Steve's View on Inspiration

[anochria]

I've searched around a bit (not exhaustively) and I'm curious if there is a place where Steve has provided his definition and understanding of Biblical inspiration in a nutshell. I'm curious because I've read posts by him that have piqued my curiousity (in a good way ) and I'd like to get a fuller picture of his take on the topic.

[steve]

I have posted on this topic in the distant past, and I am not good about finding old posts in the haystack of the old forum. I will wait to see if someone else finds them. If not, I will write again on this subject. However, it is not something that fits easily into a nutshell.

[Suzana]

I don't know where the written posts are, but Steve answered a question on "inerrancy of scripture" on an archived radio program - 5 July 2006, starting at ~ the three minute mark to ~ the 28th minute. Not sure how much of a nutshell it's in either.

http://tnp.theeggbeater.net/audio/2006/

[anochria]

Well, perhaps two narrower questions.

Which parts of Scripture do you believe 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is referring to?

Similarly, which parts do you believe 2 Peter 1:20 is referring to?

[steve]

I believe that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 must be a reference to the Old Testament, since Paul also says that it is the scriptures from which Timothy had been taught since childhood. I doubt if any New Testament books had been written during Timothy's childhood (v.15). Whether Paul had the entire Old Testament canon in mind or not has been sometimes disputed, since the first "is" does not occur in the Greek (thus "all scripture is God-breathed and profitable..." might be rendered "all God-breathed scripture is profitable..."). In any case, Paul probably had the entire canon of the Old Testament in mind, though the second translational option would raise questions as to whether Paul meant to say that all the canon was inspired, or merely that all inspired writings ("scripture" is graphe, meaning either "scripture" or "writings").are profitable. Some at this forum know Greek better than I do, and might be able to speak more intelligently about the translational options.

2 Peter 1:20 speaks of every "prophecy of scripture," which seems to only take into its purview that portion that would be called the "prophets." This does not mean that Peter had doubts about the inspiration of the rest of scripture (e.g., the Torah or the Psalms), but that they were not what he was discussing in this passage—which is focused on the Old Testament predictions of the glory of Christ. Technically, Peter says nothing about the inspiration involved in the production of the written prophetic books, but only of the spoken prophecies, which, we assume, were accurately written down after they were uttered, either by the prophets themselves, or by competent assistants, like Baruch.

[anochria]

So, what do you think this "inspiration" is, particularly as opposed to "inerrency"?

I tend to see these statements on inspiration as meaning that though humans wrote these books, God had a special influence in their writing as well- an influence not always easily separable from the human component, but which definitely makes all of Scripture useful for the things Paul identified it as (and Peter later, in reference to New Testament epistles). However, that influence may not have guaranteed absolute factual inerrency.

[anochria]

Just a reminder of this thread, Steve (I know you're a busy man)

God bless!

I've been able to listen to you more on the radio- it's been great... and sometimes very humorous

[steve]

"Inerrancy," it seems to me, might mean that there are no errors of any kind in the text (or even that it was inspired in such a manner as to preclude even the possibility of errors in the text). I can see why this suggestion (either one) would be attractive to the believer, but I can't think of any passage that makes such a claim for itself or for the collected canon as a whole. Of course, the writers all claim, explicitly or implicitly, that they are telling the God-honest truth, and many of them (the Old Testament prophets, in particular) continually say that God Himself is the author of their oracles. I accept all of these claims without difficulty.

If we go further, and claim that each writer (particularly those who wrote the New Testament) was writing under the (conscious or unconscious) supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit's inspiration, then we are saying far more about them than they say about themselves. I assumed a strict inerrantist view of the Bible throughout the early decades of my ministry, because I assumed that it was taught in the scriptures themselves (I knew it was taught by my evangelical teachers). When I noticed that most of the New Testament books make no mention of their own inspiration, and that they often, instead, appeal for their authority upon such things as their eye-witness recollections (John 19:35/ 2 Pet.1:16-18), their exhaustive knowledge through the credible testimony of others (Luke 1:1-4), their own judgment as spiritually mature men (1 Cr.7:25, 40), or the understanding vouchsafed to them by means of earlier revelations (Eph.3:1-5)—all of which, it seems would be trumped by one claim of direct inspiration—and then when I find a New Testament writer not only forgetting how many people he baptized, but actually remembering it wrongly, and having to correct himself (1 Cor.1:14-16)—it got me thinking about the doctrine of inerrancy afresh.

My concern was that, if the Bible does not actually teach my doctrine of inerrancy, then the doctrine as I received it might be as much an Evangelical tradition as the sinlessness of Mary is a Catholic tradition. Both doctrines seem calculated to uphold the honor of something sacred—but such a fine motive is a poor substitute for faithfulness to what the scritpures actually teach.

If the scriptural testimony is true, I do not know what essential benefit is added by it also being given supernaturally. It seems that the authors of the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles could write reliably from their own qualifications. That they were Christ's chosen spokesmen provides the element of divine sanction upon any imperatives they may have communicated, and the fact that the Holy Spirit was promised to remind them of what Jesus said fairly guarantees their reliability as witnesses of the central material of concern to any would-be disciple.

For me, the bottom line is that we have, in the scriptures, the completely trustworthy witness to all that God wished to entrust to the Church through HIs prophets and apostles. My reasoning is as follows:

1. Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Old Testament writings and spoke about them in such a way as to let us know that they believed them to be true and divinely given. They clearly believed that the Old Testament scriptures were an authority by which to validate, and upon which to rest, their own teachings. I can think no less of those writings;

2. The New Testament writings were written by (or under the sponsorship of) men whom God selected as apostles to be His authorized witnesses. This authorization is all that is necessary to oblige me to accept their testimonies and their grasp of theological truth—and to obey their orders;

3. The life and teachings of Jesus were so remarkable as to make them hard to forget by those who traveled with Him (even apart from the promise that the Holy Spirit would bring Jesus' words back to their minds), so that, while the writers seem to occasionally abridge or paraphrase what Jesus said, or place things in different contexts, I have no difficulty believing that their memories served them well as to the content;

4. The fact that Peter, Paul, John, and possibly other apostles, all received direct revelations from the resurrected Christ, and heard from God more things than they were even at liberty to repeat or record (e.g., 2 Cor.12:4/ Rev.10:4), puts their spiritual credibility in a league so far above my own as to render it ludicrous for me to pit my understanding against theirs. Therefore, I accept without resistance their theological insights.

Therefore, I have no difficulty affirming that the scritptures are the final court of appeal in all matters of faith and of practice for the Christian—with or without any additional speculations about inerrancy or inspiration.

[darinhouston]

Excellent summary, steve -- if you added a paragraph on inerrancy regards transmission, it'd be a golden nugget!

[RickC]

Steve, excellent, thanks, brother!