THE HOLY SCRIPTURE

2004

LESSON FOUR

I.                    On the History of the Doctrine of Inspiration (p. 265 et.seq.)

A.                 Already shown that Christ and Apostles taught the verbal inspiration of Old Testament and New Testament.

1.                  Yet some do not accept the opinion of Apostles as authoritative.

2.                  Others claim Christ and Apostles did not appeal to “single statements” or “individual words” but only to “the whole of Scripture”.

B.                 Church Fathers taught the Verbal Inspiration.

C.                 Lutheran Confessions presuppose Verbal Inspiration as an unquestionably established doctrine.

D.                 Rationalism (mid 18^th century):

1.                  They gave up satisfactio Christi vicaria.

2.                  And, discarded the inspiration of Scripture.

3.                  Their whole theological activity consists in proving that Scripture, correctly understood, i.e. interpreted according to reason, is nothing more than a sublime code of morals, exemplified in Jesus.

4.                  Schleirmacher led theology back into “morass of emotional rationalism” (pious self-consciousness, the Christian experience as source and norm).

5.                  Moderns, though in different ways, follow Schleirmacher and see no significance in verbal inspiration.

6.                  Calvin taught that the purpose of Scripture is but to harden the hearts of the majority of hearers, while believers receive immediate illumination of the Holy Spirit.

7.                  Synergists make this doctrine worthless by teaching man’s achievement.

8.                  Rome assigns authoritative interpretation of Scripture to the Pope.

II.                 Luther and the Inspiration of Scripture (p. 276 et.seq.)

A.                 Some say Luther took a more liberal attitude towards this doctrine.

1.                  Assertion is void of all historical truth.

2.                  He taught powerfully about Scripture from Scripture itself.

3.                  e.g. He taught that there is a specific difference and not a difference in degree between:

a.                   illumination (repeat what they have heard and learned from the Prophets and Apostles).

b.                  inspiration (what they teach is out and out God’s own Word) which admits of no increase or decrease in degrees.

4.                  Consider his use of “meditatio”.

5.                  “Hay, straw, and stubble” quotation:

a.                   Do not refer to the Biblical authors.

b.                  Refer to the exegetes who may allow slip of these into books about the Scriptures.

6.                  Improper to offer distinction between homoloqumena and antilegomena as proof:

a.                   In doctrine of inspiration, not concerned with the extent of the canon.

b.                  But to extent of canon, Luther (as also Chemnitz) abides by distinction of Early Church (per Eusebius).

B.                 Other arguments re: Luther.

1.                  Scriptures can be understood as divine authority only through the Holy Spirit, therefore, Luther could not have assumed they were the Spirit’s words.

2.                  All require ignoring the plain sense of Luther’s statements.

III.               A Brief Critique of Modern Theology in so far as it Denies the Inspiration of Scripture (p. 298 et.seq.)

A.                 Really only a summary of prior discussions.

B.                 Basic difference between “old theology” and “modern theology”:

1.                  “Old”: present God’s views and teachings as He revealed them in His Word.

2.                  “Moderns”: judge Scripture on basis of the impression which Scripture makes upon them.

a.                   They call this the “scientific” approach.

b.                  They say: “We are realists”.

C.                 Why does this occur?

1.                  Jn 8:37.

2.                  Jn 8:43-47.

3.                  They, the “Moderns”, have discarded the doctrine of satisfactio Christi vicaria; therefore, left the Christian sphere!

IV.              The Consequences of the Denial of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture (p. 303 et.seq.)

A.                 The knowledge of Christian truth is lost.

1.                  In its place we get human illusion and ignorance.

2.                  Jn 8:31,32.

3.                  Jn 17:20.

4.                  1Ti 6:3-5.

B.                 Faith, in the Christian sense, is relinquished, since it can exist only vis-à-vis the Word of God. (Ro 10:17)

C.                 Prayer must be given up, since Christian prayer presupposes the continuing in Christ’s words. (Jn 15:7)

D.                 Victory over death is rendered impossible. (Jn 8:51)

E.                  We relinquish the one effective means of doing mission work.

1.                  Mt 28:19,20.

2.                  2Jn 9,10.

F.                  We lose the true Christian unity of the Church, which consists in faith in the Word of Christ.

1.                  Mt 28:19,20 (again)

2.                  Jn 8:31,32 (again)

3.                  Eph 4:3.

G.                 We relinquish intercourse with God, since God, remaining invisible to us in this life, approaches us only through His Word.

1.                  1Co 13:12.

2.                  1Ti 6:3,4 (again)

H.                 We turn the Christian religion, which is the wisdom from above, into a wisdom “of this world”.

1.                  Ro 16:25,26.

2.                  1Co 2:9,10.

Copyright ©  2004 CrossTies Counseling Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved