In our discussion on the inspiration of Scripture, we now move from how God inspired the Bible to what that inspiration entails. As we discovered last time, most Christians agree that Scripture is inspired, but they often disagree when they define that inspiration. Just as they have various understandings of the process God used, they also hold various beliefs on how inspired the end product—Scripture—actually is.
Some divide it into pieces, saying certain parts are inspired while other parts are not (Partial Inspiration). Another group owns that all of Scripture is inspired, but to various levels—some portions being more inspired than others (Degree Inspiration). Others think that God inspired the concepts of Scripture, but left the writers to choose the words (Concept Inspiration). Still others say the Bible contains the Word of God, but we have to strip away the mythological and supernatural elements to find the truth and discover the Living Word—Christ (Barthian Inspiration). All of these capture a measure of the truth, but none satisfy Scripture’s testimony about itself.1
The orthodox, biblical view says that all of Scripture is inspired. It holds that it is all equally inspired—all equally from God. And, while God did inspire the concepts in His Word, He also inspired the words used to convey those concepts. The Bible is not a myriad of smoke and mirrors that we must navigate to discover the Living Word; rather, it is clear, simple, and accurate. Yes, it does lead us to Christ. But we do not explain away Scripture to find Christ, we read it and believe it. It is not ours to dissect; it is ours to accept.
Partial Inspiration
Partial Inspiration takes a pick-and-choose approach to Scripture; the spiritual and religious issues are divided from the historical and scientific. God inspired the writings pertaining to Christ and salvation, but did not inspire the historical accounts surrounding these truths. “This made them infallible in matters of faith and practice, but not in things which are not of an immediately religious character. Thus the writer could be in error in things which relate to history or science.”2 This conveniently allows us to accept what contemporary scientists tell us about the cosmos while still allowing a belief in inspiration. We can discard the biblical record of history if it doesn’t seem to fit with other accounts—only the spiritual issues are truly inspired.
The problems with this view are quickly evident, however. First, if we cannot trust Scripture in historical and scientific matters, how can we trust it in spiritual matters? Can we accept one sentence and not another? How do we choose what to keep and what to reject? Once Scripture’s holistic integrity is compromised, it is no longer reliable for any issue—historical, scientific, or spiritual.
Second, this perspective puts man above Scripture rather than him being subject to it. If the Bible is only partially inspired, we can accept the pieces we believe to be true and discard the rest. It is no longer authoritative since we can dismiss any segment we disagree with.
Most significantly, though, is that this view does not fit with what Scripture says about itself. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). Note the all. As we discussed previously, our current collection of Scriptures—the canon—is well established. All sixty-six books are rightfully placed within our Holy Scriptures. Paul says here in Timothy that each of these books is inspired by God—including the entire content of every book. That means that when the Bible says something, that something is always correct, even if it doesn’t fit with what people tell us. It’s entirely possible for us to misunderstand it and be wrong, but it cannot itself be in error. Every part is God-breathed and must be accepted as His inspired Word.
Degree Inspiration
Degree Inspiration is a close sibling to Partial Inspiration. This view owns that all Scripture is inspired, but holds certain portions at a higher plane. Unfortunately, this is particularly at home in Anabaptist circles. For example, some take the Sermon on the Mount as the epitome of truth, and all other Scripture falls under this. Others (red-letter Christians) accept only the words of Jesus as truly inspired. They may accept other Scriptures, but they subordinate them to the red letters of the Bible.
And, at the core, this sounds good. Why not take Jesus’ own words as inspired and filter the rest through those? Yet that misunderstands the unity of Scripture. Jesus Himself promised further revelation by the Holy Spirit. It also, sometimes unintentionally, communicates that certain Scriptures are not that important. Not only are they less important, they are less inspired. Yet to be less than inspired is to be less than perfect and no longer trustworthy. If any Scripture is from God, it must be perfect or it is not from Him. If it is perfect, it must be inspired.
