Rational Basis for Doctrine of Biblical Inspiration

[sentipente]

Some time ago I realized that many have a flawed view of inpiration. After some thought I decided to launch a thread to explore the basis for our current teaching on biblical inspiration. I find that many are wont to respond to a problematic revelation in the Bible with the rejoinder, "Well, I believe the Bible is inpired." What is the basis for this belief. Would we have that belief today if that one text in the New Testament had not been written or if that fragment of the copies of the ancient manuscipts had not been found?

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I have been thinking of starting a similar thread, so I'll be watching this one with interest.

I've been curious about the rationale for the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration: the idea that the Bible is, in all of its parts, directly inspired, even dictated, by the Holy Spirit.

I think I understand the doctrine. I understand how it is used. I can even understand why a person would want to have such a doctrine, but, it seems to me that it is an a priori assumption. What evidence is there that leads one to believe the Bible is word-for-word the product of direct inspiration from God?

 

[HypnoToad]

the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration: the idea that the Bible is, in all of its parts, directly inspired, even dictated, by the Holy Spirit.

Verbal plenary inspiration is not dictation.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Verbal plenary inspiration is not dictation.

It's a hair-splitting distinction. If God inspired the individual words of the Bible, whether the authors' unique voices are heard is moot. At least it seems so to me, but I'm willing to listen to a better explanation.

In the meantime, I'm still curious as to the philosophical underpinnings of the doctine of Plenary Verbal Inspiration. Why the a priori assumption that the Bible is inspired in its whole and in all of its parts, and thus without error or contradiction?

 

[BigNorsk]

Verbal plenary inspiration is not dictation.

Hey, that's what I was going to say.

Marv

 

[sentipente]

The question still has not been addressed. Is there any evidence that the Hebrews had a doctrine of inspiration for the OT? Have we essentially created an entire fossil from a single tooth?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The question still has not been addressed. Is there any evidence that the Hebrews had a doctrine of inspiration for the OT? Have we essentially created an entire fossil from a single tooth?

The Hebrews had less a doctrine of inspiration than a doctrine of revelation and kerygma, or proclaimation.

What was recorded of Isaiah wasn't so much the point as the revelation of God to Isaiah and his proclaimation of that message.

And the ultimate revelation of God in history is Jesus Christ. And if God has revealed himself in history through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and if the community that proclaims the resurrection of Jesus Christ uses the Scriptures, Christ, as a live being, can speak through the Scriptures as though they were spoken today.

Yes, Christ's resurrection and his proclaimation of himself (the Word-Christ speaking the Word-gospel about the Word-salvation through the Word-Scriptures, as it were) is the source of assurance for the inspiration for the Scriptures. (can you tell I'm neo-orthodox yet?).

 

[sentipente]

But would we have any basis for a discussion about inspiration without that text?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

But would we have any basis for a discussion about inspiration without that text?

Without what text? I don't believe in the resurrection because its recorded in an inspired text. I believe in the resurrection because its attested in five independent first century documents (Mark/Synoptics, John, Paul, Peter, Revelation) and implied in another (Tacitus). On a historical basis I believe in the resurrection, on the basis of the resurrection I believe in the inspiration of Scripture.

 

[sentipente]

GCC, that is as circular an example of reasoning as I have ever seen. If Paul had never written that one text "All Scripture is given by inspiration. . ." would you have concluded that the resurrection indicates inspired writings? Please explain.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

GCC, that is as circular an example of reasoning as I have ever seen. If Paul had never written that one text "All Scripture is given by inspiration. . ." would you have concluded that the resurrection indicates inspired writings? Please explain.

Yes, I would.

What are the Scriptures? In the ancient Near East, when a treaty (covenant) was struck between two parties, the terms of the treaty were written down on tablets and the summary of them were placed in the central altar-place of the national temple.

This is exactly what the Israelites did in placing the ten commandments in the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies.

So when it comes to the Torah, the Torah is the official covenant record of the covenant relationship between Yahweh and his people.

The New Testament is much the same. The word gospel, or good news, comes from the Greek euangelion, which is not so much a literary genre as a declaration/proclaimation that a new Caesar has ascended to the throne. An apostle (emissary) of the new Caesar would go out to all the provinces of the empire and deliver an euangelion describing the ascension of the new Caesar. This is exactly what the New Testament is- a declaration of the new Lord (the gospels) and his ascension, the record of that declaration (Acts), and an exposition of what that means for the people of his kingdom (the epistles).

All Scripture is the record of the relationship between the Great King and his people. Historically, that's what they are. I don't need a single verse in Scripture to tell me that, but they fit the literary mode of comparable forms of declaration and kerygma in the ancient Near East and first century. And because the Lord it proclaims was resurrected, I take that declaration with utter seriousness.

Make sense?

 

[sentipente]

All Scripture is the record of the relationship between the Great King and his people. Historically, that's what they are. I don't need a single verse in Scripture to tell me that, but they fit the literary mode of comparable forms of declaration and kerygma in the ancient Near East and first century. And because the Lord it proclaims was resurrected, I take that declaration with utter seriousness.

Make sense?

I don't have a problem with that analysis. It still leaves the OP unanswered. How does the contemporary doctrine of inspiration develop from your analysis without that single text from Paul?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I don't have a problem with that analysis. It still leaves the OP unanswered. How does the contemporary doctrine of inspiration develop from your analysis without that single text from Paul?

Which contemporary theory of inspiration? Verbal?

I couldn't answer that, since I believe in neither verbal inspiration nor inerrancy.

 

[sentipente]

Which contemporary theory of inspiration? Verbal?

I couldn't answer that, since I believe in neither verbal inspiration nor inerrancy.

The idea that inspiration is related solely to Scripture in a special way that grants the church exclusive authority to interpret it.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The idea that inspiration is related solely to Scripture in a special way that grants the church exclusive authority to interpret it.

Oh! Well then my theory directly relates to that.

Because if Scripture is the church's covenant history and the church's proclaimation, it is specifically are property. It was written by us, for us, not merely as a historical record of the past but as a covenant testiment to be proclaimed by us in the present.

 

[sentipente]

Oh! Well then my theory directly relates to that.

Because if Scripture is the church's covenant history and the church's proclaimation, it is specifically are property. It was written by us, for us, not merely as a historical record of the past but as a covenant testiment to be proclaimed by us in the present.

Then why would we want to apply it to anyone else, if that is the case?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Then why would we want to apply it to anyone else, if that is the case?

Because although interpretation of its message and proclaimation of that message is our's, the Lord to which it testifies is utterly transcendent. It testifies to universal truths that go beyond the bounds of our community.

 

[sentipente]

Because although interpretation of its message and proclaimation of that message is our's, the Lord to which it testifies is utterly transcendent. It testifies to universal truths that go beyond the bounds of our community.

How do we know that the others did not get their own from Him? General applicability requires general interpretation.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

How do we know that the others did not get their own from Him? General applicability requires general interpretation.

Get their own what? Scriptures? Message? Proclaimation? Covenant relationship?

 

[sentipente]

Get their own what? Scriptures? Message? Proclaimation? Covenant relationship?

We could say all of the above but I was referring to Scriptures. The text says, "ALL Scriptures" not only Jewish Scriptures. Otherwise we could not include Christians Scriptures.