INSPIRATION. Inspiration is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. He moves upon specially chosen individuals who receive divine truth from Him and communicate that truth in written form, the Bible.
Outline
Inspiration extends to all and every part of Scripture, even to the very words. The process, however, by which Scripture was given, or the “how” of inspiration, has been much debated among those who are agreed that the Bible in all of its parts is the Word of God written. Inspiration, however, does not stand alone. Along with it are such concepts as revelation, authority, illumination, infallibility, and inerrancy—all of which require precise definition to understand what is meant by the inspiration of the Scripture.
I. Theological definitions
1. Revelation. Basic to the evangelical view of Scripture is the conviction that God has chosen to disclose Himself. Revelation is the term used to depict His self-disclosure. God has revealed Himself in nature, His creation. He has chosen also to reveal Himself supremely in the person of Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. The revelation of Jesus Christ is known through the written Word of God, which is special revelation. The purpose of this written Word is to reveal the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, and the purpose of the incarnate Word is to reveal the Father and bring salvation. Therefore, the Bible is the objective, propositionally revealed Word of God.
God’s self-revelation was given through two media. Parts of that revelation came directly and immediately from God in the form of oracular words, signs, visions, and dreams. This kind of data is known only because God chose to communicate it directly to men. A great part of the Biblical material, however, has come through God’s operations in history via His saving acts. This historical material has been made available either through oral tradition or written records, both of which were used when the books of the Bible were indited. Moses, in the Pentateuch, undoubtedly used oral tradition and extant written records in addition to recording what he had experienced personally and what was revealed to him directly by God. In the case of the historical books in the OT much of the material used in them was taken from extant court records.
The same procedure is true for the NT. Luke, the physician, was also a historian. He searched out his material, using written records and verifying oral traditions. In contrast, John penned the Revelation, not from oral tradition or written records, but from direct revelation by God.
2. Inspiration. Technically, revelation preceded inspiration, which has to do with the divine method of inscripturating the revelation, whether what was written came to the writer by direct communication from God, from his own research, from his own experience, or from extant records. Inspiration includes the superintending work of the Holy Spirit, but the human writers of Scripture were not automatons. Each writer had his own style. Each one used the Heb. or the Gr. language according to his unique gifts and educational background. At the same time that God used human authors in harmony with their gifts He also indited holy Scripture.
Some have argued falsely that Scripture was dictated by God and that the writers were mere secretaries who took down for inscripturation what God spoke, and thus were passive rather than active agents in the process. However, evangelicals generally have held that the Scriptures are both the words of men and the words of God. This dynamic view allows for the use of human faculties and at the same time assures that God secured His predetermined ends so that in the fullest sense the Bible is the Word of God written. The purpose of inspiration was to render the writers infallible in their teaching. Inspiration extends to the whole corpus of Scripture so that in its thoughts and words it is plenarily, or fully, and verbally inspired.
3. Authority. Inspiration carries with it the divine authority of God so that Scripture is binding upon the mind, heart, and conscience as the only rule of faith and practice for the believer. In its authority, Scripture stands above men, creeds, and the Church itself. All of them are subject to Scripture, and any authority that any one of them may exert is valid insofar as it can be supported from Scripture. Creeds are to be accepted only when they concur with Scripture, for Christian conscience cannot be bound by anything not taught explicitly in Scripture or logically derived from it. Nor can any church bind men to its teaching except as it reflects the truth of Scripture. Men, like creeds and churches, are likewise bound to Scripture so that they can neither release men from what it teaches nor bind them to what it does not teach. Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) is the enduring principle.
4. Illumination. This is the work of the Holy Spirit who enlightens the minds of men as they read the Scripture. Because of sin and its effects, men are incapable of understanding aright the Scripture apart from the enlightenment that comes only from the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:6-16). Illumination is not to be confused with inspiration. The latter refers to those who penned the Scripture. The former refers to those who read the Scripture. The writers of Scripture were inspired; the readers of Scripture are illuminated.
5. Infallibility and inerrancy. Although inspiration is different from infallibility, or inerrancy, no discussion of inspiration can be continued without considering these terms. Infallibility and inerrancy are synonymous. The ordinary dictionary meaning of “infallible” is “inerrant” or “unerring.” In bygone years, the term “infallible” was used extensively with respect to Scripture, but the word was watered down and began to lose some of its force. In recent decades, evangelicals have substituted the word “inerrancy.” At stake is the question whether inspiration includes infallibility, or inerrancy, and whether the latter extends to all of Scripture or only to some of the teachings of Scripture.
