Part 4: Bibliology

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in the original printed edition were numbered 8–11, but in this electronic edition are numbered 1–4 respectively.]

II. Inspiration

3. God’s Word about God’s Word

The intrabiblical evidences that the Bible is the complete and inerrant Word of God are both manifold and manifest. As Bishop Butler haa said regarding the evidence, of Christianity, so it may be said concerning the evidences of Inspiration, they are “of great variety and compass...making up, all of them together, one argument; the conviction arising from which kind of proof may be compared to what they call the effect in architecture or other works of art, a result from a great number of things so and so disposed, and taken into one view.”[1] In fact the intrabiblical evidence is so extensive that to tabulate it would require a careful study of, and reference to, almost every page of the Scriptures—a task which few, if any, have ever essayed. This vast array of material when assembled and classified, to employ Bishop Butler’s architectural figure, would include every form of averment from the foundation stones of direct assertion to the last adornment of implication. Extended argument of a polemic nature may arise over the use of one word or one text of the Scriptures bearing on some one aspect of inspiration, but the doctrine of Inspiration itself is all-inclusive, embracing all and representing the induction of all that the Bible declares or implies in its own behalf.

It may be deducted from the extent of the literature provoked, that, of the major passages which support the Bible’s own claim to inspiration, two are of surpassing inportance—2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21. Not only the direct and unqualified claim to inspiration which these passages present but their all-inclusiveness has drawn out the most extended and vigorous attempts on the part of men unsympathetic to the doctrine of Verbal, Plenary Inspiration to tone down by exegetical manipulation the force of evidence which these passages proffer. It is doubtful whether any one original New Testament word has been more scrutinized under the searching rays of scholarship than has θεόπνευστος (theopneustos—God-breathed; a word evidently compounded from Θεός—God—, and πνέω—to breathe, cf. the translation of Job 32:8—“The inspiration of the Almighty”); which word, whatever its specific meaning may be, comprehends the central or pivotal idea of the first of these two momentous passages.

It is reasonable to believe that as those languages in which the Oracles of God were written, were, by divine supervision, being developed through the natural processes by which all languages emerge, certain words were divinely introduced and their meaning determined and preserved with a view to the all-important service which they would render and the precise truth they would convey in the written Word of God. It is equally conceivable that certain words would need to be immediately coined which would indicate aspects of supernatural relationships and undertakings that could have had little or no occasion of expression before and at such times when the language in question was serving only as the enunciation of mundane things and that which is born of mere human speculation. The word θεόπνευστος appears but the once in the New Testament, and probably not at all in profane Greek. On the surface of the problem, it is presumable that nothing exactly similar to the idea of God-breathed, written Oracles had arisen among the Helenistic peoples which called for expression. It is a fair assumption that this crucial word is of divine origin being fashioned by God with a view to the elucidation of a conception which is not only foreign to the range of things human, but supreme in the range of things divine. Thus the New Testament writers found a goodly number of words divinely prepared and introduced which were capable of expansion in their meaning in order to convey truths which had been heretofore unrevealed. The student will do well to note at this point the many compounds with Θεός Χριστός, and Πνεῦμα, which his vocabulary affords.

The one text wherein θεόπνευστος appears—2 Timothy 3:16, 17—is as follows: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” The phrase ”all scripture,” as here used, is naturally identical in the scope of its meaning with the statement in the preceding verse, wherein the Apostle reminds Timothy “that from a child” he has “known the holy scriptures,” and these, it is declared, are able to make him wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ. Varied and wonderful are the things, as enumerated in this context, which the Scriptures are able to do and because of which they are ”profitable” to the “man of God.” These asserted values are but little challenged; controversy centers rather upon the two phrases—”all scripture,” and ”given by inspiration of God.”

