christ only knew more of
the laws of nature - like going to a Hottentot with modern science.
c. Another explanation (?), "The disciples imagined a miraculous Christ and
clothed Him with the glory of their imagination.” (Note the picture of the
defeated disciples.)

First, as to the impossibility of a miracle; it is strange that man should arrogate unto himself
such omniscience as to say what God could never do. The One Who made the laws of
nature could do anything with them. I raise my hand and do not "violate the laws of
nature;" personality merely supersedes that law with another law of life. Is it impossible for
God to do the same? Let us illustrate: A mechanic devises an intricate machine. He
completes it as perfect as human ingenuity permits. Nothing can be added; it fulfills
perfectly, uniformly his will. The maker of it wouldn't think of interfering with it since no
improvement can be made, since it is endangered by the machine, and simply stopping or
changing it for a few minutes would save the life. What would you think of the inventor if
his admiration of his machine so overpowered him that he refused to change it even for a
minute to save someone's life? What of God, then? He is so accused by the so-called lovers
of nature; millions of souls needing His message and help, yet they say God wouldn't alter
a hairsbreadth the laws of nature. Who is God, nature or nature's God? The God Who
knows the end from the beginning foresaw the very miracles or changes He would someday
make.
We could go into a deep study here of the credibility of the witnesses, but that belongs to
the province of Christian evidences. If a man were to come bearing a message he claimed
was from God, the very natural thing we would expect is supernatural verification. Look at
the time when Jesus came. Israel had wandered far from God; God would send His Son.
"Surely they will reverence Him." How was man to know it was the Messiah, by the two
credentials: Miracles and Prophecy? Like Samuel foretelling the destruction of Eli's two
sons; when fulfilled, they said, "The Lord is with him;" So Nicodemus of the Christ, "We
know Thou art a teacher sent from God, for no man can do these miracles unless God be
with him." The enemies of Christ attested His works, "When Messiah comes, will He do
 more miracles than this Man?" "That a notable miracle has been done we cannot deny."
Talmud acknowledges them but ascribes them to Beelzebub. Note again how Jesus was
willing to rely wholly upon the miracles - John 5:36; also see John 10:25-26, 37-38. Note
when the two disciples of John came to Jesus to ask if He were the one who should come or
were they to look for another, the answer was His works - Luke 7:22. Note His woes upon
Chroazin, Bethsaida, etc. for not accepting His works - Matthew 11:21-22. Paul bases our
faith and all hope, too, upon the veracity of the miracle of Christ's resurrection - I
Corinthians 15:12-20. Cf. in relation to this, Romans 1:4.
Illustration - Like the time Moses was asked of God to deliver Israel; he was afraid they
wouldn't accept him as God's messenger. God gave him three miraculous signs.
Let us close with a definition of a miracle; what would you say a miracle was? A miracle is
an event or effect contrary to the established constitution or order of things; a deviation
from the known laws of nature, and effect above human or natural power, mostly
performed as an attestation or some revealed message from God.
A. T. Pierson - “A miracle is both a sign and a wonder.” It must have both elements in it - if
just one, it is not a miracle. Sunshine is a wonder but not a sign. The rainbow is a sign but
not a wonder. We who are saved know the miraculous attestation of God to the truthfulness
of His Word by its life giving power in our lives when we accepted its promises in Christ.

VII. Fulfilled Prophecy Attests the Messenger as Being Sent from God.

Only God has dared to send a messenger with a prophecy of the future and rested His case upon
its fulfillment. No other religion has dared it. Man must recognize that only God can foretell the
future with accuracy. Note how strong the argument is when higher critics try to break its force
by asserting Daniel was written after the prophesied things took place, for to admit a prior
authorship was to accept inspiration, and that they would not do. Even Bolingbroke found it a
hard pill to swallow. He couldn't break the force of the exact description of Isaiah 3 in
relationship to Christ's death, so he was forced to say that Jesus brought on His own crucifixion
by a series of preconcerted measures, merely to give the disciples who came after Him the
triumph of the appeal to prophecy.
We shall not take up here the fulfilled prophecies in Babylon, Tyre, Jerusalem, and in Jesus; for
we do so in Christian evidences. We are only here referring to these seals. Here certainly as in
few other ways its equal, the Bible proves its Divine origin, as it abounds in minute prophecies
centuries before their fulfillment. Only God could do that. We shall just refer to the fact that God
rests His case upon fulfilled prophecy. Note the first incident in Deuteronomy 18:20-22. Note In
Isaiah 41:2l-24; 46:9-10 (and a number of places whore he taunts the idols for their ignorance of
future things as well as helplessness.) Note Jeremiah 28:9. Note Jesus in John 5:37-39 gives one
of the witnesses of His being sent from the Father the testimony of Scripture which told
beforehand of His coming. And He said to His disciples, "I have told you beforehand so that
when it is come to pass ye might believe." God has stated these all the way through the Bible.
Here is one of the beautiful reasons for the study of prophecy. There is born in the heart a greater
appreciation of the Bible as the very Word of God. When one reads the Word of prophecy
concerning Israel from beginning to now, and then sees the minute fulfillment of each jot and
tittle, the heart thrills to the accuracy of the Word and must acknowledge, "It must be the very
Word of God."
VIII. A Consideration of the Canonicity

