Quotables: Inspiration of the Original Autographs

quotables

Every now and then I like posting something incisive that was written in the past because it speaks so well into the present. The sweet thing about this is that these guys, who are often waved away today, have dealt with a lot of the same issues while remaining simultaneously (by the modern mind) ignored. This one comes from James M. Gray in The Fundamentals.

Let it be stated further in this definitional connection, that the record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record—the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter, as the case may be, and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it.

But does this make nugatory our contention? Some would say it does, and they would argue speciously that to insist on the inerrancy of a parchment no living being has ever seen is an academic question merely, and without value. But do they not fail to see that the character and perfection of the God-head are involved in that inerrancy?

Some years ago a “liberal” theologian, deprecating this discussion as not worth while, remarked that it was a matter of small consequence whether a pair of trousers were originally perfect if they were now rent. To which the valiant and witty David James Burrell replied, that it might be a matter of small consequence to the wearer of the trousers, but the tailor who made them would prefer to have it understood that they did not leave his shop that way. And then he added, that if the Most High must train among knights of the shears He might at least be regarded as the best of the guild, and One who drops no stitches and sends out no imperfect work.

Is it not with the written Word as with the incarnate Word? Is Jesus Christ to be regarded as imperfect because His character has never been perfectly reproduced before us? Can He be the incarnate Word unless He were absolutely without sin? And by the same token, can the scriptures be the written Word unless they were inerrant?

But if this question be so purely speculative and valueless, what becomes of the science of Biblical criticism by which properly we set such store today? Do builders drive piles into the soft earth if they never expect to touch bottom? Do scholars dispute about the scripture text and minutely examine the history and meaning of single words, “the delicate coloring of mood, tense and accent,” if at the end there is no approximation to an absolute? As Dr. George H. Bishop says, does not our concordance, every time we take it up, speak loudly to us of a once inerrant parchment? Why do we not possess concordances for the very words of other books?

Nor is that original parchment so remote a thing as some suppose. Do not the number and variety of manuscripts and versions extant render it comparatively easy to arrive at a knowledge of its text, and does not competent scholarship today affirm that as to the New Testament at least, we have in 999 cases out of every thousand the very word of that original text? Let candid consideration be given to these things and it will be seen that we are not pursuing a phantom in contending for an inspired autograph of the Bible.

The Fundamentals : The famous sourcebook of foundational biblical truths (2:12-14).

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Major Themes of Scripture

On my iPhone (it’s really an iPod Touch but it’s annoying calling it an iPod Touch and it sounds slightly perverse calling it an iTouch and with the right applications and microphone it is essentially the same device sans camera so I’ll continue calling it an iPhone for any future posts though I don’t technically own one) I have a document that I reference when I’m out and about reading Scripture. It contains some themes that shoot right through Scripture, from beginning to end, and which all are tied up to the Gospel and eventually are the very things that God is culminating. Of course, the ideas aren’t original. My thinking was influenced by DA Carson, Dwight Pentacost, even John Piper and NT Wright (if you believe it).

In the list you might notice I’m missing some things like “Shepherd” or “Davidic King” but that’s because I think those tie into Man and his position under God. I didn’t mention Israel, though it is surely a major theme but I’ve subsumed it under People of God—but I don’t feel quite right about that. I might still put them under their own number—not sure.

I’ve noticed that some make a mistake of taking one of the themes of Scripture and making it the central focus of the Gospel (the good news). For example, NT Wright loves to make the Gospel all about the Kingdom. Piper loves to make the Gospel all about God (even has a book called God is the Gospel). So on. I think that to say the main theme of the Gospel is any one of these things is seriously mistaken and ignores the breadth of what God is accomplishing. Also, I think some would like to remove some of these things as being tied to the Gospel. So, one might argue that Creation is central to the Gospel and Sin is merely a side issue: that is mistaken. The Gospel necessarily deals with both of those (and other) things but I won’t argue the point beyond listing the themes from my iPhone here sans scripture:

  1. God (all that He implies)
  2. His Kingdom
  3. Creation
  4. Man (and his Position)
  5. Family
  6. Marriage / Relationship
  7. Sin
  8. Bondage (might bundle up with sin, possibly)
  9. Life – Healing – Salvation
  10. Death  - Sickness – Suffering
  11. Promise / Covenant
  12. Judgment
  13. Sacrifice  / Blood
  14. Atonement
  15. Holiness (and the levels Holy-Clean-Unclean-Profane)
  16. Light / Glory / Dark / Shadow
  17. Son
  18. Joy (Wine?)
  19. Love
  20. Temple / Tabernacle
  21. Rest
  22. Priesthood
  23. People of God
  24. Food / Eating (Bread)
  25. Word
  26. Water

Technorati Tags: ,