Views: 17<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong> page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Few subjects are more significant and far-reaching than the subject of the inspiration of the Bible. Rejection of the inspiration of the Bible equals rejection of the Bible because it claims to be peculiarly inspired of God. Rejection of the Bible is tantamount to rejection of God and His Son. Rejection of the Bible is therefore also a rejection of the religion of Christ. If the Bible is not God\u2019s inspired Word, we can know but little about the nature of God and nothing about how to live in such a way as to please Him. Indeed, we cannot even know that He desires us to live in a certain way, nor that there are rewards and punishments awaiting all men, depending on how they live. There is no spiritual or religious authority if the Bible is not God\u2019s inspired Word. Those who would rob men of their faith in the Bible as God\u2019s faithful, infallible, and inerrant Word rob them of everything of essential value! <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The title of this treatise implies the following:<\/span><\/p>\n The threat of these theological theorists is greater than that of the unmitigated atheists. The modernistic theologians can be answered and must be challenged. They long ago captured most Protestant seminaries and schools and have for several decades been spewing out their vomit of unbelief upon the land, destroying what vestige of faith in the Word of God that yet resided in the sectarian masses. As we shall later demonstrate, skepticism has also infiltrated the body of Christ.<\/span><\/p>\n Those faithless theologians who substitute their naturalistic theories of \u201cinspiration\u201d for actual inspiration remind us somewhat of another stripe of faithless theologian\u2014the \u201ctheistic\u201d evolutionist. The theistic evolutionist does not want to be labeled an atheist, but he favors the unproved and unprovable theories of infidel scientists on origins over the statements of the Bible. He thus tries to merge the two by saying God produced everything by means of evolution over vast eons of time. The result is the denial of both evolution and belief in God (and in the Bible) in their full implications. Likewise, certain theologians (most of whom are also evolutionists of one stripe or another, incidentally) cannot bear the accusation that they deny the Bible\u2019s inspiration, but they must have the praise of the skeptics among their peers who subscribe to radical Biblical criticism. They therefore compromise by claiming to believe in \u201cinspiration,\u201d but by the time they get through explaining it, it is not a fourth cousin twice removed to what the Bible teaches on the subject.<\/span><\/p>\n Our study will first define inspiration <\/em>as used in the Bible, then we will notice some of the false theories of inspiration, the implication of true inspiration, followed by a brief notice of some of the Biblical evidence for inspiration.<\/span><\/p>\n Definition of Inspiration<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The word inspiration <\/em>appears only twice in the KJV Bible\u2014in Job 32:8 and in 2 Timothy\u00a0<\/span>3:16. Job 32:8 reads: \u201cBut there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.\u201d1<\/sup>\u00a0Second Timothy 3:16 is more familiar: \u201cAll scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.\u201d In Job 32:8, inspiration <\/em>is the rendering of the Hebrew word neshamah<\/em>, meaning to breathe, and, accordingly, the ASV reads, \u201c…the breath of the Almighty….\u201d In 2 Timothy 3:16, inspiration of God <\/em>becomes inspired of God <\/em>in the ASV, the only occurrence of this term in any form in this version. The Greek word behind inspiration <\/em>in 2 Timothy 3:16 is the compound word theopneustos<\/em>, meaning God-breathed or breathed out by God. From this passage the doctrine of the origin of the Bible is named, \u201cthe doctrine of inspiration.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Kenneth Kantzer remarks as follows on the significance of this word: \u201cBy this word\u00a0<\/span>[\u2018inspiration\u2019], therefore, Paul is asserting that the written documents, called Holy Scripture, are a divine product.\u201d2<\/sup>\u00a0Benjamin Warfield wrote concerning the meaning of inspire <\/em>and inspiration<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n Underlying all their use, however, is the constant implication of an influence from without, producing in its object movements and effects beyond its native, or at least its ordinary powers…. The Biblical books are called inspired as the Divinely determined products of inspired men; the Biblical writers are called inspired as breathed into by the Holy Spirit, so that the product of their activities transcends human powers and becomes Divinely authoritative. Inspiration is, therefore, usually defined as a supernatural influence exerted on the sacred writers by the Spirit of God, by virtue of which their writings are given Divine trustworthiness.3<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n