Inerrancy: A Recent View Among Baptists?

 

        It is commonly asserted by Inerrancy critics that the view of inspiration known as Inerrancy is embraced only recently among Southern Baptists.  The following essay entitled "The Inspiration of the Scriptures" is by the Reverend J. B. Jeter (1802-1880), then Pastor of First Baptist Church, Richmond, VA. 

This essay stands as one in a collection entitled "Baptist Doctrines:  Being an Exposition in a Series of Essays by Representative Baptist Ministers of the Distinctive Points of Baptist Faith and Practice, edited by Rev. Charles A. Jenkens of North Carolina, St. Louis: Chauncy R. Barnes. 1885". 

As it is posted here, it is incomplete, with only the more relevant portions assembled.  I was struck by the number of times Mr. Jeter employed terminology similar to our modern term 'Inerrancy" (all emphasis mine).

       There are among theologians various theories of inspiration; but we shall notice only two of them. One is that God communicated his truth to the minds of his servants, prophets and apostles, and they retained it in their memories, and expounded it in their discourses by the use of their natural faculties, without divine aid or supervision. the other that generally held by evangelical Christians-is that God not only communicated truth to the minds of his servants, but exercised over them an influence by which they were enabled to reveal it, by speech or writing, without any mistake, and in the manner best suited to secure the end of the revelation. It is to the examination of these theories that our article is devoted. 

That God can inspire men to reveal his truth infallibly to the world, it is atheistic to deny. That plenary inspiration seems necessary to secure the end of the avowed purpose of the Scriptures-that men may believe in Christ, and by believing secure everlasting life-can hardly be questioned. Still it must be conceded, that not only the reality, but the measure and manner of the inspiration of the Scriptures, must be learned from their own testimony. What do they teach on the subject? Did their writers claim to be divinely inspired? Did they say or do anything incompatible with their full inspiration? We should come to the Scriptures, with childlike docility, to learn what they teach on these points...

It would be easy to multiply quotations of this kind [from the Old Testament]; but if the above passages do not establish the fact that the writers of the Old Testament claimed plenary inspiration, it is impossible for language to do it. God spoke by the prophets. In a sense their words were their own; but in a higher, truer sense they were the words of God. There was no possibility for them to err in their words, unless God could be mistaken. 

When Christ appeared in the world, the writings of Moses and the prophets, called by way of eminence, the Scriptures, were held in high estimation among the Jews. How did Christ respect them? He was"God manifest in the flesh," and knew perfectly their origin, history, contents and authority. He treated them with the greatest reverence; and never uttered a word to indicate that he deemed them human and fallible, as well as divine and inerrable. He pronounced them the sure preservative from error: "Ye do err," said he to the Jews, "not knowing the Scriptures." Matt.xxii.29. Could this be true, if the Scriptures themselves abounded in errors? 

They might, in that case, have been seduced into error by their knowledge of them. Listen further to the testimony of Jesus: "The Scripture must be fulfilled." Mark xiv. 49. "The Scripture cannot be broken." John x. 35. If the Scriptures "must be fulfilled," it is because their predictions are true and accurate: if they "cannot be broken," it is because there is no defect or weakness in them.

Jesus, resting his claims to the Messiahship on the testimony of the Scriptures, commended them to the undoubting confidence and careful study of his hearers: "Search," said he, "the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John v. 39.  The evangelist John furnishes incidentally the strongest possible proof of his high estimate of the Scriptures. He says: "the disciples believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said." John ii.22. The apostle coupled the Scripture and the word of Jesus as of equal credibility. could he have done this without dishonoring Jesus, if the Scripture had partaken of the errors prevalent in the ages of its several authors?... 

On this subject the teaching of Paul is explicit and full: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God; and is profitable for doctrine (teaching), for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. iii.16, 17.  The apostle affirms, not only that Scripture, but that "all Scripture" is Divinely inspired. the language clearly mean, not merely that every book of Scripture, but that all the contents of every book, historical, geographical, and scientific, and well as doctrinal, is inspired of God; and therefore infallible, and fitted to make the man of God perfect.

As Paul teaches the measure, so Peter states the manner, of Divine inspiration. He says: "Prophecy came not in old time (at any time. mar.) but the will of man; but holy men of God spake (and doubtless also wrote) as they were moved by the Hold Ghost." God employed holy men to reveal his truth to the world. They did not speak or write by their own knowledge or will; but as they were enlightened, guided and influenced by the Hold Spirit. Their messages were instructive, threatening, encouraging or consolatory, according to the Divine will.

We think it an error to say that the Scriptures do not teach the manner of inspiration. We do not see how the manner of Divine inspiration could be more clearly taught than in this language of the apostle Peter. the manner, too, is such as to preclude the possibility of error in the Scriptures. Surely the Hold Spirit, infinitely wise and good, can move hold men to teach only what is true, and pure, and adapted to subserve the ends of Divine revelation... 

Objections to plenary inspiration are founded, as far as we have observed, not on any scriptural statements on the subjects, but on supposed mistakes and errors in the sacred writings. These relate chiefly to the creation of the world-the origin of man-the misquotations and misinterpretation of the Old Testament Scriptures by the writers of the New. The full discussion of these subjects would fill a volume. A few points we may briefly notice.

The Scriptures were written in remote ages, by different authors, in several languages, and among p whose tastes, customs, institutions and modes of thought were widely different from ours. that the interpretations of such documents, admitting their full inspiration and harmony, would be difficult, we may reasonably suppose. the lack of a perfect knowledge of the languages in which they were written would, of itself, present a formidable obstacle to a satisfactory exegesis.

To this, however, must be added the difficulties of interpretation arising from ignorance of the history, modes of computing time and other things, prevailing opinions, and social and political customs, of the people for whose immediate benefit these writings were designed. Everybody knows that our laws, prepared by the wisest and most careful legislators, and written in our won language, are capable of various interpretations, an dead to almost endless perplexities. Nothing short of a perpetual miracle could prevent the misunderstanding of the Scriptures, in many cases, by modern expositors, however clearly they might have been understood by those to whom they were originally addressed.

We should seek to harmonize these apparent contradictions of the Scriptures, not by denying their inspiration, or that of any portion of them; but by subjecting them to a fair and faithful application of the laws of exegesis. These seeming inconsistencies usually vanish before candid investigation, as mist before the rising sun.

If there be some which do not yield to exegetical laws and to our limited investigations, it may be well for us to call to remembrance our own ignorance and liability to err. "We are but of yesterday, and know nothing." Certain it is that many seemingly insurmountable obstacles in the interpretation of the Scriptures have vanished before patient investigation and increasing knowledge. We mean to say that we should not infer from our ignorance the fallibility of the Scriptures. the error, to employ modern phraseology, may be subjective and not objective... 

Let us, the, reverently receive the Scriptures as an authentic and perfect revelation from God, interpret them by the law which common sense and careful study supply, and live according to their directions, and we shall not fail to secure a blessed immortality.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Joe Stewart]

Peter:
I miss your banter on some websites. This again is a historical jewel. thanks.
Blessings,
Joe

[Tony]

Peter,
This is a wonderful post and has addressed some concerns about the "recent view" of inerrancy propounded by some. I appreciate your blog; I don't always comment but I am the consummate lurker.

Blessings upon you and yours.
Tony

[Luke]

Peter,

Brilliant quotes. You are one hound dog when it comes to finding some of these things. Thanks for doing the leg work.