Foundation – Part 4

The Foundation clause

The opening clause in the Christadelphian statement of Faith is not numbered: it was added in 1885 after a controversy initiated by Robert Ashcroft, who issued a magazine called the The Biblical Exegetist.¹In it, he proposed that the Bible was only partially inspired, in that some parts must be considered the product of erring human beings, and in turn could be in error. The topic of what exactly was meant by inspiration of the Scriptures had not previously troubled the community, so it was not surprising this suggestion was not well received. This resulted in the following two additions to the then-current statement of faith:

• The foundation clause that heads the whole statement.
• An opening clause added to the Doctrines to be Rejected.

The Foundation — 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.

Doctrines to be Rejected #1: That the Bible is only partly the work of inspiration — or if wholly so, contains errors which inspiration has allowed.

This can be restated in a positive way: The Bible, in its original text, is altogether the work of inspiration, and that God has been the true author of every part of His Word, thereby constituting it as infallible, error-less document, at least in its original manuscript.

The addition of this clause recognizes the vital importance of accepting that every word of Scripture is that which proceeded from the mouth of God (Matt 4:4). If we doubt this, we can progress no further in our knowledge of the Truth, for the whole reliability of Scripture is called into question. If it is only partly God’s Word, we are not bound to submit to its authority, and may even be at liberty to disagree with some of its teachings. In addition, who would decide which parts of the Bible were truly inspired by God, was inspired and which were not?

Consequences

We can summarize these as follows:

• The Foundation Clause recognizes that over the long period of the Bible’s history there may be difficulties created by errors of transcription or translation
• For the Old Testament, at least, we have the guidance of the Lord Jesus and his apostles in their quotation and use to assure us that nothing of substance has been lost or impaired
• Given the meticulous process of copying later developed and the diligent labors of translators who believed that they were handling the Word of God, we may be sure that the LORD has overseen the preservation of the word, although we must be careful not to ascribe this to any particular Hebrew or Greek manuscript or to any particular Bible Translation.

• We may rest in confidence, therefore, that our faith is based upon solid foundations and that our hope of the Kingdom and eternal life stands upon the Rock of Israel Himself.

Another controversy

Much detail concerning the whole topic and ramification of Biblical Inspiration can be found in the special issue referred to above and its bibliography. It is undoubtedly because the Brotherhood was so well armed against spurious theories of inspiration that problems in this area hardly arose for almost eighty years after the controversy in 1885.

However, neither the Foundation Clause nor the associated Doctrine to be Rejected defines what is meant by “inspiration”, and this gave rise to quite a discussion in the 1960’s, as reflected in the columns of the community’s magazines in the 1960s (although not much in The Christadelphian). These bear witness to the fact that the critical views of theological scholarship had again penetrated the Brotherhood. Brethren had lost the careful habit of saying, “The Spirit through John writes…”; speakers and writers were being unconsciously influenced by their wider reading of non-Christadelphian commentators, and had begun to speak without qualification of ‘Paul’s style’ or ‘Hosea’s tenderness’; younger generations had grown up who did not know the answers about the supposed discrepancies or inconsistencies in the Bible, which the apparently learned world took almost for granted; and not a few brethren actually began to flirt openly with the latest theories from the arenas of theology and Biblical studies — ‘latest theories’ that were in many cases little other than old views in new dress.

It might, therefore, be useful to briefly summarize the considerations and conclusions of the articles that dealt with this topic, as reflected in several articles from that period. They amplify and expand on exactly what is, and was, intended by the phrase (converting to the positive) “That the Bible is totally work of inspiration — and does not contain any errors which inspiration has allowed”. Although the controversy of the 1960’s has died down, the topic still crops up from time to time.

So let us briefly consider exactly what “inspiration” entails — and the errors which sometimes happen when you attempt to define too closely exactly what happens between the mind of God and the written word.

Verbal inspiration²

Fundamentally, of course, the doctrine of verbal inspiration builds upon the high confidence in the detailed accuracy of Scripture implied is such words as “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law till all things be accomplished” (Matt 5 :16), which in its context includes the prophets as well, and by implication the whole Old Testament; and “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt 24:35), in which the Lord makes the same claim for his own words, and by implication for those of his messengers, whom the Spirit was to “lead into all truth” (John 16 :13). It dwells on the detailed use of Scripture’s niceties such as can be found in the Lord’s and Paul’s use of the Scripture, and seeks to account for them.

The expression will be used, then, to mean that the original disclosure of everything that truly forms a part of Scripture was verbatim what God intended it to be. That is, the ultimate motivation of Scripture is from above. Whatever the will of man may have been, it was not the real reason why the Scripture came into being, seen with respect to the divine purpose. God’s counsel overrides where it is necessary, but steers the course throughout, so that Scripture, when it is formed, is what He intended.

It is important to make this point clear, because the doctrine has often been condemned on the assumption that it made the “authors” of Scripture into mere automata, men who lose their freewill entirely when they write or speak as they are moved by the Holy Spirit.

But large portions of Holy Scripture bear evident marks of the personalities of their writers. We can illustrate this by Jeremiah’s account of his own frame of mind when he was obliged to reveal God’s promises of woe against a background of bitter persecution (Jer 15:10; 20:7-12); or by Psalm 51, which reveals David’s personal penitence after his sin with Uriah’s wife; or by Paul’s confession of his own feelings of affection for those among whom he labored (“I thank my God on every remembrance of you”), and the like. It would be impossible to maintain that any of these men in such circumstances was acting passively under compulsion when in this way he disclosed his heart, and any doctrine which sought to do so would be self-condemned.

The prophets write as the occasion brings forth their inspiration by God, moved from time to time according to His will. But to Jesus, God gives not the Spirit by measure. “Verily, verily”, means to him that he has God with him in all his utterances. “I say unto you” lacks nothing of the force of, “God says to you through my lips”. As God reveals in the Letter to the Hebrews, He has in the last days spoken to us in His Son.

It is this Son of God who gives such a high evaluation to the Scriptures. We do well to remember when we walk with the Word of God that we tread on holy ground. This will not prevent our searching, nor will it put blinders on our eyes, but it will preserve us from rashness, and help us to show due respect to what God has “magnified above all His Name” (Psa 138:2).

1. Some of the enormous body of Christadelphian literature dealing with this controversy was summarized in The Tidings’ Special Issue on “Inspiration”, August 2015. It will not be repeated here. See also the Testimony Special Issue on “Inspiration”, July 1982.
2. Some part of this section is based upon an essay by AD Norris in The Christadelphian, 1964, p 296.