Dean Burgon Society email from D. A. Waite

....to learn I'm not in lockstep with the Dean Burgon Society. OK, I got over it. I'm not distressed anymore.

I'll give you my thoughts on the things you highlighted in what he's written, though, just in case you care.

Waite never mentioned autographs or manuscripts, he mentioned "original words". No objections from me -- the words are inspired, not pieces of paper. "Pas graphe theopneustos" -- those words are just as inspired when read on SI as when spoken by Paul as when written by his amanuensis as when read by Timothy on the original autograph as when accurately copied on another manuscript. In this at least, many KJVOers tend to be more Biblical than their opponents. They talk about words rather than pieces of paper. So do the Scriptures. Warfield was aberrant in turning the focus to pieces of paper.

As to certainty, Waite's tone is consistent with the tone of the statements we see in Scripture. He talks about original words, but he clearly believes he has them. There is nothing in what Waite said of any doubt as to those original words, and that is the certainty difference between his words and yours.

Waite is unwise, IMO, to say that a translation is "not inspired" (one part of the quote you highlighted). I understand why he said it -- he's refuting double inspiration, because KJVO guys often get tarred with that brush, sometimes deservedly. But it's unwise, because his usage is not consistent with the Biblical usage of the word. So, no, I'm not in agreement with Waite on that -- or some other things. Fortunately, I wasn't trying to be, so my world hasn't turned upside down.

Neither Waite nor I nor anyone but heretics would argue that any translation is inspired "in every sense that the originals were inspired." If that comment referred to me, either I have failed to communicate or you have misunderstood what I've said. The fact that theopneustos (the divine quality of the Scriptures) clearly applies to translations does not mean that a translation has that quality to the same extent as the originals. A translation truly partakes of that divine quality, but the extent to which it partakes is determined by its fidelity to the original, and the very nature of languages and translation assures that 100% fidelity is impossible. Perhaps we could say that translations are as truly inspired, but not to the same extent, as the original words. Yet, the Scriptural emphasis is more on "truly inspired" rather than on "not to the same extent", and in general our comments should reflect that emphasis, rather than the disclaimer.

I met Waite once, seemed to be a nice chap. He's obviously brilliant. I'm not on his mailing list, and not planning to be.

I would have guessed it from our very brief interaction.

Apologies for using the term "chap" of someone somewhat older than me. I didn't think about the fact that might sound disrespectful to people who aren't used to hearing it all the time.

For instance, he cited the scholastics as saying that translations were inspired as to "things" but not as to words. That certainly is not saying that translations are inspired "in every sense that the originals were inspired." I wonder if you misunderstood him, although i could have missed or forgotten something.

Well, we can go around on it again. II Tim. 3:16 and 4:2 are talking about the same Scriptures. Timothy was to preach that Word, and in Ephesus, that meant a Greek translation of some kind (whether what we know of as the LXX or something he did on the fly, or something else). It's clear that "all Scripture" of 3:16 is inclusive of and has in view that translation. "Rebuke" and "doctrine" are in both 4:2 and 3:16. Timothy was to rebuke and teach doctrine with a translation (4:2), and our complete source for doctrine and rebuke is God-inspired Scripture (3:16).

Your problem, as I see it, is that you've bought into a technical definition for theopneustos emphasizing origin when Paul isn't intending it to be a technical word. It's a pastoral word used in a pastoral passage, with implications as to the origin of Scriptures, but with a primary emphasis on the current, existing divine nature which resulted from that divine origin. It is what the Scriptures are today -- and thus applies to translations. Grammar and context point clearly in that direction. II Peter 1:20-21 is not II Timothy 3:16-17. Peter was talking primarily about how we got the Scriptures. Paul was talking primarily about what they are.

Of course the words existed before they were written. They existed in the mind of God from all eternity. Almost certainly, many of the prophetic writings were spoken prophetically by holy men of God being moved by the Holy Spirit before they were written down. The words of Romans existed when God placed them in Paul's mind, they existed when he spoke them, and they existed when Tertius wrote them down. The words of Jeremiah existed when he spoke them to Baruch, when Baruch wrote them down, when the scroll was destroyed, when Jeremiah spoke them again to Baruch, and when Baruch wrote them down. You can't possibly say the words did not exist until they were written. There is no logic in such a statement. The words of the Ten Commandments existed before Moses wrote the original autograph of Exodus.

The distinction between original words and original documents only matters because starting with Warfield, theologians have made a distinction. Up to that point, original words was the focus. But the distinction is not really pointless. Original words existed before the autograph (in many cases) and that proves that the "autograph focus" is misplaced. But the distinction matters because of what comes after the autograph. The words are inspired wherever they are written, and an accurate record of the words has every characteristic of the original.

