OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

It remains only that we give a brief, but full and frank consideration of the principal objections that have been urged against the Doctrine of Plenary Inspiration, which we have endeavored to expound and establish.

__________________

CHAPTER I.

OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE.

Certain passages of Scripture are urged, in which it is alleged that some of the sacred writers disclaim inspiration, at least in the cases mentioned; and from this it is attempted to infer, somewhat illogically, that the disclaimer applies equally to all that is contained in the Bible, even if written by entirely different men. Let us candidly examine these passages, and see what they imply.

Luke i. 3. “It seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, " etc.

To some this claim of careful and accurate inquiry seems to conflict with the idea of assistance or direction from a supernatural source. They assume apparently that there could be no inspiration except as to the record of such things as were derived exclusively from revelation. But this is an unwarranted assumption. And certainly that is not the view of inspiration for which we contend.

If Luke had denied that there was any other source of information than these inquiries of his, or that he had any aid from above in the arrangement of the materials, however gathered, this objection might have some validity as against the Revelation or Inspiration of the two historical books of his composition; though even then it would be necessary to show that this denial affected the other books of the Bible. But there is no positive disclaimer of that sort, nor even any implied denial here. While asserting this diligent search and comparison of information, he nowhere distinguishes between the authority of the things so de rived, and the facts concerning which he makes no reference to such sources.

The case might be illustrated by supposing that Peter, while claiming to have been an eyewitness of the Redeemer's transfigured majesty, and there fore worthy to be believed in reference to that event on the ground of his personal testimony, had denied, instead of affirming, that on other subjects he “preached the Gospel with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.” If he had denied it, there would have been evidence of the absence of divine agency or authority. But as he makes no such distinction between the different parts of his teaching, and no disclaimer of inspiration as to any part, this reference to his personal observation and experience on a particular point does not invalidate his general authority. Neither does Luke's allusion to his diligent investigations invalidate his authority. He was as really controlled in the record of what he knew naturally by personal observation, and of what he learned by inquiry and diligent research, as in the communication of what he received by direct revelation. And this control is what we mean by inspiration.

The question is a different one, when it is asked on what ground Luke's writings are accepted as inspired, when he was not an Apostle. That question belongs to the subject of the Canon, and does not properly come up here. But it may be remarked that the general recognition of his Gospel and of the Acts by the churches during the lifetime of the Apostles, and his intimate association with Paul, lead to the inference that he was to be classed among the prophets or apostolic men to whom inspiration was granted. The same thing substantially may be said in regard to the Gospel according to Mark, who was similarly associated with Peter.

1 Corinthians vii. 6–25. In this passage the Apostle gives directions concerning sundry practical questions of difficulty, as to marriage, separation of married people, etc., about which the Corinthians had written to him.

In reference to the propriety of marriage in general for most people, he says, ver. 6, “I speak this by permission” (Revised Version and Bible Union Version, by way of permission), " and not of commandment, " i. e. in the way of an indulgence or allowance to you, not as a commandment which I enjoin. There is no reference, as some (judging only from our English version) have imagined, to the difference in the authority by which he speaks in the different cases, as if the origin or nature of that authority were in question. Even if the meaning were, that in this case he was only permitted, not commanded, by the Spirit to utter what he did, the objection would have no weight against the doctrine of Inspiration; because, if this teaching was permitted by the Spirit, it could not be opposed to the truth, and to the will of God as expressed in his other teachings. But both the language itself, when properly translated so as to be free from ambiguity, and the connection of the argument, make it clear that the contrast intended is not between things which Paul is permitted and other things which he is commanded to speak, but between things which Paul in his Apostolic character permits or allows, but does not command, and other things which he commands. To marry is not wrong, nor to abstain from marriage. “Marry, if you think best; I speak this by way of permission, not as a commandment.”

We may compare with this a corresponding expression in 2 Corinthians viii. 8, 10. Addressing the Corinthians, and commending to their imitation the great liberality of the churches of Macedonia, he says, “I speak not by commandment” (Rev. Ver. by way of commandment), i. e. not as giving a command, “but I give my advice” (Rev. Ver. judgment), “for this is expedient for you.”

So far the matter is really quite plain, and all respectable commentators agree as to the meaning. The real difficulty, or the point on which the objection is based, begins in the tenth verse of the passage in 1. Corinthians vii. 10–25.

In ver. 10, the Apostle says, “I command” (Rev. Ver. give charge), “yet not I, but the Lord”: in ver. 12, “to the rest speak” (Rev. Ver. say) “I, not the Lord”: in ver. 25, “Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my judgment.”

It is alleged that there is here a contrast between different portions of what he speaks, as being part of them of divine origin and authority, and part his own opinion, human, fallible, and therefore uncertain; part God's commandment, and part man's own suggestion merely.