A. Definitions

Canon - from the Greek kanon (reed or measuring rod); so the meaning, rule of life or
doctrine. Every liberal art has a canon, as music, art, etc., which sets forth the principles
and fundamentals of those subjects. The canon of Sacred Scriptures comprises the 66
books of the Old and the New Testaments which, being inspired of God, constitute the
infallible rule of faith and practice of the Christian Church and the individual believer.
Canon is only applied to the whole Bible; Canonicity to the books of the Bible.
Canonicity then of any Book of the Bible means its right to a place in the canon of
Scriptures. The 66 books now comprising the Bible were not the only books which
either claimed inspiration or had that claim made for them. Why then just these 66
books? What about the "Book of Enoch," the Apocrypha (the 14 books between
Matthew and the last book of the Old Testament, Malachi), and all the epistles written
in the early church, plus the "Gospel of the Infancy?" There must be some law of
canonicity, therefore, which determined the right of any book to a place in the sacred
canon, especially the Now Testament. For the Old Testament was in the form we now
have, over 200 years before Christ and used by Him without further additions,
subtractions, or corrections.

B. The law of canonicity for the Old Testament

To have a place in the Old Testament, a book must have been written, edited, or endorsed
by a prophet. There has been warfare raging over many of the books of the Old Testament,
not in the camp of the saints, but in modern self-styled "higher criticism." They have set up
arbitrary rules of criticism and assailed the Bible. For the Christian there is an infallible rule
of canonicity for the entire Old Testament. Christ, the "Great Prophet," endorsed the Old
Testament Scriptures and thus forever established their right to a place in the sacred Canon
- Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39. Here Christ divided the whole Old Testament into their three
natural divisions: the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms and approved them. Note --
"Expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." Note: if any of
these books were forgeries, Christ, as the Son of God, would have known it; would He
have let that forgery go undetected? John l4:2 - "If it were not so, I would have told you."
See here that it was the common belief, both from Jewish tradition and the Old Testament,
of a literal Heaven, as a literal city, a literal place as the Father's abode (Psalm 23:6). Now
Christ said, "If it were not so, I would have told you."
In fact, the very books most opposed by the critics are the very books Jesus quotes from as
truth and therefore Scripture. Cf. On the mount of temptation - Matthew. 4:4; Cf.
Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4.:7, Cf. Deuteronomy 6:16; Matthew 4:10 Cf. Deuteronomy
6:13; Matthew 12:39-14, Cf. Jonah (as Jonah was three days and three nights....) There are
to my count 262 direct quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, and 817
allusions to Old Testament events and characters, with 112 of those quotations to be found
in the four Gospels. All the 66 books of the Bible are quoted in the New Testament but
 seven, namely, Obadiah, Song of Solomon, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah; these are books
with no occasion for being quoted.
Note: on the Apocryphal Books - The Apocrypha means "hidden" or "secret;'" there are
between 11 to 16 of these books, according to various groups. Some accept some, some
others. Commonly there are 14: namely, I and II Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of
Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Baruch, Song of Manassess, I, II, III and IV Maccabees; with some
adding additions to Esther, Epistle of Jeremiah, History of Susanna. The most important of
these give the history of the interval between Malachi and Matthew, the so-called 400 silent
years. They give a good history of that period. The Jewish Greek scholars at Alexandria,
Egypt, when translating the Old Testament into Greek for the Septuagint Version, included
these books; but the Palestinian Jews never included them, hence they were not in the
Scriptures Jesus used. The Catholic Church at the council of Trent, 1546, declared 11 of the
books canonical, and they appear in the modern Catholic Bible. The Protestant Church has
commonly agreed to reject their canonicity, only admitting their literary and historical
value. Their reasons are:

1. Never quoted by Christ or alluded to by the Apostles.

2. Most early church fathers rejected them (even the Catholics).

3. They didn't appear in the ancient Hebrew Canon.

4. The internal evidence of inferior quality, as compared with the canonical hooks of
the Bible.

However, the primary reason, I believe, for their rejection for the place in the sacred Canon
is the distinct prophecy found in the Old Testament that there would be no word nor
prophet during that period; Cf. Amos 8:11 - No word; Micah 3:6 - No prophet; Jeremiah
13:16; all of these prophets prior to those 400 silent years.
Last of all: The Old Testament abounds in statements claiming inspiration and
communication from God, such as `The Word of the Lord came unto...", "Thus saith the
Lord," etc. None of these, however, are in the Apocryphal Books. An example would be
the Decrees of the Episcopalian and Lutheran churches that are given them given them to
be read so states, "for example of life and instruction in manner but not for the
establishment of doctrine."