J.I. Packer notes a further implication of the use of inspiration <\/em>by Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16:<\/span><\/p>\n According to 2 Timothy 3:16, what is inspired is precisely the biblical writings. Inspiration is a work of God terminating, not in the men who were to write Scripture (as if, having given them an idea of what to say, God left them to themselves to find a way of saying it), but in the actual written product. It is Scripture\u2014graphe<\/em>, the written text\u2014that is God- breathed.4<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n We may summarize the meaning of inspiration <\/em>as it relates to the Bible as that teaching that God is the actual source and author of the Bible throughout all of its parts, having made use of various men in various ages to write the message He wished to communicate to man. By this means, although fallible men were used as the instruments of writing, they were preserved from error in every respect in everything they wrote. Therefore, the Bible is the inerrant (it does not <\/strong>err or stray from the Truth), infallible (it is impossible <\/strong>for it to err or stray from the Truth) Word of God. If the Bible was given by God and if \u201cit is impossible for God to lie\u201d (Heb. 6:18), then the Bible is trustworthy and True in every respect. A necessary corollary to the trustworthiness of Scripture because it is from God is the authority <\/strong>of Scripture because it is from Him Who has all authority. Evidence for the Bible\u2019s claim of inspiration will be presented later, but this statement of the Biblical doctrine will give us a beginning point for discussion of some of the theories that seek to supplant it.<\/span><\/p>\n False Theories Of \u201cInspiration\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Several theories have been propounded by those who deny what the Bible teaches about its own inspiration. All of these have as their necessary design the lowering of our view of Scripture. No such alternate views of how the Bible came to be would ever have been proffered had all men accepted the meaning of inspiration <\/em>the Bible itself sets forth. Various expositors classify these several theories of inspiration differently, and therefore, the number of actual theories identified varies. Warfield subsumes them all under two, one of which he calls \u201cRationalistic\u201d and the other \u201cMystical.\u201d5<\/sup> McClintock and Strong <\/em>likewise lists two principal views (besides what they term the \u201corthodox\u201d or \u201cdynamical\u201d view: (1) \u201cMystical\u201d (apparently meaning about the same as Warfield by this term), and (2) \u201cLatitudinarian\u201d (identified with Warfield\u2019s \u201cRationalistic\u201d).6<\/sup> However, in the same context, McClintock and Strong <\/em>mentions two other variant views which they do not label. We will now list the respective theories we have discovered and briefly discuss their principal errors.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cGeneral Inspiration\u201d Theory <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n This theory uses inspiration <\/em>and inspired <\/em>in reference to the Bible and its writers in the same way that men speak of the \u201cinspiration\u201d of great authors such as Shakespeare or Homer. A preacher may do an outstanding job in a particular sermon, and someone may say, \u201cHe was really inspired today.\u201d By this use of the term is meant that the one thus \u201cinspired\u201d has demonstrated an exceptional ability of some sort. While it is true that the Biblical writers demonstrated exceptional ability in their writing, the Bible\u2019s own claim goes far beyond this. They were not merely \u201cinspired\u201d by a poet\u2019s muse, by a multi-hued sunset, by some great man or woman, nor by any other naturalistic element. The Bible was given \u201cby inspiration of God<\/strong>\u201d (2 Tim. 3:16, emph. DM). The writers of the Scriptures were \u201cmoved [borne along] by the Holy Spirit\u201d rather than by their own imaginations or \u201cprivate interpretations\u201d (2 Pet. 1:20\u201321).<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cBible-Contains-the-Word-of-God\u201d Theory <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n This theory may at first sound innocent, for indeed, no Bible-believer would deny that the Bible contains the Word of God. However, the aim of those who promote this theory is to deny that the Bible is <\/em><\/strong>God\u2019s Word. In saying that it contains <\/strong>God\u2019s Word, they leave room for it also to contain myths, fables, legends, and various human errors. Of course, the liberal theologians are the only ones qualified to \u201cdemythologize\u201d the Sacred Text, whereby all the human element is separated from the Divine! This theory cannot be harmonized with Paul\u2019s declaration that \u201cAll <\/strong>scripture is given by inspiration of God.