This is evidently not the contrast intended. It is not a distinction between what is authoritative and what is not so, but between that which he speaks simply reiterating the express words of the Lord Jesus, personally uttered, and that which he speaks by inspiration, not having any words of Jesus to quote. Both are authoritative, both divine; but the first coming from Christ primarily, and the other coming in the first instance to Paul himself, and through him to the Corinthian church.¹

It need scarcely be remarked that “the Lord,” in Acts and the Epistles, is the standing and habitual designation for the Lord Jesus personally. This is well understood and admitted by all careful students of the New Testament.

There are three questions here as to the law of marriage, which naturally arose in the early Christian churches, in their hand to hand conflict with heathenism. These questions pertained, —

(1) to the married in general (ver. 10);

(2) to the special cases of mixed marriages, where one party was a believer and the other not (ver. 12); and

(3) to the unmarried (ver. 25). As to the first, the Lord Jesus had personally laid down the law.

(See Mark x. 2–12.) From that there was no appeal, and to that nothing could be added.² To those already married Paul says, “I command, yet not I, but the Lord.” He simply repeats and enjoins what Jesus the Lord had commanded with his own lips.

As to the other two cases, Christ had given no specific commandment. These questions had scarcely arisen during his brief personal ministry. So the Apostle proceeds to give his own decision as to mixed marriages. And this he clearly means to be authoritative, for he adds: “So ordain I in all the churches” (ver. 17). It is not a mere individual opinion, thrown out casually, uncertain, local and temporary in its application. In the Old Testament dispensation a somewhat different law had prevailed as to mixed marriages. According to the Mosaic Law, such a union was not to be formed at all between Israelites and Gentiles, between Jehovah's worshippers and idolaters. And when formed, under the peculiar circumstances prevailing, for example, after the exile, such heathen or foreign wives were to be resolutely and invariably put away. This was done even in cases which seemed to involve great severity and distress. See Ezra x. 2-19; Nehemiah xiii. 23-27. But Paul enjoins that now the believing or Christian party shall not abandon the other, a rule which needed direct, original, divine authority to establish and enforce it, as he does “in all the churches."

As to virgins, the unmarried, he has no commandment of the Lord, that is, no express word of Jesus to quote, but he proceeds to give advice suited to the peculiar circumstances, — giving suggestions, but laying down no universal rule. He closes this discussion (ver. 40) by saying, “I think also that I” (Rev. Ver. I think that I also) “have the Spirit of God. " There are some who regard this passage as expressing Paul's doubt of his own inspiration. Because Paul says he thought he had the Spirit of God, they are quite sure that he had not. They represent it as implying uncertainty in his own mind as to his divine authorization, or as to his possessing the Spirit. This is certainly not his meaning. So far from that, in this same epistle, having referred to the existence of miraculous gifts in the church, one of which was the discerning of spirits, he says, “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 Corinthians xiv. 37.

Romans vi. 18, 19. “I speak after the manner of men.” What does the Apostle mean by this? He has just spoken of the believer as the slave of righteousness. He adds that this is but a human illustration, drawn from human affairs, and must not be misapplied. The expression “slave” must not be strained to imply severity, compulsion, reluctance, injustice. It only conveys the idea of the relation of entire ownership and consecration, in which the Christian delights to stand towards holiness and God. “I have used an illustration,” he would say, “drawn from human relations, on ac count of the intellectual infirmity of your flesh, because you need such figures to set the truth vividly before you.” Thus he is speaking after the manner of men, but with no renunciation of the divine authority with which he speaks.

2 Corinthians xi. 17. “That which I speak, I speak not after the Lord, but as in foolishness. " Does he mean that he is speaking nonsense, that he is deliberately and purposely making himself a fool? Certainly not. Just before he had said, “I say again, Let no man think me foolish; but if ye do, yet as foolish receive me, that I also may glory a little.” It is the outgushing of his ardent, affectionate heart, grieved that he should be misjudged and mistreated by those for whom he had toiled so devotedly, yet only pouring forth more freely out of that pierced and wounded heart the zealous desires he had ever felt for their welfare. “Grant that I am a fool, put me in the position of a fool, if you will; it has been for your sake that I have acted thus, and even if counted by you as foolish, I deserve your sympathy and consideration.”

The language is plainly ironical, assuming, for the sake of argument, that what some of them are charging him with is correct, and showing that even on that ground he could boast, if so inclined, of more abundant labors and sacrifices for them and for the Gospel.

But it is said, he alleges that he speaks not only as in foolishness,” but “not after the Lord”; and that this must mean that he is at least then not under the influence of inspiration. If this interpretation be correct, and if he here disclaims it in regard to this apparent self-boasting to which he is compelled by the unworthy and ungrateful depreciation of his labors among the Corinthians, would not the express exception in this case only confirm more incontestably the general claim that elsewhere he is speaking the mind of the Lord?