A perfect copy would be as fully inspired, in every sense, as an original. The first set of tablets, the second set of tablets, and the first writing of Exodus 20 all had the same words and thus the same divine characteristics. The fact that God worked miraculously in writing the stone tablets, and that Moses was undoubtedly copying and therefore God's work was providential in giving us Exodus 20, is completely irrelevant to whether you have inspired words or not.

There is only one thing an autograph has that a copy (in general) doesn't have. It has a divine guarantee of accuracy, that it contains only the words and all the words that God gave. No other single copy (except in isolated cases like Exodus 20 and Jeremiah 36) has that divine guarantee.

Whatever one's view of textual criticism and the best text, we know what were the exact words God gave in well over 95% of the Bible. You'd have to be pessimistic to push that number below 99%. We should say so and call those words "inspired", because they are just as inspired today as they were when first spoken and/or written.

You know, I don't agree with Thomas Ross on everything, but after I wrote on theopneustos, he contacted me and referred me to something he'd written along the same lines. He makes a good point about Ruckmanism. By limiting inspiration to the original autographs, people have put a tool in Ruckman's hand.

God's people know they have an inspired Book. It came from God, and it still is divine, even though it is a translation. They aren't stupid -- they understand translation limitations, but they know there is something unique and divine about that Book: it is from God. Their fundamentalist and evangelical theologians and pastors tell them they don't have an inspired Book, that only the originals are inspired. Ruckman tells them they do have an inspired Book -- and then defines it in a heretical way, as referring to "immediate inspiration".

If we return to a Biblical usage of theopneustos, God-inspired, using the term the way Paul did rather than the way Warfield did, we undercut one of the major appeals of Ruckmanism.

I generally agree. You may be a little too narrow in your definition of the act. "Act of inspiration" applied to both the first writing of the Proverbs and the copying work of Hezekiah's scribes. It applied to a spoken prophecy when it was spoken, and also to it's written recording, if that happened at a later date. God miraculously gave the prophet the words and later miraculously ensured they were recorded accurately. But special circumstances aside, in general the act of inspiration ("immediate inspiration", to use the WCF term) refers to the originals.

Obviously, the quality of inspiration in copies is limited by faithfulness to the autographic text, the words God actually gave. Again, we agree.

Here I half agree and half disagree, and it goes to your helpful "act vs. quality" distinction.

In talking about the act, setting aside those special cases, I agree. The words vs. documents distinction does nothing for us. In talking about the quality, I disagree, and your words prove that you do, too, if you had only known it. If the quality of being God-inspired exists in any form in copies, then it has to reside in the words. The words are the only thing that transferred to the copies. A quality transferred to the copies. Therefore, the quality must reside in the words.

Thus, "act vs. quality" and "documents vs. words" are corollary distinctions. The act of immediate inspiration applies to original documents. The quality of being God-inspired applies to the words. The way you've drawn the distinction between act and quality is exactly the distinction I was seeking to draw between words and documents. I'm not sure which way is best to express it -- probably both together in conjunction helps to make it clear. I did draw that act/quality distinction in some things I wrote, but I don't think I did it here on SI, at least not as clearly as you have. It's helpful.

Warfield made theopneustos "act only", so using his definition, he was correct to limit it to autographs. His error was not one of unorthodoxy, merely definitional. But he stole half of the meaning of the word (quality) from the church in doing so. Actually, more than half, in my opinion, and for reasons I've stated elsewhere. The word (in context) is focused primarily on quality, not act.

***

I can see from your response that I didn't make Ross' point very clearly. He was pointing out that one of the appeals of Ruckmanism to the man in the pew is that he tells people they have an inspired Bible, and too many of our theologians say they don't. They look at it, and it says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," and say, "My Bible is Scripture, isn't it? So it must be inspired."

The man in the pew uses Paul's definition (act plus quality). The theologians use Warfield's definition (act). Thus, we take away the God-inspired quality from the man in the pew, and Ruckman says, "They are heretics," and gives it back to them, but does so in a twisted way. If we taught inspiration the way Paul did (emphasising quality), we would undercut one of Ruckman's main appeals. (I came to that conclusion years ago, and tried to say that to Dr. Neal at BJU, but I didn't express it as well as Ross did.)

If we teach, as you have stated here, that inspiration is both an historical act of God AND a continuing, existing quality of the book that they hold in their hand, we will protect them from one of Ruckman's major appeals. To do that, we have to accept that Warfield's definition of "inspired" was not inspired, and that he only described half of the picture.