C. The Law of Canonicity for the New Testament.

To have a place in the New Testament, a book must have been written or endorsed by
apostle or received as Divine authority in the Apostolic age. Thus, Mark was endorsed by
Peter and, in truth, received most of his material, no doubt, from Peter. An Apostle was one
who had seen Christ in the flesh. Paul, the unique apostle, saw Him in His glorified flesh.
No church arbitrarily formed the Canon of the New Testament by decree. However, the
Council of Laodicea in 363 A.D. did ratify the Canon as we now have it. Then it was only
as it had already been accepted as the inspired library by the churches.
 The Canon of the New Testament was formed gradually under the providence of God and
the supervision of the Holy Spirit to accept the genuine and reject the spurious. The very
reason that some books were held in doubt until proven argues well for the care of the early
church. These were seven books, namely Hebrews, James, I and II Peter, Jude and
Revelation. The New Testament books were a circulating library in the early church and
accepted as final authority to settle disputes on doctrine and practice.

D. The Method Used in Forming the Sacred Canon.

As long as the prophets or apostles were alive and could, under the same inspiration of
God, tell what was inspired and what was not, there was no need of a canon of sacred
Scriptures. They knew the inspired, writings from the non-inspired. With their death,
however, inspiration ceased, and the need arose to discern the inspired from the
noninspired. With the arising of the need for the Canon, it is interesting to note, the Holy
Spirit superintended the compilation of the sacred Canon. The question arises, "How was
this compilation accomplished?"

1. The Old Testament Canon.

The compilation of the canon of the Old Testament took almost 1,500 years, from
Moses to the postexilian prophets (those who wrote after the Babylonish
captivity). During the wilderness wanderings, some of the writings of Moses were
kept in the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:9, 26). When Solomon had
finished the Temple on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem, he put in it all the earlier
books (II Kings 22:8; Isaiah 34:l6) and added to them all of his own writings that
were inspired of God, both poetic and prophetic. After Solomon and the division
of the Kingdom under Rehoboam, there followed a long line of prophets, that
flourished before the destruction of the temple. Some of the Minor Prophets wrote
after the Babylonish captivity and the return of the captives, such as Zechariah
and Haggai. Fifty years after the rebuilding of the temple, Ezra, the Great Scribe,
collected and edited all the sacred writings of the Old Testament (Nehemiah 8:2,
3, 14) with the addition of Ezra and Nehemiah. To Ezra primarily belonged the
great task of the compilation of all the sacred writings of the Old Testament into
the sacred Canon. According to ancient Jewish writings, Ezra was helped by the
Great Synagogue, composed of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi
(all inspired prophets). This Canon was the one referred to by our Lord when He
spoke of "all the Scriptures" (John 5:39); and referred to by Christ as one integral
whole as "The Scriptures" (Matthew 21:42; 22:29). We can see the same hand of
God in the preservation and compilation of the Canon of Old Testament
Scriptures over more than a thousand years that prevailed upon receipt of the
message.

2. The New Testament Canon

 It was a considerable time after the Ascension of our Lord before any of the books of
the New Testament were written. As long as the Apostles, who walked with Jesus,
were alive and could give their oral account of His deeds and life, there was not so
great a need for a written Gospel. Representatives of the Apostles carried this oral
Gospel message throughout the churches. When the time for the removal of these
apostles approached, the need for a permanent record became apparent, Luke 1:1-4.
Two of the four Gospels were written by apostles themselves and two by associates
of the apostles.
Another kind of inspired method of writings had now come into existence; the
necessary absence of the founders of the churches for further instructions to churches,
encouragements, and correction. All the churches felt the authority of the apostles,
and matters of the moment required their inspired utterances. These epistles finally
were circulated among the churches and exchanged (I Thessalonians 5:27; Colossians
4:16). Each church gathered copies of these epistles and Gospels into sacred libraries,
accepted by them as inspired of God. Twenty of the now twenty-seven were accepted
by all the early church as inspired, the other seven being accepted upon careful
examination as to their genuineness.
Finally, the Canon of the New Testament was ratified by a council of the
churches at Laodicea 363 A.D. (before the corruption of the church under Constantine).

