Introduction
An assumption in historic Protestant Evangelicalism has been that the Bible is the Word of God. Within that assumption there are many topics that could be included, some of which are the authority of Scripture, the transmission and canonization of Scripture, and the infallibility of Scripture. Additionally, and what is the context of this paper, is the assumption of the Scriptures being inspired and inerrant. The goal is to answer some questions that arise from this subject. First, what is inspiration and how did it occur? Secondly, how do we know the Bible is inspired? Thirdly, what effect does inspiration have on interpreting the Scriptures? Lastly, does the Bible err? Although we are going to look at inspiration and inerrancy individually it will be difficult not to broach on each of them as they are closely interrelated to one another. The importance of these doctrines cannot be overemphasized as even within Evangelicalism there is a rise of those who are casting doubt and diluting these fundamental doctrines. The correct view and understanding of these doctrines is also paramount on one's proper interpretation of the Scriptures. James White makes the argument that "how one views the Scripture will determine the rest of one's theology."
Inspiration
As stated, the doctrine of inspiration in all actualities forms the bedrock on how a person interprets the Scriptures. In looking at inspiration, there are three questions that need to be answered. What does it mean that the Bible is inspired? How did inspiration occur? Moreover, how does one's viewing of inspiration affect their hermeneutics or the way one interprets the Bible? The outcome is to come to the conclusion that the best view is the "Verbal, Plenary" view and within that context a correct approach will be taken in the interpretation of Scripture.
What is inspiration?
The dictionary has defined inspiration in a very broad sense as: 1. Stimulation of the mind or emotions to a high level of feeling or activity. 2. An agency, such as a person or work of art, that moves the intellect or emotions or prompts action or invention. 3. Something, such as a sudden creative act or idea, that is inspired. 4. The quality of inspiring or exalting: a painting full of inspiration. 5. Divine guidance or influence exerted directly on the mind and soul of humankind. 6. The act of drawing in, especially the inhalation of air into the lungs. Within this definition the closest we come to a theological definition would be number five but for our purposes it is necessary to have a narrower definition. In addition, inspiration is confused and sometimes used interchangeably with other words. Therefore, in defining divine inspiration in the distinctive sense in which it is employed in the Holy Scriptures, the difference in meaning of this expression from revelation and illumination must be carefully comprehended. First, there is revelation, which is defined as the act whereby God reveals truth to mankind through both special revelation (Scripture, prophets, etc.) and natural revelation (nature, conscience, etc). Secondly, inspiration may be defined as the Holy Spirit's superintending over the writers so that while writing according to their own styles and personalities, the result was God's Word written—authoritative, trustworthy, and free from error in the original autographs. Lastly, illumination is a ministry of the Holy Spirit that enables all who are in right relation with God to understand the objective written revelation. Accordingly, revelation involves origin, inspiration, reception and recording, and illumination, understanding or comprehending the written objective revelation. It can also be stated that, revelation comprehends God's giving truth. Inspiration embraces man under divine control accurately receiving the truth thus given. Illumination deals with man's understanding the God-given, inspired revelation (1 Cor. 2:14). Revelation as it concerns Scripture had a specific time period involving the inspiration of certain sovereignly chosen individuals as the recipients of the revelation. Thus, revelation and inspiration did work together in formulating God's Word. However, the difference being when David in Psalm 19 looked up into the heavens and talked about God's creation it was God's revelation divinely inspired; as opposed to someone today looking up and declaring God's creation. It is plain that both revelation and inspiration as defined have ceased. In contrast, illumination is continuously operative in an indirect way whereby God through the work of the Holy Spirit enlightens people to understand his revelation (Scripture) and its relevance to their lives. Thus, inspiration is the "voice of God" and is objective and infallible whereas illumination has and inherent subjectivity and although may be theologically correct is still fallible and greatly dependent on proper hermeneutics.
How did inspiration occur?
Inspiration is seen in two key passages in the New Testament (NT). The first is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which proclaims that "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." The word inspiration comes from the word θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), which broken down is theos (God) pneustos (breathed) or literally "God breathed." Many evangelicals believe this was a general statement from Paul about Scripture itself that had or would be written, as the New Testament canon was not yet complete. Thus, Paul's statement, in context is that all that is and would be determined Scripture is in fact God breathed. Knight writes that what "Paul appears to be saying, therefore, is that all scripture has as its source God's breath and that this is its essential characteristic. This is another way of saying that scripture is God's word (cf. Jesus' use of "scripture" and "word of God" in apposition to each another in Jn. 10:35). In addition we have 2 Peter 1:20-21, which states, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." The first part of that verse where it states, "is a matter of one's own interpretation," is often used by the Roman Catholics to say that the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura is fallacious. That Scripture is not to be interpreted by individuals but must be done through a magisterial authority. According to the Roman Catholic tradition, Scripture, though uniquely inspired and even infallible, is dependent on the church and its tradition because the same Holy Spirit that inspired the prophets and apostles as they wrote also inspired the church. As a result, they wrongly interpret the revelation to the readers so that they might read the Scriptures correctly. However, taken in context, the second part of the verse is clearly talking about the inspiration of Scripture. The "for" in the verse would connect the word "prophecy" in the second part of the verse with the first part. Hence, the "human will" would then indicate the authors of the original autographs so that he might write the Scriptures correctly. The last part of the verse tells how this was done and states as "men were moved by the Holy Spirit." The Greek word for "moved" is: φέρω (pherô), which literal means "to carry," "to bear," "to guide," or "to drive along." It also has the idea of a ship being carried by the wind (Acts 27:17). Thus, the key issue that needs to be taken from this verse is that inspiration has its first cause in God, not man. Nevertheless, God used man in the inspiration process, guiding him along utilizing his personality, attitude, intentions, and situations in life, writing style, and even motivation to correctly convey God's own words.
There are several views of inspiration. Is all of Scripture the actual writings of God or did God just enable and gift man to write it. Or could God have helped man in writing the Bible. These are some of the views that many denominations hold to, including many evangelical denominations. Erickson argues, "That our utilization of the Bible will be influenced by what we think of about its nature." One theory is the Natural view. This view teaches that there is nothing supernatural about biblical inspiration; the writers of Scripture were simply men of unusual ability who wrote the books of the Bible in the same way that an individual would write any other book. The writers were men of unusual religious insight, writing on religious subjects in the same way men like Shakespeare or Schiller wrote literature. Alan Richardson suggests there have been several Christian books from the second to the twentieth century that are inspired in precisely the same way as the Bible. Simply stated and for later comparison it could be look at as being 100% written by man. Secondly, there is the Illumination theory that believes the Holy Spirit moved within certain individuals to write above their natural capacity. "It suggests that some Christians may have spiritual insight that although similar to other Christians is greater in degree. In this view any devout Christian, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, can be the author of inspired Scripture." This could be looked at as 10% God and 90% man. Thirdly, there is the Partial theory of inspiration. This is the belief that some of Scripture is inspired, namely, that which is profitable for doctrine, matters of "faith and practice," but not all inspired. Matters of history and science would not be included as such because they are irrelevant to God's purpose. Despite the presence of errors in Scripture, partial theorists teach that an imperfect medium is a sufficient guide to salvation. A. H. Strong was and C.S. Lewis was a proponent of this view. This can be looked at as being 50% man, and 50% God. Next, there is the Degree theory. This is the view that all Scripture is inspired, but some passages are more inspired than others. For example, the "days of creation" was written or allowed by God to be written in accommodating language to be understood by man, although not necessarily true, but nonetheless was inspired. One could look at this view as 90% God and 10% man. The forth theory is Mechanical Dictation. God simple used the hand of man to passively write his words—a 100% God. Passages where the Spirit is depicted as telling the author precisely what to write are regarded as applying to the entire Bible. Examples of this would be how the Mormons view their testament and that of the Koran. Thus, nothing passed through the mind of man that could corrupt what was being written. With these views describe, one could see that a total spectrum has been covered—from 100% man to 100% God. Within these it also appears that the entire gambit has seemingly been covered and yet not altogether satisfactorily. This then, left alone, would leave a person in somewhat of a paradoxical situation. However, the last one to discuss and then compare is the Verbal Plenary view. This states that all Scripture is inspired by God who utilized the human element within man to accomplish this without error. This can be looked at as 100% God and 100% man.
This is pivotal, and although not covered in detail in this paper, it determines whether or not a person properly interprets Scripture. What is interesting to note is that Verbal/Plenary occurred because of the tension between the two theories of Partial and Degree. Verbal, which extends to the very words of Scripture, not just teachings, came about in opposition to Degree. Plenary, on the other hand, which extends to everything in the Bible, not just the parts that speak on matters of faith and practice, opposed the Partial theory.
