Partial Inspiration Controversy And Its Lessons For Today

Introduction

In this article, we will mainly focus on the effects of the dispute on our community’s view on inspiration, and not on the somewhat messy details of the division itself. The events we describe took place starting in 1885, but their ramifications and effects lasted until the resultant split was healed in 1956. The agreement at that time included a statement on the inspiration of the Scriptures, although this had not been a matter of dispute for some time. (The other topics, including marriage, resurrectional responsibility, and treatment of error, all were then of more concern.) This statement was:

“We agree that the Holy Scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, are the only authoritative source of knowledge concerning God and His Purpose. They are wholly given by the inspiration of God and are consequently without error except such as may be due to transcription or translation”

This can be compared with the foundation clause of the BASF, which says:

“That the book currently known as the Bible, consisting of the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, is the only source of knowledge concerning God and His purposes at present extant or available in the earth, and that the same were wholly given by inspiration of God in the writers, and are consequently without error in all parts of them, except such as may be due to errors of transcription or translation”.

It should be noted that this statement of 1956 actually corrects the flaw in the “Foundation Clause”, which, although all accept that Roberts was referring to the whole Bible, states “the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles” which seemingly excludes several books, including the historical books and the Psalms among others!

Robert Ashcroft, the main protagonist

The dispute had its origin in the early 1880’s. Robert Ashcroft, a converted Congregationalist minister, was becoming increasingly popular as a lecturer. Robert Roberts, showing considerable personal generosity, appealed for aid to maintain Ashcroft in the position of sub-editor of the Christadelphian magazine. This proposal was accepted, and the American brethren came forward at this time with offers for Ashcroft to conduct a lecture tour among them, which was undertaken in the latter part of 1882. However, Ashcroft never settled to the work of assisting in publishing, and towards the close of 1884 Ashcroft proposed to begin another magazine, although Roberts did not consider the time opportune. He had no official position from which to prevent the development of other publications, nor even to appeal for a boycott. As long as Ashcroft remained un-heretical Roberts had no legitimate cause to quarrel. The Christadelphian was not an official organ, could dictate neither doctrine nor procedure — at least in theory, and could not even regard a new magazine as a rival.

So Ashcroft started his magazines, The Biblical Exegetist.

The article in the Exegetist

It seems appropriate to quote from the Exegetist itself, rather than quote from those describing its content. The article is entitled “Theories of Inspiration”, and we only have space to use one extract.

“We apply a much more reasonable canon of interpretation to the sacred writings when we so far overcome our timidity as to acknowledge in them the presence of a human as well as a divine element. It may be presumed that the Providence of God has superintended the conveyancing of the Scriptures from the date of their production to the present time; and, although this divine surveillance has ensured the infallibility of every text and word, it has yet been ample for all the ends contemplated thereby. Those ends are of a moral and spiritual character, and are abundantly served by the Scriptures as we now have them, notwithstanding all alleged inaccuracies and contradictions. It is not intended that we test the soundness of every bolt and link in the chain which supports the bridge we may wish to cross; there may be a hundred flaws in these portions of the architecture, but the structure itself is, notwithstanding, strong enough to bear the weight of a whole population.”

Roberts summarized the view of Ashcroft as:

• That only parts of the Old Testament Scriptures are inspired, viz., such parts as could not otherwise be produced.
• That the Bible is not to be spoken of as the word of God, without qualification.
• That there is in it a human (i.e., an erring) as well as a divine element.
• That historical infallibility is not to be conceded to everything recorded in the Bible.
• That inspiration only covers “all that may be said to belong to divine revelation proper: by which is to be understood everything in the Scriptures that may have been beyond the power of man to discover for himself.”
• That subordinate features “may have been introduced into the Bible,” with which inspiration has nothing to do, and that such things form “legitimate topics of critical enquiry.”
• That inspiration does not teach that which is otherwise ascertainable.
• That, except where Christ expressly ascribes a divine authority to particular predictions, we are not to regard his allusion to particular books of the Bible as proving the inspiration and authority of those books: such allusions being merely proof of the notoriety of the books at the time and of their reception by the Jews.
• That it is unreasonable to suppose “that the attestation which Christ and the apostles gave to the divine mission of Moses and the prophets extends to every point and portion of the Jewish history,” or proves the circumstantial truth of every narrative of the Old Testament.
• That the apostles did not regard the very words of all the Hebrew Scriptures as the product of inspiration.