When undertaking to determine just what is included in the phrase ”all scripture,” it is well to remember that 2 Timothy is the Apostle’s latest epistle, written, it would seem, near to the time of his martyrdom. By that time almost all the New Testament had been written—excepting only the later writings of the Apostle John. 2 Peter 3:16 clearly designates the writings of the Apostle Paul as “scripture,” and Paul himself, as recorded in 1 Timothy 5:18, when quoting Deuteronomy 25:4—“Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn”—as “scripture,” adds to it Luke 10:7—“For the labourer is worthy of his hire”—as Scripture of equal authority. Thus, and at so early a date, the Gospel by Luke—written by one outside the twelve—is accepted by the Apostle as authoritative Scripture. As to the Apostles themselves, Peter writes: “That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandments of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour” (2 Pet 3:2). Beyond this clear evidence as to the fact that the phrase ”all scripture” included the larger part of the New Testament, it is agreeable to a simple faith to believe that He who “calleth those things that be not as though they were” (Rom 4:17), as He indited the passage in question, included in this phrase all that, in His sovereign purpose, would be written, with the Scripture that had up to that time been written. Thus it may be concluded that the words ”all scripture” are no less and no more than that embodied in the Bible.

Over the second phrase-”given by inspiration of God”—there is much more dissension. The English word inspiration is from the Latin spiro and the passage in question is translated in the Vulgate by Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata, while the Greek is πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος (pasa grapha theopneustos—all Scripture is God-breathed). Much of interest may be gathered from the various translations of this phrase.

The Æthiopic renders: “And every scripture is in the Spirit of the Lord.” 

Wycliff: “All scripture of God inspired.” 

Tyndale: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 

Cremer (Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N.T. Greek): “promoted by God, divinely inspired.” 

Thayer, Grimm (Greek-English Lexicon of N.T.): “Inspired by God.” 

Robertson (Greek and English Lexicon of N.T.): ”God-breathed, inbreathed of God.” 

Warfield: “Every scripture seeing that it is God-breathed.” 

The Revised Version: “Every scripture inspired of God.”

Aside from that of the Revised Version which seems to leave room for the idea that some Scripture might not be inspired, these translations express, with all the force that language is able to devise, the truth that the Scriptures are God-breathed. The question at issue is one as to whether the term God-breathed is to be taken in the passive form which implies only that, as to its source, all Scripture is the breath of God—its distinctive characteristic being the fact that it originates in, and proceeds from, God—; or whether it is to be taken in its active form which would imply that the Scripture is permeated and pregnant with the breath of God—its distinctive characteristic being the fact that it has received by impartation or inspiration the breath of God. The passage does go on to say that the Scriptures are potent; for it is much to predicate of them that they are able to “make wise unto salvation,” that they are “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” and that by them the “man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto every good work.” There are, it would seem, two statements made: (a) all Scripture is God-breathed and (b) all Scripture is profitable. Doubtless it is profitable because it is God-breathed; but the word θεόπνευστος does not refer to inspiring into men of a message, but of the outspiring of that message from God. The message is different and its effect surpassing because it is God’s breathing and not because it has been accurately transmitted by men. It has been so transmitted and God’s determining power was over the human authors; but the statement of 2 Timothy 3:16 emphasizes only the out-breathing of God. To quote Dr. Warfield again, and there is no greater authority on all problems of Inspiration: “What is θεόπνευστος is God-breathed, produced by the creative breath of the Almighty. All Scripture is called θεόπνευστος in order to designate it as ‘God-breathed,’ the product of Divine spiration, the creation of the Spirit who is in all spheres of the Divine activity the executive of the Godhead.... It does not express a breathing into the Scriptures by God. But the ordinary conception attached to it, whether among the Fathers or the Dogmaticians, is in general vindicated. What it affirms is that the Scriptures owe their origin to an activity of God the Holy Ghost and are in the highest and truest sense His creation. It is on this foundation of Divine Origin that all these high attributes of Scripture are built.”[2]

The result of so much discussion seems both explicit and unequivocal. The Scriptures in their entirety are effective since they are from God, God-breathed, God-given, and God-determined.