But it is admitted, even by those (as Meyer and Alford) who regard Paul as in this passage denying “the theopneustic character of the utterance in the stricter sense,” that this is done “without his laying aside the consciousness of the Spirit's guidance, under which he, for his purpose, allows the human emotion temporarily to speak.” Meyer adds, that "Bengel aptly says: But even this passage, and the exception peculiar to this passage, he so wrote according to a rule of divine propriety, being instructed by the Lord.”

Hodge, on the other hand however, thinks as we do that, even in this very passage, “Such an utterance is not inconsistent with the Apostle's claim to inspiration. For the simple end of inspiration is to secure infallibility in the communication of truth. It does not sanctify, nor does it preclude the natural play of the intellect or of the feelings. Even if therefore this conduct of Paul was due to human weakness, that would not prove that he was not under the inspiration of God. But such an assumption is needless. There was nothing wrong in his self-laudation. He never appears more truly humble than when these references to his labors and sufferings were wrung from him, filling him with a feeling of self-contempt. All that the expression implies is, that self-praise, in itself considered, is not the work of a Christian; it is not the work to which the Spirit of Christ impels a believer. But when it is necessary to the vindication of truth or the honor of religion, it becomes a duty.” (Hodge in loco.)

Must we not accept the testimony of the Apostle, that even in this glorying “the truth of Christ is in” him (ver. 10), and that his object in what ex poses him to misconstruction is a pure and noble one, so that he can appeal confidently to the divine judgment in the matter, — “God knoweth” (ver. 11)?

2 Corinthians xii, 2, 3. 6 Whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth”; literally (as in Rev. Ver.), " whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knoweth.”

This passage is adduced to show that there were some things which Paul admits he did not know; and from this confessed limitation of his knowledge it is inferred that he cannot have been inspired.

But this inference would only be just on the ground that inspiration implied omniscience, which no one attempts to claim. That there were some things which God knew, and which Paul did not, does not invalidate his real inspiration. Does it? If it did, would any real inspiration be possible or conceivable in any man? Is it not obvious that the objection is grounded on such a notion of inspiration as is utterly impracticable, and such as no intelligent advocate of inspiration holds?

1 Corinthians i. 16. “I know not whether I baptized any other.” A somewhat similar argument is based on this passage as upon the one last mentioned. It is said: Here is a matter on which Paul's mind is in doubt as to a matter of fact. He remembers distinctly that he baptized Crispus and Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, in whose providential and helpful presence he is rejoicing (xvi. 7). He does not remember whether he baptized any other. His memory is at fault. Hence, says Alford, “the last clause is important as against those who maintain the absolute omniscience of the inspired writers on every topic which they handle."

But we do not allege their omniscience on every subject, or even on any subject; only that all that they say is accurate, and is uttered under divine direction and authority. As Hodge says, “We learn that inspiration was an influence which rendered its recipients infallible, but it did not render them omniscient. They were preserved from asserting error, but they were not enabled either to know or to remember all things.”

1) Dr. Ladd, while admitting clearly that “the distinction here called for is not that between the words of an Apostle when in spired, and the words of the same Apostle when not inspired," alleges that the teachings of Jesus personally are infallible and permanent, but that the “other contents of truth” are “mixed with possible error, since they came by remoter inferences from the truth of Christ, and were given in the trustworthy yet fallible judgments of the Apostles.” Accordingly, he thinks that, besides the “unequivocal declarations of the mind of Christ,” and “cer tain wise teachings of an inspired Apostle, the acceptance of which was ethically best for those to whom he wrote,” there are here “certain erroneous opinions, the rejection of the practical applica tion of which was best for the same persons. Among these last may we class the opinions and preferences into which the Apostle was led by his erroneous impression as to the nearness of the Sec ond Coming." Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, 203, 205.

We venture humbly, notwithstanding, to agree with Paul's opin ions and advice, so guardedly and yet frankly expressed, as good by reason of the (then) present distress” (ver. 26); and also to ques tion whether he was in any error as to the immediate nearness of the Second Coming. He did not know when it would be. Nei ther did the other Apostles (Acts i. 7; 1 Thessalonians v. 1, 2). Neither did our Lord during his earthly sojourn (Mark xiii. 32). But they all taught the duty of living with constant reference to it, and in a state of cheerful expectancy of it (Matthew xxiv. 42; 1 Co rinthians i. 7; Titus ii. 13; 2 Peter iii. 12). And Paul earnestly admonished his Thessalonian brethren against imagining that “the day of the Lord was at hand” (2 Thessalonians ii. 1-3).

2) On 1 Corinthians vii. 10, De Wette observes: “Hitherto the Apostle has spoken from his own judgment illuminated by the Holy Ghost (ver. 40); so also in what follows (ver. 12, 25, 40); but here (ver. 10) he appeals to an expression of the Lord (Mark x. 12).” And Meyer says: “The Apostle was conscious that his individual ity was under the influence of the Holy Ghost (ver. 40). He there. fore distinguishes, here and in verses 12 and 25, not between his own and inspired commands, but between those which proceeded from his own inspired subjectivity, and those which Christ himself maintained by his objective word.”