A Contemporary Understanding of the Bible - Part 2: Divine Inspiration

 

A Contemporary Understanding of the Bible

Part 2 - Divine Inspiration

Series Information

• Understanding the Bible, Part 1 - Special Revelation

• Understanding the Bible, Part 2 - Divine Inspiration

• Understanding the Bible, Part 3 - Let's Talk About Trans, Gays...

• Understanding the Bible, Part 4 - Jesus' Renewed Command

Since part one started a discussion of divine inspiration let's give it more of a formal flair so that we have several common basis between one another: my own and then what tradition has stated... which may not be two separate things. Like I said, I've extended the idea of divine inspiration to be both divine and always and to everyone. By doing this I've taken the specialness out of special revelation and have extended everywhere all-at-one to everyone and everything. Why can I say this?

First of all, its how a loving God works. Whatever God creates is created in love and with God's own special touch of individuality. Creation is a love-product set in motion by processual evolution. That is, an evolution that lumps along trying new things driven by its Creator towards uniqueness, evolvement, survivability, strife against things which don't work, and protecting itself against that which would undo it. 

Individuality works this way. But its intention has always been towards generative survivability and valuative co-existence. Death and sin have torn its original purposes apart... lending more obstacles to the path of divine creation.

Secondly, God placed God's very self into creation. Not in a pantheistic sense but in a pan-en-theistic sense. The first says God is the World and indistinguishable from the World. The second says, God is IN the World but MORE THAN the World. It is this second sense of panentheism that a process theology will drive towards.

Within this sense is the idea of an "Organic pan-relationalism" to all of Creation wherein the Creator has left his/her/it's DNA within the genomes of creation. So in a sense, as evolution evolves God is evolving with it as a living dynamic force within and alongside and throughout another living dynamic force. One is God and the other is Creation. God's love, freedom, individuality, relational sense of Self and Being, of evolving, of Becoming WITH creation and not simply as an indifferent, static divine force apart, over, transcendent to creation.

Panentheism leans into the immanent side of transcendence without denying transcendence it says such an idea is meaningless to creation though a convenient tool of the philosopher's and preachers. If God were all transcendent without being near then there is no reason for worship, communion in community, or life purpose. Creation's identity - our identity - has been removed from us and there is no value, no reason, no moorings to hold onto. We're on our own.

Note the difference of pan-en-theism vs. pan-theism: they are not the same.

Panentheism says we are not alone, or, on our own. Our Creator who could be far is near. God has shown this repeatedly to creation time and again. From it's instantiating act (for me, it's the Big Bang; for others, its Adam and Eve), to God's commune with a variety of people throughout the biblical page, to our own narratives (or, sadly, non-narratives), to Jesus God's-Self. Our Creator is near. God is immanent. God is the other side of far... God is WITH us. Which is what the name "Immanuel" is all about when describing Jesus as Immanuel who is with us who has come.

God is never away, vacationing, uninterested, far off, or having abandoned us. God is near, now, always and forever with us. Those times God is not is because we have not learned to see, to open ourselves up to the possibility that God loves me and is with me at all times in my life. The Christian faith is but a reflection of this reality. A process Christian faith says it is true and declares why this is true.

A process faith also recognizes that like God, creation is relational. Creatively relational. It is continually in the process of evolving, intermixing within itself, affecting itself and it's outcomes. Creation is an organic, evolving, relationality. The universe is ALIVE to itself and highly responsive within itself. If a hurricane destroys then by act of its relationality, a hurricane will affect all around it. Good acts or evil acts carry with them highly dynamic, creative acts of relationality with cause and effect upon itself.

Thus climate change. Thus the need for earth restoration. Thus the need for societal communions of peace and cooperation with one another. And thus my recommendation in the last post of the book, "We Really Do Need One Another" by Reuben Welch. A dynamic universe, an evolving world, or even a God whose Being is evolving with us in the becoming sense of Being, are realities.

amazon link

link

More simply, we, as becoming beings, are also "evolving" in the many senses of evolving - physically, emotionally, reflectively, spiritually, etc. LIFE is about evolving. It is always moving and reacting, creating and affecting all else around it. From the lowly ant to the air around us. From our precious children to our wife and families nearby. Life is not one thing. It is not a static, unmoved thing. Life is always in an organic dynamism as it's Creator-God's Being is.

Surely, God's love never changes but God's experience of God's creation changes with it from moment to moment. Forget unhelpful words like divine sovereignty, divine impassability, divine determining and ruling. Remember more helpful words like divine love, divine nearness, divine compassion. God doesn't need to rule what God is a deeply embedded part of.

The Platonic doctrines of the church are philosophical arguments trying to make sense of good and evil. Such theodicies have distanced us to God's immanent, intrinsic, all-around-and-about energizing and embeddedness of God's Self everywhere, in every moment, in all conditions, times, inconveniences, etc. God is HERE. Amen!

And God being HERE... WITH us... makes all the difference to those of us struggling to hang on, survive one moment to the next, make sense of a senseless world. A world where harm and disaster are moments away. A processual panentheism simply says God is with us always, loves us always, and as a SPIRIT needs hands and feet, voices, minds, and hearts to minister God's grace and forgiveness to us. Without those people (and perhaps creation itself, as I can attest) God becomes the classic equation of a distant Platonic church philosophy, itself trying to make sense of the world about it.

Thus concludes Part 2 of divine inspiration. More simply stated. God is with us in love, compassion, faith, goodwill, justice (as it can be should others stand up around us for it), and very creation itself when not going mad by floods, winds, draughts, disease, and so forth. Divine inspiration is how one sees the world with God in it. It is neither special nor intended for special people. It is always special and always intended for all people - especially the unspecial people we neglect, ignore, or pass over in our minds and hearts and souls.

Part 3 will continue this discussion in a contemporary understanding of the bible...

Till then, Peace and Blessings be ever yours,

R.E. Slater

October 1, 2022

* * * * * *

Divine inspiration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Divine inspiration is the concept of a supernatural force, typically a deity, causing a person or people to experience a creative desire. It has been a commonly reported aspect of many religions, for thousands of years. Divine inspiration is often closely tied to the concept of revelation, the belief in information being revealed or disclosed through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities.

Examples

Besides ancient mythology, the religious texts of traditions including Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and the Baháʼí Faith are all claimed to be divinely inspired to some degree.

• Ancient Mesopotamia: In the Mesopotamian epic Atra-Hasis, the writer describes his work as dictated by the Goddess in a dream-vision.
• Ancient Greece: The ancient Greek muses were said to be supernatural forces that gave artists their skill, while the Ancient Greek oracles were said to be subject to supernatural forces.
• Hinduism: Music has historically been considered a medium through which performers can become a vehicle for divine inspiration.^[1] The goddess Saraswati is also sometimes invoked for assistance with inspiration.^[2]
• Judaism and Christianity: Both religions claim Biblical inspiration for the parts of the Bible to which they adhere.
• Islam: Muslims believe the Quran was verbally revealed by God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel (Jibril),^[3][4]

Plato’s manias

Plato distinguishes four kinds of inspiration or "mania" in the dialogue Phaedrus. The word "mania" signifying that a person is caught up in a state transcending the individual consciousness. In other dialogues, Plato identifies other manias besides the four given in Phaedrus. Anger, for example, is a mania because a man may become inspired by Mars in battle and perform deeds of superhuman strength. The four given in Phaedrus, however, are called Divine as they are the inspirations which perfect the soul.^[5]

1. Poetic or Musical, inspired by The Muses, brings the disordered parts of the soul into harmony.
2. Telestic, inspired by Dionysus, purifies the soul and returns it to its ideal state of perfection and wholeness.
3. Prophetic, inspired by Apollo, concentrates the soul to a unity.
4. Amatory, inspired by Eros, conjoins the unified soul to the gods and to intelligible Beauty, effecting divine union.

See also

• Afflatus, Cicero's understanding of divine inspiration
• Artistic inspiration, sudden creativity in artistic production
• Biblical inspiration, the doctrine in Judeo-Christian theology concerned with the divine origin of the Bible
• Ilham, Islamic concept of inspiration
• Muse, mythological source of artistic knowledge
• Tanzil
• Waḥy

References

1. ^ Sullivan, Bruce M. (1997). Historical Dictionary of Hinduism. Scarecrow Press. p. 143. ISBN 9780810833272.
2. ^ Asiatic Researches at Google Books, - History and Antiquities, the Arts, Sciences and Literature of Asia, Volume 3, London, pages 272-273
3. ^ Lambert, Gray (2013). The Leaders Are Coming!. WestBow Press. p. 287. ISBN 9781449760137.
4. ^ Roy H. Williams; Michael R. Drew (2012). Pendulum: How Past Generations Shape Our Present and Predict Our Future. Vanguard Press. p. 143. ISBN 9781593157067.
5. ^ Shrine of Wisdom, "Plato and the Four Inspirations", in 3 parts, Vol 29 & 30 (1926), Vol 31 (1927)

* * * * * *

Biblical inspiration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rembrandt's The Evangelist Matthew Inspired by an Angel (1661)

Biblical inspiration is the doctrine in Christian theology that the human writers and canonizers of the Bible were led by God with the result that their writings may be designated in some sense the word of God.^[1] This belief is traditionally associated with concepts of the biblical infallibility and the internal consistency of the Bible.^[2]

Etymology

The word "inspiration" comes from the Latin noun inspiratio and from the verb inspirare. Inspirare is a compound term resulting from the Latin prefix in (inside, into) and the verb spirare (to breathe). (See inspiro.) Inspirare meant originally "to blow into", as for example in the sentence of the Roman poet Ovid: "conchae [...] sonanti inspirare iubet"[3] ("he orders to blow into the resonant [...] shell"). In classic Roman times, inspirare had already come to mean "to breathe deeply" and assumed also the figurative sense of "to instill [something] in the heart or in the mind of someone".

When Jerome translated the Greek text of the Bible into the language of the common people of Latium (the region of central western Italy in which the city of Rome is located; see Vulgate), he translated the Greek theopneustos as divinitus inspirata ("divinely breathed into").[4] In Christian theology, the Latin word inspirare was already used by some Church Fathers in the first centuries to translate the Greek term pnéo.

The Church Fathers often referred to writings other than the documents that formed or would form the biblical canon as "inspired".[5] Some modern English translations opt for "God-breathed" (NIV) or "breathed out by God" (ESV) and avoid "inspiration" altogether, since its most literal meaning (and etymology), unlike its Latin root, leans toward breathing out instead of breathing in. The -tos ending in the Greek theopneustos also designates a passive construct whereby the subject God is breathing out the object (scripture).

