Page 324 - Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible Christianity. Based on the King James Bible

INSPIRATION

Gospels but the subsequent ones as well.” (“The from divine inspiration. In fact, the Holy Spirit in Mark
Synoptic Problem,” p. 4) is presenting Christ as the Servant whereas in Matthew
“The majority of NT scholars hold to Markan priority the Holy Spirit is presenting Christ as the King. The
[Mark was written first and then Matthew and Luke different purposes of their Gospels dictated what was
based their gospels upon it] (either the two-source included or omitted from Christ’s earthly life. Those
hypothesis of Holtzmann or the four-source hypothesis choices were not made by Mark or Matthew; they were
of Streeter). This is the view adopted in this paper as made by God. Yet, Carson says the unbelieving form
well.” (“The Synoptic Problem,” p. 6) criticism argument “has some weight.”
“One argument concerning Mark’s harder readings
which has been (as far as I can tell) completely This approach to the Gospels, now parroted by
overlooked is the probability that neither Luke nor scholars claiming to be “evangelical,” was devised by
Matthew had pristine copies of Mark at their unbelieving modernists who deny the perfect inspiration
disposal. . . . An intermediate scribe is probably of Holy Scripture. These men look at the Bible largely as
responsible—either intentionally or unintentionally— a product of human invention, not as a supernatural
for more than a few of the changes which ended up in book given word-for-word by inspiration of God to holy
Luke and Matthew.” (“The Synoptic Problem,” footnote men of old. Similarly, large numbers of “evangelical”
49) scholars are parroting the unbelieving historical critical
“Matthew and Luke have in common about 235 verses approach to the Old Testament, which denies that Moses
not found in Mark. . . . Only two viable reasons for wrote the Pentateuch, claiming rather that the
such parallels can be given: either one gospel writer Pentateuch was formed over a long period of time and
knew and used the gospel of the other, or both used a was not completed until during the era of Israel’s kings.
common source.” (“The Synoptic Problem,” p. 19)
Another example of the evangelical use of form This nonsense is a blatant denial of what the Bible itself
says about the Pentateuch. Christ and the apostles
c r i t i c i s m i s “A n I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e N e w attributed every part of the Pentateuch to the historical
Testament” (Zondervan, 1992) by D.A. Carson, Douglas Moses.
Moo, and Leon Morris. When discussing the origin of
the Gospels, these men make NO MENTION OF DIVINE We Reject Form Criticism for the Following Reasons:
INSPIRATION and instead buy into the unbelieving 1. Form criticism is contrary to divine inspiration.
theories of form criticism. Consider this statement: The Lord Jesus Christ promised that the Holy Spirit
“Moreover, many of the assumptions on which form would guide the disciples into all truth and would
criticism is based appear to be valid: there was indeed remind them of past events concerning Himself (Jn.
a period of mainly oral transmission of the gospel 14:26; 16:13-15). Further, the Gospels are Scripture
materials; much of it was probably in small units; there (compare 1 Ti. 5:18 and Mt. 10:10; also see He. 2:3)
probably was a tendency for this material to take on and are therefore given by inspiration of God (2 Ti.
certain standard forms; and the early church has 3:16). Nothing in the Scripture is there by happenstance
undoubtedly influenced the way in which this material or because of man’s will (2 Pe. 1:21). Even Paul, though
was handed down. Defined narrowly in this way, there he was not an eyewitness of the events of Christ’s life,
is undoubtedly a place for form criticism in the study when writing about those things, was taught them
of the Gospels” (An Introduction to the New Testament, directly by the resurrected Christ (1 Co. 11:23).
pp. 23, 24).
In fact, there is no scriptural validity for any of these Thus, the apostles were not dependent upon their
assumptions, and all of them fly in the face of divine own fallible memories in the recording of the Gospel
inspiration. To say that the “early church has accounts. They were not dependent upon their own
undoubtedly influenced the way in which this material thinking to select which material to present and how to
was handed down” is a plain rejection of the doctrine of present it. They did not copy from one another. They did
divine inspiration. Either the Gospels were written by not need secondary sources. They wrote by direct
inspiration of the Holy Spirit or they were written by inspiration of God. The Holy Spirit guided each Gospel
natural processes. There can be no middle ground for a writer to portray Christ in a special way via the manner
believer. in which the material is presented.
D.A. Carson and his fellow New Evangelicals repeat The crux of this matter is divine inspiration. Either
the form criticism argument that Matthew in 13:58 the Gospels are infallible Scripture, or they are the
omitted the words “could not do any miracles fallible work of men. There is no middle ground here,
there” (that appears in Mark 6:5) in order to remove and we have no difficulty whatsoever in rejecting all
“the potentially troublesome implication that Jesus was form criticism theories (AND those who hold such
incapable of working a miracle.” This is to say that theories) and accepting the Bible’s testimony about itself
Matthew made this change on his own authority apart in simple faith.

324 Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity