Inspiration vs verbal inspiration

[Neil D]

The "Am I stupid" Thread has almost ended, and has evovled into another topic nearly, but this quote from Ed Dickerson has caused some thought...

Quote:

Quote:

when her words have been elevated to the point of being verbal inspiration.

Oddly enough, often those who become her most bitter critics do so because they believed or were taught verbal inspiration.

That's a common theme in websites and many posts here which attempt to discredit her. Having believed one extreme, and found it wanting, they go to the other extreme and totally disbelieve.

The fault is not in Ellen White, but in the mindset of the reader.

I can guess that there is gonna be some discussion of the difference between biblical inspiration, verbal inspiration, and just plain ol' inspiration...

So, What is the difference that you all see, what all you think, and what you all understand between these phrases.....

[Gerr]

If verbal, i.e. word for word dictation of the words of Scripture by the Holy Spirit, is true, then there shouldn't be discrepancies between the words spoken by Christ in the different gospels. And there shouldn't be differences in the style of the different authors if all they did was receive dictation of words.

Gerry

[bevin]

The opening of the Book of Luke is absolutely clear about how that book was assembled. It makes no claim to being infallible even at the conceptual level - forget the word level.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Well, 'inspiration' certainly has a semantic range. In terms of the Bible writers, a few years back, the Southern Baptist church included two camps, one the verbal inspirationists, the other thought inspiration. The verbal inspirationists 'packed' the faculty at Dallas Theological Seminary, if I recall correctly. Well, the other camp had their revenge. Funding was withheld! I havent been interested in the follow-up, but imagine things have been a bit dicey for them.

Clearly, the Bible writers operated on the basis of 'thought inspiration.' That would seem like the only way to make sense out of the different writing styles--and, depending on your orientation, different writing styles within some of the major OT books.

Clearly, EGW operated on the basis of 'thought inspiration.' I have read her earliest written accounts of her first visions, which she wrote in letter form to certain individuals. I will simply say that her English would have given fits to many a high school English teacher! The closest I could come to a contemporary comparison, would be someone who is illiterate and uneducated, and who came from an uneducated family. THAT is not how the Holy Spirit would speak, if verbal inspiration were the mode.

I can understand, under those circumstances, why Sr. White would adopt, where possible, the words of better-educated authors to describe what she had seen. I can also understand why she needed assistants and editors. None of that detracts from her inspiration, to my way of thinking. Just that she recognized her limitations, and did not want those limitations to interfere with her important messages from God being listened to and making a good impression.

Dave

[Tom Wetmore]

I believe there are other alternatives to add to the range of possibly modes of inspiration. There is also person inspiration. This can be even more general than thought inspiration, almost a motive (or perhaps emotive) that subtly compels a person to use available human talents, resources, and other people to accomplish a divine objective. I also believe that inspiration exists on this vast continuum and plays itself out in various ways at various times even for one person.

With that in mind, the danger with EGW is locking onto one possibility for her in that wide range of inspiration and applying it to everything she did, said and wrote. Even with the commonly accepted thought-inspiration-only mode, her writings can be significantly misused.

Tom

[there buster]

Quote:

it makes no claim to being infallible

This is an example of what I was referring to.

If a person has been erroneously taught that the Bible is infallible in all its details--an extreme position--that person often becomes an extreme critic of the Bible and Ellen White.

There is no necessary connection between "inspiration" and "infallible," except in a very narrow sense.

For example, Fundamental Belief #1 states it this way: "The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history."

So the denomination holds that the Bible is "infallible" only in regard to "the. . .revelation of God's will." A fairly narrow claim.

The fact that very fallible Bible teachers and pastors may have taught us otherwise only reveals their mistake in this area, and does nothing to undermine the credibility of the Bible itself.

Back to the main point of the thread. Luke does make it very clear that he assembled the information in his gospel (and in volume II, Acts of the Apostles), very much in the way a historian or journalist would go about the task. That, however, does not invalidate the idea that he was inspired, only that our understanding of inspiration will have to be broad enough to take his experience into account.

[Neil D]

It's best to set some definitions so that we can see which definition/nuances we are using...So here is

inspire

-verb (used with object)

1. to fill with an animating, quickening, or exalting influence: His courage inspired his followers.

2. to produce or arouse (a feeling, thought, etc.): to inspire confidence in others.

3. to fill or affect with a specified feeling, thought, etc.: to inspire a person with distrust.

4. to influence or impel: Competition inspired her to greater efforts.

5. to animate, as an influence, feeling, thought, or the like, does: They were inspired by a belief in a better future.

6. to communicate or suggest by a divine or supernatural influence: writings inspired by God.

7. to guide or control by divine influence.

