Review: Although written in 1931, this article by Dr. Atkinson (an Anglican evangelical) is relevant in addressing the VPP-KJV Onlyism controversy. 

“…there comes in the great principle that God does not perform supernaturally for man what He had already given him natural power to do for himself. Man can copy, and man can translate. Therefore God does not do these things miraculously for Him. The original language was not an end in itself, it was a perfect means towards an end, the end being the realisation by the spirit of man of the thoughts and intentions of the mind and heart of God, and the receiving of faith as His gift.” 

  “If we had to-day the original perfect text—as indeed we have, buried in the various versions—most of us would not understand it. Human language is constantly changing. The only way to preserve the meaning of the Word of God at all to the mass of people is by constant translation, and revision of translation, from language to language. And the confusion of text is a boon in the sense that it has  driven thousands to minute study of the text, a study that when undertaken reverently has never been otherwise than amply rewarded in the spiritual field.”

Verbal Inspiration Considered 

By Dr. Basil F. C. Atkinson 

In an age of shallow thinking and unreasoned vagueness the expression 'verbal inspiration' has at least one great merit. It is definite and its meaning unmistakeable. 

The theological mind of to-day, inclined to shrink from dogma, is ready to concede the expression 'inspiration' to the Scriptures and to very many other writings, sacred and secular, besides. In exactly the same way it is ready to concede the expression 'atonement' to the central fact of the Christian faith. But it shrinks from any further definition, preferring to leave itself free to range over a whole realm of fancy and settle, if it settles at all, in some convenient self-erected shelter of the imagination, in which it hopes to be out of the sound of the convicting call of the Spirit of God. There is also another simple explanation of modern vagueness. In the day-time outlines are sharp and clear because they are seen in the light; in darkness, even only of degree, all is hazy, indefinite and blurred. And so, when the light of revelation floods any fact or any God-given idea, that fact or that idea is seen to stand out clearly in the shape that it in reality possesses. All of this is missed by those that walk in darkness. 

However that may be, we are surrounded to-day by a smoke-screen of vicious thought that speaks of Atonement and of Inspiration, but refuses to define either. Try to define, and you are told that you are dealing with theory and not with fact. Thus the doctrine of verbal inspiration is  looked upon as a theory of inspiration, just as the doctrine of substitutionary or propitiatory atonement is looked upon as a theory of atonement, and incidentally in both cases as a discarded theory at that. Those who concede the expressions, 'inspiration' and 'atonement,' suppose they are recognising the Biblical facts. We who believe know that this is not the case. We know that if we abandon the doctrine of substitutionary atonement or of verbal inspiration, we abandon in both cases not a theory which may be replaced by another of equal value, but a fact of revelation. 

May I reiterate that in the matter of the acceptance or refusal of the doctrine of verbal inspiration, what is at stake is not a theory of inspiration, but the fact? In other words, if the Scriptures are not verbally inspired, they are not inspired at all. To say that they are is merely to confuse the issue and to make use of language which is ambiguous. Owing to the ambiguity of human language and to the constant change that is going on in the value and meaning of words, this confusion frequently takes place, and here incidentally is our first great argument for the truth of verbal inspiration. Eternal thoughts, breathed out from the mind of God, surely must be expressed in eternal language, language that will ensure the conveyance of the thoughts in their purity to the minds they are intended to reach. This must still be true, even if the language used be human language. 

The truth of verbal inspiration is frequently emphasized in Scripture, but the depth of its meaning is never perhaps anywhere brought out to a greater extent than by the use of the expression, 'the Word of God,' to refer both to Christ, the Living Word, and to the Bible, the Written Word. A close parallelism is implied, and a little study will show that a close parallelism is the fact. The origin of the Scriptures may be regarded as parallel to the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The beginning of all was the action of the Holy Spirit upon a human instrument, and here at the outset was where the miracle lay. The conception of our Lord Jesus Christ was the primary miracle of the incarnation. This hidden action of the Holy Spirit united two natures in One Person. This action was of necessity secret. The fact was known to the human instrument alone—except incidentally by revelation—and the meaning of the fact had to be conveyed even to her by revelation. So with the human authors of the written Word. In their hearts and minds a secret action of the Holy Spirit took place, a fact that could be known only to their own spirits, and this action was the germ and guarantee of the two elements united in perfection in Holy Scripture. The Living Word was in a perfectly unequivocal sense the Child of Mary. 'Man, of the substance of His mother.' And as the Living Word was, in being made of a woman, guarded against all taint of sin, so has the Written Word been guarded against the intrusion of error. 