Neither the term “inspiration” nor “infallibility” is found in the earliest creeds; yet both are there implicitly. That they are not mentioned specifically is no substantive reason to suppose that they were unimportant concepts. The creeds and confessions of the Reformation and post-Reformation period generally speak about inspiration and infallibility. The Westminster Confession of Faith says the Scriptures “are given by inspiration of God.” They are to be received as the Word of God, and are to be believed and obeyed. It also speaks of the Bible’s “incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof” as well as “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth.” The Baptist New Hampshire Confession states:
We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without mixture of error for its matter; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us, and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.
Unquestionably, the evangelical creeds commonly stress inspiration and infallibility (or inerrancy). In recent decades, efforts have been made among those formally attached to evangelical theology to reexamine the concept of inerrancy and in some instances to qualify it. At the same time, they have sought to retain a doctrine of Biblical authority. These efforts have not produced any really new formulations. Some have said that the purpose and intent of the writers is important and that in some parts of Scripture it was not their intention to write inerrantly. Others have alleged that the writers were men of their times in respect to history, cosmology, physics, and astronomy. They penned what men then believed but what now is known to be untrue. Some say that the Biblical writers were infallible teachers, but that errors exist in those portions of the Bible that were not written for teaching purposes.
The effort to maintain the inspiration of Scripture while allowing for error is self-defeating. To retain an errant inerrancy dilutes the doctrine of inspiration and radically undermines its meaning and its usefulness. Few theologians would hold that adherence to orthodox notions of inspiration or inerrancy are necessary to salvation, but this should in no way obscure the importance of these concepts.
Inspiration is inextricably linked to authority and inerrancy. Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology, I, 170, 171) perceived this when he inquired whether the Bible contains historical and scientific untruths. He asserted that there is a vital difference between what the Biblical writers thought and believed on the personal level and what they wrote in Scripture. They may have believed that the sun revolves around the earth, but they did not teach this in Scripture. The language of the Bible is everyday language, and is based upon the apparent. Phenomenological language was used in that day as it is used today. Moreover, Hodge distinguished between fact and theory. Theories are man-made. Facts are of God. The Bible never contradicts facts but it does contradict men’s theories. When interpretation conflicts with established facts then interpretation must yield. The Bible has stood this test, and it will stand through all ages with its claims unshaken and its teaching unimpaired.
Those who reject inerrancy often argue that inspiration is a Biblically based doctrine but inerrancy is not. It can only be inferred and therefore should not be binding or made a test of faith. This question, which belongs not so much to the realm of theological definitions as it does to Biblical exegesis, leads logically to a discussion of the teaching of Scripture about itself, its inspiration, its infallibility, and its authority.
II. Biblical exegesis
The Bible claims for itself the unique distinction of being the Word of God. The phrase “Thus says the Lord,” or its equivalent, occurs over 2,000 times in the OT. Isaiah said: “Then the Lord said to me...For the Lord spoke thus to me...” (Isa 8:1, 11). David exclaimed: “The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me, his word is upon my tongue. The God of Israel has spoken, the Rock of Israel has said to me...” (2 Sam 23:1-3). Jeremiah asserted: “Then the Lord put forth his hand and touched my mouth; and the Lord said to me, ‘Behold, I have put my words in your mouth’” (Jer 1:9; 5:14; 7:27; 13:12).
The NT writers do the same. They assert that the OT prophets spoke the Word of God. “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets” (Heb 1:1). OT prophecies concerning Jesus Christ were “what the Lord had spoken of the prophet” (Matt 1:22; 2:15). The Holy Spirit spoke “by the mouth of David” (Acts 1:16), and “to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet” (28:25). The Jews of Jesus’ day believed the OT to be the infallible Word of God, accepting on every hand the testimony of the writers that what they said was what God said.
1. The testimony of Jesus. Jesus claimed that the Word of God is inspired and infallible. In Matthew 5:18 He said: “till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” The Interpreter’s Bible says that Jesus in this instance was talking about the written OT. The use of “iota” and “dot,” referring to the smallest character of the Heb. alphabet and tiniest part of any Heb. letter, makes clear how highly Jesus regarded the OT (see The Interpreter’s Bible, VII, 292). Even so radical a critic as Rudolf Bultmann says that “Jesus agreed with the scribes of his time in accepting without question the authority of the (OT) Law” (Jesus and the Word, 61).
In many instances, Jesus reiterated His belief in the infallibility of OT Scripture as, for example, in Mark 7:13, “thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on”; in John 10:35, “scripture cannot be broken”; in Luke 16:31, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead”; and in Luke 24:27, “And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” It was Jesus who preauthenticated the NT in John 14:26, “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
So great was Jesus’ view of the Scripture that in two instances (Matt 22:43-45 and John 10:34, 35) His whole argument rested upon a single word. He viewed the Scripture as verbally inspired and wholly trustworthy. To deny His view is to deny His person and to accept His person is to accept His view of Scripture.
