In an earlier post (http://gordonfeil.blogspot.ca/2016/11/should-you-trust-bible.html),
I discussed why I find the Bible a compelling guidebook. We sometimes talk
about it being inspired, but what
does that mean?
One opinion of biblical inspiration is that it is natural
talent. We say the Bible is inspired in the same way that an artist’s work is
inspired, and the inspiration is really about the writer than the writing. With
this view, the Bible writers are inspired, much like Shakespeare, Buddha, or
Aristotle. This is known as the intuition
theory of biblical inspiration.
There is second opinion of inspiration that says that the
holy spirit (defining that is another topic) adds to a person’s natural
ability, enabling the person to be more aware. Under this theory, there is
nothing being communicated to the writer, but his natural gift is being
enhanced, so that he is more easily and likely to identify truth. This is
called the inspiration theory of
biblical inspiration.
A third theory about biblical inspiration is called the dynamic theory. This outlook holds that God
specifically intervenes to draw the writer’s attention to concepts that the
writer then puts into his own words. If this theory is correct, the Bible is God’s
ideas expressed through men’s words. The writing reflects God’s thoughts and
the writer’s personality. I think that this is a widely held view.
Next up this ladder of theories is the verbal theory of biblical inspiration.
Each word of the text has been chosen by God to be placed in the spot where it
is. This inspiration happens via God working on the mind of the writer. This is
not regarded as dictation though.
The final theory of biblical inspiration is the dictation theory. God dictated word for word.
So, which applies to the Bible? My theory is that not all
the Bible is inspired the same way. I view the Old Testament as having a more
intense and involved inspiration than the New. That doesn’t make one more
important than the other. I can elaborate on this in another post.
As there's no way to know which parts are more / less inspired by God, this conclusion seems like convenient way to justify picking and choosing from it what you want. I can understand the need for that, but do you not think that that somewhat undermines the entire text?
ReplyDeleteI am not advocating that any of the Bible is any less inspired than envisioned by the Dynamic Theory. I intend to elaborate on this in another post when time permits.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf we rely on the internal evidence (what the Bible reveals about how it was written), then we must conclude that there were a number of different means employed in the writing of the various books. In reading through the text, we learn that: some of the authors had dreams/visions, others were "moved" or led to write certain things, some felt compelled to record things so that others "might believe," still others felt compelled to extol God's virtues and/or worship "Him," some claimed to have recorded things which God had personally written or spoken, a few of the authors even felt compelled to offer purely personal observation/thoughts, etc. Moreover, we are told over and over again that the Holy Spirit (the instrument of inspiration) always guides, leads, moves, pushes, etc; and that it does not control, force or dictate (If you are so inclined, please provide specific scriptural proof to refute this statement). In this blogger's opinion, the Bible was a joint venture between human and Divine. It is clear to me that these documents have both human and Divine fingerprints all over them (and I would say that nothing that humankind has ever touched could accurately be described as perfect/flawless). I don't think it's fair to call that "picking and choosing." I think that it would be more accurate to characterize this activity as exercising discernment in evaluating the available evidence. Also, if we dismiss all of the internal evidence, it doesn't make much sense (and it would be hard to justify) to reject/accept in toto any writings! It's much easier to "swallow something hook line and sinker" or "cast it away" as meaningless/useless, but it doesn't demonstrate much thought or intellectual insight to do so.
ReplyDelete