\u201d (2 Tim. 3:16, emph. DM). If all <\/strong>the Bible is given <\/strong>by God, then all of it is <\/strong>the Word of God. <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The Bible is not merely a bucket or box that has some <\/strong>of the Word of God in it all mingled with errors, myths, and such like. Who but fallible, biased, subjective men will decide which contents of the Bible are inspired and which are not if this theory is allowed? Would not the drunkard be sorely tempted to disallow the proscriptions against drunkenness? Would not the fornicator be tempted to edit the prohibitions against fornication as \u201cuninspired?\u201d Advocates of \u201cfaith-only\u201d salvation might also thereby get rid of those pesky passages that make baptism a condition of salvation.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cTheme-and-General-Thoughts-Are-Inspired\u201d Theory <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n As with the \u201ccontains\u201d theory discussed above, no Bible-believer would deny that the general thoughts and concepts of the Bible are inspired. However, also, as with the \u201ccontains\u201d view, this view does not go far enough to satisfy the claim of Scripture for its origin. It is not merely inspired in its general direction or in its broad subject matter, but as 2 Timothy 3:16 plainly declares, it is wholly <\/strong>inspired\u2014all <\/strong>of it was given by God. As with the theistic theories of evolution, men would never have thought of this theory of inspiration had they been content to accept what the Bible teaches (and everywhere demonstrates) concerning its source. It is a source of disappointment that the generally reliable, conservative, and scholarly McClintock and <\/em><\/span>Strong <\/em>advances this view with considerable vigor as the teaching of Scripture.7<\/sup>\u00a0Warfield correctly classifies this view as a part of the \u201crationalistic\u201d approach to inspiration.8<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cPersonal Inspiration\u201d Theory<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n In this view, the Bible writers were enlightened in various degrees, purified morally, and brought into an intimate and immediate communion with God by the Holy Spirit. This new life \u201con a higher spiritual plane\u201d was then expressed in the things they wrote, and these writings (the Bible) served as God\u2019s revelation of His will to man. The emphasis in this view is upon the moral and religious quality of the writers rather than upon the words they wrote.9<\/sup> While agreeing that the men who wrote the Bible were men who sought to live morally pure lives and who had a close relationship with God, this is hardly sufficient to explain the Scriptures. If this were all that was required to produce inspired Scripture, then men of such qualities would have continued to produce authorized additions to the Bible since the close of the first century. The emphasis in Scripture is not on the men <\/strong>who wrote the Bible, but upon the words which they wrote<\/strong>: \u201cAll scripture <\/strong>[i.e., what is written] is given by inspiration of God…\u201d (2 Tim. 3:16).<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cPartial Inspiration\u201d Theory <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n This theory is similar to the \u201ccontains\u201d theory discussed above, but instead of making allowances for errors in the Bible in the form of myths, legends and the like, it allows for errors in matters of science, geography, history and other such \u201cnon-religious\u201d subjects. In this view, only the \u201creligious\u201d teachings of the Bible in the areas of doctrine and practice can be attributed to inspiration. Warfield classifies this as another one of the offshoots of the \u201crationalistic\u201d theory.10<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n This theory obviously ignores or denies the stubborn claim of 2 Timothy 3:16 that all <\/strong>Scripture, including its statements on every subject, are from God. (Actually, all views of inspiration that deny plenary or verbal inspiration have in common some claim of mere partial inspiration.)<\/span><\/p>\n Men have invented numerous variations of these false theories, but these are the most pronounced. It is quite possible that these counterfeit views of inspiration have done far more damage than all the open and obvious assaults against the inspired Word could or will ever do. They come from theologians who purport to be scholars as well as men of religion. An uninformed and gullible public has been easily deceived and has had its faith stolen away by them. All suggestions concerning inspiration that deny, ignore, or in any way contradict what the Bible itself teaches must be rejected and exposed as the damnable doctrines they are.<\/span><\/p>\n The Truth About Inspiration<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Two words come to the forefront when the truth about inspiration is discussed: plenary <\/em>and verbal<\/em>. We will now give some attention to these words.<\/span><\/p>\n Plenary <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Plenary <\/em>is derived from a Latin word which means \u201cfull.