2. The testimony of the Apostle Paul. Paul, in a key passage dealing with inspiration, said to Timothy, “All (every) scripture is inspired by God (theopneustos—God-breathed) and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16f.). The Gr. word theopneustos is a compound of theos (God) and pneustos (breathed). The tos at the end of pneustos makes it passive in meaning. This indicates that theopneustos should be properly tr. “breathed of God,” i.e., “that which is breathed out by God.” Although some have argued that the verse should read “every scripture inspired of God,” it is plain that the KJV is quite accurate in stating that “all (‘every’ meaning ‘all’) scripture is breathed out by God.” Thus Scripture has its origin in God, not in man. The creative breath of God Himself gave us Scripture. Moreover, pasa graphe, “all Scripture,” refers to the written words, not simply to the divine meaning. The very words of Scripture are thus inspired, or breathed out, by God. Some conservative Bible scholars are not happy that theopneustos has been tr. “inspired,” as though to suggest that the Scriptures are human writings to which has been added the divine breath. Paul says that the Scriptures originated from God Himself, not simply from men upon whom a divine influence came. Once it has been established that the Scriptures are “breathed out by God,” it follows axiomatically that the books of the Bible are free from error and trustworthy in every regard.
Inspiration guarantees the truth-claim of Scripture, but this has to do with the originals (the autographs), not the copies, for few would deny that there are some copyists’ errors. The human authors of Scripture accepted the common scientific and other notions of their day, but when they wrote about factual, historical, and scientific matters they were preserved from error by the Holy Spirit and never wrote or taught what is not true. Paul’s claim is one that extends to all Scripture, not just parts of it. He does not say that all Scripture is of equal value, however, for the didactic books are of greater significance than books like Ruth and Esther.
Paul’s teaching about Biblical inspiration does not mean that everything in the Bible is true per se. Scripture assures us that what Satan said to Jesus in the wilderness temptation and what Job’s friends said to him in conversation are what they really said. Whether what they said is true or false is determined by the context. The Biblical writers used figures of speech, and Jesus Himself spoke in parables and employed allegory. These are not to be taken literally. Rather, their meanings are to be ferreted out in accordance with the principles of hermeneutics.
Elsewhere Paul asserts clearly that what he has written is the revelation of God. In 1 Corinthians 2:12, 13 he says:
We have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.
A. T. Robertson in his Word Pictures in the New Testament writes:
So then Paul claims the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance (laloumen) of the words...Clearly Paul means that the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance of the revelation extends to the words. No theory of inspiration is here stated, but it is not mere human wisdom. Paul’s own Epistles bear eloquent witness to the lofty claim here made. They remain today after nearly nineteen centuries throbbing with the power of the Spirit of God, dynamic with life for the problems of today as when Paul wrote them for the needs of the believers in his time, the greatest epistles of all time, surcharged with the energy of God (Vol. IV, 88).
In 1 Corinthians 14:37 Paul wrote: “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.” Here he claims inspiration for his position.
As if this were not enough, Paul tells the Thessalonians, “We also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess 2:13). Paul says that what he has written is really the word of God. It is not the words of men, although penned by men. It does not contain the word of God; it is the word of God. The Thessalonians accepted Paul’s claim and received what he preached and wrote as that which came from God. Nothing could have been more plain. Paul asserts that his words are Spirit-taught and do not spring from human reason (cf. 1 Cor 2:13).
3. The testimony of the Apostle Peter. Peter writes: “You must understand this, that...no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet 1:20, 21). He was seeking to persuade his readers of the divine origin of Scripture. In doing this he said negatively that it did not come from the will of man. Rather, as Matthew Henry says, the authors of Scripture were holy men moved by the Holy Spirit who
powerfully excited and effectually engaged them to speak (and write) what he had put in their mouths. He so wisely and carefully assisted and directed them in the delivery of what they had received from him that they were effectually secured from any mistake in expressing what they revealed; so that the very words of scripture are to be accounted the words of the Holy Ghost...(Commentary, VI, 1044).
4. Conclusion. The teaching of Christ, the prophets, and the apostles should settle the matter of Biblical authority and inspiration once for all. But for those who desire further confirmation, in additon to the teaching of Scripture concerning itself, there are other evidences. Predictive prophecy testifies to Biblical inspiration and trustworthiness. Archeology continues to confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible. The pragmatic test of personal experience shows that when men taste and see they discover that the Bible works in their lives (see, e.g. Pss 34:8; 119:103). The Holy Spirit witnesses to the spirits of men that the Bible is the very Word of God (see 1 John 5:7 RSV; v. 6 in KJV).
