Inspiration of Holy Scripture

To introduce the subject of biblical inspiration from a classic Anglican perspective, I would certainly first make reference to Father Francis J. Hall, arguably the greatest Anglo-Catholic systematic theologian of the twentieth century. From his pen flows the following summary which very neatly describes the Anglican view:

Theological Outlines by Rev. Dr. Francis J. Hall
Ch.III. Q.14. Biblical Inspiration

THE Bible is a series of "Sacred Scriptures," written by holy men of old, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; which has been compiled and preserved by the Church for the edification of the faithful, as "the Word of God," and a means by which every doctrine can be proved which she requires to be believed as necessary for salvation.

2. The Scriptures were written under diverse circumstances, by different writers, in different ages, and for a variety of immediate purposes. But a Divine unity of purpose governs the whole series. "The Old Testament is not contrary to the New . . . everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ," in both.

3. The Church declares in the Nicene Creed that the Holy Ghost "spake by the prophets." This is the Catholic doctrine of Inspiration. In other words, the Scriptures not only contain but are the Word of God, and for the purposes of their inspiration have Divine authority throughout. How they came to possess this authority, i.e., the method of their inspiration, the Church does not define; but what the Church means by teaching that the Bible is divinely inspired is perfectly clear — that they have Divine authority. Such authority, if present at all, is absolute; and biblical inspiration does not admit of degrees.

4. But the amount of spiritual teaching contained in the various portions of Scripture varies widely, and this has led writers to speak of different degrees or amounts of inspiration. In doing so they confuse inspiration with spiritual illumination or with revelation. We must distinguish between inspiration, or the authority possessed by the Scriptures, and the immediate purposes which the several parts of Scripture were inspired to fulfil. If one Scripture is inspired in order to record in God's way a dark passage in Israel's history, and another in order to make known heavenly mysteries, both are none the less equally inspired — i.e., have equally real Divine authority for their diverse ends. But they have unequal values, if both are viewed as sources of spiritual edification; and if spiritual edification were the invariable mark of Divine inspiration, we should have to deny the place of some parts of the Bible in inspired Scripture.

5. Plenary inspiration, or the equal inspiration of every part of the Bible, is taught by the Catholic Church. But when interpreting the several Scriptures we must bear in mind the limitations of Divine purpose in each, and the organic place of each Scripture in the whole. The biblical meaning, as distinguished from that of the human writer must be ascertained. The two meanings do not invariably coincide. The biblical meaning or purport is Divine and therefore inerrant, as far as it goes, however defective it may appear when compared with that of later Scriptures.

6. That a Scripture is divinely inspired is made known to us primarily by the Church, although the fitness of the Bible as a whole for the general purpose which it is designed to fulfil affords constant verification of the Church's testimony. Without ecclesiastical attestation we could not distinguish the Sacred Scriptures with certainty from other holy writings; nor, in view of the inevitable mistakes of copyists, could the Scriptures be preserved from doctrinal corruption except by the Spirit-guided Church. The Church is both the witness and the keeper of Holy Writ.

7. The Sacred Scriptures were written from the point of view of God’s Kingdom, and for the members of it; and their general purpose is to establish and strengthen them in the doctrine which they have learned or are able to learn in that Kingdom. The Bible is not the source of truth for God's Kingdom, for the Church’s possession of it is more ancient than the Bible, and was derived from direct revelation. Yet the Bible contains all saving doctrine, and must be found to prove what the Church teaches. It is often the means, also, by which individuals discover the true religion. The Church and the Bible are both necessary. Both are Divine and we may not separate or mutually oppose them in our study of Theology.

The foregoing forcefully reminds me of the teaching adage of Saint Augustine of Hippo, who said, to paraphrase, 'I would not have believed the Gospel had the Catholic Church not taught it to me.' The classic Anglican appraisal of Holy Scripture, and particularly regarding its inerrancy and canonicity, considers the Bible to be the inspired Word of God containing all things necessary to salvation, uniquely inspired and authorised of God, and rightly interpreted solely through the hermeneutical lens of the Spirit-bearing Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, scriptura omnia continet. As you astutely point out, Anglicans have not (historically) been deeply concerned with the various theories of how the Bible was inspired, because we receive the inspired Scriptures on the basis, not of particular theories or doctrines of inspiration, but of the canon-establishing authority of the Holy Catholic Church, which in turn has been guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth to determine those canonical books which bear the mark of divine inspiration. Holy Writ, the 'Church's Book,' possesses a full, plenary and complete inspiration from God and is therefore inerrant and infallible as the Word of God in its fundamental inspiration, that is, in its origin, authorship and revelation from God. How each part applies to particular questions of literature, history, theology, etc. depends upon the context and purpose of specific origin. But the underlying qualitative inspiration of the whole Canon of Scripture from God the Holy Ghost as the unique record of His revelation to man is unquestioned by orthodox Anglicans.

For a more 'liberal' Anglo-Catholic perspective on Biblical inspiration I present:

The famous Dr C B Moss's The Christian Faith...

Many orthodox Anglicans today find Moss's reverent agnosticism regarding the inspiration of Scripture distasteful if not erroneous. His view, a mid-twentieth century representation of the Lux Mundi liberal catholic school founded by Bishop Gore of Oxford, is heavily dependent on the then-novel historical-critical scientific method of evaluating Scripture, which has now in some respect been proven to be utterly misguided or useless (a la Wright) and fails to meet the practical demands of theologians today. One might argue that he weakens biblical authority in the name of strengthening the Church's. In some ways he is a forerunner of the modernist-revisionist movement, brining an attitude of rationalism and doubt and uncertainty to the formulation of Scriptural Canon and Tradition, and his emphasis on the role of reason has given rise to theological innovations which he would have undoubtedly abhorred.

http://anglicanhistory.org/cbmoss/24_36.html