E. Genuineness and Authenticity.

1. Definitions

a. The genuineness of any book in the sacred canon revolves around the question of
authorship and the date of writing. Was that book written by the man or men
ascribed to it at the time approximately to which it is assigned?
b. The authenticity of any book of the sacred canon has to deal with the contents of
the book in question. Has the text been altered, or does the author deal truthfully
with the matter in hand?
The opposite of genuineness in any book is spurious or forgery; the opposite of
authenticity is corrupted text. Much work toward establishing the genuineness of
the books of the Bible and authenticity has been accomplished by the findings of
hundreds of ancient manuscripts. Dr. William Evans in Book of Books lists two
primary reasons for the question raised by many as to the genuineness and
authenticity of the Bible.

1.) Lack of harmony between the Bible and science. Here are stated the
number of accommodations to human language and idioms of speech,
such as the rising and setting of the sun, and the dew descending from
heaven; but we still use those idioms of speech. How useless for the
Bible to use scientific language to tell its story of redemption; it would
go out of date as the scientific books do. It is written in the universal
language of all peoples and times and places. It isn't written as a
scientific treatise, but its primary object is the teaching of spiritual
 truths, and nowhere else does it outrage scientific discovery. As
Galileo said, "The Bible doesn't tell us how the heavens go, but how to
go to heaven." Jesus knew, as the Son of God, the Creator of the
universe, every secret of science, but He nowhere sought in His
lifetime here on earth to clear up the ignorance then so widespread
concerning science. Where the Bible does deliberately enter the realm
of science and makes a scientific statement, there is never any
contradiction to true science.
2.) So-called discrepancies in numbers in the Bible, and so-called
contradictions between the two or more writers in the Bible. A lot of
these are like the critic and atheist who condemned the statement of
Moses carrying the Ark for forty years in the wilderness. He said, "I
have read the description of that Ark in Genesis, 350 foot long and 50
foot wide, made by Noah; and how could the Israelites carry that ark
for forty years on their shoulders?" Many of the so-called
discrepancies hailed by the haters of the Bible and its message of
redemption arise from pure unadulterated ignorance just like that; they
can't see that there were two arks. One of these fellows criticized the
statement in Leviticus 11:21-22, saying that the Bible taught that the
locust had only four legs. He wasn't reading close enough to read the
statement, "Which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the
earth." They can't allow for any growth in Israel. If there is a number
given of them in one places, then another number in another place,
they cry "Discrepancy." They forgot the plagues among them, as well
as natural births, and deaths.

2. The Genuineness and authenticity of the Old Testament.

This, like the canonicity of the books of the Bible, is settled by Christ - Luke
24:27, 44; as when He quoted Daniel as being written by Daniel - Matthew
24:15 or Isaiah --Matt. 8:17. Here He answers the critics who claim a
"DuteroIsaiah," or two writers for Isaiah, for He ascribes to the same Isaiah the
writing of the 53rd chapter (also Luke 4:17). Such may also be said for the
authenticity of the Old Testament; Christ quotes from it as being true prophecy
fulfilled in Himself.

3. The Genuineness and Authenticity of the New Testament. This may be based upon
both external and internal evidences.

a. Internal Evidences. This may be based upon:

1.) The style of each book indelibly bears the stamp of its author. For
illustration, given the proof of any book being the epistle of Paul, from
that style we can see the imprint of his authorship on all the other
writings accredited to him.
 2.) Language, showing the date primarily of the writing.
3.) Contemporary history, which is accidental to the text but is referred to
by the writer, setting the time, mentioning of places and secular
characters who then ruled over the provinces or kingdoms then
flourishing. The enlargement of these proofs does not belong to the
province of our course.
4.) The character of the writers - Competent, upright, not enthusiasts and
fanatics.

b. External Evidences.
This argument follows the line of early acceptance by the church of the books
as genuine and authentic and the many manuscripts now discovered which
substantiate the text we now have as uncorrupted.