Now it is important that the question of where does inspiration lie is required. Again, the view taken will impact how one does hermeneutics. First, if inspiration lies only within the mind of God then God alone is the only one who can understand truth. Moreover, mankind's understanding of it is finite and thus making it inadequate. Secondly, there is the view of that inspiration lies in the mind of the authors. God actually put the thoughts is the writers mind, and then he would write it down. Although the thought was perfectly placed there by God it might not preclude error in the actual writing of it. Then there is the view that inspiration lies within the written message. In this view it is not necessary to understand at all the mind of the author and what he might have been thinking but the message is all that is necessary and what God intended. These views are the more evangelical views the last ones are more postmodern in their views. First, there is the proclaimed message. This view states that the written words are merely historically true and not necessarily inspired as it has been previously defined. In addition, God did not need to do anything supernatural but does in fact interact with the text as it is being proclaimed and at that point it becomes "inspired". This is a Neo-Orthodox view that is held by Karl Barth. Lastly, there is the received message. This is similar, but emphasizes more of the reader and as the text is being read the person then becomes "inspired."
In summation then, the revelation as has been defined is the mind of God. The inspiration all happens within both the mind of the author and the written message. So it would not be an "either/or" but a "both/and." The words-versus-thoughts issue really cannot be separated. Erickson states it as follows:
The Spirit may do is to direct the thoughts of Scripture writer. The direction effected by the Spirit, however, is quite precise. God being omniscient, it is not gratuitous to assume that his thoughts are precise, more so than ours. Consequently, with the vocabulary of the writer, one work will most aptly communicate the thought God is conveying (although that word in itself may be inadequate). By creating the thought and stimulation the understanding of the Scripture writer, the Spirit will lead him in effect to use one particular word rather than any other.
Thus, as inspiration being the act whereby God guided the writers of Scripture, giving them his words while fully utilizing the human element within man to produce Scriptures. History records, that one of the first heresies was not the denial that Christ was 100% God but that he was not 100% man (Gnosticism). Likewise, this effects the way one interprets the Scriptures. It makes a difference if someone were to approach the Bible as solely a book of man. That person would follow a certain set of rules, one in which the author would be of great importance, with no regard for the divine element. On the other hand, if one looked at it solely as a book of God, the reader would not be interested or preoccupied with the author. The reader would only want to know what God is saying to him. Therefore, to accurately understand the text it is important to first study the Scripture in context to the mind or the intent of the author and then to understand the text. If not then inspiration lies with the message received and proclaimed and the inspiration is solely dependent on the reader. This postmodern view is subjective and prevalent in the evangelical church, although somewhat out of ignorance. The hermeneutical effects are a person will think that every Scripture applies to him, randomly opening the Bible and seeing what God has to say, and not taking into account the progress of revelation to name but a few.
Inerrancy of Scripture has much to do with that of inspiration and how it relates to what has been defined as the verbal, plenary view of Scripture. It would be difficult not to also discuss the view of inerrancy. Charles Ryrie has shown the necessity of the inclusion of additional verbiage. To state the orthodox view it is now necessary to include the terms "verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant, unlimited inspiration!" The importance of this issue has become more evident in our postmodern world and with the onslaught of attacks from those who talk of all the contradictions, hard sayings, and inconsistencies that liberals perceive in Scripture. It is important that Christians be prepared in answering these questions but more importantly is that the proper view it will make on one's hermeneutics. In fact, understanding how to properly interpret Scripture will better enable and properly equip a person in discussing these issues. The first question that begs to be answered before continuing is whether or not if Scriptures err can Christianity still be true? The short answer is yes, because the inerrancy issue has nothing to do with the more important and historical fact of the Resurrection of Christ. An example would be if a historian erred in his writing of a historical event. Just because he erred does not change the facts of what happened. Likewise, this is true with Scripture.
Another question is whether or not Scriptures can err and still be inspired. It has already been stated above that foundational to Christianity is that we do hold to the verbal and plenary view of Scripture. It is now important to look at some of the difficulties that come up. Two key terms must be defined first before answering this question. First, the term of inerrancy, which is defined as the doctrinal teaching that Scriptures in the original manuscripts are true in all that they teach, and thus without error. This definition does not mean that the Bible tells us every fact there is to know about any one subject, but it affirms that what it does say about any subject is true. The other key term is infallibility which is defined as the doctrinal teaching sometimes used synonymously with inerrancy that the Scriptures cannot fail in matters of faith and practice. Many have abandoned inerrancy for that if infallibility.
