The doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture teaches that the Bible has been breathed out by God Himself through the instrumentality of the human authors. God supernaturally directed the biblical writers in the production of Scripture so that what they wrote was precisely what God intended. This doctrine acknowledges dual authorship of Scripture – both divine and human. There are several main theories that seek to explain the nature and extent of the divine and human roles in inspiration.
Verbal Plenary Inspiration
The verbal plenary inspiration view holds that God inspired the very words of the original biblical manuscripts. “Plenary” indicates that all of Scripture is inspired, not just parts of it. “Verbal” affirms that inspiration extends to the very words themselves, not just concepts or ideas. This view sees God fully involved in overseeing the writers’ work so that everything they wrote under inspiration was exactly what God wanted to communicate. Passages like 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 are cited in support of this perspective.
Advocates of verbal plenary inspiration emphasize that it applies only to the original manuscripts of Scripture, not necessarily to subsequent copies or translations. God utilized the personalities, writing styles, vocabularies, and historical contexts of the human authors, while still ensuring the accuracy of His intended message. This view affirms that Scripture is both infallible and inerrant in everything it teaches or touches upon.
Partial Inspiration
In contrast to the verbal plenary view, some theories hold that only parts of the Bible are inspired. Perhaps the theological ideas are inspired but not the historical details. Or only the moral and spiritual teachings are inspired, but not peripheral matters like science or history. Others argue that only the words directly attributed to God or spoken by Jesus are inspired. All other parts of Scripture contain a mix of divine truth and human error.
Proponents of partial inspiration usually claim that the Bible is still authoritative in matters of faith and practice. But they allow for the possibility of factual mistakes about science, history, geography, chronology, and other incidental details. This perspective essentially denies the inerrancy of Scripture. The parts considered inspired still serve as a source for theology and morals. But the uninspired human elements are not entirely trustworthy.
Conceptual Inspiration
Conceptual inspiration theories hold that God inspired the ideas, concepts, and messages contained in Scripture, but not the precise words used to express them. God communicated the thoughts He wanted conveyed, but allowed the human writers leeway in choosing their own words to record those concepts. This view contends that God’s inspiration extends to the overall ideas and teachings, but not necessarily to the specific wordings.
Some compare the biblical writers to musicians improvising variations on a tune God gave them. The musicians have freedom in how to play the notes, as long as they remain consistent with the composer’s intent. Likewise, the human authors chose their own words to accurately convey the divine messages God gave them. The concepts and themes are inspired, even if the exact wordings may not be.
Advocates claim this perspective still affirms the authority of Scripture, since the core teachings and doctrines come from divine inspiration. But it grants more freedom to the human authors and allows for possible factual errors in incidental details that do not affect the theological messages.
Partial Inerrancy
This view holds that Scripture is wholly inspired by God and therefore inerrant and authoritative in all that it intends to teach. However, inspiration is seen as limited to matters of faith and practice. When the biblical writers comment on science, history, geography, or other incidental details outside of theological matters, they are fallible like any other writer. Only the theological and moral teachings of Scripture are considered inspired and inerrant.
For example, when Genesis describes God’s work of creation, it is completely trustworthy theologically regarding God’s role as Creator, His character, and His relationship to the creation. But the scientific details of exactly how and when God created do not carry biblical authority since that lies outside the intention of the inspired text. Scripture is inerrant in accomplishing its purpose, not in incidental details.
Neo-Orthodox Inspiration
This view holds that Scripture becomes inspired as the Holy Spirit uses it to accomplish God’s purposes. Inspiration is not inherent in the text itself but happens existentially when the biblical message engages the reader. God’s Word is not inspired in itself, but only when it acts dynamically on its hearers.
Therefore, Scripture is not necessarily inerrant or infallible. In fact, it may contain substantial human imperfections and defects. However, God can still speak through very imperfect human words to accomplish His work. When the Bible becomes the “Word of God” to an individual, it is inspired for that believer in that instance regardless of textual flaws or inaccuracies.
Dictation Theory
Dictation theorists hold that God literally dictated His messages word-for-word to the human biblical writers. These authors were essentially secretaries or stenographers recording divine dictation. Their own skills, vocabularies, styles and personalities did not influence the inspired text. God spoke every word Himself; the writers just wrote them down.
This view grants absolute divine authority to the entire Bible since God Himself chose every single word of the text. However, critics argue it diminishes the significant role played by the human authors. It also fails to account for the evident differences in vocabulary, style, and content seen in books written by different human writers.
Most adherents of verbal plenary inspiration do not go so far as the dictation view. While affirming God’s oversight of the words, they still acknowledge that He utilized the skills and personalities of the human authors in producing the inspired text.
Illumination Theory
This perspective holds that God illuminated the minds of the biblical writers to guide their thoughts and protect them from error. However, the actual words were left to the writers themselves without divine oversight or influence. Writers’ minds were enlightened to know divine truths, but this illumination did not extend to the specific words they chose.
Therefore, their teachings may still reflect divine truth as God illuminated their thoughts. But their words do not necessarily carry authority or accuracy since they alone chose the wordings. Inspiration in this view is more conceptual than verbal. Critics claim this fails to account for biblical statements affirming verbal inspiration down to the words themselves.
Intuition Theory
This view proposes that by intensely communing with God, biblical writers were granted spiritual intuition into divine truths. Scripture reflects these spiritual insights as the human authors recorded their intuitive impressions. However, the Bible remains a strictly human book using the writers’ own words. Their spiritual intimacy with God granted them profound spiritual insight, but it did not involve any divine oversight or influence in recording their intuitions.
Critics argue this perspective grants too much autonomy to fallible human authors. It also fails to explain the biblical statements indicating that God spoke and directed the very words of Scripture themselves. Communion with God may have shaped the attitudes of the writers, but something more must account for the accuracy and authority of their words.
Natural Inspiration
This view denies any supernatural influence on the biblical writers. It proposes that Scripture arose naturally from authors particularly gifted to apprehend and transmit religious truth and moral teaching. Their writings reflect human religious genius, not divine inspiration. Like other gifted writers, their extraordinary abilities produced writings of spiritual insight and value.
Critics contend this perspective rejects the Bible’s own claims of being God-breathed. It leaves no role for the Holy Spirit’s supernatural influence on the authors God chose to record His words and deeds. Reducing inspiration to merely natural human skills fails to account for biblical divine authority.
Partial Infallibility
This view proposes that Scripture is the infallible Word of God only in matters of faith and morals that are essential for salvation. The purpose of inspiration was to teach theology and ethics reliably. However, on incidental details of science, history, geography or other peripheral matters, Scripture may contain errors or inaccuracies.
Supporters argue this position preserves biblical authority in its primary theological purpose while granting freedom in non-essential details. Critics say it denies inerrancy and leaves Scripture unreliable in various factual matters the biblical authors addressed. Limited infallibility struggles to define how far inspiration extends.
Selective Inspiration
This view contends that God inspired certain parts of Scripture, but not everything written by the biblical authors. For example, some propose only direct quotations from God are fully inspired. One variation claims only the words spoken by Jesus are inspired. Others argue God inspired various disputed Bible passages but left the human author’s own words uninspired.
This perspective allows questioning or challenging portions of Scripture that some claim lack inspiration. Critics protest this undermines biblical authority by elevating some passages over others without textual justification. It offers no sound basis for determining which texts are inspired and which are not.
These various theories seek to explain the dual roles of divine influence and human participation in producing the text of Scripture. Positions range from God dictating every word to just illuminating the writers’ thoughts to no supernatural role at all. Ongoing debates continue over the nature and extent of inspiration in the authorship of the Bible.