The second major passage, 2 Peter 1:21—“holy men of God spake as they were moved [borne along] by the Holy Ghost”—, approaches the problem of inspiration from another angle. As θεόπνευστος indicated that the Scriptures originated with, and are therefore the Word of, God, (φέρω (phero—borne along) indicates the fact that the Spirit so wrought in the holy men of God as to secure through them an inerrant record of the mind of God. The two passages are supplementary and together form the entire revelation, namely, that (a) the Word came from God as His own spiro or breath, and (b) that under the inflatus or inspiro of God the Word was faithfully transcribed by holy men chosen for that high service.

The context of this second major passage is equally important. Peter has declared that the great theme of prophecy—“the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (as anticipated and prefigured in the transfiguration)—is certified by “eye witnesses” who were with Christ in the holy mount; but this truth is made “more sure” by the word of prophecy (or, better, the prophetic word); and reference here is to the inspired Scriptures as a whole and not merely to that portion which brings to notice the exceptional element of prediction. The writers of the Scriptures were all prophets in the larger meaning of that term and their writings were prophetic (cf. Acts 3:21; 10:43) in which forthtelling is the essential feature rather than foretelling.

The reference to “holy men” is to be received according to the root meaning of the word holy, or sanctified, which is to be set apart unto a specific service or purpose. They were the elect of God for this ministry and there is no reference to the sanctity of their lives. However, the experience of Isaiah in which his lips were purified with a coal from off the altar is suggestive (Isa 6:1–8).

The word φέρω, as used in this passage contains in it the secret concerning the particularized influence of the Holy Spirit on these chosen men which influence secured the inspired Scriptures. The word is exceedingly expressive suggesting the effect of the wind on the sails of a boat by which wind the boat is borne along. While φέρω indicates the divine control of the human authors, it allows in its breadth of expression for an indefinite variety of ways in which the end shall be attained.

At this point the so-called “theories” of inspiration are introduced. Too often these “theories” consist in an inquisitive attempt to pry into the unrevealed mystery as to how God moved the chosen men to write as they did. Upon this subject the Scriptures are silent. The writers at times bore brief but expressive testimony. We read: “The LORD said unto Moses” (Exod 4:19; cf. Deut 34:10); the “vision” which Isaiah “saw” (Isa 1:1; cf. Hab 1:1; Mal 1:1); “The word of the LORD came” to Jeremiah (Jer 1:2; cf. Hos 1:1; Jonah 1:1; Micah 1:1; Zeph 1:1; Hag 1:1; Zech 1:1). To Daniel God appeared in “visions” and “dreams.” John declares that his testimony is “true” (John 19:35; 1 John 1:1–3). And the Apostle Paul writes: “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37). As to how the divine revelation was given to the human author, none other than God or the elect man could know. It was wholly within those personal and sacred relationships into which none other might intrude. Here the devout soul will hesitate and the prudent will at least respect the silence of God. It is possible that, as the testimony of these writers suggests, there was not only variety in the manner in which God spoke to different men, but there was variety, as well, in the way in which He spoke at different times to one man. The Scriptures give abundant teaching as to the fact of inspiration but do not offer explanation of this phenomenon. The how of every miracle is wanting, and inspiration is a miracle. Concerning this and all miracles, man is called upon to believe and not to elucidate. Christ called attention to man’s limitations when He said: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth” (John 3:8). If having experienced the miracle of regeneration men are even then unable to apprehend its mystery, how could they discern the workings of the Spirit in realms into which they have never entered?

