4 March 2008

THEORIES OF INSPIRATION (Continued)

The first theory of inspiration which we will examine is the Partial Theory of Inspiration. This is the theory seemingly favored by many of the newer English language versions. Many of them interpret II Timothy 3:16 to read, "All Scripture that is inspired,,,," or some such variant.

This suggests that there are parts of Scripture which are not inspired of God. Although not favored by most of the modern Bible critics, this idea must be somewhere in the back of their minds as they pour over manuscripts attempting to decide just what they believe was probably in the original autographs. Their search for an eclectic smatterings of "early" readings is an argument that God has not preserved all that which He inspired.

Although such might argue for an originally inspired text, it must argue that there is no inspired text in our time. Only the general concept, or story, has been preserved. Thereupon is the mark of inspiration. Thus, there are many words included which are not inspired.

The argument, really, is that the Scripture is a Book of two parts. Part of the Scripture is the Words of God. Part of the Scripture is the words of man. The argument would place inspiration upon the Words; but, the argument is that those Words of God were filtered through the human instruments. Therefore, the Bible is a Book of two parts. Part is inspired. Part is not.

The general theory leaves us with two problems. Remembering that the Scripture is the record of a message for God, our dilemma is to find a way to separate the words of man from the Words of God. We are left to wonder who it is that can decide for us which part is, and which part is not, inspired.

Do we rely upon a man, be he preacher or Bible scholar? Do we rely upon a teacher who seems to have assimilated the general concept of Scripture thus showing his own grasp on theological concerns? Who is the decider of what is and what is not the message from God?

Our problem with this is that all of these persons are human beings. They are all partakers of the sin nature which renders them unqualified to judge the meanings which God has given unless they are led by His message. But, if His message is in doubt where do even these persons go to find the pure Words of Life.

The Bible would argue that the Spirit would lead us into all truth. But, if not all of Scripture is inspired, how do we know that this portion is authentic. We can not trust feelings because these can be influenced by everything from a pepperoni pizza just before bedtime, to the tempter and his snares.

Some would argue that the church councils would be able to give us guidance. The problem with this consideration is that these church councils are made up of men such as ourselves. The very problems listed above are inherent within any church or council if the leading of the Word is uncertain.

This argument would make the theologian into a phone line between God and man. Too many theologians can not agree on the simple matters of Scripture. A pre-millennial theologian? A post-millennial theologian? An amillennial theologian? To which do we turn if the Words of the Scripture be unsure? Even the problem of orthodoxy is clouded in such an instance.

In practice, in such a case, the theologian allows to pass through what he sees as "accepted." The theologian does not allow to pass through what he does not accept so this part of the record is not even received by the man in the pew.

In such a case, for all practical purposes, the theologian becomes more important to mankind than is God in the transmission of the Message.

The second problem would be to try to decide what to do with those portions which are deemed as "uninspired." Should they be removed from the Scripture? Should those portions be kept for "devotional" reading? And, what if we do jettison some portions but the theologian was mistaken? In such case we have rejected the Words of God.

In practice this view tends to lead to a lack of trust in the Words of God. Lindsell (The People’s Study Bible) sees the problem with this view. "Experience teaches ... That limited inerrancy generally leads to limited errancy." Put another way, not having faith that all the Scripture is the Words of God to humanity leads to a belief that the Scripture is untrustworthy.

We must, then, reject the consideration of the Partial Theory of Inspiration. If is faulted at its core if we are to consider the Bible as the Book from God.

In our next session we will look at the Mechanical, or Dictation Theory of Inspiration.

11 March 2008

THEORIES OF INSPIRATION (Continued)

In this session we will look at the Mechanical, or the Dictation, Theory of Inspiration. This is a theory that God simply used the human instruments as a sort of word processor in dictating His Words. Whether by trance, or by vision, God, in this theory, only used the human writers as a sort of quasi machine to transcribe His dictation.

Some of the Scripture was given as a Word for Word dictation. There are portions where God told various prophets to "Write the words that I give unto thee." But, the question would arise as to whether or not this was the method used by God in the entirety of Scripture.

Strong (Systematic Theology) would argue that this gives a very low view of humanity in general and the prophets in particular. The Dictation Theory holds that God took complete control of the writes so that they became, "...pens, not penmen, of God."

As stated above, this concept suggests that God has a very low opinion of the men who were used to write His message to humanity. This is a problem because God was using His special servants, the prophets, who were commissioned to carry forth His Word unto humanity in a vocal, a ministerial, manner. Some of these men were kings; some of these men confronted kings. They were those who were most used of God in other areas, as well.

I can understand the argument that all men are sinners before the Holy God. God would allow no unholy hands upon His special message to humanity. But, as stated above, the writer’s of Scripture were the very person’s who were also commissioned to carry forth His Words, in vocal ministries, into the world of men.

