Inspiration of Scripture

The inspiration of scripture is an influential and complicated topic. Views on the inspiration of scripture not only form beliefs on the authority and inerrancy of scripture but also every belief that is derived from those opinions. A belief that God created the universe Ex Nihlo and that sin caused man to be separated from God is a result of a specific view on the authority and inspiration of scripture. There are three main views on the authority of scripture; fundamentalist, evangelical, and liberal. Each view has strengths and weaknesses. Somewhere in the middle of the views is a correct view of the Inspiration of scripture.

The Fundamentalist view of scripture results from the idea that the Bible is without error, in all matters including, science and history and the idea that there are no errors in the original autographs of scripture. From these views fundamentalists arrive at the belief that the Bible is verbally inspired, meaning that the Holy Spirit or God spoke the words that are written directly to the authors. They deny critical methods that are used to analyze the Bible, which may reveal errors. Since they believe that the bible has no errors they use church tradition in a very critical method. The fundamentalist view falls apart in light of the differing statistics, narratives, and the differences in the Gospel accounts. To get around these issues they harmonize scripture rewriting it to eliminate the errors and differences.

The Evangelical view of scripture says that the bible is correct in all it affirms. This means, “the biblical material is not primarily historical. It is primarily theological” (Achtemeir 65). This implies that the history and science in the Bible may be in error in light of modern standards. They believe that the bible is verbal inspired but in a different way than the Fundamentalists. Evangelicals feel that the Bible was not dictated to the authors but the ideas were revealed to them; this left the authors free to use their own diction and literary conventions. The Evangelicals use critical methods but only after hesitantly and after careful scrutinizing them. The problems they run in to are similar to the Fundamentalists but the Evangelicals have different ways to resolve them. Since there view is founded on the meaning and theology of the scripture not the facts of history and science of scripture. The differences in statistics do not change the meaning; the narratives differ because their points and meanings are different. They do not harmonize, because it is changing the word of God.

The Modernist or Liberal view of the inspiration of scripture “solves the problem of the inspiration of Scripture by denying it any unique inspiration at all” (Achtemeir 80). In there view the Bible is not revelation but a witness to revelation. The idea of scripture being a witness to revelation leaves other books besides the Bible open to being considered scripture. This is a contradiction the ideas of Revelation 22:18-19. They believe the Bible is not verbal inspired, that all critical methods are necessary and should be used and are critical of church tradition.

The Liberal view of scripture brought about the idea of community involvement in inspiration. Community is involved in the filtering of the oral transition that was used to arrive at the final canonical version of the tradition and stories. The authors of the scripture now become recorders of inspired stories. The stories may not have started off in the way God wants them but through time, retelling and molding by inspired communities the stories were formed into the way God wants them and recorded by an inspired author.

Somewhere in the middle of these views is the correct view of the inspiration of scripture. Luther wrote, “God gave to His chosen writers the thoughts that they expressed and the words that they wrote” (Luther 48). Luther is partially correct. God gave the authors the thoughts that are expressed in scripture but did not dictate to them the words they used. The authors used their own language, and styles when writing as the Evangelical view suggests. The ideas that the authors affirm are what God wanted them to affirm and to write. It was those ideas he gave them not the words. The Bible supports this view of the inspiration of scripture. Mark 8:38 states we are not to be ashamed of God’s words, from here it can be concluded that the scripture is inspired and correct in what it affirms. God inspired scripture to be something that Christians should be proud of and not ashamed. If the Bible had errors and reasons to be ashamed of it then Mark 8:38 would negate Jesus’ character, because he would be misleading and lying to his creation. Further according to John 14:26 the Holy Spirit was sent to remind us of Jesus’ teachings and “everything I [Jesus] have said to you [the apostles].” If the Holy Spirit were sent to remind us of fallible writings, then his Character would also be fallible. Paul affirms in Acts 24:14 he “believe[s] everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets.” If Paul based his beliefs on what agrees with the Law and the Prophets then his writings would agree with the Law and the Prophets, so he would have placed trust and given those books authority over other writings of the time. The apparent contradictions of statistics, narratives and the Gospels do not detract from the authority of the Bible. These apparent contradictions are places where the authors were inspired to stress different theological truths and ideas.

To support the idea that God inspired the Theological principals, it helps to examine the Parables of Jesus. The stories in the Parables are fictional, but may contain non-fictional elements. Few Christians would challenge the authority of Jesus and his teachings. The facts, historical or scientific do not matter to the parables; it is the teaching that matters. Likewise with the other parts of scripture it is not the facts, that matter but the teachings. Since part of the Bible is based solely on the theological points and what is learned from them why should not the rest of the Bible may also be.
Prophecy is a different type of inspiration when compared to others writings in the Bible. 2 Peter 1:21 says prophets “spoke from God,” prophecy was often recorded in the Old Testament. In these recordings the authors were subject to verbal inspiration as the Fundamentalists understand it. Since they spoke from God and wrote what was spoken their writings were from God.

The qualification too this view of inspiration is the scripture in it’s original autographs and not in the manuscripts or translations. The reconstructed version of the Bible scholars have now is exceedingly close to the original version. The issues and differences do not change the theological meaning or the rules for faith in practice in the scripture, so they do not detract from the authority of the Bible. Biblical translations have authority as long as the meaning and affirmations do not change from the original autographs.

There are many different views of the authority and inspiration of scripture. No single view is without problems. A middle ground for these views is the correct view on the inspiration of scripture. The Evangelical view of scripture is the most correct view, affirming the bible’s theology and teachings not the history and science that are in it. Although the views on the inspiration and authority of scripture differ they should not affect the usefulness of scripture and it’s effectiveness in the Christian faith. Regardless of the view, if it is Biblically centered it will still affirm what is written in 2 Timothy 3:16.



Works Cited
Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1991.
Achtemeier, Paul J. Inspiration and Authority. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990.