8. to prompt or instigate (utterances, acts, etc.) by influence, without avowal of responsibility.

9. to give rise to, bring about, cause, etc.: a philosophy that inspired a revolution.

10. to take (air, gases, etc.) into the lungs in breathing; inhale.

11. Archaic. a. to infuse (breath, life, etc.) by breathing (usually fol. by into).

b. to breathe into or upon.

-verb (used without object)

12. to give inspiration.

13. to inhale.

Now, you may wonder why I insisted on defining "inspire" first. Well, I like root words, and since inspire is the root word of inspiration, I figured that it needed to be defined...especially when I saw this definition for inspiration

inspiration

-noun

1. an inspiring or animating action or influence: I cannot write poetry without inspiration.

2. something inspired, as an idea.

3. a result of inspired activity.

4. a thing or person that inspires.

5. Theology. a. a divine influence directly and immediately exerted upon the mind or soul.

b. the divine quality of the writings or words of a person so influenced.

6. the drawing of air into the lungs; inhalation.

7. the act of inspiring; quality or state of being inspired.

[Origin: 1275&#8211;1325; ME inspiracio(u)n < LL insp&#299;r&#257;ti&#333;n- (s. of insp&#299;r&#257;ti&#333;). See inspire, -ation]

-Synonyms 1. stimulus, incitement.

Ok, so now maybe we can see where we can go from here...

[bevin]

Quote:

Back to the main point of the thread. Luke does make it very clear that he assembled the information in his gospel (and in volume II, Acts of the Apostles), very much in the way a historian or journalist would go about the task. That, however, does not invalidate the idea that he was inspired, only that our understanding of inspiration will have to be broad enough to take his experience into account.

Exactly - and that is what leads to the wide range of opinions that result.

I, for instance, conclude that the Bible is not a science book, and hence don't regard its statements on the origin of life on earth as correct.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

Exactly - and that is what leads to the wide range of opinions that result.

On the contrary. It is not a comprehensive definition or understanding of inspiration as it occurs in scripture that leads to a wide range of opinions, but the lack of such a definition.

What you're describing as multiplicity of definitions, or none at all, leading to multiple opinions.

No, the Bible isn't a science textbook. So it doesn't contain a scientific description of how God assembled the original human genome.

But just because it doesn't contain a scientific description doesn't mean that it is silent on the question or origins, nor that it's account is invalid. It means simply that it is not a scientific description.

There is the possibility, however, that it is scientific, but beyond our understanding. It was Arthur C. Clarke who said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

So, under such circumstances, the less advanced scientist might logically conclude that the advanced science he saw was not science at all, but either fakery or magic. He would be wrong, but in terms of his science, and in the eyes of his peers, he would be correct.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[bevin]

Quote:

only that our understanding of inspiration will have to be broad enough to take his experience into account.

Ok - so the question is this...

Does our understanding have to be broad enough to take into account that his journalistic assembly of information includes collecting incorrect information?

Either (a) one claims infallibility, or ( one accepts that incorrect information was gathered.

Instead I find people claiming simultaneously that

(a) it is not infallible, AND

( it doesn't have significant mistakes in it.

I find the view that the only mistakes are irrelevant little details to be a failure to address the issue.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

Instead I find people claiming simultaneously that

(a) it is not infallible, AND

( it doesn't have significant mistakes in it.

Are you speaking of Luke specifically or of the Bible generally? Luke is a meticulous recorder of detail. And the Bible generally is considerably more accurate than other historical accounts from the same era(s).

All four gospels have different purposes, and go about those purposes differently.

Luke specifically describes his work as journalistic. Matthew takes a more rabbinical approach. John has a different audience and a significantly different historical context.

Our understanding of inspiration has to include the possibility that inspiration works differently with different people, and in different situations.

Remember the statement that the Bible is the "infallible revelation of God's will." It is not infallible in other ways, nor does it make any such claims.

Logically, then, the details (if there are such) significant to the revelation of God's will are correct. Other details may or may not be.

[David Koot]

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Game, set, match.

[David Koot]

It is not a comprehensive definition or understanding of inspiration as it occurs in scripture that leads to a wide range of opinions, but the lack of such a definition.

Might be good to start with the Biblical definition. Word is 'theopneustos; which literally means, 'God-breathed.' Here is what Louw-Nida says about this occurrence (2 Tim. 3:16):

"33.261 theopneustos, on: to a communication which has been inspired by God - ‘inspired by God, divinely inspired.’ . . . ‘every Scripture divinely inspired and useful for teaching’ or ‘all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching’ 2 Tm 3.16. In a number of languages it is difficult to find an appropriate term to render ‘inspired.’ In some instances ‘Scripture inspired by God’ is rendered as ‘Scripture, the writer of which was influenced by God’ or ‘...guided by God.’ It is important, however, to avoid an expression which will mean only ‘dictated by God.’

(Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989. )

[lazarus]

I agee with Ed's perspective in that we as individuals and sometimes as a church have created a problem for ourselves when we look at the work of EGW.

I remember the surpise that I and others in my class experienced when our EGW professor broke the news that Desire of Ages was not primarily verbally inspired. As zealous young theology majors we fervently held the belief that EGW received the very words of her books (those that were not compilations) from the mouth of God or at least through a vision.

My experience has been that many many SDA's have that view and the church authorities like it that way. (I hope I am not doing them a disservice). For many the writings of EGW are infallible because the have come directly from the mouth of God. The perception is that she cannot be mistaken. This is clearly a misunderstanding of how God works with humanity in terms of the revelation of His will and character.

[there buster]

Here is part of what Ellen white had to say about the subject in the introduction to the Great Conntroversy (bolding and italicizing are mine)

Quote:

The Bible points to God as its author; yet it was written by human hands; and in the varied style of its different books it presents the characteristics of the several writers. The truths revealed are all "given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16); yet they are expressed in the words of men. The Infinite One by His Holy Spirit has shed light into the minds and hearts of His servants. He has given dreams and visions, symbols and figures; and those to whom the truth was thus revealed have themselves embodied the thought in human language.

The Ten Commandments were spoken by God Himself, and were written by His own hand. They are of divine, and not of human composition. But the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed in the nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." John 1:14.

Written in different ages, by men who differed widely in rank and occupation, and in mental and spiritual endowments, the books of the Bible present a wide contrast in style, as well as a diversity in the nature of the subjects unfolded. Different forms of expression are employed by different writers; often the same truth is more strikingly presented by one than by another. And as several writers present a subject under varied aspects and relations, there may appear, to the superficial, careless, or prejudiced reader, to be discrepancy or contradiction, where the thoughtful, reverent student, with clearer insight, discerns the underlying harmony.

As presented through different individuals, the truth is brought out in its varied aspects. One writer is more strongly impressed with one phase of the subject; he grasps those points that harmonize with his experience or with his power of perception and appreciation; another seizes upon a different phase; and each, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, presents what is most forcibly impressed upon his own mind--a different aspect of the truth in each, but a perfect harmony through all. And the truths thus revealed unite to form a perfect whole, adapted to meet the wants of men in all the circumstances and experiences of life.

God has been pleased to communicate His truth to the world by human agencies, and He Himself, by His Holy Spirit, qualified men and enabled them to do this work. He guided the mind in the selection of what to speak and what to write. The treasure was entrusted to earthen vessels, yet it is, nonetheless, from Heaven. The testimony is conveyed through the imperfect expression of human language, yet it is the testimony of God; and the obedient, believing child of God beholds in it the glory of a divine power, full of grace and truth.

So her model for inspiration is the incarnation. And that should give us pause. Because the attempt to tease out the various threads of Christ's nature always leads to difficulty. In a similiar way, trying to get too analytical about inspiration can be fraught with hazards.

[Gail]

Interesting thread! Keep it up!

[John317]

I agee with Ed's perspective in that we as individuals and sometimes as a church have created a problem for ourselves when we look at the work of EGW.

I remember the surpise that I and others in my class experienced when our EGW professor broke the news that Desire of Ages was not primarily verbally inspired. As zealous young theology majors we fervently held the belief that EGW received the very words of her books (those that were not compilations) from the mouth of God or at least through a vision.

My experience has been that many many SDA's have that view and the church authorities like it that way. (I hope I am not doing them a disservice). For many the writings of EGW are infallible because the have come directly from the mouth of God. The perception is that she cannot be mistaken. This is clearly a misunderstanding of how God works with humanity in terms of the revelation of His will and character.

It's doing a disservice for the leaders to teach people that Ellen White's writings or even the Bible were verbally inspired. That is, it is wrong to teach that the Bible either was dictated by God or that the Bible absolutely has no errors in it. The same applies to Ellen White. She certainly never taught this about her own writings.

Some people misakenly and foolishly thought that her writings were as word-for-word inspired as the Ten Commandments.

If anyone came to her with these teachings, she would say, "Why do you believe this about my writings? When have I ever taught this?"

What she taught was that she was shown visions and dreams and then she used her own words in writing down what God had shown her. She said the the Holy Spirit helped her write them down and even helped her in choosing the words she used. But they were her own words. The only time they were not her words was when they were the words of an angel, and those were set within quotation marks.

Ellen White was inspired to the same extent as Peter or Paul or Isaiah, but the canon of the Bible was closed with the writings of Saint John, and therefore her writings are subject to the same tests of the Bible as anyone else.