Writers' internal claims

At 2 Tim 3:16-17 (NRSV), the Bible alleges that "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching" etc. Others offer an alternative reading for the passage; for example, theologian C. H. Dodd suggests that it "is probably to be rendered" as: "Every inspired Scripture is also useful".^[6] With regard to misplacing the "is", Daniel B. Wallace calls this alternative "probably not the best translation."^[7]

Evangelical viewpoint

Evangelicals view the Bible as superintended by the Holy Spirit, preserving the writers' works from error without eliminating their specific concerns, situation, or style.^[8] This divine involvement, they say, allowed the biblical writers to communicate without corrupting God's own message both to the immediate recipients of the writings and to those who would come after. Some Evangelicals have labelled the conservative or traditional view as "verbal, plenary inspiration of the original manuscripts", by which they mean that each word (not just the overarching ideas or concepts) was meaningfully chosen under the superintendence of God.^[9]

Evangelicals acknowledge the existence of textual variations between biblical accounts of apparently identical events and speeches. They see these as complementary, not contradictory, and explain them as the differing viewpoints of different writers. For instance, the Gospel of Matthew was intended to communicate the Gospel to Jews, the Gospel of Luke to Greeks, and the Gospel of Mark to Romans. Evangelical apologists such as John W. Haley in his book Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible^[10] and Norman Geisler in When Critics Ask^[11] have proposed answers to hundreds of claimed contradictions. Some discrepancies are accounted for by changes from the master manuscripts (which are alleged to contain very nearly the original text and) that these alterations were introduced as copies were made (maybe of copies themselves), either deliberately or accidentally.

Many Evangelicals consider biblical inerrancy or biblical infallibility to be the necessary consequence of the Bible's doctrine of inspiration (see, for example, the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy).

Three basic approaches to inspiration are often described when the evangelical approach to scripture is discussed:^[12]: 239

• Verbal plenary inspiration: This view gives a greater role to the human writers of the Bible while maintaining a belief that God preserved the integrity of the words of the Bible. The effect of inspiration was to move the writers so as to produce the words God wanted.^[12] In this view the human writers' "individual backgrounds, personal traits, and literary styles were authentically theirs, but had been providentially prepared by God for use as his instrument in producing Scripture."^[13] However, the theory nuances that "God so mysteriously superintended the process that every word written was also the exact word he wanted to be written—free from all error."^[14]
• Verbal dictation theory: The dictation theory claims that God dictated the books of the Bible word by word, suggesting the writers were no more than tools used to communicate God's precisely intended message.^[12]
• Dynamic inspiration: The thoughts contained in the Bible are inspired, but the words used were left to the individual writers.^[12] This suggests the underlying message of the Scriptures are inspired, while the exact wording is dynamic.
• Partial inspiration: the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and practice/morals, yet it could have errors in history or science (e.g. the Big Bang could be true, and the Genesis creation account is more allegorical than historical).^[15]
• Intuition theory: The authors of the Scriptures were merely wise men, so the Bible is inspired by human insight.^[15]

Theories seeing only parts of the Bible as inspired ("partial inspiration")^[16] meet with insistent emphasis on plenary inspiration on the part of its proponents.

Critical viewpoint

The New American Commentary by T.D. Lea and H.P. Griffen says, "[n]o respected Evangelicals maintain that God dictated the words of Scripture."^[12] By this, Lea & Griffen were referring to the entirety of the Scriptures, i.e. every single word in the Bible. Lea & Griffen meant that they advocated verbal plenary inspiration as fact, instead of the verbal dictation theory.

The Evangelical position was criticized as being circular by an anonymous Catholic author, who accepted the doctrine of biblical inspiration. This author claimed that the Bible can only be used to prove doctrines of biblical inspiration if the doctrine is assumed to begin with.^[17] Some defenders of the evangelical doctrine such as B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge, however, moved away from a circular argument and "committed themselves to the legitimacy of external verification" to inductively prove the doctrine, though they placed some restrictions on the evidences that could be considered.^[18]

Lutheran and Reformed viewpoint

As Lutherans confess in the Nicene Creed, the Holy Spirit "spoke through the prophets". The Apology of the Augsburg Confession identifies Holy Scripture with the Word of God^[19] and calls the Holy Spirit the author of the Bible.^[20]

According to Frederic Farrar, Martin Luther did not understand inspiration to mean that the scriptures were dictated in a purely mechanical manner. Instead, Luther "held that they were not dictated by the Holy Spirit, but that His illumination produced in the minds of their writers the knowledge of salvation, so that divine truth had been expressed in human form, and the knowledge of God had become a personal possession of man. The actual writing was a human not a supernatural act."^[21] John Calvin also rejected the verbal dictation theory.^[22]

Luther asserted that "He [the pious Christian] should not doubt that however simple they [the Scriptures] may seem, these are the very words, deeds, judgments, and history of the high majesty and wisdom of God; for this is the Scripture which makes fools out of all the wise".^[23]

The doctrine of sola scriptura was one of the central teachings during the Protestant Reformation. It teaches that the Bible is the final authority for moral, spiritual, and for some, civil matters. As Luther said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so."^[24]

Catholic viewpoint

Hildegard of Bingen receiving divine inspiration (illustration in the Rupertsberger Codex, c. 1180)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church alleges that the Bible's human writers were "consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."^[25] The Catechism also claims that the Bible is "without error".^[26] The Catholic Church holds the Bible as inspired by God, but that it does not view God as the direct author of the Bible, in the sense that he does not put a 'ready-made' book in the mind of the inspired person.^[27]

Pope Benedict XVI gave the following (non-dogmatic) explanation in 2007:

The Scripture emerged from within the heart of a living subject — the pilgrim people of God — and lives within this same subject. ...[T]he individual author or group of authors ... are not autonomous ... they form part of ... the "people of God," ... the deeper "author" of the Scriptures. ...[L]ikewise, this people ... knows that it is led, and spoken to, by God himself, who — through men and their humanity — is at the deepest level the one speaking. ^[28]

The Catholic view of biblical inspiration stems from the belief in the historical authenticity of the foundation of an infallible inchurch, and Jesus' grant of teaching authority to that church through his apostles. Because the church designated the canon through its tradition, its authority to identify the inspired books is accepted, rather than any self-contained or inherent claims of the Scriptures themselves.^[17][29][27]

Modern Christian viewpoint

The typical view within Liberal Christianity and Progressive Christianity rejects the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired. Some advocates of higher criticism who espouse this view even go so far as to regard the Bible as purely a product of human invention. However, most form critics, such as Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) and Walter Brueggemann (1933- ), still regard the Bible as a sacred text, just not a text that communicates the unaltered word of God.^[30] They see it instead as true, divinely inspired theology mixed with foreign elements that can sometimes be inconsistent with the overarching messages found in Scripture and that have discernible roots in history, mythology, or ancient cultic practices.

Neo-orthodox viewpoint

Emil Brunner (1889-1966) was one of the primary advocates of Neo-othodoxy. He wrote, "[T]he Christian Church believes the Bible to be the Word of God" & "Christian faith is Bible faith."^[31] He also wrote, "Yes, God has made known the secret of His will through the Prophets and Apostles in the Holy Scriptures."^[32] Brunner rhetorically asked, "Is the whole Bible God's Word then?" Brunner answered, "Yes, insofar as it speaks of that which is 'here' in Christ."^[33] It goes without saying that presently some, but not all copies & translations contain errors. But Brunner's illustration was, "If you buy a phonograph record you are told that you will hear the Master Caruso. Is that true? Of course! But really his voice? Certainly!" Brunner kept emphatically writing, "[T]he Bible[...] makes the real Master's voice audible,—really his voice, his words, what he wants to say. Men's personalities can be discerned in Bible, just as Brunner wrote, "[...] God speaks His Word through the voice of man. Paul, Peter, Isaiah and Moses are such men." Brunner ultimately concludes that, "Only a fool listens to the incidental noises when he might listen to his Master's voice!"^[34]

The Neo-orthodox doctrine of inspiration views the Bible as "the words of God". This view was a reaction to the Modernist doctrine, which Neo-orthodox proponents argue eroded the value and significance of the Christian faith. Karl Barth (1886-1968) was another one of the primary advocates of Neo-othodoxy.

Other viewpoints

A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question."^[35]

See also

• 
  
  

• Biblical infallibility
• Internal consistency of the Bible
• General revelation
• Progressive revelation (Christianity)
• Thought inspiration
• Verbum Domini - apostolic exhortation of the Pope Benedict XVI.

References

1. ^ Bruce Manning Metzger; Michael David Coogan (20 December 2001). The Oxford Guide to Ideas & Issues of the Bible. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 216–. ISBN 978-0-19-514917-3.
2. ^ Gerhard Maier: Biblische Hermeneutik (= TVG Monographien und Studienbücher. Band 355). 7. Auflage. R. Brockhaus, Wuppertal 2011, ISBN 978-3-417-29355-5, S. 94.
3. ^ Ovid, Metamorphoses 1, 334.
4. ^ Holmes, Michael (2010). "The Greek New Testament: SBL Ed". Society of Biblical Literature. [...] theopnuestos [...]
5. ^ Metzger, Bruce (1987). The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance. New York: Oxford University. p. 270. ISBN 978-0-19-826180-3.
6. ^ Dodd, Charles Harold (1929). The Authority of the Bible. Library of constructive theology. London: Harper and Brothers. p. 15. ISBN 0-00-625195-1. OCLC 559048103.
7. ^ Daniel B. Wallace (1996). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. pp. 313–314. ISBN 0-310-21895-0. Many scholars feel that the translation should be: 'Every inspired scripture is also profitable.' This is probably not the best translation, however, for the following reasons: (1) Contextually [...] (2) Grammatically [...]
8. ^ Ryrie, C.C. (1972). A survey of Bible doctrines. Chicago IL: Moody.
9. ^ Young, Edward Joseph (1957). Thy Word Is Truth. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans. p. 27.
10. ^ Haley, John W (1874). Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. W.F. Draper.
11. ^ Geisler, Norman (1992). When Critics Ask. Wheaton IL: Victor Books. p. 604. ISBN 0896936988. Archived from the original on 2017-03-05.
12. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Lea, Thomas Dale; Griffin, Jr., Hayne Preston (1992). The New American Commentary (1, 2 Timothy, Titus), VOL. 34. Nashville TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers. ISBN 0805401342.
13. ^ Myers, A.C. (1987). "Inspiration". Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans. p. 27.
14. ^ Plummer, Robert L. (2010). 40 questions about interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids MI: Kregel Publications. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-8254-3498-3. OCLC 435422984.
15. ^ Jump up to:^a b Huffman, Justin (July 18, 2017). "The Inspiration of Scripture". Baptist Bible Hour.
16. ^ For example: Elwell, Walter A., ed. (1984). "Verbal Inspiration". Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker Reference Library (2 ed.). Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic (published 2001). p. 1242. ISBN 9780801020759. Retrieved 2017-08-29. The spirit of the Renaissance, developments in philology and textual criticism, the emergence of ideas of the partial inspiration of the Bible in some quarters, and the initial expression of philosophical views that would find their culmination in the Enlightenment - all helped to stimulate theological reflection. And the refinement of plenary and then verbal inspiration were among the consequences.
17. ^ Jump up to:^a b Brom, Robert Henry; Carr, Bernadeane; Keating, Karl, eds. (August 10, 2004). "[Tract] Proving Inspiration". Catholic Answers [Magazine]. When Brom was Bishop of San Diego, he gave his official imprimatur to this tract. Before she retired from being Director of the Diocesan Institute, Ms. Carr gave her official nihil obstat to this tract. Keating was the founder of the Catholic group behind this magazine. Any anonymous author can submit a piece.
18. ^ Coleman, Richard J. (January 1975). "Biblical Inerrancy: Are We Going Anywhere?". Theology Today. 31 (4): 295–303. doi:10.1177/004057367503100404. OCLC 60620600. S2CID 170389190. Archived from the original on 2002-05-03. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
19. ^ "God's Word, or Holy Scripture" is a phrase in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. II: "Of Original Sin"
20. ^ "the Scripture of the Holy Ghost". Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Greeting, ¶ 9
21. ^ Farrar, F. W. (1886). History of interpretation. London: Macmillan and Co. p. 339.
22. ^ Farrar, F. W. (1886). History of interpretation. London: Macmillan and Co. p. 345.
23. ^ Hannah, John D. (1984). Inerrancy and the Church (PDF). The University of Michigan: Moody Publishers. p. 113. ISBN 9780802403278.
24. ^ Martin Luther, Smalcald Articles II, 15.
25. ^ "Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture, §106". The Vatican. 4 Nov 2003 [1993].
26. ^ "Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture, §107". The Vatican. 4 Nov 2003 [1993].
27. ^ Jump up to:^a b Durand, Alfred (1910). "Inspiration of the Bible". The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
28. ^ Ratzinger, Joseph (2007). Jesus of Nazareth. Translated by A. J. Walker. London: Bloomsbury. p. xx.
29. ^ "Scripture and Tradition". Catholic Answers. 19 November 2018.
30. ^ Walter Brueggemann; William Carl Placher; Brian K. Blount (1 January 2002). Struggling with Scripture. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 7–. ISBN 978-0-664-22485-1.
31. ^ Brunner, Emil. Our Faith. Chapter 2. Is the Bible the word of God?. p. 7.
32. ^ Brunner, Emil. Our Faith. Chapter 2. Is the Bible the word of God?. p. 8.
33. ^ Brunner, Emil. Our Faith. Chapter 2. Is the Bible the word of God?. p. 9.
34. ^ Brunner, Emil. Our Faith. Chapter 2. Is the Bible the word of God?. p. 10.
35. ^ Jones, Jeffrey M. (July 8, 2011). "In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally". Gallup.

