Inspired? Taking a look at the evangelical theology of inspiration and deciding if Luke-Acts makes the cut.
Inspiration of Scripture. The very thought of it brings the most impassioned debates to the forefront. This issue has divided churches, gotten professors fired and incited riots (okay, I don’t know of any riots, but it doesn’t seem to be too far fetched). Why is this issue so powerful and divisive? The inspiration of Scripture has historically been at the core of Christian theology and the center of Christian debate. It was debated at Synod of Hippo (393), the Councils at Carthage (397 and 419), and the Council of Trent (1546). It was the first issue addressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1664). And it was the reason for the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). It was a driving force of the Reformation. In the Restoration Movement, it was at the center of two splits (the Disciples of Christ and the United Churches of Christ).
Today, most of the debate revolves around the understanding of two key passages, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21.
“All Scripture is inspired by God [God-breathed in the NIV] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NASB)
“…knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Peter 1:20-21 (ESV)
From what I’ve seen, most “born-again” types understand these verses to mean that God forcibly possessed the various authors of the Bible. While in one breath, they would say the Holy Spirit superintended the process and used the author’s language and culture, in the next, they would say God hand-picked and was the source of each word and the writers were not the source, nor were they compliant with the process. It seems they admit as little humanity in the texts of the Bible as they feel they can get away with.
When teaching on 1 Peter , famed author/speaker John MacArthur says,
“Now these two verses are just loaded with significance with regard to this matter of inspiration. The key word here is the word “moved” in verse 21. “Moved,” carried along, borne along, it’s a word that is used in secular Greek sources to refer to something floating down stream like a leaf. They were literally carried along by the Holy Spirit. The writers of Scripture, the men who wrote the Scripture…and by the way, there are no female writers of Scripture, all 66 books are written by men…so the Spirit of God moved these men along so that they actually spoke from God borne along by the Holy Spirit.”
It seems to be his understanding that the biblical writers were completely passive through the process, almost as though they were in a trance and didn’t know what they were saying. (I also find his aside on women interesting.) It is quite likely Joe six-pack evangelical view inspiration in these very terms.
Let me give you three hypotheticals and see whether they would make the cut under these standards of inspiration.
One. An early Christian writer sits down and dictates letters to a secretary. He even, on occasion allows the secretary to add a personal comment or two to the letters. Inspired?
Two. Early Christians are worried about their favorite Apostle dying and his stories about Jesus not being passed on. As a solution, they ask a scribe to write down the teachings. After it is finished, he shows them to the Apostle who says the writing is good. Inspired?
Three. An early convert to Christianity, who never physically met Jesus, went around talking to eyewitnesses and compiled what they said into a concise account to Jesus’ life. Inspired?
These don’t fit into the typical understanding of “men moved by the Holy Spirit” or “God-breathed.” But, without their inclusion, the New Testament would be short a few Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark (if you trust Eusebius’ account of its composition…I am skeptical, but many evangelical apologists appeal to him…at least when it is convenient) and the Gospel of Luke.
My favorite is Luke. “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus.” Luke 1:1-2 (NASB) The text itself claims to be a massive research project, an ambitious journalistic undertaking.
So, what does this mean? Well, either Luke-Acts doesn’t belong in the cannon or we misunderstand inspiration.
**the text below was not contained in the original post bu was added Wednesday, October 8.**
Let me be clear. I do believe the bible is inspired, accurate and authoritative! It just seems my understanding of what that means and why that is differs from some.
the Bible, theology
| 
1 Peter, 2 Timothy, Coucil of Trent, Councils of Carthage, evangelical, inspiration, John MacArthur, Luke-Acts, Scripture, Synod of Hippo, the Bible, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, theology, Westminster Confession of Faith
I think for evangelicals the three “hypotheticals” would still make the cut. I think the mainstream theology of God involves levels of predestination and control (who “tells every lightning bolt where it should go” after all) that would allow them to be comfortable with the occasion of writing regardless of what it is. They seem to be natural bedfellows. I just don’t think Scripture teaches such theology.
Yeah, MacArthur is full tilt on his understanding of predestination, right? If so, my actions are just as inspired as the biblical authors’ writing, hehe.
I am not sure your idea that “most” born-again types follow the dictation line reflects reality. I haven’t done any recent polls, though.
@Rob: i agree that the bible doesn’t teach it, but what i am talking about is what some people believe. maybe what i am addressing is not as mainstream as i feel it is. i don’t know. i do know i have encountered way too many people who have silly views on how the bible was composed, and even more who are completely ignorant on the matter.
