A Declaration of My Own Position on the Inspiration and Preservation of Holy Scripture, by Thomas Ross.

[Alan Dale Gross]

When I say "My Own Position" in the title, I'm saying that I am also in full, whole-hearted, agreement with everything Br. Thomas Ross says in this Profession of his, entitled:

"A Declaration of My Own Position on the
Inspiration and Preservation of Holy Scripture"​

So, I let him tell you what we both believe, since he does such a better job than I could, and that is the reason I post these references the way I do. They are some of the best on the subjects I know of, and if you know of better, let me know, please.

"In light of modern controversies over the matters of the Inspiration and Preservation of Scripture, and to prevent misunderstanding of my own position on these questions, I have thought it appropriate to write a Confession of my Faith on these essential Biblical Truths.

I confess that God, through a Supernatural Operation of His Spirit, used Holy men to Miraculously Produce the Autographs of the 66 Canonical Books of the Bible, Controlling them in such a manner that the very Words, and all of the Words, that they Recorded were the Very Words of God Himself (2 Peter 1:16-21). This Miraculous Production of the Autographs of the Bible was absolutely unique. It never has been, and never will be, replicated by any individual or group of individuals whatever who copy, collate, compile, or Translate BiblicalMmanuscripts. Consequently, all views that affirm that any copyist, compiler, or Translator of the Bible was Controlled in the same Miraculous manner as the Original Writers of Scripture must be rejected. I therefore reject the views of Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and all others who affirm that the King James Version contains 'advanced revelation' or is 'superior to the original language texts of the Bible'.1

"I confess that the verbally, plenarily Inspired Scriptures are the Product of this Miraculous Process (2 Timothy 3:16). While entirely rejecting the idea that Inspiration or Enscripturation as a Process ever has been or ever will be replicated, I confess that accurate copies of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic autographa are God’s Word, having in them the Breath of God (Matthew 4:4) in the same manner that the Original Manuscripts were the Word of God, inasmuch as the Words of such copies are identical to the Words of the Autographs.

"Furthermore, any copy, to the extent that it has the same Words and sentences as the Autographs, is to that extent the Inspired Word of God. I further confess, in accordance with Classical Baptist and orthodox Protestant Bibliology,2 that, in the same sense that Scripture, when Translated, is still Scripture, and thus is still Holy, Living, Powerful, Sharper than any twoedged sword, and able to save (Romans 1:2; Hebrews 4:12; James 1:21), it also still has both the quality of having the Breath of God in it and the resultant quality of being profitable (2 Timothy 3:16, pasa graphe Theopneustos kai ophelimos).1


1. "See the articles “What About Ruckman?” and “The Problem with New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger” by David Cloud, accessible, like the other resources mentioned in this confession, at Bibliology | Resources | Faith Saves.

2. "The affirmation of absolute verbal and plenary inspiration for the original language text, and a secondary, derivative Inspiration for accurate Translations, is the classic position confessed by Baptists and Protestants in the Reformation and post-Reformation era, in continuity with earlier periods of church history. For Baptist sources, see the reference in endnote #3.

3. "See “Are Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy 3:16,” at Bibliology | Resources | Faith Saves.

"Richard Muller explains the historic Protestant position:
"[Alongside] the insistence of the Reformed that the very words of the original are Inspired, the theological force of their argument falls in the substance or res rather than on the individual words: translations can be authoritative quoad res because the authority is not so much in the words as in the entirety of the teaching as distributed throughout the canon. . . .

"[T]he issue of “things” (res) and “words” (verba) . . . is crucial to the Protestant doctrine of Scripture and is, as many of the other elements of the Protestant doctrine, an element taken over from the medieval tradition and rooted in Augustine’s hermeneutics. . . .

"[T]he words of the text are signs pointing to the doctrinal “things.” This distinction between signa and res significata, the sign and the thing signified, carries over into the language typical of scholastic Protestantism, of the words of the text and the substance of the text, of the authority of translations not strictly quoad verba but quoad res, according to the substance or meaning indicated by the original. . . .

"[O]nly the [original language] sources are inspired (theopneustoi) both according to their substance (quoad res) and according to their words (quoad verba)[.] This must be the case, since holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, 2 Pet. 1:21, who dictated to them not only the substance (res) but also the very words (verba). For the same reason, the Hebrew and the Greek are the norms and rules by which the various versions are examined and evaluated. . . .

"[There is] a distinction between authenticity and authorship quoad verba, which belongs only to the Hebrew and Greek originals, and authenticity and authority quoad res, which inheres in valid translations. . . .

"Thus translations can be used, but with the reservation that only the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the authentic norms of doctrine and the rule by which doctrinal controversy is to be decided[.]

"Versions that are congruent with the sources are indeed authentic according to substance (quoad res); for the Word of God [may be] translated into other languages: the Word of God is not to be limited, since whether it is thought or spoken or written, it remains the Word of God. Nonetheless they are not authentic according to the idiom or word, inasmuch as the words have been explained in French or Dutch.

"In relation to all translations, therefore, the Hebrew and Greek texts stand as antiquissimus, originalis, and archetypos. Thus, translations are the Word of God insofar as they permit the Word of God to address the reader or hearer: for Scripture is most certainly the Word of God in the things it teaches and to the extent that in and by means of it power of God touches the conscience.