1.) The church accepted as genuine and authentic the New Testament as
we now have it, just a little over 100 years after the death of the last
apostle of our Lord, John. That was not enough time for corruption of
the original text.
2.) Parallel with this evidence is the fact that the early church fathers
quoted from all of the New Testament writers, using their writings for
the Scriptures. We have enough of the writings of the early church
fathers so, that from their quotations alone, should the New Testament
be destroyed, it could be reproduced almost in total. Illustration:
Thomas Cooper spoke before a luncheon of scholars. He asked, "If the
New Testament were destroyed and every copy lost by the end of the
third century, could it be collected again from the writings of the early
church fathers?" Two months later Sir David Dalrymple was
interviewed by one who was there at that dinner. He pointed to a table
of books and said, "Look at those books. You remember the question
about the New Testament and the fathers? It aroused my curiosity. I
possessed all of the existing works of the fathers of the second and
third century. I commenced to search, and up to this time I have found
the entire Now Testament except eleven verses." (William Evans)
3.) Ancient versions, such as the Syriac, called the "Peshito," which
means the true or literal translation, contains the whole Old Testament
and most of the New in the Aramaic. This was the language Jesus
used. It doesn't have II and III John, II Peter, Jude and Revelation.
Then there was the Vulgate by Jerome about 170 A.D. It has the entire
Bible except Hebrews, James, and II Peter. This was used by the
Catholic Church for over 1,000 years, preserved in its original form.
4.) Ancient manuscripts. The three greatest are:

a.) The Codex Sinaiticus, a codex of the Greek Bible of the fourth
century. It was bought in 1933 by Britain from Russia for half a
million dollars.
 b.) The Codex Alexandrinus, fifth century. It is the whole Greek
Bible except forty lost leaves.
c.) Codex Vaticanus, probably fourth century. It is a Greek
manuscript. Scholars accept as genuine any classical writing of an
ancient as the proof of ten or a few more ancient manuscripts. Then
what of the Scriptures, which have over 2,000 manuscripts?

4. There is one more consideration. It has to do with the integrity of the New
Testament text, or the authenticity. The integrity has to do with the preservation of
the text in pure form. Has the subject matter been transmitted down to us without
alterations affecting the meaning? Is our Bible today authentic? Is the text the same?
A book may be given by inspiration as an infallible message from God, but if it
could be so altered as to ruin or even reverse the message; its trustworthiness would
be destroyed. Many of the higher critics and haters of the Bible have seen the force
of this argument and have used it at the first, but after any learned discussion have
had to abandon this field of antagonism. The more learned the less one will use this
branch of combat.
We cannot go into the minute details required here, for it belongs to the field of
Textual or Biblical criticism. Most of the variations in copying the original have
come from the fact of hand transcribing before the invention of the printing press.
The press can turn out millions of copies exactly like the original copy so that with
proof reading, etc., the first type can be corrected until perfect, then all prints will
remain static. This wasn't true before 1438; with the invention of movable type, and
the printing of the first book, a Latin Bible, printed at Mentz by Gutenberg (inventor
of printing) and Faust. Still 18 volumes have been preserved, some selling for as high
as $19,000.
Hand copying was liable to much error, through weariness as he laboriously
transcribed the complicated letters. You can see the warning of John in Revelation
against adding or subtracting from Revelation. The number of variations in the New
Testament texts of all 2,000 manuscripts is 120,000. It is this number that is used
rather than any argument from them by atheists to slander the Bible and say, "You do
not even have the Bible as given." Let us consider, though, the character of these
variations - "At first the student is startled by the number 120,000 variations. As they
are studied, however, it is found that only about 1,000th part of them have any
material bearing on the meaning of the text in question." (Dr. Hort)
The greatest variation is in Greek orthography. The most fruitful is the putting in or
omission of words not affecting the text, the choice of one synonym above another or
the Greek changing of words in the sentences. (The literal Greek text puts the words
in a very awkward position to the modern mind). Any one of these three have no
affect on the meaning of the text whatsoever. The power of the Holy Scriptures to
save in the King James Version (which certainly isn't the best) is abundant proof of
its integrity. Tregelles on Matthew 2 notes two variations - Not one affecting the text
-- Note a few: Vs. 3 - "The King Herod” - "Herod the King;" "Jerusalem with Him” -
"All Jerusalem with Him;" Vs. 4. - "Inquired from them where the Christ would be
born"; just “inquired where." Of all the 120,000 so-called variations, all but the
 l000th part is of this nature, gathered from 2,000 manuscripts in five or six different
languages arid over 1,200 years. Just to Illustrate, let me show you how the
twentythird Psalm comes out after translating into Indian, then back into English to
give you the idea of the difficulty many times in translating. But to boil these
variations down further, Scrivener leaves 6,000 variations not of the first three
mentioned; but of the 6,000, almost all of them with, but a matter of a few dozen, are
differences in spelling, in the tense of the case, in number, in the presence or absence
of the particles, or presence or absence of the definite article (the), the substitution of
the proper name for the pronoun used in other manuscripts in supplying words and
phrases from the other evangelists to round out a narrative, etc. In 90 out of 100 cases
these make no material alteration in the sentences.
In the very few cases where any case can be made out of interpolation or corruption
of the text, there is still learned discussion among the textual critics. Let us illustrate
how many times the marginal note of the original transcriber may be inserted by a
latter copyist. Acts 8:37 - This whole verse, according to the most all ancient
manuscripts, is an interpolation, but it is the clear teaching of Romans 10:910; and
Mark 16:16, that a confession of faith in Jesus Christ was a prerequisite to baptism;
that the interpolation is not misleading or doctrinally wrong. There are a few like this
verse. There are but three long passages ever held in doubt because they were omitted
by many manuscripts--John 5:4 - Troubling of the waters. The last twelve verses of
Mark and the woman taken in adultery in John's Gospel are also questioned. These
are all in keeping with the rest of the Bible text - not out of harmony - not
contradictory, and most of the critics still hold to their integrity. Doctor Hort, no
mean authority: "There is no doubt we have the original perfectly preserved. See the
superintending hand of the Holy Spirit in the preservation as well as inspiration."