Another argument is that the Dictation Theory completely ignores the human styles of the writers. There are differing styles of writings in the Scripture. The most notable are the poetry of David and the didactic thesis which was used by Paul. God could certainly have used these diverse styles through dictation. The question is whether or not this is the method most likely used.

Strong argues that the communications of God would not be dictation. "The higher and nobler God’s communications, the more fully is man in possession and use of his own faculties."

An example of this is the call to salvation. God calls us with His convicting power. We are to make a rational, and often emotional as well, decision to respond to Him. Adam made this type of decision to depart from God in the Garden. We are called to reverse the error of Adam.

We were created in the image of God. This can not be a physical image. God is Spirit and we are physical beings. We were created in His image in the sense that we are a creative people. We do not create physical things, as did God in the creation of the universe. Our art, even our more mundane governmental and economic efforts, are examples of this creative nature.

God also created us in His image in our spiritual lives. Sin has corroded this function of our spirits; but we are still a people who desire to worship. Sin has misdirected this worship in the vast majority of humanity. But, among those who have a relationship with God through faith and salvation, our worship will be directed toward Him.

As we worship Him, we are led to follow Him and His leading. Following the leading of God will cause a man to reach the zenith of even his human potentiality. This human potentiality was created to be in fellowship with the Creator. This will cause us to be more fully conscious of Him. When ready to unfold more of His teaching, the Scripture is a Book of unfolding teaching - going from the simple to the more complex and full in Its message to man, it is natural that He would lead the most pious, and the most spiritual, to be used as His penmen.

Also, the argue that God could not lead His servants to write His inspired message is to take a low view of God’s omnipotence.

Bogard (The Golden Key to Bible Analysis) argues that the Dictation Theory gives a very low opinion of God’s standards of fairness. "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were witnesses... To dictate to a witness what he shall say destroys the value of the witness."

I have argued against the Dictation Theory. It seems, somehow, inconsistent with the view of both God and man as presented in the Scripture. But, I do not argue against the fact that the very Words used were the Words of God. Scripture is the Words of God. It is upon these Words that the very inspiration lies. Inspiration does not lie upon the human instruments who physically penned the Words.

God led these penmen to write exactly what He wanted to be written. True, He did use their own vocabulary to write the Words. But, we must recall that these men were dedicated to Him. Even their vocabularies were dedicated to Him. Thus the Words used were His Words.

Had the inspiration lay upon the men, themselves, they would have been inerrant in their own bodies. This would have meant, as well, that the inspiration would have died when these men died. No! The inspiration lay upon the Words which God inspired as these men wrote exactly what it was, although in their own vocabularies, what it was that God wanted to be written.

The concept is the same as our "personal work." When we take the message, that Jesus Christ died in time so that others could live in eternity, out into the world we are performing our work as we are called of God to do. Our words are spreading His message. If we are to be useful in this area, our vocabularies must be yielded to the Spirit.

The illustration breaks down, of course, in that our Words are not inspired. They are, or should be, consecrated to Him. This is on a much (MUCH!) lower plain than is inspiration. But, it is of the same general order. Our words, His message. His leading and His power. We are but the instrument in His Hands.

In our next session we will consider the Superintendence Theory of Inspiration.

18 March 2008

THEORIES OF INSPIRATION (Continued)

In this session we will examine the Superintendence Theory of Inspiration. I would accept that God did use this method to a degree. However, the concept falls somewhat short, as articulated, as an explanation of the Doctrine of Inspiration.

Bogard (Golden Key to Bible Analysis) does assert that the Superintendence Theory will rule out the concept of complete dictation as we discussed in the previous section. He says that, "The words are not dictated... The writers used their own words but that they were superintended by the Holy Spirit in such a manner that they wrote no error."

This is an important fact. The original manuscripts were completely without error. The Words, being in the final analysis the Words of God, could contain no error as the Perfection of God was upon the Breath of Inspiration.

In "Bible Analysis," Bogard sees that this view gives more dignity to the writers and allows them more fullness to the writings.

He also argues that the Superintendence Theory is supported by the fact that each of the writers used his own vocabulary. An example is that of the inscription over the cross of Jesus. Each writer used different words in interpreting the message yet all agree in essence. When all the views are gathered together we see the entire inscription. "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

This inscription has long been used by Bible critics as an example of error. It is nothing of the sort! The Holy Spirit, as He moved upon the human instruments, brought parts of the inscription to their minds and memories. But, the Spirit, as the Ultimate Author of the entire Scripture, gave the entire wording. This, actually, is an example of the fact that God is the True Author of Scripture. The human instruments were penmen; God was the Author. He used these men to tell His Own story.

Bogard (The Golden Key to Bible Analysis) continues by noting that this view, the Superintendence Theory, makes the Scriptures free from error in that God superintended the writing of the Scripture.

He argues that "...they [the human penmen of Scripture] were under the complete influence of the Holy Spirit." Because of this, Bogard further argues that "No error crept into the original Scriptures..."

