Erroneous Views of Inspiration

There are many scholars who disagree with our view of inspiration.

Ryrie writes “1. Some hold that the writers of the Bible were men of great genius, but that their writings were inspired no more than those of other geniuses throughout history. This has been called the view of natural inspiration, for there is no supernatural dimension to it. 2. A step up is the view which may be labeled the mystical or illumination view of inspiration, which sees the writers of the Bible as Spirit-filled and guided believers just as any believer may be even today. Logically, one might conclude that any Spirit-filled Christian could write Scripture today. Similar to this is the idea that the biblical writers were inspired to a greater degree than others. 3. The usual caricature of verbal inspiration is that it means dictation; that is, the writers were completely passive and God simply dictated to them what was to be recorded. Of course it is true that some parts of the Bible were dictated (like the Ten Commandments and the rest of the law), but the definition proposed above incorporates the idea that God allowed the writers varying degrees of self-expression as they wrote. 4. Partial inspiration views certain parts of the Bible as supernaturally inspired, namely, portions which would otherwise have been unknowable (accounts of creation, prophecy, etc.). 5. A very popular concept of inspiration is that only the concepts but not the very words were inspired. This seems to allow for a measure of authority without the necessity of the words being completely accurate. 6. The neoorthodox or Barthian view of inspiration is that the Bible is a witness to the Word of God, though a Barthian would not be adverse to saying also that the Bible is the Word of God. But this is true only in a secondary sense (Christ being primarily the Word), and his Bible is full of errors because it is merely the product of fallible writers. The Barthian accepts the teachings of liberalism concerning the Bible and then tries to give it a measure of authority on the ground that in a fallible way it does point to Christ. 7. Among many conservatives today a view is held that might be labeled the inspired purpose view of the Bible. This simply means that while the Bible contains factual errors and insoluble discrepancies in its content, it does have ‘doctrinal integrity’ and thus accomplishes perfectly God’s purpose for it. Those who hold this idea can and do use the words infallible and inerrant, but it is important to notice that they carefully limit the Bible’s infallibility to the main purpose or principal emphasis of the Bible and do not extend it to include the accuracy of all its historical facts and parallel accounts. One recent writer put it this way: ‘I confess the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scriptures in accomplishing God’s purpose for them—to give man the revelation of God in His redemptive love through Jesus Christ.’[1] In other words, the principal revelation of God—salvation—has been transmitted infallibly by means of the records which, nevertheless, are quite fallible. In contrast to Barthians, those who hold this concept of inspiration would hold a more conservative view toward matters like authorship and dates of the books of the Bible and would in general consider the Bible as a whole more trustworthy. But it is still fallible and errant; and if that be so in historical matters, who can be sure it is not also fallible in doctrinal matters? Besides, how can one separate doctrine and history? Try to in relation to the great events of Christ’s life. Those doctrines depend on the accuracy of the historical facts. Just to illustrate how times have changed, not many years ago all one had to say to affirm his belief in the full inspiration of the Bible was that he believed it was ‘the Word of God.’ Then it became necessary to add ‘the inspired Word of God.’ Later he had to include ‘the verbally, inspired Word of God.’ Then to mean the same thing he had to say ‘the plenary (fully), verbally, inspired Word of God.’ Then came the necessity to say ‘the plenary, verbally, infallible, inspired Word of God.’ Today one has to say ‘the plenary, verbally, infallible, inspired, and inerrant-in-the original-manuscripts Word of God.’ And even then, he may not communicate clearly!”[2]

The natural inspiration view denies the supernatu­ral element in biblical inspiration in that it contends that the human authors of Scripture were basically men of extraordinary genius who possessed a special insight into moral and spiritual truth.

This view argues that these men wrote the books of the Bible through their unique abilities just like an individual might write any book.

Those who adhere to this view believe the human authors of Scripture wrote about God in the same way Shakespeare wrote literature, thus this view contends that they wrote by their own will.

As Ryrie noted, spiritual or mystical illumination view of inspiration goes a step farther than natural inspiration in that it conceives of the writers as more than natural geniuses in that they were also Spirit-filled and guided.

This view contends that anyone can write Scripture who is illuminated by the Spirit.

The degree inspiration view adheres to the inspiration of Scripture but it also adheres to the idea that some parts of the Bible are more inspired than others.

