The Inspiration of Scripture Exam

The orthodox party denied the minor premise of Calixt, who felt that it was beneath the dignity of the Holy Spirit to inspire "levicula" or false teachings.

The idea of levicula was impious to the old Lutheran dogmaticians.

The dogmaticians believed that everything in Scripture was given by inspiration, including historical, ethical, and scientific concerns.

The study of human sources preceded the act of inspiration, which was concomitant with the writing of Scripture.

The lies, cursings, and blasphemies recorded in Scripture were not condoned but taught to be avoided.

The writers of Scripture were not merely inspired but were incited and inspired to speak and write.

The writers of Scripture were mere hands and penmen of the Holy Spirit and of Christ.

The prophets and apostles spoke and wrote by divine activation, with no hint or trace of limitations or restrictions to certain parts of Scripture.

The whole theory of Calixt becomes unworkable and meaningless without knowing precisely what the penmen knew before the act of writing.

The papists and Calixt both appealed to tradition and the Church to answer the question, but this did not answer the question of whether all of Scripture is inspired or only certain parts.

The minor premise of the adversaries, that there are parts of Scripture which do not concern doctrine, cannot stand because all of Scripture concerns doctrine according to 2 Tim. 3. 16.

The Holy Spirit adapted to the writing styles of the holy writers when recording mysteries.

Calov's view of accommodation differs from Dannhauer, Baier, and Quenstedt.

Calov's accommodation refers to the Spirit's adaptation to the material being recorded, rather than the writers themselves.

Hoenecke misunderstands Calov's statement and finds disagreement with Quenstedt.

Calov's statement emphasizes the Spirit's unlimited authority in choosing the style of communication.

Calov's opponent used the doctrine of accommodation to argue against the Spirit's exact communication of language to the writers.

Calov teaches accommodation as condescension, acknowledging the Spirit's adaptation to the writers' mode of speech while maintaining inspiration.

Calov did not object to the doctrine of Musaeus or ignore the accommodation of the Holy Spirit.

The New Testament's Greek is different from classical Greek but is still good Greek, and there are Hebraisms in the text.

Before the existence of Church Fathers and councils, the Scriptures existed.

The authority of Scripture establishes the authority of the Church and is the only way of knowing the true Church.

God is the author of Scripture, giving it divine inspiration and immediate dependence on Him.

The Church is the communion of saints and its authority comes from Scripture, as stated in John's Gospel.

The Church serves as the guardian, witness, and interpreter of Scripture.

The testimony of the Church, which is human and subject to error, cannot prove the authority of Scripture.

The Papal claim that the Church's testimony is absolutely certain is based on the Council of Trent.

The Lutherans and Calov argue that the Church's testimony is human and cannot prove Scripture's authority.

The Jesuit doctrine attempting to prove the authority of Scripture and the Church by each other creates a vicious circle.

The Church, according to Bellarmine, is the medium through which faith in Scripture's authority is brought about.

The Word of God itself is the medium through which faith in its divinity is engendered.

Calov defends the authority of Scripture and the Lutheran principle of sola scriptura, seeing these ideas as correlatives.

Quenstedt also emphasizes the importance of Scripture in accepting its authority and clarifies that the Church proves its authority to us through the ministry of the Word.

Bellarmine believed that all sorts of heresies arise when the uneducated read Scripture, but Quenstedt disagreed.

Quenstedt argued that if the laity were forbidden to read the Bible due to the danger of heresy, the same logic would apply to clergy and bishops.

Lutherans did not teach that every Christian had a right to impose their own private interpretation on Scripture, but rather that Scripture should be used as a norm for judging doctrine.

Some Jesuits in the 16th and 17th centuries held the extreme view that it was dangerous for a layman to read the Bible.

Bellarmine and Harding, two notable English controversialists, taught that Bible-reading is harmful to faith and morals.

Quenstedt believed that Scripture is holy and good, and not the cause of heresy or error.

Quenstedt argued that the laity have the right to check on what is publicly preached and taught by their pastors using Scripture as a norm.

Bellarmine believed that the laity were unable to judge the doctrine of their pastors without comparing it to the teaching of former pastors, but this was refuted by the example of the Bereans who compared Paul and Barnabas' teachings to Scripture.

Both the people's duty to prove the doctrine of their pastors and the need for ordained ministers in the Church were commanded by God.

Luther believed that if a man appeared teaching doctrine contrary to other pastors, his doctrine should be subject to doubt.

The actus primus of the Word is its capacity to accomplish spiritual results (potentia operandi), which Paul refers to in Rom. 1.16 as the "power of God for salvation," and Quenstedt and Hollaz discuss in relation to the Word of God.

The actus secundus is the actual working of the Word upon man, which Paul calls the "power" in Eph. 3.7.

Hollaz points out that the power of an instrument comes from its appointment to be used, even if it is not currently in use, using the example of an eye having the power to see even when it is not seeing.

Dannhauer, like Quenstedt and Hollaz, makes a distinction between the power to work and the actual working of the Word.

Dannhauer did not teach that Scripture was powerful only in its use, nor that it received its power from the Spirit upon its use. Instead, all dogmaticians believed that the Word derived its power from its union with the Holy Spirit.

Chemnitz, like Dannhauer, held that the Word of God has the spiritual and life-giving power to regenerate man, even before its use.

Dannhauer's emphasis on the use of the Word differs from the other orthodox Lutheran teachers, but it is likely that he did this consciously in order to preserve the "for us" purpose of Scripture and avoid unnecessary scholastic argumentation.

The term "efficacia" used by the old Lutheran teachers can be confusing, as it can mean both active power and potential power. The dogmaticians used the term "efficacia extra usum" to refer to the inherent power of the Word before its use, not its active power.

The analogy of the power of the Word being like the power of the sun during an eclipse is not an accurate one, as the power of the sun is still being generated, whereas the Word is inactive when it is not in use.

The dogmaticians' doctrine of the constant union of the Word and the Spirit gives the impression of consistency and impressiveness, despite the use of analogies which some may find objectionable.

The text discusses the doctrine of the efficacy of the Word in Scripture according to orthodox Lutheran teachers.

No clear distinction is made between the divine and human elements in Scripture by the dogmaticians.

Inspiration and inerrancy are predicated of both the content and materia (human side) of Scripture.

Properties of Scripture are predicated only of its forma (divine side).

The authority of Scripture does not reside in the words but in the content and necessary doctrines for salvation.

Calov states that only the forma of Scripture, properly speaking, can be called the Word of God.

There is no efficacy or causative authority in the materia of Scripture, and it is not communicated from the forma.

Criticisms against the orthodox doctrine of the efficacy of the Word include accusations of idolatry and deification of the Scriptures.

The orthodox response to these criticisms is that they do not attribute power to the Scriptures independently as idols, but only by divine communication and union with the Holy Spirit.

The Word, viewed formally as the divinely inspired meaning, is not a creature but the mens et consilium Dei, a divine outflow or emanation.

Calov never taught that power was communicated to the materia of the Word, and if the forma is already divine, there is no need for a union of the Holy Spirit with it.