Any view of inspiration produces problems, some of which yield easily to solutions and others do not. But this is true of other Biblical doctrines as well. No one surrenders his belief in the love of God because of unresolved problems. No one dismisses the doctrine of the Trinity because the concept of one God eternally subsistent in three persons is most difficult to understand. So it is with inspiration. Many of the difficult problems have been resolved; some problems remain; but it is unnecessary to surrender the Bible’s own teaching with respect to its inspiration because of some unresolved problems.
The Bible teaches that it is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. But this teaching of the Bible concerning itself would be relatively useless if no one accepted its claims and propagated them. Thus no discussion of inspiration is complete without a historical overview in which the attitude of the Christian church and its theologians toward the Scripture is delineated.
III. Historical summary
The foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ. Scripture reveals Him, and therefore it has been regarded by the Church as the written Word of God and held in highest esteem. The testimony of the Church to Scripture is one in which its inspiration, authority, and infallibility have been taught, and its truth-claim accepted. In recent times, however, a sustained interest in comparative religion and Biblical higher criticism has challenged the truth-claim of Scripture and called into question the normative orthodox view of revelation, inspiration, authority, and infallibility. Therefore, some word must be said about the canon of Scripture and attitude of the Church toward it over the centuries.
1. The canon of Scripture. Historically, which books belonged in the OT and the NT was determined differently. In Jesus’ day, the Gr. LXX (OT) already existed and included not only the OT books that Protestants generally acknowledge to be canonical, but also the apocryphal books, which they do not accept. The latter were written in Gr. The OT Scripture was divided into three categories: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The books of the Law and the Prophets were firmly fixed by NT times. But there were differences of opinion about certain of the books included in the Writings. By a.d. 90, Josephus could write that the canon of the OT was fixed and unalterable and did not include the apocryphal books. It has even been asserted by some that the rabbis at the Council of Jamnia (c. a.d. 100) excluded the Apoc. from the OT canon. The Apoc., which the Jews did not regard as canonical, were included in Jerome’s Vul., although he did so reluctantly. These were generally accepted by the Church as part of Scripture until the 4th cent. The Reformers, however, refused to regard the Apoc. as Scripture since they were not included in the Heb. canon, although they were in the Gr. LXX. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) continued to include the Apoc. as part of the canon of OT Scripture.
The canon of the NT was fixed after a long battle accompanied by much dissent. By the end of the 2nd cent., the four gospels and the thirteen letters of Paul were universally regarded as Scripture, and by the end of the 4th century, the NT as now known was fixed, although doubts persisted about the books of Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and the Revelation.
2. Jesus and Josephus and the OT. It is certain that Jesus was familiar with the Heb. OT canon and unequivocally affirmed that its books are inspired, infallible, and authoritative. Liberal and conservative scholars alike generally agree that Jesus believed as the Jews of his day did, that the OT was inerrant and everywhere binding on men. So did the apostles of Jesus. Moreover, nothing in the gospels suggests that Jesus ever raised any questions about the truth-claims of the OT.
The Jewish historian, Josephus, in his treatise Contra Apionem insisted on the inviolability of the OT and did so in words that called for complete historical reliability and freedom from error. Eusebius, the Rom. historian, quoted Josephus as believing that the OT books had unique authority and sanctity, that they were to be regarded as “oracles of God,” and that they contain no discrepancies of fact.
3. The Early Church Fathers. Once the question of the canon was settled it was almost universally believed that the books of the Bible were the infallible Word of God written. It is true that inspiration and infallibility were not pivotal issues as the Christological controversies were. Some of the early churchmen held to a mechanical dictation view of the process of inscripturation, and all of them spoke of Scripture in the highest terms and agreed that it was the ultimate source of authority.
In the Appeal to the Greeks (8, 38), the unknown author clearly accepted verbal inspiration, although he seemed to limit inspiration to that which had for its purpose the impartation of religious truths. Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 65) held to full inspiration and authority, declaring that there are no contradictions in Scripture. Athenagoras (A Plea for the Christians, 9) believed that the writers were passive human instruments played upon by God as men play on harps. Irenaeus (Iren. Her., I. 10; III. 16; IV. 20, 34) said God came upon the writers of Scripture so that they had perfect knowledge on every subject. He called the Scriptures “perfect.” Tertullian (On Prescription Against Heretics, 22) averred that the Holy Spirit so aided the writers of Scripture “that there was nothing of which they were ignorant.”
Augustine was undoubtedly the greatest of the church Fathers. Of the Scriptures he wrote (Letters of St. Augustine, LXXXII, 3):
For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the MS is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of the prophets or of the apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error.
4. The Roman Catholic Church. This church has consistently taught that the Bible is inspired and also that it is inerrant. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910 edition, p. 48) says:
For the last three centuries there have been authors—theologians, exegetes, and especially apologists, such as Holden, Rohling, Lenormont, di Bartoli, and others—who maintained, with more or less confidence, that inspiration was limited to moral and dogmatic teaching, excluding everything in the Bible relating to history and the natural sciences. They think that, in this way, a whole mass of difficulties against the inerrancy of the Bible would be removed. But the Church has never ceased to protest against this attempt to restrict the inspiration of the sacred books. This is what took place when Mgr. d’Hulst, Rector of the Institut Catholique of Paris, gave a sympathetic account of this opinion in “Le Correspondent” of 25 Jan. 1893. The reply was quickly forthcoming in the Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus” of the same year. In that Encyclical Leo XIII said: “It will never be lawful to restrict inspiration to certain parts of the Holy Scriptures, or to grant that the sacred writer could have made a mistake. Nor may the opinion of those be tolerated, who, in order to get out of these difficulties, do not hesitate to suppose that Divine inspiration extends only to what touches faith and morals, on the false plea that the true meaning is sought less in what God has said than in the motive for which He has said it.” In fact, a limited inspiration contradicts Christian tradition and theological teaching.
As for the inerrancy of the inspired text it is to the Inspirer that it must finally be attributed, and it matters little if God has insured the truth of His scripture by the grace of inspiration itself, as the adherents of verbal inspiration teach, rather than by a providential assistance.
The Roman Catholic Church did not stop with Biblical infallibility. It added tradition as an additional source of revelation and the magisterium (teaching authority) of the church was used to determine the meaning of Scripture. Thus the church built upon the doctrine of the Church Fathers and exceeded anything they could have imagined.
5. The Reformers. The Reformation represented a return to the teachings of the apostles and prophets. The Reformers vigorously opposed tradition as a source of revelation. They had no patience with the magisterium of the Church. The sola scriptura to the Reformers meant the Bible alone, minus tradition. It left no room whatever for the Church as the final teaching authority. The universal priesthood of all believers brought interpretation of Scripture back to the individual under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Churches, creeds, and men were all subject to the Scripture and nothing else.
6. Warfield and liberalism. At no time during the first nineteen centuries of the Christian era did the question of inspiration and authority rack the Church as did the Christological and anthropological controversies of the early centuries when the nature of the preincarnate and the incarnate Christ, and the Augustinian-Pelagian differences were being decided. Only from the 19th cent. on, when Ger. higher criticism and the study of comparative religion dominated the scene, did inspiration, infallibilty, and authority become a watershed. During the last one hundred years there have been radical departures both from Reformation and Roman Catholic views of Scripture. In Protestantism, it was highlighted at the turn of the cent. by the struggle between the Princeton divines (the Hodges and Warfield) and their opponents, a key leader of whom was Charles Augustus Briggs of Union Theological Seminary in New York City. In the ensuing battle, the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. affirmed the views of Warfield, and Briggs was defrocked. The 1920s became a battlefield over Biblical inspiration for Presbyterians and many other denominations. Liberalism triumphed over Orthodoxy by the 1930s in America even while Europe was embracing the Neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth, whose work on Romans appeared in 1919. By the mid-1930s, Liberalism’s advance appeared to have been halted decisively by Neo-orthodoxy, and Orthodoxy itself seemed to have gained a new lease on life. In the 1940s, Neo-evangelicalism became a live option, but its impetus was hampered quickly when, having been established as a counterbalance to Fundamentalism on the right and Neo-orthodoxy and Liberalism on the left, it was itself fractured by the inroads of higher criticism. It appears that the inspiration of the Scripture will continue to be a pivotal problem for the Church at large, and there is little doubt that any marked departure from the historic view of the Church on this matter always leads to further heresies and finally to apostasy. See Spiritual Gifts.
Bibliography F. Gaussen, Theopneustia (1852); J. Orr, Revelation and Inspiration (1927); Th. Engelder, Scripture Cannot Be Broken (1944); N. B. Stonehouse, and P. Wooley, eds., The Infallible Word (1946); R. L. Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (1957); J. E. Young, Thy Word Is Truth (1957); C. F. H. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible (1958); M. C. Tenney, ed., The Bible—The Living Word of Revelation (1968).