\u201d To speak of \u201cplenary inspiration\u201d is to indicate that the Scriptures are inspired throughout, in every part, fully, completely. This includes every kind of subject matter (historical, geographical, scientific, ethical, \u201creligious,\u201d etc.) found in the Bible. This claim necessarily implies that there are no contradictions or errors in the Bible. The plenary claim means that God\u2019s guidance of the inspired men extended to the minutest parts, even to the very words they wrote in the original books.<\/span><\/p>\n Verbal <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Verbal <\/em>obviously refers to words. To say that the Scriptures are verbally inspired is to say that the words themselves<\/strong>, as they were originally written, are the words the Holy Spirit chose and directed the Bible writers to record. In effect, to contend for verbal inspiration implies plenary inspiration and vice versa.<\/span><\/p>\n Liberalism\u2019s Rejection of These Terms and Their Implications <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n All the false theories previously discussed arose out of the various schools of radical and skeptical Biblical criticism and were invented to nullify and circumvent the Bible doctrine of plenary and verbal inspiration. The advent of modern Biblical criticism is traceable to the European theologians, Michaelis and Semlerc in the middle part of the eighteenth century. Its influence did not become widespread until about a century later through the influence of F.C. Baur, Karl H. Graf, and Julius Wellhausen.11<\/sup> These skeptics began calling in question almost every previously accepted assurance concerning every part of the Bible as to textual purity, authorship, dating, historicity, and authenticity. The most radical critics gave up even a pretense of belief in any degree of inspiration.<\/span><\/p>\n While not all the theologians went that far, the destructive critics most certainly had a telling effect. By the close of the nineteenth century much of the theological scholarship (as the world views it) had been captured by the liberal tenets of Biblical criticism. (Benjamin B. Warfield\u2019s monumental book, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible<\/em>, was motivated by this assault upon the Bible. J.W. McGarvey waged war on those same theological termites in his still-valuable book, Biblical Criticism<\/em>.) Obviously, one cannot doubt the authenticity of Scripture and at the same time believe in its inspiration in any full sense at all. The counterfeit theories of inspiration discussed above were put forth by the critics and their disciples in an effort to hold on to some semblance of the doctrine. Again, disappointingly, McClintock and Strong <\/em>goes out of its way in an attempt to overthrow the use of \u201cplenary\u201d and \u201cverbal\u201d in reference to inspiration.12<\/sup> Significantly, the rejection of plenary\/verbal inspiration has been relatively recent. In a 1957 book, R. Laird Harris commented on the recency of this rejection as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n The Bible has withstood many attacks through the centuries from enemies of all sorts. But in the last century it has been called upon to withstand repeated attacks in the house of its friends. The Bible is now freely doubted by the preachers in the pulpits and the teachers in the seminary classrooms of our land…. For centuries the Church had believed what lies upon the face of the Biblical evidence, that the various books of the Bible were written by the authors whose names they bear and were contemporary with the events they narrate, just as they claim to be. The unity of the various books was not questioned, except, perhaps, by an occasional ancient and extreme heretic like Celsus. These views were not seriously challenged until the late eighteenth century. During the nineteenth century quite opposite views came to the fore …. It is safe to say that there is no doctrine, except those of the Trinity and the deity of Christ, which has been so widely held through the ages of Church history as that of verbal inspiration.13<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Warfield devotes an entire chapter (24 pp.) to \u201cThe Church Doctrine of Inspiration,\u201d in which he gives irrefragable documentation of the contention of Harris quoted above. A brief summary statement will suffice to show the animation with which he sets forth his evidence (notwithstanding his denominational terminology):<\/span><\/p>\n This church-doctrine of inspiration differs from the theories that would fain supplant it, in that it is not the invention nor the property of an individual, but the settled faith of the universal church of God; in that it is not the growth of yesterday, but the assured persuasion of the people of God from the first planting of the church until today; in that it is not a protean shape, varying its affirmations to fit every new change in the ever-shifting thought of men, but from the beginning has been the church\u2019s constant and abiding conviction as to the divinity of the Scriptures