Though it is true that some parts of Scripture are more relevant than others to certain groups of people like the church, but 2 Timothy 3:16 rejects this view teaching all of Scripture is equally inspired and accurate, and it all has an important place in the overall revelation of God.

The partial inspiration view is a false view of inspiration because it teaches that some parts of the Bible are inspired and some parts are not.

They say that the parts of the Bible related to matters of salvation and faith are inspired, but those parts that deal with history, science, chronology, or other non‑faith matters may in fact be in error.

This erroneous view contends that even though some material in the Bible may be factually in error, God still preserves the message of salvation in the Bible.

So they say that we can trust the Bible in spiritual matters, but in some areas, we might find error.

The partial view of inspiration clearly rejects both verbal inspiration (that inspiration extends to the words of Scripture) and plenary inspiration (that inspiration extends to the entirety of Scripture).

Ryrie refutes this view.

The conceptual view of inspiration is also a false view of inspiration because it believes that the concepts or ideas of the writers of the Bible are inspired but not the words, thus they contend that God communicated the concepts to the human author, but not the words.

God did not dictate Scripture.

However, He did superintend or supernaturally directed the authors so that the words they used from their own vocabularies were guided by the Holy Spirit.

The dictation view of inspiration maintains that the entire Bible was dictated word for word by God and that the human authors of the Bible were passive, in the same way as secretaries or stenographers who sat and wrote down what was given to them.

Although some parts of the Bible were given by dictation as when God gave the Ten Commandments, the books of the Bible reveal a distinct contrast in style and vocabulary, which would indicate that the authors were not mere robots.

However, if one reads the Greek New Testament, one will find that the apostle John’s writing style and vocabulary is different than Paul’s or Peter’s.

Therefore, if the dictation view is true, the style of the books of the Bible would be uniform but they are clearly not.

The Neo-orthodox or Barthian view argues that the Bi­ble is not the Word of God, but only becomes the Word of God through a special encounter when God speaks to a person in some kind of subjective experience or in other words, the Bible only witnesses to the Word of God, but it is not the Word of God.

They contend that the Bible is enshrouded in myth necessitating a demythologizing of the Bible to discover what actually took place.

They say that the historicity of the events recorded in the Bible is unimpor­tant.

For example, whether or not Christ actually rose from the dead in time and space is unimportant to the neo‑orthodox adherent.

The important thing is the experiential encounter that is possible even though the Bible is tainted with factual errors.

In this view the authority is the subjective experi­ence of the individual rather than the Scriptures themselves.

As we have seen from this study, the Bible itself claims to be and demonstrates itself to be the Word of God.

These claims are both specific and general for the Bible as a whole, specific sections as well as individual books.

There are many sources which support the Bible’s claim as being the written Word of God.

First of all, of course we have the very nature of the Bible itself.

There is also the internal witness of the Holy Spirit who testifies to the believer’s human spirit that the Bible is inspired by God.

Thirdly, many believers throughout history have testified even up to this present day that the Bible is inspired by God due to the fact that it has transformed their lives.

There is then the very unity of the Bible despite the fact that the Bible has many authors from diverse backgrounds, and languages.

There is a great diversity of topics in the Bible that are addressed, yet the Bible is unified.

A fifth source is that of history in the sense that many archaeological discoveries have confirmed the Bible’s claims thus they defend the Bible’s claim of being a divine book.

There is also the testimony of Jesus Christ Himself who throughout His ministry appealed to Scripture when defending Himself against His enemies or teaching His disciples.

He clearly was of the conviction that the Old Testament was inspired by God.

We also can’t overlook the fact that fulfilled prophecy demonstrates that the Bible is inspired by God.

Furthermore no other book of antiquity or in human history has had a greater influenced than the Bible which supports its claims of being inspired by God.

Another interesting fact about the Bible which supports its claims of being a divine book is that no other book has been attacked like the Bible or has faced greater scrutiny from men as the Bible has.

This too supports its claim of being a book which originates with God.

[1] Ray Summers, “How God Said It,” Baptist Standard, Feb. 4, 1970, p. 12.

[2] Ryrie, C. C. (1972). A survey of Bible doctrine. Chicago: Moody Press.