IX. Inspiration

A. Definition: The word "Inspiration' as used in II Timothy 3:16 -- "All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God" -- is taken from two Greek words: Theos, meaning God, and pnein,
meaning to breathe, hence the literal meaning of inspiration is "God-breathed." All
Scripture is "God-breathed." Our English word "inspire" has the opposite meaning of
expire; inspire is to in-breathe, and expire, out-breathe. We speak by means of expiration,
the breath blowing over the vocal cords giving sound. Inspiration, then, is the inbreathing
of God in man, giving him God's message. This is the one statement of Scripture as to the
method of Divine communication of God's message to man. God so inbreathed His Spirit
of truth into selected men, enabling them to give forth without error His message.
The other reference is found in II Peter 1:21 - "Holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost." The Rotherham Translation gives the more perfect sense of the
original - "As by the Holy Spirit, they were being borne along spake holy men of God."
The context declares that "Scripture came not by the will of man." Inspiration here may be
seen to mean that holy men were carried along of the Holy Spirit as they have the God
inbreathed message. Here is the full meaning of inspiration. This enabled them to speak
without error or write without error. The definition given earlier in the study of Bibliology
 applies here: "Inspiration is that Divine influence which renders a speaker, or writer,
infallible in the communication of truth."

B. Theories of inspiration

Not only has there been controversy as to the fact of the inspiration of the Bible but also as
to the method of inspiration. Here again, there is an attempt to nullify the power and
message of the Scriptures by denying to them the infallibility of full Inspiration. By many
false theories of Inspiration they try to make the Word of none effect. Lowering the
meaning of inspiration is but to bring it down to the level of human literature and adds the
difficulty of explaining its high moral tone and sweeping influence. We will briefly note
some of these theories:

1. The Intuitional or Natural Inspiration Theory.

This theory exalts the intuitional consciousness in man which he possesses of the
idea of God. It would rank the writers of the sacred Scriptures as merely possessing
genius. This genius is admitted as of a high order and more or less permanent form,
but by no means admitted as supernatural. The Unitarians hold to this theory and, in
greater or lesser degree, so do modernistic thinkers who object to the supernatural
element in Revelation. This theory grants to the writers of the Bible the possession of
genius in matters of morals, ethics, and religion, only the same inspiration as that
possessed by the writers of great literature of all ages. They exceeded the common
run of writers in art, poetry, and philosophy; so these writers exceeded the other
writers in matters pertaining to religion. Whether they wrote under any special
influence of God or not is not conceded. They see no mysterious operation of the
Spirit of God in the writing of the Bible. This theory ranks the sacred Scriptures on a
par with all the other writings of genius through the ages, no matter the moral or
immoral tone of those writings, no matter the subject matter nor the influence. It says
was Paul inspired? Surely, but so was Milton. Was Peter inspired? Surely, but so was
Shakespeare, Not only was John inspired, but so were Confucious and Mohammed."
How can any lover of truth accept such a theory of inspiration? It is so untrue to the
claims of the writers of the Bible, who recognized the operation of God in their
message. Where could the Scriptures ever constitute any court of authority when its
writers would be liable to the same errors and uncertainty as all the writings of human
genius? The tide of human knowledge concerning God and His will, instead of being
raised by the Bible, should be left at the same low level that they found it. Can a
thinking man read the writings of any age that saw no influence of God even
approaching inspiration and then change to the Scriptures without seeing any
difference? As William Evans remarks, "The difference is not one of degree but of
kind. The Bible not merely ascends to a loftier outlook in the same human dwelling
but ascends to a new region altogether."
There is no power or conviction in such a theory of inspiration. It lays no compelling
‘must’ to its precepts or certainty to its prophecies. There is no authority, nothing that
binds the soul. That writer's opinion may be no greater than my own. I catch
intuitional perceptions of truth which shine upon the soul like a clear sunrise, but
there is no knowledge as the writers of the sacred Scriptures had, that “Thus saith the
Lord.” This theory answers none of the real inquiries into the question of inspiration.
It scorns to arise from latter day loose handling of all things spiritual and
supernatural. It tries to answer the question of Christ's Deity. It concedes that Deity to
Christ would bind His commandments upon the will, so men try to rank Him on par
with great men. They say, "Was Christ Divine? Well, so are we. All men are divine.”
Here again the question is not one of degree but one of kind. He was not like other
men, but other than other men. Rob either the Christ or the Scriptures of their
supernatural clement, and the authority and power is nullified as far as the individual
is concerned.
This theory is altogether a dishonorable explanation of inspiration and can never
satisfy a believer who has felt the truth of the statement, "The Word of God is quick
and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword" (Hebrews 4:12).