Bibliography

• Warfield, B. B. (1977 reprint). Inspiration and Authority of Bible, with a lengthy introductory essay by Cornelius Van Til. ISBN 0-8010-9586-7.
• Sproul, R. C. Hath God Said? (Video series).
• Geisler, Norman, ed. (1980). Inerrancy. ISBN 0-310-39281-0.
• Dodd, Charles Harold (1929). The Authority of the Bible. Library of constructive theology. London: Harper and Brothers. p. 15. ISBN 0-00-625195-1. OCLC 559048103.

Further reading

• Chafer, Lewis Sperry (1993) [1947]. "Inspiration". Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Kregel. pp. 61–88. ISBN 978-0-8254-2340-6.

External links

• "The Authority & Inspiration of the Scriptures" by B. B. Warfield
• "God-Inspired Scripture" by B. B. Warfield
• The Inspiration Of Scripture by Loraine Boettner
• The Divine Inspiration of the Bible by Arthur Pink
• "The Protestant Rule of Faith", chapter 6 of the introduction from Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology, which argues for the traditional doctrine over and against the Modernist doctrine.
• Bibliography for and on-line articles about inspiration
• Scholarly articles on Biblical Inspiration from the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Library
• Catholic Encyclopedia, Modernism
• Ten reasons why I believe the Bible is The Word of God by Reuben Archer Torrey (on Scribd or) on Kindle for $1.99.

A Contemporary Understanding of the Bible - Part 1: Special Revelation

A Contemporary Understanding of the Bible

Part 1 - Special Revelation

Series Information

• Understanding the Bible, Part 1 - Special Revelation

• Understanding the Bible, Part 2 - Divine Inspiration

• Understanding the Bible, Part 3 - Let's Talk About Trans, Gays...

• Understanding the Bible, Part 4 - Jesus' Renewed Command

It has taken me awhile to get here but it makes the most sense to me now then when I was younger believing the system I was in was correct. Because I went through a necessary time of "doubt and uncertainty" I was able to let go of all my traditions to reform my training and beliefs to be more in line with what I regard as a "contemporary understanding of the bible".

This short article then is written for the "Nones and Dones" and contemporary Christians seeking a better way to read the bible than in the current literal fashion it is being read now by those making conclusions on such readings and acting un-Christianly / unlovingly towards those in the world and in the church who are confused by all the hate and bullying, oppression and incivility towards them. Especially by those professing Jesus as their Lord and Savior but showing none of Jesus' love and compassion.

An Extended Definition of Divine Inspiration

First up, I was taught that special revelation occurred to only those whom God selected. My tradition called this "divine inspiration". This, as opposed to natural revelation from creation in its different manners and illustrations.

As an aside, at Relevancy22, as I explore, expand, and deepen my understanding of process philosophical theology I am working with both special and natural revelation. The first re the bible and God's LOGOS / WORD as my tradition names it; and the latter with all the sciences and academia. Thus my forays into process evolution, the process quantum sciences, social and economic sciences, forms of process-based government such as process ecological societies, and etc.

Now, by extension, I've reconsidered my thoughts about special revelation along these several lines:

1A. The idea of "special" is not as "special" as I was taught. God is in the business of communication to as many people as he can. If that is so, then there are "savants" out in our communities and global societies who, like a musical tuning fork, sense this Spirit, or "spirit-ual" revelation of sorts to paint, sculpt, preach, lead, form, and create from God his LIVING Word in as many flavors, tellings, and fashions as they can. From the adult to the child, from the specialist to the businessman, from the plumber to the bum on the streets. There are human savants who are driven - or burdened - to speak of this "divine" inspiration driving their souls.