As regards the writers of Holy Scripture, their whole intellectual and moral heredity and environment were in the hands of God, and so were their spiritual life and spiritual experience. They were—for they must have been—prepared instruments, just as Mary was a prepared instrument. And the Scripture is intrinsically theirs, the limitations of expression theirs, the peculiarities of grammar or diction theirs. 

This fact is seized upon as a handle by those who deny the Divine origin of the Scriptures. But one might as well say that because the Lord Jesus Christ was the Son of Mary He was therefore not the Son of God. We are painfully familiar with the futile evasions of the hour. Jesus was Son of God as we are all sons of God, but to a greater degree. The Bible is of Divine origin, as many other books are of Divine origin, but to a greater degree. The influence of the Spirit on the incarnation of Jesus did not procure supernatural conception, but ensured high moral character in the Son of Mary naturally begotten. Similarly the thoughts of the writers of Scripture were inspired by their pious contact with God, so as to insure a high moral character to the work they produced. All this is merely trifling with language, the paying of lip-service with denial of true inspiration in the heart. No, the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ was due to Divine action, a powerful, clear-cut Divine intervention in human affairs, and so was the giving to man of God's Word in the Bible. The Lord Jesus Christ was God's revelation to men, and so is the Bible which bears witness to Him. 

In the case of the Living Word the Divine nature interacted with the human throughout the whole Person, spirit, soul and body. It is the simple unequivocal truth to say of the leper, and of many another otherwise hopeless sufferer also, that he was touched by the Divine hand. The Divine nature did not cease where the body began. And so with the Scriptures. The Divine nature does not come short of that part of them that we can see and hear. If we say it does, we break the implied parallelism between the Living and the Written Words. And that part of them is nothing more nor less than what we call the Words. If the hand that touched the leper was not Divine, then Jesus was not God. If the word that is heard or read is not God-breathed, then no inspiration attaches to the Scriptures at all. 

Of what practical use to us is this truth of verbal inspiration? We have not the autographs of the original writers. We have confused the original text—practically always, it is true, in an inessential manner, but still in many places. This is made a frequent handle of attack upon the original inspiration and proves besides a puzzling difficulty to many. Let us carry our parallelism a step further—though it must be clearly understood that here it holds good only partially and only in some respects. We have not in any visible or material sense with us on the earth, the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ is in heaven and not here.' Yet in a real sense we have Him, the Living Word. Leaving aside for a moment the profound fact of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit—a fact that is of course intimately concerned with the whole problem—let us ask ourselves in what sense does the world at the moment have the Living Word of God, with what contact does it come in touch with Him? The answer is of course overwhelming in the sense of responsibility which it brings, but in our hearts we all know it. The world has and sees the Living Word in the body of those who have been created anew in Him, in the lives and persons of the regenerate individuals who believe in and love and follow Him, being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. A single generation knew the Living Word Himself, as present to sight and sense. Countless generations have had to be content as regards sight and sense, with a manifestation of Him through imperfect instruments. The Holy Spirit is constantly presenting the Living Word to the world in and through these imperfect instruments who abide in Him, and who provide the only means, the only channels, by which He can be brought into direct contact with the  world. But this could not by any possibility be the case if the perfect Living Word had not at one time tabernacled in the world, leaving saved men and women 'an example, that' they 'should follow in His steps.' 'As the Father hath sent Me, even so send I you.' The essential foundation of the manifestation of Christ in His own is the perfect Living Word, Himself once manifested among men by miraculous incarnation, whom having not seen believers love, and who says, 'Because I live ye shall live also.' Further, because of this living foundation, the Holy Spirit is enabled to use these imperfect human instruments in order to present the Living Word to the world, and does so with success and convicting power. 