committed to her keeping. It is certainly a most impressive fact,\u2014this well-defined, aboriginal, stable doctrine of the church as to the nature and trustworthiness of the Scriptures of God, which confronts with its gentle but steady persistence of affirmation all the theories of inspiration which the restless energy of unbelieving and half-believing speculation has been able to invent in this agitated nineteenth century of ours…. Nor do we need to do more than remind ourselves that this attitude of entire trust in every word of the Scriptures has been characteristic of the people of God from the very foundation of the church…. The earliest writers know no other doctrine.14<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Despite the most persistent and overwhelming evidence proving that Bible believers universally held to a plenary\/verbal concept of inspiration until the advent of modern skeptical criticism, some still brazenly deny this to be so fact. Harris refers to this. After commenting on how universal the doctrine of verbal inspiration has been through all the centuries of church history until the past century, he says: \u201cThis, however, is by no means the common conception of the situation. Occasionally an effort is made to picture this doctrine as a recent growth….\u201d15<\/sup> In their attack on plenary\/verbal inspiration, McClintock and Strong <\/em>made the following extreme (and equally erroneous) statement:<\/span><\/p>\n The theory of verbal inspiration is comparatively recent in the history of theology. There is no such theory stated in the Scriptures…. The passages adduced in its favor have no pertinence…. It was in the 17th century that the notion of verbal inspiration, which had before only floated about from one individual to another, took the shape of a definite theory, and received proper ecclesiastical sanction.16<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The only purpose the opponents of plenary\/verbal inspiration could have (so far as we can ascertain) in affirming a recent advent of the doctrine is to try to claim that their own flawed theories of inspiration were held by the ancients and that they are therefore \u201cin the mainstream of Christian thought\u201d in holding those views. One simply must ignore or deny the shouting voice of church history to hold such a view. While the length of time a particular doctrine has been believed does not guarantee its truthfulness, both the antiquity and the universality with which men down through the centuries have believed in the plenary\/verbal inspiration of the Scriptures most surely should cause one to be slow to abandon it except for overwhelming evidence to the contrary\u2014which evidence does not exist.<\/span><\/p>\n Besides rejection of plenary\/verbal inspiration by destructive criticism on the claim that it is neither taught in Scripture nor anywhere else until recently, some have rejected it on the grounds that it requires a process of \u201cmechanical dictation\u201d whereby God used the writers as no more than \u201cstenographers.\u201d Critics argue that the writing talents and styles of the various authors are clearly distinct from each other, which they allege could not be so were their very words dictated by God. However, the \u201cmechanical dictation\u201d charge is a straw man invented by the faithless critics in an attempt to discredit what the Bible actually teaches about its own origin. Harris remarks on this calumny as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Some caricature the doctrine [of verbal inspiration] by saying that they cannot believe so rigid and mechanical a \u201cdictation theory.\u201d Now, rigid the doctrine may be, but it is not mechanical, unless it be held that the Spirit of God has no ways to work except mechanical ways.17<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Likewise, Warfield answered this charge: \u201cIt ought to be unnecessary to protest again\u00a0<\/span>against the habit of representing the advocates of \u2018verbal inspiration\u2019 as teaching that the mode of inspiration was by dictation.\u201d18<\/sup>\u00a0Now, if the Scriptures set forth \u201cdictation\u201d as the consistent or exclusive mode of plenary\/verbal inspiration, then we would have no hesitancy in accepting, advocating, and defending it. (There are, in fact, some places in the Sacred text where it appears that God did directly dictate the words to be written at a given moment [e.g., Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18, et al.].) However, for the most part we are not told the way <\/strong>God provided the words of Scripture, but that He did provide them <\/strong>is most plainly taught, as we shall later demonstrate.<\/span><\/p>\n It is obvious that the inspired writers were able to use their own vocabularies and writing styles, but why should this be thought to conflict with plenary\/verbal inspiration? Indeed, it does not, any more than plenary\/verbal inspiration demands \u201cmechanical dictation.