1B. Not all "savants" are hearing completely. Because of their backgrounds, heritages, traditions, and predialections, these internal inklings can and will become confused with other drivings, urges, and beliefs. The trick is to help each "listener" to a more complete idea and dynamism of their insights. Here, the simplest I can preach is to always let one's work be driven by love and humanitarianism. If one's burden doesn't lift the oppressions off the shoulders of people carry the burdens of racisms, poverty, invisibility, etc, than such "special revelations" are in the end worthless, un-divine, non-spiritual healing balms to society or one's immediate friends and family. They are simply discourses in frivolity.

2. Now let's consider the case of the "rest of us" such as myself and everyone whom I know. We are each trying in our own way to become more whole and more-wholly live in this world of ours. We have lots of failures. Lots of attempts. And lots of inspirations - whether from TV, the movies, sports, addictions, hobbies, friends, the pulpit, or wherever. This is "inspiration" for the rest of us. Generally, the rule here is several: learn to love ourselves but not inordinately as some do; learn to love those around us who are loveable and save the harder, unlovable types for later (toxic family members, work situations, friends, etc); and learn to love and appreciate life as it comes to you in whatever difficulty, disaster, or suffering. We live in an imperfect world marred by a basic fallenness we call sin. Life is hard. Love makes it easier (and be careful with words like "hope" and "expectations").

Conclusion # 1 re Divine Inspiration

The BIG idea here is that God's "special revelation" which we call "divine inspiration" is simply for all of us. Some hear it better than others. Some can not. Some here parts of it. Some will here more of it. That it comes through the most unexpected lives at the most unexpected times... usually times when we are in places to hear and listen better than we have been in our lives.

Secondly, to no surprise but my own when having to deconstruct and resort my tradition and beliefs... God's message is love, hope, healing, and forgiveness. If we read the bible closely it's tenor, or thematic motifs, all center on these words. Words which we describe as atoning forgiveness, personal penitence and repentance, redeeming redemption in its many forms, and a live become more turbulent because God is calling out to us to let go of our hates and give in to love.

Thirdly, I personally do not subscribe to personal (sexual) humiliations, bodily beatings and chastities, monkish type practices, bodily starvations, or ritualised practices of such. The way to receive and give back divine love is simply to i) learn to love yourself, ii) learn to love others, iii) learn to love God not in ritual but, as you can, in whatever ways this may be done.

1 John 4:19-20 (NASB)

19 We love, because He first loved us. 20 If someone says, “I love God,” and yet he hates his brother or sister, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother and sister whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

Since I stated this would be a short article I will leave with this gem. Many years ago I read Reuben Welch's little thin book titled "We Really Do Need Each Other." Surprisingly, I found it to be a very easy and critical study of the much neglected book, I John [ahem, 1,2,3 John, Jude and Revelation... THAT 1 John :) :) ]. It's simplicity changed by life and was the beginning of the end of my beliefs and traditions which taught me its theologies, bible verses, and convictions. Love will do that though. Especially divine love when it comes in so many ways, forms and fashions. So I will pass this precious reading along to you and hope it makes Jesus more alive than the Gospels have left him in our imaginations and biblical theology studies.

I'll see you in Part 2 of this article...

Peace,

R.E.Slater

October 1, 2022

Amazon link

Reviewer Comments

• The layout in this book is one of the most interesting books I have ever seen and you will read it again and again.

• It is a wonderful, yet short, description of what love is and what it should be.

• Not many people seem to know about Reuben Welch, a Christian writer whose humor and tender heart make his book a wonderful, poignant call to Christian action. His illustrations of how we Christians often dump someone hurting until they've shaped up is convicting. Who have I done that to, since I know people who've dumped me because of my baggage? Welch makes me think more deeply about the grace of Christ, and the kindness I, in attempting to reflect his character, can show to others. Having the text written in a poetry layout can be distracting for some, but I found it slowed me down to think about the phrases he emphasizes by placing them alone, separate from a paragraph. Welch's matter-of-fact style, and obvious love of the Lord make this a wonderful read.

 

Was Jesus Conservative or Progressive in His Faith?

Who is the Founder of Progressive Christianity?

article link

by James F. McGrath

July 16, 2022

Rather than give “Jesus” as a one-word answer to the question of who founded progressive Christianity, let me begin with a quote from something I wrote here on my Patheos blog some years ago which makes that same point but in more words and with more detail, which those who are skeptical of my assertion will need if they are to be persuaded:

If “liberal Christianity” means Christianity that reflects the cosmology and worldview of a particular era, then the earliest Christianity is liberal Christianity. It is only later, as cosmologies and worldviews changed, that some insisted on clinging to the views of an earlier era, because those happened to be part of the worldview of previous generations of Christians, including the Bible’s authors. That is why “conservative” Christianity ends up being a very radical departure from earliest Christianity, even in the process of fighting to try to keep the same worldview as they had to the minimal extent that that is even possible. By making the assumptions of prior generations into articles of faith, they stand against and not with the approach of the earliest Christians, even while claiming to defend their specific beliefs.

Let me immediately add that it may not be helpful to speak of Jesus as the “founder” of Christianity, as though he was seeking to start a new world religion. Jesus, like most “founders” of new religions, did not intend to do so but was instead a reformer within his own religion, Judaism. The process of getting from there to here reflects the progressiveness of Jesus that I’ll be seeking to highlight here. My point is that, to the extent that progressive Christianity has a beginning, that beginning is with Jesus and has continued unabated ever since.

---

Everyone is more progressive or liberal than some people and less so than others. Progressive and liberal are tendencies along a spectrum and not absolute binary categories. In the case of Jesus, can anyone really deny that he was open to taking things in a new direction, to innovation and change? He taught his followers to do the same. This doesn’t mean that there weren’t elements in which Jesus was conservative, just as is true of his progressive followers today. Many progressives are also interested in getting back behind developments in doctrine and institutional structures to a simplicity they associate with Jesus and his first disciples. That’s very Protestant, and in one sense is inherently conservative. 