2. The Illumination Theory or Universal Christian Inspiration.

This is so closely akin to the natural inspiration theory that the same arguments
which apply to it apply here. It merely concedes the element of the supernatural
influence of the Holy Spirit and the specific religious aspect of inspiration.
Otherwise, it bears the same criticism. Briefly stated, it consists of the following:
Inspiration is the intensification or amplification of the religious perception already in
a Christian to a higher degree. It confuses illumination with inspiration. Every
Christian has illumination from the Holy Spirit, and those theorists say, "It is the
same kind of illumination but of greater degree." By this theory, "we are all just as
inspired as the Apostle Paul." It is more than passing strange then why new Bibles are
not being written every generation. It is no wonder then the lightness of so many
modern scholars concerning the Word.
There are two objections which may be raised against this theory above those stated in
the last consideration:

a. Where is there the possibility of infallibility in this theory? If this inspiration

is universally prevalent, why is there error today? Even in regeneration there
remains enough of the old nature and imperfections to flavor natural production;
for infallibility there must be some greater influence than that which is present
in every Christian to understand the truth.
b. Where is there the ability by which to discover now truths, which are above
natural observation and perception? How could Moses ever write the story of
creation by this theory of inspiration? Or how could prophecy come by this
method? This kind of truth must come by revelation of God, not intuitionally,
but by communication. No matter how high the spiritual perception of neither
the saint of God, nor the illumination received of the Holy Saint, there is always
the need of the written Word for instructions, comfort, correction, and spiritual
food. There is always the realization in the true Christian, when reading the
Word, that this is the very Word of God, not just a little more of something I
 already have in my own perception. Here again the same charge may be brought
against this theory as against the former one; it degrades the Bible to the same
level as other writings.

3. The Mechanical Theory

This theory holds that the writers were mere stenographers taking the dictation of the
Holy Spirit. They were only tools, passive instrumentality, without any play of
individual personality. They had no choice of language or of words, but as machines
they took what He dictated. This theory honors the Word and admits its infallibility
but raises some objections. It is admitted that some of the writings in the Bible were
direct, such as the Ten Commandments. Here there was neither choice of words nor
display of human personality. Daniel 4: 21 gives the exact words of God spoken. So
do other portions, such as Revelation 19:9 and 21:5, but to assure from these isolated
portions a mechanical theory is stretching the point.
Objections: This theory makes no allowances for the differences in style of the
writers. It makes no allowances for the difference in the choice of words by the four
evangelists in the Gospel who write about the same event in the life of Christ. Neither
does it explain the presence of idiosyncrasies, which mark the authorship of the
books.

4. The Concept or Thought Inspiration Theory.

Briefly stated, it holds that only the thought is inspired, not the words. The primary
objections to be answered by this theory are: How can you express thought without
words? How could inerrant thought be transmitted without the use of accurate words,
when we know that there are shades of meaning in words expressing the same event
or describing the same thing? Any careful study of the Word reveals great truths
taught by the Holy Spirit's choice of words. This would seem to teach the mechanical
theory, but it will be considered further in the last theory.

5. The Partial Inspiration Theory

This is another dishonoring theory. It dares to set the human criterion upon the
Scriptures to determine what is inspired. It says, "The Bible contains the Word of
God." Some is inspired and some isn't. Each individual has to determine for himself
what is inspired and what is not inspired. Where is the authority of the Word? This is
clearly against the statements of the word as to its inspiration.