[bevin]

Quote:

Remember the statement that the Bible is the "infallible revelation of God's will." It is not infallible in other ways, nor does it make any such claims.

Logically, then, the details (if there are such) significant to the revelation of God's will are correct. Other details may or may not be.

That statement came from a non-inspired source - so it is possible the Bible is a fallible revelation of God's will.

However the bigger differences of opinion seem to come from whether something is a significant revelation of God's will.

I do not think Genesis's description of creation is a significant revelation of God's will, hence do not think the SDA 27 Fundamentals require the creation description to be infallible.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

So, under such circumstances, the less advanced scientist might logically conclude that the advanced science he saw was not science at all, but either fakery or magic. He would be wrong, but in terms of his science, and in the eyes of his peers, he would be correct.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The quote is valid - and applies to all

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

That statement came from a non-inspired source - so it is possible the Bible is a fallible revelation of God's will.

No claim was made that the statement was infallible.

I cited the statement because it is authoritative-- it is the official position of the church, and describes precisely what is claimed. It is claimed only that the Bible is infallible revelation of God's will: nothing more and nothing less.

Quote:

I do not think Genesis's description of creation is a significant revelation of God's will, hence do not think the SDA 27 Fundamentals require the creation description to be infallible.

The matter of significance is an interesting one, since God continually identifies himself as the Creator of heaven and earth. I consider the nature and identity of God to be significant. But then, I am neither infallible nor authoritative.

As far as what the "27 fundamental beliefs require," this section of belief #6 seems pertinent.

Quote:

6. Creation:

God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work.

[Neil D]

Gentlemen,

The question is on " biblical inspiration, verbal inspiration, and just plain ol' inspiration...".....not infallability.

Granted, there is some overlap in the ideas, but we do not need to dwell on infallibility. There are other questions that are necessary and must be answered...For example, while 'God breathed" define biblical inspiration, what does that mean? And how does that differ from 'plain ol' inspiration'?

[bevin]

So, what does it mean to be inspired?

There seems to be at least three levels

(a) God appears to you and says "Go to Ninevah and tell them..."

( You sit down to write a letter to your friends in Ephesis and you write...

© You decide to prepare a history about Jesus, and you run around interviewing people

In all cases the material has to be compared and contrasted with experiments on the world around us, and with other previously accepted material

In all cases, the determination can be made that the material is badly flawed, okay, or surprisingly good

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

There seems to be at least three levels

Actually, no. G.I. Butler wrote a series of articles in the Review concerning what he called "degrees of inspiration," which was substantially the same as these "levels."

He ranked the books of the Bible as to degrees of inspiration. In his accounting, Revelation was the most inspired, and Song of Solomon the least.

When asked her opinion of Butler's theory, Ellen White said, "Elder Butler was not inspired to write those articles."

[there buster]

Inspiration operates differently with different people.

He came to John on Patmos, and, in addition to visions, the Angel said "write," and apparently dictated short passages.

He moved (using Peter's word) Luke to investigate and write down in systematic fashion, a two-volume history of the early church.

Compilers, such as those who compiled Psalms and Proverbs, assembled timeless truth.

Chroniclers, as in the books 1 Samuel through 2 Chronicles, performed the function of court chroniclers, albeit with significant differences (such as recording the king's failures).

Apostles wrote specific counsel to specific congregations, OR to specific individuals (Timothy, Titus, Philemon, The 'Elect Lady' of 2 John), OR wrote general epistles to the church at large.

Gospel writers wrote accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus, for different audiences.

There are probably other ways in which this took place, but that's what I can think of off the top.

THE FINAL STEP, however, was ratification by a representative counsel of the entire BODY. The gifts of the Spirit were not given to individuals, but individuals exercised those gifts for the BODY. SO it was with the Bible,

The Council of Jamnia, ca. A.D. 200, determined the OT canon. A series of councils of the church, finished by the Synod of Rome(if memory serves) determined the NT canon sometime in the fourth century.

[bevin]

Quote:

"Elder Butler was not inspired to write those articles."

So what? There is clearly only a loose correlation between being inspired and being correct - since we agree that Luke was inspired and made mistakes, and there is obviously a great deal of uninspired truth in the world.

Quote:

THE FINAL STEP, however, was ratification by a representative counsel of the entire BODY. The gifts of the Spirit were not given to individuals, but individuals exercised those gifts for the BODY. SO it was with the Bible,

Agreed. But this selection does not guarantee their accuracy. All it means is a bunch of people got together and said "we think these books are good enough that (a) there is no reason to add a lot more to them, and ( you had better have a good reason for contradicting them"

/Bevin