Those who are defined as conservatives today often claim to be doing (or at least trying to do) the same thing. But those who are most often labeled conservative are seeking to go back to the supposed original beliefs and practices of Christians and to replicate them irrespective of the changes that have taken place since then and the differences between our own context and that in which Christianity first arose.

Progressives, on the other hand, seek to implement in our time the same openness, the same guiding principles, that Jesus emphasized. Just as he was open to recognizing genuine and even superior faith among those who tended to be defined out of the people of God in his time (Matthew 8:10), today’s progressive Christians seek to do likewise. As Jesus envisaged Gentiles coming to the messianic banquet to dine alongside the Israelite Patriarchs (Matthew 8:11), Paul and others went against the clear teaching of Genesis which required the circumcision of all who were part of Abraham’s household. Instead these Christians insisted (over against the conservative Christians of their own time) that if God had shown that uncircumcised Gentiles are accepted by pouring out the Holy Spirit on them, circumcision must not be essential (Galatians 3:2-5).

As I have said here on my blog before, “Conservative Christians often claim to be the most faithful interpreters of Scripture. But it seems to me that if we have ears to hear what the Spirit was saying to the churches down the ages, it will become clear that focusing on written words and using them to argue against what the Spirit is doing often led people to be on the ‘wrong side’ as far as the Bible’s own perspective is concerned. And part of the message of many parts of the Bible is a warning to learn from such mistakes of the past.” Paul did not feel that pointing out “what the Bible says” settled a matter. Neither did Jesus, who famously said that Moses was the one who permitted divorce in scripture but God’s ideal for human beings was lifelong fidelity (Matthew 19:8).

---

Those who wrote the Gospels in Greek were likewise progressive inasmuch as they cared less about preserving the exact words of Jesus in his native tongue Aramaic, than they did about communicating the core of his message as they understood it to as wide an audience as possible, which meant writing in Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Early Christian apologists like Justin Martyr (the original “apologists” before modern internet debaters sullied the term) stood in this tradition as well, being open to Greek and Roman philosophies and the insights they offered. All through the ages there have been those who have stood in this tradition, and so in that sense there is an unbroken lineage of progressive Christianity that connects Jesus to the present day.

Liberal Protestants closer to our time - such as Martin Luther King Jr. - must also be included. Many conservatives embrace his emphasis on racial equality, completely unaware that he represents a liberal Baptist position. If one reads his essay on the topic of the divinity, virgin birth, and resurrection of Jesus that he wrote while a student at Crozer Theological Seminary, one will find things that reflect the stance of today’s liberal and progressive Christians.

---

Having put matters in those terms let me now pose an important question: Why Switch to Progressive?

I realize that sounds like a slogan in a car insurance ad but that’s not what I mean here, as is hopefully clear from the context.

In the first instance the question is about the terminology (which I confess I don’t find all that helpful). Why do people tend to identify as “progressive” Christians nowadays when a generation ago they tended to use the label “liberal”? 

Progressive doesn’t have a meaning that is clearly distinct from liberal. Moreover, some progressive, or liberal Christians, are theologically conservative but politically liberal, while others are the exact reverse. There’s potential for misunderstanding, to say the least. However, because liberalism reflected a stance that was very modern and shaped by the values of the Enlightenment (just as fundamentalism is shaped by that same context as the flip side of liberalism and a reaction against it), those who have accepted postmodern critiques of liberalism tend to prefer the term “progressive.”

Yet the same openness to new insights (whether from biblical study, history, science, psychology, or anywhere else) characterize the two. Progressive Christianity thus reflects the present-day iteration of a liberal/progressive approach to God, faith, and other human beings that we can trace back as far as the very beginnings of Christianity, to Jesus himself.

---

Hopefully the above makes clear another sense in which I want to answer the question, “Why switch to Progressive?”

Why do I think others should embrace progressive Christianity? Because it reflects the outlook of Jesus and his earliest followers.

Christianity has always been bridging gaps, including outsiders, challenging assumptions, and innovating new beliefs and structures.

Some deny that, and so, rather than speak about progressive Christianity, I’d much rather talk simply about Christianity, or about honest Christianity, one that doesn’t pretend that there is no picking and choosing going on, just a preservation of a faith in static stagnant sameness.

[But], that has never been the case.

The key difference between progressive Christians and conservatives is that progressives acknowledge the fact that we preserve things selectively, that we pick and choose, and that we never fail to experience change. We do not view this process negatively the way conservatives do, even though they participate in the same processes, however much they might try to deny this is so.

That’s the answer in a nutshell.

It could have been briefer, as I indicated at the outset. I could have said “Jesus is the founder of progressive Christianity” and left it at that. But many people today treat conservative forms of Christianity as the default, as though they genuinely represent the classic historic Christian faith. In actual fact they merely preserve a dogmatic rejection of change that arose in that specific form relatively recently in history.

There were conservatives among the earliest Christians, and we read about them because they did things like opposing Paul’s proclamation to Gentiles of a gospel that did not require circumcision. It is ironic that today’s conservatives cite Paul’s letters as authoritative when they represent the stance of Paul’s opponents.

TL; DR: The core of Christianity was progressive from its beginning, and today’s progressives continue that tradition.