"Even so, in translations as well as in the original the testimony of the Holy Spirit demonstrates the graciousness of God toward us. All translations have divine authority insofar as they correctly render the original: the tongue and dialect is but an accident, and as it were an argument of divine truth, which remains one and the same in all idioms. (pgs. 269, 326-327, 403, 416, 427-428, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy; volume 2, Holy Scripture: The cognitive foundation of theology (2nd ed.), Richard Muller. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003; quotations and original sources not reproduced)."

That's a good start. Next;

Concerning the Preservation of Scripture.

Continued from A Declaration of My Own Position on the Inspiration and Preservation of Holy Scripture, by Thomas Ross. "Concerning the Preservation of Scripture",1 I confess: 1.) "God Revealed the Scriptures so men could know His Will both in the Old and New Testaments and in the future...

www.baptistboard.com

​

 

[Logos1560]

"A Declaration of My Own Position on the
Inspiration and Preservation of Holy Scripture"​

I confess that God, through a Supernatural Operation of His Spirit, used Holy men to Miraculously Produce the Autographs of the 66 Canonical Books of the Bible, Controlling them in such a manner that the very Words, and all of the Words, that they Recorded were the Very Words of God Himself (2 Peter 1:16-21). This Miraculous Production of the Autographs of the Bible was absolutely unique. It never has been, and never will be, replicated by any individual or group of individuals whatever who copy, collate, compile, or Translate BiblicalMmanuscripts. Consequently, all views that affirm that any copyist, compiler, or Translator of the Bible was Controlled in the same Miraculous manner as the Original Writers of Scripture must be rejected.

"I confess that the verbally, plenarily Inspired Scriptures are the Product of this Miraculous Process (2 Timothy 3:16). While entirely rejecting the idea that Inspiration or Enscripturation as a Process ever has been or ever will be replicated,​

[bold type added by this poster]

Thomas Ross acknowledged "the miraculous process" of all Scripture being given by inspiration of God. This process ended with the completion of the New Testament. Thomas Ross in effect agrees with what I have stated concerning inspiration being the process of the giving of all Scripture to the prophets and apostles.
Alan, you inconsistently attack me for saying basically the same thing that Thomas Ross stated and that David Cloud also stated.

Concerning 2 Timothy 3:14-17, David Cloud wrote: “The term ‘given by inspiration’ applies directly only to the original process of the giving of Scripture. The same process is described in 2 Peter 1:19-21” (Faith, p. 54). David Cloud added: “No translation can lay claim to this process. No translation is ‘given by inspiration’” (pp. 55, 593). David Cloud maintained that the KJV translators “did not give revelation, nor did they write by inspiration” and that “to say that they did confuses these terms and denies what the Bible says” (O Timothy, Vol. 12, Issue 5, 1995, p. 3). David Cloud observed: “The King James committee was translating Scripture, not giving Scripture. Ruckman’s position is confusion” (Ibid.).


On the other hand, Thomas Ross seems to be inconsistent when he tries to invent his non-scriptural doctrine of derivative inspiration. Thomas Ross himself suggested that the process of inspiration ended, and that this process of inspiration could never be replicated. Is he trying to change the meaning of inspiration from this miraculous process taught in Scripture to something very different-- a quality or attribute?

Charles Kriessman noted: “The total misunderstanding and misuse of the term and doctrine of inspiration is leading Christians to say that a translation such as the King James Bible is inspired” (Modern Version Failures, p. 44). Charles Kriessman observed: “An inspired translation belief can also lead to other fallacies, such as derivative inspiration. Derivative inspiration is a belief that translated Bible’s Words derive inspiration from the underlying original Words. This position rejects the God-breathed definition of inspiration, (theopneustos)” (p. 53). KJV-only author H. D. Williams asserted: “There is no such thing as re-inspiration, double inspiration, derivative inspiration, or advanced revelation for any translation to allow reinscripturation” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 83). D. A. Waite declared: “I do not believe there is such a thing as ‘derivative inspiration’’’ (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 116). D. A. Waite asserted: “There is no such thing as derivative when you talk about God-breathing (inspiration) of His words” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 137). H. D. Williams claimed: “Every person holding the view that the King James Bible is inspired, derivatively inspired, derivatively pure, or derivatively perfect is not only linguistically and historically incorrect, he is theologically incorrect” (Pure Words, p. 21). H. D. Williams asserted: “If we attribute purity and inspiration to the translated Words of God in any language, we are in reality claiming double inspiration, double purity, and double Apostolic and prophet-like men who chose them and who wrote them. It is equivalent to claiming that God gave His inspired Words twice, which is contrary to Scripture (Jude 1:3)” (p. 63). H. D. Williams contended: “Since the Words of God are unchanging in their original pure, perfect, inspired ’jots and tittles,’ no derivative can be formed” (Pure Words, p. 17).

John R. Rice wrote: “There are no degrees of inspiration; there is no progress from a lesser to a greater degree of inspiration” (Our God-Breathed Book, p. 100). Thomas Thomas maintained that the Scriptures “cannot be more God-breathed or less God-breathed” (Doctrine, p. 12). Jim Taylor argued against the idea of derived inspiration, and he noted that “inspiration is not an attribute. It is a process” (In Defense of the TR, p. 39, footnote 33). Jim Taylor maintained that “inspiration does not extend to a translation” (p. 39). Jim Taylor concluded: “Since inspiration is not an ongoing process, nor a quality, ‘derivative inspiration’ is not possible” (p. 327).