The realisation of these facts makes the vexed question of the imperfect translations and imperfect texts to my mind much simpler. Just as the Spirit uses with success imperfect media for the manifestation in testimony and life of the Living Word, so He can and does use with success imperfect renderings of the perfect written Word. And the imperfections of the human representations of the Living Word are far greater than those of the written representations of the original written Word. Just as the presentation of the Living Word through imperfect living instruments stands as a fact on the foundation of the manifestation of the original perfect Living Word, visible and immediately audible on the earth, so it is with the presentation of the written Word. There could be no text or translation at all if there were not the original writings to copy or translate. And the fact that these texts and translations are Spirit-used to make contact with the hearts of men and make sinners wise unto salvation is to my mind explicable only on the ground that their original was perfect as the Living Word was perfect. In the case of the reflexions of the Living Word, while the Spirit acts, it is true, miraculously upon them, yet He never repeats the single initial miracle that brought down to earth the eternal original Living Word, nor is His action upon them directed towards making them flawlessly perfect representations of the life and character of the Living Word during this present age. So with the written Word. The Spirit does not renew the original miraculous output of power that brought the written Word down to earth. He does by the exercise of His functions of control see to it that there are available on earth representations and reflexions of the original written Word, which if imperfect, are yet perfectly adequate for His purpose and use. And how comparatively minute those imperfections are is a cause of thankfulness and praise for the providential superintendence and control of the Spirit of God. 

What have we then in our English Bible? We have a representation of the original written Word of God, not flawless in every detail of text or translation, but usable and used by the Spirit, and perfectly adequate to convey to us the meaning of the original Word; very much more adequately reflecting the original than most of us, alas! in our lives reflect the original Living Word. 

We have not the original text. But neither have we our Lord Jesus in the flesh. 

Some are troubled because of the confusion that has sometimes arisen in the case of the particles and other little words. We do not know if the original text had an 'and' here or a 'but' there. We do not know, for example, in three instances in the account of the Gadarene miracle whether the original says 'herd' or 'herd of pigs.' The meaning is not obscured in the slightest by the uncertainty, so that it does not matter to our faith or work and witness which the original said. Similarly, to speak with reverence, we do not know particularly the several physical features of our Lord. But this lack of knowledge does not affect in the least our knowledge of Himself, or our love and witness and work for Him. In that sense these things do not matter. But that does not mean that they did not matter once. We cannot imagine that every detail of our adorable Lord's person was not absolutely perfect in itself, and also absolutely perfect for the purposes for which He took hold of the body that had been prepared for Him. We may be sure that all such details, though we have lost the knowledge of them, carried their full weight in the great redemptive purpose of God. They did matter then. So with the words of Scripture, God’s words, the minute details. We may have lost the knowledge of them, but they did once matter. Each one fulfilled its small—or important—part in the one perfect utterance, the one perfect revelation, the one final expression of the mind of God in the language of man. 

Then there comes in the great principle that God does not perform supernaturally for man what He had already given him natural power to do for himself. Man can copy, and man can translate. Therefore God does not do these things miraculously for Him. The original language was not an end in itself, it was a perfect means towards an end, the end being the realisation by the spirit of man of the thoughts and intentions of the mind and heart of God, and the receiving of faith as His gift. 

If we had to-day the original perfect text—as indeed we have, buried in the various versions—most of us would not understand it. Human language is constantly changing. The only way to preserve the meaning of the Word of God at all to the mass of people is by constant translation, and revision of translation, from language to language. And the confusion of text is a boon in the sense that it has  driven thousands to minute study of the text, a study that when undertaken reverently has never been otherwise than amply rewarded in the spiritual field. There are of course many places where the sense is affected. Take the passage in Rev. 1.5. Are we to read 'washed us from our sins' or 'loosed us from our sins.' Both ideas are thoroughly scriptural. But who of us that has studied the uses and occurrences of the word louo 'to wash' in the New Testament does not feel convinced that luo 'to loose' is the right reading in this instance? The text is recoverable under the guidance of the Spirit in instance after instance. 

Finally, have we lost it for ever? Shall we never know for certain whether 'washed' or 'loosed' is right? Shall we never know about the little 'ands' and 'buts' and 'thes'? Have we lost the Person of our blessed Lord for ever? God forbid. Are we not to gaze on His glorified form for ever, rejoicing in the perfect image of the Godhead? And so with the written Word. 'For ever O Lord, Thy Word is settled in heaven.' We have only to wait, and we shall possess, I hope and believe, for ever a glorified Bible. Difference of language will be nothing to us then. Shall we not be able to revel in the perfect text and the fullness of its meaning, as our hearts burn within us listening to the Perfect Expounder as did the two on the road to Emmaus. Certainly we shall have no less there than they had. Broken study will be taken up and carried to perfection in the place where no doubt or doubter can enter, and the Word of God in all the perfection of its individual words will be ours to rejoice in for eternity.