\u201d Warfield again comments:<\/span><\/p>\n The Bible is the Word of God in such a sense that its words, though written by men and bearing indelibly impressed upon them the marks of their human origin, were written, nevertheless, under such an influence of the Holy Ghost as to be also the words of God, the adequate expression of His mind and will…. By a special, supernatural, extraordinary influence of the Holy Ghost, the sacred writers have been guided in their writing in such a way, as while their humanity was not superseded, it was yet so dominated that their words became at the same time the words of God, and thus, in every case and all alike, absolutely infallible.19<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Significantly, the inspired men themselves understood that they wrote in different styles, all the while claiming guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit. Steve Gibson, though no longer abiding in the Truth, made the following significant observations concerning this fact:<\/span><\/p>\n The Bible does not teach that the minds of its writers were suspended or entirely passive (\u201cit seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us\u201d [Acts 15:28]; \u201cafter my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God\u201d [I Cor. 7:40\u2014a statement using irony]; \u201cAnd the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets\u201d [I Cor. 14:32)]). Far from being a recent discovery, the Bible acknowledges such stylistic phenomena in the same breath as it claims inspiration. Peter recognized Paul\u2019s style as more difficult than his own yet classed both as Spirit-controlled writers of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15\u2013<\/em>16; cf. 1:20\u2013<\/em>21) ….<\/span><\/p>\n As sailboats appear to drive themselves, so do inspired men, but in each case there is an unseen propulsion (men \u201ccarried along\u201d [2 Pet. 1:21]) …. It is helpful to illustrate inspiration by means of a wagon driver guiding horses by reins. The instincts and inclinations of the animals are not extinguished, but employed by the driver\u2019s guiding hand to take him just where he wants to go. So it is with the Holy Spirit who controlled the style and thought-patterns of inspired men to give God\u2019s very Word (I Cor. 2:13; I The. 2:13). If God could borrow the words and constructions Hebrew and Greek, could He not also employ the manners and style of their speakers?20<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n We have demonstrated that the rejection <\/strong>(rather than the advocacy<\/strong>) of plenary\/verbal inspiration is a relatively recent phenomenon, arising as a result of modern destructive Biblical criticism. We have also seen that the objection to plenary\/verbal inspiration on the grounds that it requires belief in \u201cmechanical dictation\u201d from God is no more than a straw man concocted by unbelieving theologians to excuse their humanistic false theories of \u201cinspiration.\u201d We come now to consider some of the Biblical claims and evidence concerning inspiration.<\/span><\/p>\n Biblical Evidence of Inspiration<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n We can do little more than survey a small part of the vast amount of evidence that could be considered. By even a mere sampling of this plenitude of evidence, however, the unbiased reader will have no difficulty perceiving what the Bible claims about its own origin.<\/span><\/p>\n Primary Passages <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n We have already given some attention to theopneustos <\/em>in 2 Timothy 3:16, so our comments here will but briefly supplement that material. The passage simply says, \u201cAll scripture is given by inspiration of God.\u201d As earlier noted, the phrase, inspiration of God<\/em>, is from theopneustos<\/em>, but let us turn our attention to other key words in the passage. It is not \u201cpart of,\u201d \u201csome of,\u201d \u201cmuch of,\u201d or \u201cmost of\u201d Scripture that is inspired of God, but \u201call<\/strong>.\u201d This word refers to every part, the whole, or entirety of that which constitutes \u201cScripture.\u201d The other key word in the passage is \u201cScripture,\u201d (almost exclusively from graphe <\/em>throughout the New Testament). This word appears some fifty times, with about half of the occurrences in the Gospel accounts and half in Acts through Revelation. Warfield wrote concerning term:<\/span><\/p>\n In every case it bears that technical sense in which it designates the Scriptures by way of eminence, the Scriptures of the OT…. We need to note in modification of the broad statement, therefore, only that it is apparent from 2 Peter 3:16 (cf. I Tim. 5:18) that the NT writers were well aware that the category \u201cScripture,\u201d in the high sense, included also the writings they were producing, as along with the books of the OT constituting the complete \u201cScripture\u201d or authoritative Word of God.21<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Theological Dictionary of the New Testament <\/em>observes the following applications of\u00a0<\/span>graphe <\/em>in the New Testament:<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n