There are several arguments for inerrancy that will allow for a better understanding. First, if the Scriptures are "God breathed," representing the voice of God, and God is without error, and then the Scriptures are without error. One of the premises here is that God is truthful and therefore beyond error. Secondly, God is the ultimate author of Scripture. Thus, Scripture is truthful and therefore beyond any possibility of error. A second argument is that Scripture contains historical and / or scientific error, and then its entire theological message is placed in jeopardy, since the theological message of Scripture is based upon historical fact. Who would then have the ability to judge what is accurate and what is not? Thirdly, it can be argued that inerrancy is inherently tied to absolute authority. Any denial of inerrancy produces a slippery slope in which the one who denies this doctrine is open to deny the authority of Scripture on any matter. Finally, there is the argument that the Bible does not contain any errors. Here, the premise is that the Bible is, as defined, inerrant. It would also say that everything the Bible says is true according to the intention to which it was written. Concluding again the Bible is true, i.e., inerrant. Of course there are objections to these arguments.
The first objection states that since the Scriptures were written by man, one would expect them to accurately reflect the characteristic in all men which is error. To deny error in Scripture is to deny the humanity of Scripture. Secondly, there is the objection that inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts. Since there are no original manuscripts, it is irrelevant to talk about inerrancy. Lastly, there is the objection that the Bible contains errors; therefore the Bible is not inerrant.
While it is true that the Bible is a human work, and humans often err, it is also true that it is a divine work, and God does not err. It is not necessary to err to be human. If this argument is true, and human beings err, it is also true that Christ is a human being and so Christ errs. The fallacy of this argument lies in the premise that to err is human. Error in not a foregone necessity of humanity. A second response is that while it is true we do not have the original manuscripts, this does not invalidate the doctrine of inerrancy; it simply makes textual criticism all the more important. It is possible to have access to the originals through diligent study and research. Simply stated, textual criticism does not invalidate inerrancy, but inerrancy validates textual criticism. The last response is when the original context and intention is understood, taking into account the science of textual criticism, all alleged errors are shown to be based upon either faulty hermeneutics or scribal errors.
In summary, there are some facts that are important to keep in mind about inerrancy. First, the Bible does speak in accommodating language (e.g., "the sun went down."). Also, the Bible does use round numbers (7,000 killed, instead of 6,899). Thirdly, the Bible does summarize. The book of Matthew in describing the Sermon on the Mount is longer than in the book of Luke. Another fact is that consideration must be made of the genre of the individual books in the Bible. Lastly, the Bible does use free quotations in both the Old and New Testaments.
Conclusion
The doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy are important doctrines that are foundational for Evangelicals in this postmodern era. We have answered several questions in the discussion. First of all inspiration is where God guided the writers of Scripture by giving them his words, yet fully utilizing the human elements. In addition, it works in connection with revelation, whereby God reveals his truth to mankind. This view is the verbal, plenary view that attests that it is 100% man and 100% God. In addition, the Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts and is infallible in its doctrinal teachings and cannot fail in matters of faith and practice. By having a correct view and accurate understand of both inspiration and inerrancy is also imperative in having a correct interpretation of the Scriptures.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.
Chafer, Lewis S. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1978
Enns, Paul. The Moody handbook of theology. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998.
Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. A general introduction to the Bible. (Rev. and expanded.) Chicago: Moody Press. 1996, c1986.
Grudem, W. A. (1994). Systematic theology : An introduction to biblical doctrine . Leicester,
England; Grand Rapids, MI.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House.
Knight, G.W. The Pastoral Epistles: A commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids, MI., Carlisle, England: Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992.
Mathison, Keith A. The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, ID: Canonpress, 2001.
Olson, Roger, E. The Mosaic of Christian Belief. Downer Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Ryrie, Charles C. What You Should Know About Inerrancy. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981
Shedd, William G.T. Classic Reprint of Dogmatic Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1979
Thomas, Robert L., Updated: Wilkins, Don L. NASB Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1998.
Unger, M.F., Harrison, R.K., Vos, H.F., Barber, C.J. The new Unger's Bible dictionary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1988.
Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translations. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999.
White, James R. Scripture Alone. Bloomington, MN: Baker Publishing Group, 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.