Also related to this topic:

• Critical Christianity

• Q Theology, Coup Theology

• Progressive Christians and the Bible

• Why I Am a Progressive Christian

• Conservative is Just a Code Word for “Godlessness”

• Inerrancy: The Hermeneutics of Defending Slavery

• Defining Progressive Christianity

• Progressive Christianity in the Spotlight

• Literalists aren’t Literally Literalists

• Original Christianity is Liberal Christianity

Finally, a couple of memes you can share:

Diana Butler Bass - Understanding Christian Nationalism, Parts 1-3

Vote Common Good is trying to get Pennsylvania voters to understand the dangers of Christian nationalism. https://www.votecommongood.com/penn-live-in-billboards-evangelical-group-urges-faith-voters-to-ditch-support-of-mastriano/

Understanding Christian Nationalism

article link

An invitation to explore the movement shaping American politics

by Diana Butler Bass

September 14, 2022

I got an email this week from a reader letting me know that his adult education group was using the recent Christian nationalism posts from The Cottage as a multi-week study leading up to the fall elections.

What a great idea! Until I read his note, however, I didn’t realize that I’d written a post each month since July on the subject. It certainly wasn’t a planned series. It just happened in conjunction with the news — and the intense interest in the subject of Christian nationalism.

He inspired me to turn the Christian nationalism essays into a three-part discussion curriculum that you can use.

Today’s post links all three of the essays in a single newsletter. I hope this will be helpful to you. Some may want to use these posts as my friend’s congregation is — for others that may be too controversial and you might want to read them in a small group. I do suggest that you engage them with others if possible.

I invite you to re-read them as a group — and with a group. I’ve enclosed some discussion questions for you to think about the ideas presented in each essay as well.

This three-part exploration of Christian nationalism involves terminology, theology, and history. It isn’t exhaustive (there’s much more that can be said), but it is provocative, thoughtful, and timely. And, since the essays are short, you needn’t read an entire book to engage important issues.

Of course, you may agree or disagree with various points and interpretations. That’s expected! Talking about a subject is often a good way toward greater understanding — and moderating fear we might have. Each of these posts comes from my own wrestling with these difficult days.

ESSAY #1: CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM EVERYWHERE?

In this essay, I explore the term “Christian nationalism” and suggest we might need to make finer distinctions in how we define political impulses in white evangelicalism.

Christian Nationalism Everywhere?

In the last few days, the phrase “Christian nationalism” is everywhere. The media is on fire with the term, blaming nearly every ill in American politics on Christian nationalism. I confess: I’m not entirely on board with this. There are ways in which explaining Christian nationalism adds an important dimension to understand the conflicts in American soc…

Read more

2 months ago · 60 comments · Diana Butler Bass

For discussion:

• What do you think about the central claim of this essay? “Both of these things are true: America is not a Christian nation. And the United States was shaped by Protestantism.”

• Why is it important to understand this paradoxical proposition? What might it mean for politics to grasp this history?

* * * * *

ESSAY #2: BAD BLOOOD

In recent weeks, talk of Civil War has skyrocketed. This essay looks at the connection between political conflict and theology that lends itself toward violence. This was one of the most widely read, shared, and discussed posts of the year at The Cottage.

The Cottage - Bad Blood

With the FBI search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, violent rhetoric and threats of an impending Civil War skyrocketed on social media. Ben Collins, disinformation and extremism expert, was all over traditional cable with dire warnings: “There are a lot of Americans right now who are extraordinarily angry. . . They believe this is the end. . . that w…

Read more

a month ago · 90 comments · Diana Butler Bass

For discussion:

• Do you worry that the central claim of Christianity involves blood and violence?

• What do you make of this statement?: “Not every Christian who holds to the theory of blood-atonement is a Christian nationalist, but Christian nationalism depends on this theology and can’t survive without it.”

• How might Christian theology, churches, and preachers address this? Where do you see these ideas in the news? Have you ever considered how bad theology might inspire political violence?

* * * * *

ESSAY #3: BAD HISTORY

Although most political commentators haven’t paid attention, white evangelical politics has been supported by and is twinned with a particular view of providential history. This essay returns to the theme of “Christian nation-ism” vs. “Christian nationalism” and explores it through history.

The Cottage - Bad History

When I reached into a box of books that had been stored, I pulled out a paperback from graduate school. A bit dusty, its pages yellowed with age, with the distinctive smell of old ink and paper, my copy of The Search for Christian America made me wince a little. The edition was dated 1989 — with an inscription “gift from George Marsden, July, 29, 1991” …

Read more

6 days ago · 63 likes · 58 comments · Diana Butler Bass

For discussion:

• What do you make of the popularity of a book like The Light and the Glory?

• And what does it mean that two best-selling histories — The Light and the Glory and A People’s History of the United States — seem to have helped create the political divisions today?

• Why is history so often a contentious subject? Why do people fight over the past? Do you know someone who believes in this providential history?

Public Witness on Substack has been running some very good pieces about Christian nationalism. I particularly appreciated this recent post on Doug Mastriano. I recommend both their newsletter and their news and opinion website, Word and Way.

* * * * *

INSPIRATION

If you understand your own place and its intricacy and the possibility of affection and good care of it, then imaginatively you recognize that possibility for other places and other people. If you wish well to your own place and you recognize that your own place is part of the world, then this requires a well-wishing toward the whole world. In return you hope for the world's well-wishing to your place.

This is a different impulse from the impulse of nationalism. This is what I would call patriotism, the love of a home country that's usually much smaller than a nation. Nationalism always implies competition, always the wish that your nation might thrive even at the expense of other nations. Patriotism is the love of a home place or a home country that recognizes the obligation of charity toward other places and other people, and it recognizes that the prosperity of your place need not come at the expense of the prosperity of other places. There is a generosity, a charity, in what I recognize is the true patriotism, which is not necessarily implied by nationalism.

— Wendell Berry

 

The Cottage is a reader-supported publication. You can sign up to receive The Cottage for free or upgrade to a paid subscription.