NOT before about the third century was it claimed or believed that the
books composing the New Testament were inspired.
It will be remembered that there were a great number of books of
Gospels, Epistles and Acts, and that from these the "inspired" ones were
selected by "uninspired" men.
Between the "Fathers" there were great differences of opinion as to
which books were inspired; much discussion and plenty of hatred. Many of
the books now deemed spurious were by many of the "Fathers" regarded as
divine, and some now regarded as inspired were believed to be spurious.
Many of the early Christians and some of the "Fathers" repudiated the
Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jude, James, Peter, and the
Revelation of St. John. On the other hand, many of them regarded the
Gospel of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians, the Preaching ol Peter, the
Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas, the
Revelation of Peter, the Revelation of Paul, the Epistle of Clement, the
Gospel of Nicodemus, inspired Books, equal to the very best.
From all these books, and many others, the Christians selected the
inspired ones.
The men who did the selecting were ignorant and superstitious. They were
firm believers in the miraculous. They thought that diseases had been
cured by the aprons and handkerchiefs of the apostles, by the bones of
the dead. They believed in the fable of the Phoenix, and that the hyenas
changed their sex every year.
Were the men who through many centuries made the selections inspired?
Were they--ignorant, credulous, stupid and malicious--as well qualified
to judge of "inspiration" as the students of our time? How are we bound
by their opinion? Have we not the right to judge for ourselves?
Erasmus, one of the leaders of the Reformation, declared that the
Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul, and he denied the
inspiration of Second and Third John, and also of Revelation. Luther was
of the same opinion. He declared James to be an epistle of straw, and
denied the inspiration of Revelation. Zwinglius rejected the book of
Revelation, and even Calvin denied that Paul was the author of Hebrews.
The truth is that the Protestants did not agree as to what books are
inspired until 1647, by the Assembly of Westminster.
To prove that a book is inspired you must prove the existence of God.
You must also prove that this God thinks, acts, has objects, ends and
aims. This Is somewhat difficult.
It is impossible to conceive of an infinite being. Having no conception
of an infinite being, it is impossible to tell whether all the facts we
know tend to prove or disprove the existence of such a being.
God is a guess. If the existence of God is admitted, how are we to prove
that he inspired the writers of the books of the Bible?
How can one man establish the inspiration of another? How can an
inspired man prove that he is inspired? How can he know himself that he
is inspired? There is no way to prove the fact of inspiration. The
only evidence is the word of some man who could by no possibility know
anything on the Subject.
What is inspiration? Did God use men as instruments? Did he cause them
to write his thoughts? Did he take possession of their minds and destroy
their wills?
Were these writers only partly controlled, so that their mistakes, their
ignorance and their prejudices were mingled with the wisdom of God?
How are we to separate the mistakes of man from the thoughts of God?
Can we do this without being inspired ourselves? If the original writers
were inspired, then the translators should have been, and so should be
the men who tell us what the Bible means.
How is it possible for a human being to know that he is inspired by an
infinite being? But of one thing we may be certain: An inspired book
should certainly excel all the books produced by uninspired men.
It should, above all, be true, filled with wisdom, blossoming in
beauty--perfect.
Ministers wonder how I can be wicked enough to attack the Bible.