Concerning these “theories,” or suppositions, some damaging facts may be noted: (a) To those who in their zeal for the authority of God have implied that the human authors were automatons, it may be said that the evidence is complete enough to demonstrate the fact that these chosen men exercised every feature of their own volition and individual characteristics, yet were empowered to write only what the Spirit determined. Apart from this conception of inspiration there could be no dual authorship. (b) To those who claim that these elect men wrote under the influence of the exalted human faculties and the exercise of superior poetical genius, it may be said that the character of the truth disclosed demonstrates that it is the Word of God, being worthy of God, and this it could never be under the provisions this theory suggests. (c) To those who persist in the notion that inspiration constituted the elect men infallible and omniscient, it may be said that the evidence proves that the men were enabled only in the transcribing of truth and often they could not have comprehended the full import of all that they wrote. (d) To those who fancy that inspiration as it applies to the human authors tends to elevate every passage to the same level of spiritual importance, it may be said that in this sphere of inspiration its aim and purpose is to secure an accurate transcription of the God-given message. The philosophy of Bildad, as recorded in Job is not of the same usefulness to lost men as is the gospel of divine grace; but both are exactly what God intended to include in His Word—each in its place and for its purpose. Jehovah has said: “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isa 55:11). In like manner inspiration may record the untruth of Satan, but it does not vindicate the lie nor sanctify it. It secures the exact record as to what was said—good or bad. Many unworthy actions are recorded but not approved by God.

On the general freedom of the human authors, Alexander Carson has said: “Inspiration...left the inspired historians under the power and regulation of the laws and influences that guide other authors in their compositions, with the single exception of supernaturally preserving them from error.” This statement leaves no place for the reception of the message. The authors were preserved from error, but they did not originate the message. They might be accurate in declaring their own thought. They were, however, accurate in declaring God’s thoughts which they received from Him.

It may thus be seen that the specific import of 2 Peter 1:21 and its context centers in the word φέρω) as it distinguishes the writings of certain chosen men who spoke as they were borne along by the Holy Spirit. Their message was the Word of God, and thus the dual authorship is preserved.

Another passage of great significance is John 10:35 where it is reported that Christ, while speaking to the Jews concerning their cherished Scriptures, said: “Is it not written in your law?” and “the scriptures cannot be broken.” The three words, Scripture, Law, and Prophecy, are interchangeable when referring, as each often does, to the entire body of revealed truth. In this context Christ states that a thing written in their Law is none other than Scripture which cannot be broken. This passage is an example of the unvarying and unqualified honor which Christ gave to the Scriptures as the Authoritative Oracles of God. According to the record, His first utterance after His baptism was a three-fold challenge of Satan, and Satan’s defeat was gained by the words, “It is written.” Throughout His ministry, Christ constantly declared that the Scriptures must be fulfilled, thus giving honor to them (Mark 14:49; John 13:18; 17:12; cf. 12:14; Mark 9:12, 13). Similarly, on the Emmaus road He, “beginning at Moses and all the prophets, ...expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). He also said, the Scriptures (continuously) “bear witness of me” (John 5:39). Christ thus assigned to the Scriptures the final word of authority. Turning only to Matthew’s Gospel this fact is made clear-4:4, 7, 10; 11:10; 19:4; 21:13, 42; 22:29; 26:31, 56. An equally extended induction could easily be made of the passages which demonstrate the authority which all the New Testament writers accorded the Word of God.

The testimony which the Bible presents as to its own inspiration is diffused throughout all its parts. Each author witnesses to the supernatural character of his writings. But by far the most conclusive evidence that the Bible is inspired is the two-fold fact: (a) That Christ so accepted the Old Testament as a whole as well as in every separate portion, and (b) that the New Testament was written at His direction and the human authors were promised superhuman ability to write according to the mind of God.

When contemplating the Bible’s own claims to inspiration, of great significance, indeed, are those passages wherein God and His Word are treated as one and the same. It is written in Galatians 3:8: “The scriptures, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham.” Assuredly the Scriptures as such, which were not then written, did not preach to Abraham, but God did. Thus in Romans 9:17—“The scriptures said to Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up.” Yet Exodus 9:16, which text is here quoted, states that it is the Word of Jehovah to Pharaoh through Moses. The fact is patent that the Scripture which was not then written could not be responsible for the raising up of Pharaoh for a specific purpose; but God’s Word, whether spoken or written, is the identification of Himself. It is especially observable that such phrases as “He saith,” “He spake,” and “He beareth witness,” etc., indicate the voice of God speaking whatever is said. The oft-repeated expressions, “The word of Jehovah,” “The law of the LORD,” “The oracles of God,” certify without exception to the divine authorship. Because it is His Word, it shall stand forever (Isa 40:8). Men are appointed to preach it as God’s Word (Rom 10:17; 1 Cor 14:36); and thus it came, first to Israel (Acts 10:36, 37), and then to the Gentiles (1 Thess 2:13).