The fundamental point of the article is to regard only some parts of the Bible as inspired and infallible: and which other parts are regarded as products entirely of man, and not God, is essentially left to human discretion. Hence the term “partial inspiration”.

The result of the article

So the suggestion was that inspiration attached only to those parts of the Bible which contained things which a man could not discover for himself. Ashcroft thereby recognized a human element in Scripture, which he asserted was not historically infallible. To this departure from accepted understanding, Ashcroft later added a somewhat scornful onslaught on the work of John Thomas, and a eulogy of clerical scholarship.

Roberts’ retort was immediate and unequivocal in defense of the complete divinity and infallibility of all Scripture. Within a few days he wrote and issued a pamphlet under the title of ‘The Inspiration of the Bible’. In spite of this defense, the intemperateness of tone which Roberts displayed displeased some brethren, the dispute extended, and the community spiraled into a division. Roberts accused Ashcroft of ‘pernicious and disloyal trimming to meet the requirements of modern criticism.’ ‘God had left the Bible as an institution for the taking out of a people for his name, and it must not be tampered with.’ ‘Brother Ashcroft has taken to popularizing the truth among the genteel and “learned” . . . he ought to know that very few learned men and women ever embraced the faith of the “poor and needy man”, . . . has brother Ashcroft forgot, or did he ever know, that it’s the poor and simple-minded (and therefore unlearned) that God has chosen in every age in the working out of his plans?’

Nonetheless the theory of partial inspiration met with some success from the start. Ashcroft had, after Roberts, ‘more moral weight in the ecclesias than any living brother.’ Every ecclesia had to go into the matter and state its position, with Roberts urging all to take their stand on the Bible. But some chose to regard Roberts’ view as only a theory, on which loyalty did not depend. Once divided, every attempt to reconcile the contending parties merely resulted in widening the gulf, creating new and varying positions of schism. There were heretics, those who would fellowship heretics, those who would not emphatically ‘disfellowship’ heretics, and those who sought to pass resolutions which permitted heretical views on inspiration to find accommodation in ecclesias predominantly orthodox. In North America there was less willingness to divide over the matter, although a few ecclesias did support those who separated from Bro. Roberts, as was reported in the Fraternal Visitor¹magazine.

Consequences

There was a tremendous outpouring of articles and pamphlets over the next few years, and indeed the pages of the Fraternal Visitor remained concerned with the dispute, at least partially reflecting the views of Ashcroft, for many years. We might in addition mention a long “letter”²from JJ Andrew³, in which he defends Roberts at great length: over 60,000 words. He expounds on these propositions (slightly modified):

• That Divine Inspiration involves infallibility in what is spoken or written under its influence — so controlling the speaker or writer as to exclude error.
• That the recording under Divine Inspiration of uninspired utterances, does not, unless otherwise indicated, do more than guarantee an accurate record of what was uttered.
• That the incorporation, under Divine Inspiration, of human with inspired writings (if such incorporation has taken place) would constitute them of equal authority.
• That the existing evidence of the divine authority of the writings comprising the Bible, and the absence of any to the contrary, justifies the conclusion that they have been produced or incorporated under divine inspiration.
• That any errors found in the Bible as we now have it are not attributable to the original writers, but are either mistakes on the part of copyists or translators, or designed alterations, omissions or interpolations. It is noticeable that all such errors are unimportant, and do not impair its reliability or the truth and consistency of its message.
• That, in view of the length of time which has elapsed since the production of the autographs, and the extent to which difficulties in existing copies have been removed, through modern discovery and research, we are justified in attributing any other errors to insufficient information.
• That the fundamental principle involved in the foregoing propositions, viz. — the divine authorship and consequent infallibility of the Bible — is an essential element in our basis of fellowship, and therefore we decline to fellowship those who attribute to some parts a fallible authorship.

I would consider these propositions cover both the essence of our belief in the Inspiration of Scriptures and what it entails, and the result of denying these propositions in whole or in part.

1. The Fraternal Visitor became the magazine of those who split from Roberts. First published in 1885, it ceased publication in 1957 in order to cement the re-union of the “Fraternal Visitor” Fellowship with the “Central” Fellowship.
2. The Christadelphian, 1885 p 545–563 (first part).
3. JJ Andrew a few years later came up with a new theory as to who was resurrected to Judg­ment, but at the time (1885 – 1886) was a staunch supporter of Roberts in this controversy.