6. The Verbal, Plenary Inspiration Theory or Full Inspiration

 This theory teaches that all the Scriptures are alike inspired, contrary to the partial
theory. It teaches that the very words themselves are inspired. The writers were
divinely led of the Holy Spirit in their choice of words, so it is contrary to the concept
theory. By the word "plenary" is meant equal inspiration for all the Scriptures; and by
verbal inspiration, we mean that the words are inspired. Dr. William Evans says, "The
Spirit employed the attention, the investigation, the memory, the fancy, the logic, in a
word, and all the faculties of the writer, and He wrought through these. He guided the
writer to choose what narrative and materials, speeches of others, imperial decrees,
genealogies, official letters, state papers, or historical matter He found necessary for
the recording of the Divine message of salvation. He wrought in and with and through
their spirits so as to preserve their individuality to others. He used the men themselves
and spoke through their individualities. The gold was His and the mold was theirs."
(The Book of Books, p.26).
This is not dictation from without but the influence of the Spirit so upon men as to
cause them to use the very words He wanted them to use, yet the style was theirs. It
bears distinctly the impression of the human vessels through which it came, while
always everywhere, bearing the stamp of its Divine authorship. This theory answers
fully for the infallibility of the Bible, coming as it does as the very Word of God.

C. Proofs of Inspiration - To be considered from internal and external evidences.

1. Internal Evidences for Inspiration

a. Direct statements of inspiration or supernatural supervision (II Peter 3:16; 1:20-

21).
b. The respect of the Bible characters for the "Scriptures;" the high position in
which they esteem them.

1.) The Old Testament. Christ said, "All the Scriptures (Luke 24:27; Matthew
5:17-19) are not to pass away until all are fulfilled; and He said not to break
the least commandment. This would constitute for the Christian a settlement
of the question of inspiration of the Old Testament, even as it does the
Canon, genuineness, and authenticity.
2.) The New Testament. Peter ranks the writings or letters of Paul on the par
with all the other Scriptures (II Peter 3:1, 16). Christ delegated to His
apostles the same authority, and, therefore, the inspiration which He
possessed (Matt. l0:l4, 15; Luke 10:16).

c. Similar to the last evidence are the many quotations by Christ and the apostles
to the Old Testament, using them for authority, prophecy, and proofs. Christ
quoted Isaiah 61:1-3 as fulfilled in himself in Luke 4:17-21. Peter quoted on the
day of Pentecost (Acts 2:16, 17) and throughout the book of Hebrews.
d. The expression running throughout the Bible, which claims for the message a
Divine origin. "Thus saith the Lord" is used over 2,000 times; and all of the; like
expressions such as "God spake," "The Lord said," "Thus saith the Lord," "The
 Lord spake" occurs 3,808 times. Ten times in the first chapter of the Bible the
expression "God spake" occurs. To Moses comes the word of the Lord explicitly
the exact pattern of the Tabernacle. In Jeremiah, 63 times it expressly says, "The
Word of the Lord came unto Him." So, all the way through there are like
statements proving inspiration. In Isaiah, 20 times it says, The Word, of the
Lord."
e. Restrictions forbidding the enlargement or subtraction of any portions
(Deuteronomy 4:2; 13:32; Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18-19).
f. Direct claims of the writers themselves to supernatural revelation. These could
be multiplied and run parallel to the many expressions already considered; as
when God answered the objections of Moses (Exodus 4:10-15); the commission
of Jeremiah (Hebrews 1:7-9); commission of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 3:4). It is also
true of the New Testament writers. Paul claimed direct revelation of Jesus Christ
and not from men (Galatians 1:11-12, 20). Peter declared the inspiration of
David (Acts 1:16). Paul claimed inspiration (I Corinthians 12:13). Also Peter
claimed inspiration (II Peter 3:1-2); Paul again (I Thessonalians 2:13). Now
these claims of the authors themselves have to be taken on face value or their
testimony impeaches. When Moses said, expressly, "The Word of the Lord
came unto Moses," then it did or Moses lied. There is no middle ground.
g. The marvelous unity of the Bible. This belongs primarily to our study in
Christian Evidences but here are outlines.

1.) Unity is structural.

2.) Unity is historical.
3.) Unity is prophetic.
4.) Unity is progressive.
5.) Unity is organic.

h. The moral character of its teachings.

2. External Evidences for Inspiration.

External evidences also belong to the province of Christian Evidences, but we shall
outline them for discussion:

a. The Indestructibility of the Bible.

b. The place of the Bible in literature.
c. The Influence of the Bible.
d. The historical testimony.
e. The existence of the Church,
f. The testimony of archaeology.
g. Fulfilled prophecy.
h. Adaptability (to every age and every clinic).

i. Testimony of the Church.

 j. Testimony of experience.

Through all the councils, synods, and conventions of the ages, the greater part of decrees and
findings has been overwhelmingly toward the inspiration of the Bible. Illustration: The last
assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America went on record - "The Bible, as we now have it,
in its various translations and revisions, when freed from all errors and mistakes of translators,
copyists, and printers, is the very Word of God and consequently wholly without error."