# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_M rz 1905_S138
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

138 ö Kirchlich⸗Zeitgeschichtliches.

s0 theé confessions treat the Canonical Scriptures as inspired of God. And
there is no indication that they did not regard them as entirely inerrant in
all their parts. Nowhere do the confessions give the slightest hint that the
Bible is inspired only in some parts, while in others it is not. If there is one
word in any of our Lutheran symbols to indicate that their composers re-
garded only the “spiritual truths' or saving truths' of the Bible as inspired,
while its history and narrative might be errant, we have failed to sind that
word. The Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord are replete
with quotations from the Bible, or allusions to it, and not one of them but is
given with all the confidence of an uιtima thulée. Explain the Scripture, inter-
pret it, they often do, but question its statements never! Every citation
from Holy Writ is treated as aThus saith the Lord.““' (S. 472.) Im Folgen⸗
den citirt P. Keyser die bekannten Stellen über die heilige Schrift aus der Concor⸗
dienformel und fährt dann also fort: „Ifthe confessors in writing that language
did not mean to set up the Bible as an infallible standard, thoroughly reliable,
and therefore inerrant in all its parts, then we are at a loss to know what they
did mean. They call the Scriptures êthe only test-stone.“) Did they mean
that it was a faulty one, or an entirely trustworthy one? Surely the latter,
else they would not have inserted the word “only.““' (S. 473.) Weiter unten
heißt es von der Definition der Inspiration: “We do not attempt to explain the
mystery of inspiration, but it does seem to us that a simple and clear state-
ment of the doctrine might be given, and we would humbly submit the fol-
lowing: Bibłical inspiration is the duαά˙ι ν ον ν οομεαμε ε sο moved upon che
voriters of the Sacred Seripture that then recorded precisely vohat He desired re-
corded. This deflnition we shall proceed to advocate and defend. First, it
asserts the perfect superintendence of God in the making of the Bible — that
is, the complete dominance of the divine or supernatural element, making
the Bible a fully inspired book, and one that must he inerrant. Then, it al-
lows ample scope for the human element, which is so obvious in the produe-
tion of the Bible. The inspired writers were not mere machines. God made
use of them as free agents and rational beings, permitting their various idio-
syncrasies proper play, so that no two of them write in the same way, but
each is master of his own peculiar style; yet in all this free use of the human
element God so moved and controlled and guided the writers that no errors
were committed, and that a vast amount of divine revelation was imparted
and recorded. Thus the whole Bible is inspired; not only some parts of it,
but all its parts, even to the sentences and words, — that is, they are God-
breathed; divinely revealed, when necessary; divinely controlled in all cases.“
(S. 474 f.) Etwas unsicher lautet auch die folgende Aussprache: But what is to
be said about the verbal theory“? We believe in that, too. Ever) Serip-
turé is given by inspiration of God,' ete. (2 Tim. 3, 16, closest translation.)
However, in saying that we accept the verbal' theory, we need to make an
explanation. Our idea is not that God dictated every word and punctuation
mark, giving the Biblical scribes no election in the style of presentation, but
that He so guided or superintended their choice of language that they were
kept from error and wrote what He desired recorded. Thus the very words
of Scripture are all inspired, — that is, God-breathed, — though not all of
them were necessarily dictated. Even in the human worlid to-day an intel-
ligent secretary or typewriter can be so imbued with his employer's spirit
and desires that he can freely and correctly express the latter's thoughts