@Stuart: i’m not sure that “most” born-again types believe it, my feelings are completely based on personal experience, not hard facts or statistics.
i guess the big issue to me is the denial of the humanity of the bible. i targeted the passive author type theology because it seems to me to be a common thought people have based on their misunderstanding of how the bible came to be and what it really claims about itself.
i remember being in a class with a guy who said if John Mark didn’t write the gospel of Mark, he couldn’t believe it. what? where does the text even claim that? what is the reasoning behind that? he needed some apostolic connection to justify the human author of that text. additionally, inspiration, in his mind, was dependent on the historical testimony of a christian writer about 300 years removed from the bible’s composition.
once again, i’m not arguing that paul, mark and luke don’t belong, but rather that their inclusion challenges (or at least should) certain assumptions about inspiration.
@richard my last sentence was me just putting where I am out there.
I wasn’t trying to belittle the issue, just point out that I think it’s difficult to think that way about inspiration without being off in other ways too. I think the removal of humanity in inspiration mirrors the removal of humanity in living the Christian life (i.e. predestination).
I think I was in that class with you, and that comment blew me away too.
i’m not sure what the appeal is. why would you want to leave people out of the equation? i think the humanity of the text is the beauty of the text.
@administrator that’s a great question. I don’t know. Maybe it’s more holy to people if God was the only one really involved?
Good points. I get the impression that the view of “Joe six-pack evangelical” is informed less by these two passages than by the last couple hundred years of tradition.
Another thing to consider is the shape of the “canon” when those verses were written. It seems that the jury was still out. And if the early Christians used the LXX, they would have been reading the Apocrypha. But apparently the Jews who decided not to include the Apocrypha in the Hebrew Bible know better than the first Christian communities. I’m not necessarily arguing for inclusion of the Apocrypha; I just want to point out that the Protestant version of the Bible didn’t just fall out of heaven.
I think MacArthur’s aside is prompted by the phrase “moved these men” in the verse. It does seem like a needless distraction in his otherwise fluid eisegesis.
@stephen i’m not convinced those passages have the nt in mind at all…that wouldn’t even have been on their radar. i know peter talks about paul, but i think its a stretch to say he means that every time he talks about Scripture.
(as a side note, the lxx was not used exclusive. oral traditions, aramaic texts, etc. were common. maybe this further proves your point…i don’t know.)
“the Protestant version of the Bible didn’t just fall out of heaven.” good call
my problem with macarthur is that he lets his theology shape his hermeneutic, when it should be the other way around. i highly doubt those who view inspiration in this way would come to the conclusion that luke-acts doesn’t belong, but instead of letting what the text claims about itself drive their theology, they ignore it.
I’ll throw my pennies on the table:
The 2 Peter text, likely referring to spoken prophecy and the 2 Timothy passage primarily to written text, both reflect God’s authorship of all verbal prophecy. What confuses us is the nature of His stylus, if that’s all human authors of Scripture were. I think we six-pack evangelicals (or in my case keg – last time I looked in the mirror), miss the forest because we are looking at the leaves. I hold a high view of God’s providence without succumbing to robotic Calvinist predetermination, and that view allows for the Lord to communicate so precisely through human processes that their product renders the Word of God without error or omission. Inspiration of precise language, therefore did not exclude the writer’s penmanship, literary style, or research. On the contrary, for the biblical author there was no mistaking or reinterpreting of what the Lord communicated to him, since God had communicated it so perfectly, thus the meaning of every written word (in the autographs) retained both the personality of the biblical author and the authority of God.
Let that not be confused with canonization, which is intrinsically subsequent with regard to inspiration. Inspiration came by the will of God, whereas canon is merely man’s formal recognition of that inspiration after the fact. And arguably, the 27 books of the NT were accepted immediately and unanimously as authoritative (by virtue of being inspired) from their inception, and only later canonized as a means not of raising their authority, but of diminishing the authority (or lack thereof) of texts which had not from their inception been deemed as inspired. Therefore, the nature of God’s authorship of the Bible is a separate issue from the canonization of Luke, et. al. With that said, the fact that Luke/Acts and the others have always been regarded as authoritative, and were later canonized, serves as evidence that earlier Christians had confidence in the inspiration of those books. Perhaps they understood the exact process of inspiration better than we, perhaps not.
Now, is there any reason to believe God could not use any author? Was He limited to using only apostles? Could he not have communicated through Luke? Or through an amanuensis? If not why not? Surely this has more to do with criteria by which one might determine canon than criteria God uses to carry out His will. Which is more likely to be flawed, our criteria or His?
Back to inspiration: we have only pondered the role of the human author in the process. