Warfield's perverted version and definition of "inerrancy". Such men and/or institutions lay claim to faith in "inerrancy," but have no doctrine of Providential Preservation and thus they are still - sad to say - looking for (or attempting to restore) the inerrant autographs. It is deceitful for pastors to hold high the Bible and proclaim "I believe God's Word is inspired from cover to cover" while saying under one's breath, "in the autographs". To maintain that we must have the autographs today in order to be certain of the text is as imprudent and needless as to insist that we require the cup from which Christ drank before communion can be rightly celebrated.1

Thus, whereas we aver and asseverate that the "originals" were "inspired" (Greek = qeopneusto" = theopneustos = inspired by God or God breathed) and inerrant, we cannot subscribe to the modern version of the "Doctrine of Inerrancy" as it embodies only the "originals" whereas it excludes Providential preservation of the original text. The "Doctrine of Inerrancy" must be recognized by the Church as un-scriptural, untrue, tainted, prostitute, and depraved - a Canaanite idol - as it, in its current Warfieldian form, holds only to a non-existent entity.

Moreover, it is MADNESS to attempt to attain something that one already has as his possession. Hours upon wasted hours of study and research have methodically been carried out, not only by lost apostates and liberals, but - sadly - by brilliant conservative fundamentalists attempting to produce that which we have had as our deposit all along - the infallible, inerrant Word of the Living God, as He Himself promised. Oh Christian, gird up the loins of your mind - make bare the arm!

And it is easier for heaven and earth to

pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Luke 16:17


1 Robert D. Preus. The Inspiration of Scripture, A Study of the Theology of the Seventeenth Century Lutheran Dogmaticians, 2nd ed., (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd Ltd., 1957), p. 49. Preus is citing Dannhauer.

120


continued...