In making its own claim to inspiration, the Bible puts strong emphasis on the fact that individual men were empowered to write or speak the Word of God. “David in spirit [literally in the Spirit] called him Lord” (cf. Ps 110:1 with Matt 22:43). “Who [the Holy Spirit] by the mouth of David thy servant hast said” (Acts 4:25, 26). “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of [by] the Lord by [through] the prophet” (Matt 1:22; 2:15). “Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith”...) (Heb 3:7; cf. Ps 95:7). “Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us” (Heb 10:15; cf. Jer 31:33, 34). To Moses Jehovah said, “Go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say” (Exod 4:10–12). “I...will put my words in his mouth” (Deut 18:18, 19). “My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth” (Isa 59:21). “The word of the LORD came unto me, saying, ...I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.... Thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak...Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth” (Jer 1:4–9).

The New Testament writers were no less the voice of God. When about to leave this world, Christ committed not only the evangelizing witness to all who comprise His Church, but He gave assurance to chosen men that they would be called upon to record what He had said. The Holy Spirit, they were told, would “teach them all things,” “bring all things to their remembrance,” “guide them into all truth,” and show them “things to come” (John 14:25, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:12–15). While there is a general application of these words to all believers in that the Spirit is their Teacher, it is evident that the specific work of the Spirit in bringing to remembrance could be experienced only by those to whom Christ had spoken. The Apostle Paul was not one of the twelve and therefore he never claimed to have had their instruction. Nevertheless, he testifies to the direct energizing power of the Spirit. He wrote: “which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth” (1 Cor 2:13; cf. 14:37; 2 Cor 13:2, 3; Gal 1:8–12; Eph 3:1–7; 1 Thess 2:13; 4:2, 8, 15; 2 Thess 2:13–15. For other N.T. passages note: 1 Pet 1:10–12; 2 Pet 3:1, 2; Rev 1:3, 10, 11, 19; 22:6, 7, 18, 19).

On this partial induction of all that the Bible asserts as to its own inspiration, enough has been presented to demonstrate that verbal, plenary inspiration alone answers its claims.

4. General Objections to Verbal Plenary Inspiration

If borne in mind, certain important facts tend to dissolve almost every recorded objection to the doctrine of Verbal, Plenary Inspiration, namely:

(a) The progress of doctrine which is observable from Genesis to Revelation does not imply that earlier and partial revelations were erroneous. At the end of His three-and-a-half years of instruction to His disciples, Christ said to them, “I have yet many things to say unto you” (John 16:12), but that did not imply that what He had taught them at the first was untrue. Again, and somewhat similar to this, a fallacy has a long time been current which greatly dishonors the Word of God. It is to the effect that the Apostle Paul in later years receded from the emphasis on the return of Christ which he exhibited in his early Epistles, notably 1 Thessalonians; and no reason is assigned for this claim other than that this truth does not, it is affirmed, appear in his later writings. The later writings, it is obvious, are upon a different theme; but quite apart from that fact, the last chapter of his last Epistle presents one of the strongest testimonies the Apostle gave concerning the hope of the coming of Christ (2 Tim 4:6–8). Such a conception intimates that the Apostle was mistaken in his earlier Epistles which he cautiously corrected in those written later; but who shall say that, had his life been extended, he would not, according to this notion, at the end of his life have discredited all that he wrote? To doubt the early writings is to degrade all his writings, and only because of the fact that the essential element of inspiration is involved, and not merely the blundering of a sincere man. This situation may well serve to illustrate the distress into which men are plunged who question the trustworthiness of the Bible, whether their doubt arises from the problem of the progress of doctrine as a whole, or over the supposed progress of the human authors.

(b) Variations in rendering sometimes occur because of the different languages involved. The superscription over the cross of Christ was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. The Apostle Paul usually quoted the LXX translation of the Old Testament. In every case of quotation of the Old Testament into the New Testament it should be remembered that the Holy Spirit is the Author of both Testaments and that it is wholly within the province of an author, when quoting from his own writings, to change or restate anything he has written before. This does not necessarily imply correction of the earlier writings. It may be, as it is in the case of the Spirit, an adaptation of a truth to a new situation or setting.

Every devout student will believe that, to a very considerable degree, the preserving care of God has been over every worthy translation of the Scriptures and that in these translations no essential doctrinal value has been sacrificed.

(c) At best, human understanding is imperfect. What may seem a difficulty now—as has so often been demonstrated—is completely dissolved when all the facts are known. At this point archeology has contributed much and will no doubt continue to do so to the end.

(d) The claim for verbal, plenary inspiration is made only for the original writings and does not extend to any transcriptions or translations. It is also true that no original manuscript is now available. Naturally, these facts give rise to the query as to whether the present existing translations—notably the text with which one is most familiar—is really trustworthy. This problem is worthy of serious consideration and has received the attention of the greatest textual critics in all generations of the church. But two passages of any considerable length are subject to dispute—Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53 to 8:11. Of these two passages, the latter is more discredited than the former. As to textual difficulties generally, the following quotations are significant:

Westcott and Hort: “With regard to the great bulk of the words of the New Testament, as of most other ancient writings, there is no variation or other ground of doubt, and therefore no other ground for textual criticism; and here therefore an editor is merely a transcriber. The same may be said with substantial truth respecting those various readings which have never been received, and in all probability never will be received, into any printed text. The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough computation, than seven-eighths of the whole. The remaining eighth, therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitutes the whole area of criticism. If the principles followed in the present edition are sound, this area may be very greatly reduced. Recognizing to the full the duty of abstinence from peremptory decision in cases where the evidence leaves the judgment in suspense between two or more readings, we find that, setting aside difference of orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt only make up one-sixtieth of the whole New Testament. In this second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; so that the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.”[3]

Dr. Philip Schaff, Chairman of the American Committee of the Revisers, writes: “This multitude of various readings of the Greek text need not puzzle or alarm any Christian. It is the natural result of the great wealth of our documentary resources; it is a testimony to the immense importance of the New Testament; it does not affect, but rather insures, the integrity of the text; and it is a useful stimulus to study.

“Only about 400 of the 100,000 or 150,000 variations materially affect the sense. Of these, again, not more than about fifty are really important for one reason or another; and even of these fifty not one affects an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching. The Textus Receptus of Stephens, Beza, and Elzevir, and of our English Version, teach precisely the same Christianity as the uncial text of the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscript, the oldest versions and the Anglo-American Revision.”[4]

Conclusion.

Of the almost limitless field of discussion which the doctrine of Inspiration affords, enough has been presented to demonstrate that Verbal, Plenary Inspiration is the unqualified claim of the Bible for itself, the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, and the belief of the church from her beginning. It has likewise been pointed out that the Word as written came forth from God as His breath and that chosen men were empowered to receive and record that message. As to how He transmitted that Word to them and secured inerrant oracles at their hand, the Scriptures are silent. A dual authorship is preserved—God using the volition and faculties of the human authors without coercion and the human authors exercised their volition and faculties without injury to the divine message. Those who are disposed to disagree with these conclusions must reckon with Christ, the Apostles, and the Prophets upon whom, after all, we must depend for any knowledge of any truth whatsoever. If their testimony is broken regarding the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, it is broken regarding all else.

The doctrines of Revelation, Inspiration, Canonicity, and Authority being closely allied, the following discussion is requisite for the completion of that which has gone before.

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. Analogy, Part II, C. 7.
2. Revelation and Inspiration, p. 280.
3. The New Testament in Greek, II. 2.
4. Companion to the New Testament, p. 177.