| Summary: | 330 29 XORTH DAKOTA REPORTS "it is the definition of the inspiration doctrine, more than the name it is called by," that is important. Likewise, Bergman for the de fendants agrees with plaintiffs that "inspiration of Scripture is pre supposed," but adds: "But that is an entirely different thing from claiming that inspiration contains the idea of infallibility or iner rancy," and asserts that a man throwing away "the inspiration of the Bible is an irreligious man." Thus the alleged arch-heretic agrees with the president of the synod that the Scriptures are inspired. "Inspi ration," with reference to the Bible, is in a sense a relative term. It is only when some particular kind, degree, manner, or means, as here designated, "plenary inspiration" is asserted and claimed to have been a fundamental to this congregation's original belief, that particu larity in the use of the term is called for. And the experts but verify this conclusion when their testimony is scrutinized. Repeatedly they testify that those Lutheran churches having the same constitution and creeds as this association would hold the defendants guilty of heresy to this Lutheran faith because of the resolution of June 5. Yet when that expert is asked his particular theory of inspiration, which must necessarily be the yardstick used by him in determining such question of heresy, no unanimity is found in the measure, the viewpoint of the particular expert. When the particular kinds of inspiration are thus called for and shown to be at variance one with the other, the conclusions of the experts as to whether the facts constitute heresy are accordingly rendered worthless and resolve into a failure of proof. Examine the specific belief of each of these reverend experts as to inspiration, the measure from which he determines heresy. Notice, too, the different Lutheran churches and synods so represented to be speak ing on the subject, but all denominated as Lutheran. Only two, Olafson and Thorlackson, besides Jonsson, are from this Icelandic Synod. Professor Ness from the Norwegian Lutheran Synod agrees with Rev's. Olafson and Thorlackson to the extent that he will not say that he believes in plenary inspiration. Olafson and Thorlackson content them selves with asserting that the Bible "in its entirety" is inspired, a generalization only when their testimony is considered to the effect that no particular form of inspiration is declared by the constitution of this church or this synod, or of the parent church of Iceland. As close as Professor Ness will come to stating his views on inspiration is that his
|
|---|