Bibliology - Lesson 7

Now that you've reflected on your understanding of inspiration and why you believe what you do, let’s go a bit deeper into the doctrine itself—examining some of the challenges and the solutions proposed.

Defining Inspiration

First, inspiration. Inspiration means that Scripture comes from the mouth of God. The doctrine is not primarily concerned with the mode—how inspiration happened—but rather the source. The key verse is 2 Timothy 3:16. Paul, in fact, invents a word: theopneustos—“God-breathed.” Translators wrestle with this term, but the meaning is clear: all Scripture is God-breathed. Older translations used the term “inspired,” but that can be misleading since many things can be “inspiring.” Paul is asserting that Scripture literally comes from the mouth of God.

Paul continues (and I paraphrase): All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness so that the person of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. Again, the emphasis is on source, not mode.

The Method of Inspiration

So how did God breathe out Scripture? While some claim it’s merely a human book, Christians usually hold to one of two views on the mode of inspiration:

1. Dictation Theory
   This theory claims that God dictated the words and the biblical writers simply transcribed them. There are parts of Scripture—especially in the Old Testament—where this seems to be the case. “Thus saith the Lord” often indicates direct divine speech. However, Scripture also displays a great diversity of style, vocabulary, and cultural context, especially in the Greek. Hebrews and John, for example, are drastically different in tone and structure. Proponents of this view might argue that God dictated using different styles, but this is less convincing given the diversity.
2. Dynamic View of Inspiration
   This widely held view affirms two things: (1) the writers recorded exactly what God wanted said, and (2) God did not override their individual styles, vocabulary, or cultural context. God used each writer as they were, yet ensured His message was conveyed fully and accurately. A key text is 2 Peter 1:20–21, where Peter writes that no prophecy of Scripture came about by human interpretation or will, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

This dynamic view holds that the words of Scripture are God’s own, even though the process involved a mysterious cooperation between divine inspiration and human authorship.

Scope of Inspiration: Infallibility vs. Inerrancy

Now to the scope of inspiration—the heart of the infallibility vs. inerrancy debate. While dictionaries treat these terms synonymously, theological distinctions emerged in the 1970s. The term infallibility became associated with Fuller Seminary, where I studied, and with a doctrine of limited inspiration.

Infallibility

This view states that not all of Scripture is inspired—only those parts dealing with faith and practice. History and science might contain errors. This bifurcation aims to address apparent contradictions, both internal (e.g., between Gospel accounts) and external (e.g., with historical or scientific findings).

The issue, however, is this: can you separate theology from history or science?

• Was Adam a real person (Genesis 2–3)?
• Was Jesus really born of a virgin?
• Did He actually die for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3)?
  You can’t extract theological truths from historical contexts—they are interwoven. Furthermore, 2 Timothy 3:16 most naturally reads, “All Scripture is inspired.” Though you can interpret it as “All Scripture that is inspired is profitable…,” it’s not the most natural Greek reading.

There are other problems too. The New Testament writers consistently affirm the historical truth of the Old Testament (e.g., Moses speaking). Wayne Grudem offers numerous examples. And if a biblical writer can’t get historical facts right, why trust them on theology?

Inerrancy (Plenary Inspiration)

This view holds that all of Scripture is true—plenary meaning “complete” or “full.” Everything Scripture affirms is trustworthy, whether it pertains to faith, practice, science, or history. Supporting verses include:

• 2 Timothy 3:16
• 2 Peter 1
• Proverbs 30:5: “Every word of God proves true.”
• John 10:35: “Scripture cannot be broken.”

Jesus Himself affirmed this view (Matthew 5:18) when He said not even the smallest letter or stroke would disappear from the Law. Paul builds a doctrinal point (Galatians 3:16) on a singular noun—“seed,” not “seeds”—showing he believed every word mattered.

Because God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18), His Word cannot lie. Still, the doctrine faces challenges—primarily apparent contradictions.

Responding to Apparent Contradictions

When someone says, “The Bible is full of errors,” the best initial response is: “Can you show me one?” Often, people can’t. They’ve heard the claim but haven’t explored the issues.

When real concerns arise, here are a few possible solutions:

1. Misinterpretation
   Example: Genesis 15:6 says Abraham’s faith was credited as righteousness. Paul uses this to affirm justification by faith (Romans), while James cites it to argue justification by works. The key is in the meaning of justify. Paul refers to entering a right relationship with God; James refers to living as one who is justified.

   Another case is the order of Jesus' temptations. Matthew and Luke list them differently. But Greek conjunctions don’t necessarily imply chronological order, and Luke likely reordered them to highlight Jerusalem’s theological significance.

2. Erroneous Secular Sources
   Secular history and science are not infallible. Scholars once claimed Moses couldn’t have written anything because writing hadn’t been invented—completely false. Or that music didn’t exist until 500 BC—also absurd. Sometimes, secular claims simply turn out to be wrong.
3. Harmonization
   This involves asking: is there a possible scenario where both accounts could be true? A classic example is the cleansing of the temple. Did Jesus do it once or twice? Perhaps He cleansed it at both the beginning and end of His ministry. Leon Morris argues this in his commentary on John.

Final Reflections

There’s almost always a conservative, credible answer if you look for it. Scholars like Craig Blomberg have written extensively on the historicity of the Gospels. BiblicalTraining offers classes on this topic. I also wrote Why I Trust the Bible, which tackles harmonization and related issues.

Personally, I was persuaded through long conversations with scholars like D.A. Carson and Craig Blomberg during my PhD days in Aberdeen. Week after week, I raised objections, and each time, they offered thoughtful responses. Eventually, I concluded:

1. Scripture deserves the benefit of the doubt.
   If it routinely got things wrong, it wouldn’t. But my experience—and that of many others—is that apparent contradictions often have solid explanations.
2. I may not know the solution, but someone likely does.
   That’s enough for me to trust Scripture fully, even where I don’t yet understand every difficulty.

Conclusion

So where do you stand? Are you in the infallibility camp, the inerrancy camp, or still deciding? Do you believe all of Scripture is true—or only some of it? Are you willing to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt as you work through difficult passages?

Take some time to reflect. We’ll explore more in the next lesson.