Fundamentally, this perspective misses a crucial theological distinction. Inspiration deals with the fact that God oversaw the composition and compilation of the Bible—it is all as He wanted it to be. It’s true that various passages are more or less relevant; we must own that if we are honest about the content of Scripture. But that variance does not mean the less relevant portions are any less the Word of God.3 “Actually, degree inspiration confuses the illegitimate idea that there exist degrees of inspiration with the legitimate recognition of the variety of relevance of different parts of the totally inspired Bible.”4
So, is the Bible inspired in degrees? No. It is all fully inspired. Yes, we connect more fully with certain passages, yet all of it must be taken as the Word of God.
Concept Inspiration
Concept Inspiration acknowledges that all of the Bible is inspired, but it only extends that inspiration to the concepts. That is, the thoughts are divinely inspired, but God left the men to record those thoughts in words. This view is somewhat attractive, since it neatly divides the divine from the human. It seems to be a reaction against Mechanical Inspiration, which makes God the penman and man the pen.5 Concept Inspiration cleanly separates God and man in inspiration—God gives the ideas but allows the writer to record them as he sees fit. Thus the tension is resolved.
But this doesn’t stand rationally or biblically. The obvious hold up on this view is that concepts are conveyed through words. We cannot have inspired concepts recorded in uninspired words and expect inspired truth to be rightly communicated. The inspiration must include the words themselves, or Scripture is not truly inspired. “How are thoughts expressed? Through words. Change the words and you have changed the concepts. You cannot separate the two. In order for concepts to be inspired, it is imperative that the words that express them be also.”
Scripture also disagrees with Degree Inspiration. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 2:13, says, “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” If his spoken words were inspired by the Spirit, how much more his written words! And 2 Timothy 3:16 is again helpful—all Scripture is inspired. Can that “all” be understood to mean anything but the entire message, including the words? Concept Inspiration, while attractive, simply doesn’t fit what Scripture says.
Barthian Inspiration
While Karl Barth was not the first to hold this view, it has come to carry his name.6 Barthian Inspiration says that the Bible contains the Word of God, but is not itself the Word of God. It is a human book that God makes His Word at the moment of personal encounter.7 This view says we need to strip away the mythical, mystical, supernatural, and erroneous to discover Christ beneath it all. This gets rather confusing (as most misguided teaching does). Charles Ryrie explains:
For the Barthian, revelation centers in Jesus Christ. If He is the center of the circle of revelation, then the Bible stands on the periphery of that circle. Jesus Christ is the Word; but the Bible serves as a witness to the Word, Christ. The Bible’s witness to the Word is uneven; that is, some parts of it are more important in their witness than other parts. The important parts are the ones that witness about Christ. Nevertheless, such parts, though important, are not necessarily accurate. Indeed, Barthians embrace the conclusion…that there are errors in the Gospels.8
The Barthians are correct: Jesus is the true Word. Where they get it wrong is where they make the Word a supporting (and somewhat optional) witness to Christ. According to them, we know the person Christ apart from the Word. The Word helps us along the way, but it is not the source of a right relationship with Christ.
But Scripture is not just an accessory in our relationship with Christ, it is the sole means through which we can know Christ. Yes, God works in us, but He uses His Word to draw us to Christ. This is why the Living Word (Jesus) and the Written Word (the Bible) are so inseparably linked in John 1. The Bible is about Christ; we know Christ through the Word. We must have the Word, or we may not truly have Christ. And, for the Word to be trustworthy about Christ, it must be trustworthy in all things.
- These views are compiled from: Charles C. Ryrie, Systematic Theology, 83-86 and Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, 63-65.
- Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 64.
- H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology, vol. 1, (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1940), 171.
- Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1999), 84.
- Ryrie, Basic Theology, 85.
- Ibid.
- Theissen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, 64.
- Ryrie, Basic Theology, 85.