Bogard continues in pointing out that, under the Superintendence Theory, "God superintended their [the human penmen] minds..." He says that because of this, "They could not make a mistake..." Ergo, the Scripture was produced wholly and completely free of any sort of error. All of the finished product is completely trustworthy and correct, as were, also, the several parts.

I do have a problem with this theory as presented. I believe that too much emphasis was placed upon the human writers. These person’s were not, themselves, inspired. I do believe that God superintended, or guided, these men as they wrote His message onto parchment. But, they were not inspired. The inspiration lay upon the words.

We have several problems if the men, themselves, were inspired. If this were so, they would have perfection upon their own selves. This concept runs counter to all of Scripture. These were pious men. These were men fully yielded to God. These were trustworthy men. But, in the final analysis, they were men.

These men may have had the Spirit come upon them for this task. They may have been, some certainly were, indwelt by the Spirit in the New Testament sense. But, they were men of like passions as are we. In them we see a vessel sanctified by the Lord for His Own good causes. They were "set apart" (the meaning of "Sanctification") for the purpose of writing the message of God. But, they did not cease to be men subject to like passions as are we.

If the inspiration had lain upon the men, what would have been the result of their death’s? Would the words they had penned lost their power?

The flow of inspiration did not lie upon the men. They were men of like passions as are we. The inspiration did not lie upon the parchment upon which the words were written. The parchment has long since decayed and returned to the dust of the earth.

The inspiration lay upon the Words. Thus any faithful copy of those Words will carry the same force of inspiration as did those "original manuscripts." Inspiration is of God. It is eternal and non ending. It is powerful. It is the "breath of God" breathed out to His people.

In our next session we will consider the Intuition Theory of Inspiration.

25 March 2008

THEORIES OF INSPIRATION (Continued)

We continue with a short examination of the various theories of inspiration. During this session we will consider the Intuition Theory of Inspiration.

Strong (Systematic Theology) describes the Intuition Theory as one that holds inspiration of the Scripture is nothing more than a higher elevation of the natural truth which man may hold in himself.

One of the problems with this is that the Intuition Theory is much like the concept of Natural Revelation. Natural Revelation is the view that some facts of God may be deduced from the creation. We can look at the trees, the birds, ourselves, and understand that all of this could not have simply happened by chance.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20)

The problem with Natural Revelation is that it is not specific. It shows that a "higher power" must have been active in Creation. But, it shows nothing, or very little of a Personal Nature, about just Who is that "Higher Power."

Since we are of time and physicality, humanity can not deduce the great truths of God from the natural environment. At the best we can only understand that He is. We can not understand just Who He is.

These limitations are one of the reasons why God instituted Special Revelation. Special Revelation is Scripture. Through Scripture God is able to show us of Himself in ways that could not be done by simple Natural Revelation.

Besides the above objections, Strong continues by noting that the Intuition Theory is flawed in is lack of a base. "The intuition theory makes moral and religious truth subjective. They have no basis in objectivity."

Unlike the modern thinker, and culture, Truth is Truth. There are "black and white" judgements to be understood. This solid foundation of TRUTH is gone when one considers the Intuition Theory.

Even the power of God is negated with the Intuition Theory. No longer is it considered that God is committing His message to humanity. Under this theory the base of understanding, and revelation, is contingent upon the reasoning power of men. With the base of God’s knowledge and teaching ignored by the Intuition Theory, the writing thereof is only as good as the understanding of the ancient writer.

This also causes a loss of the timeless nature of the Scripture. It is no longer a message from eternity. It has become, under the Intuition Theory of inspiration, a writing from antiquity. It may, or may not, have any bearing upon the current culture and people.

Another thing, as Strong also points out, is that the Intuition Theory makes the truth of the writings only as true as the writers, themselves. "The fact that man has a sin nature makes him prone to error in matters of religious importance."

This theory makes not only the Bible, but also all the other so-called scriptures of equal value. This fact will make them all equally untrustworthy, as well. Strong, finally, makes note of the contradiction of Illumination.

"The theory ... Holding as it does that natural insight is the only source of religious truth, involves a self-contradiction: - if the theory is true, then one man is inspired to utter what a second is inspired to pronounce as false. The Vedas, the Koran and the Bible cannot be inspired to contradict each other."

We need only consider one verse to witness the incongruity of this situation. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

Christianity is a very exclusionary religion. We believe, and the Bible teachers, that the only possible salvation which any man can access comes through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross of Calvary. Salvation is a free gift from God contingent upon accepting this fact.

We would not expect that the writings of any other religion would make this assertion.

All of the world’s "Scriptures" can not be equally correct. The Intuition Theory would not posit that this were the case. This theory would hold, as a core of its rationalization, that all of the world’s "Scriptures" are equally in error in certain areas.

The problem with this is that we are then left with no Scripture upon which we can place our trust. Therefore, this theory is unworkable as a means of explaining the inspiration of the Bible.

In our next session we will examine the Illumination theory of Inspiration.

Bible Questions Ministries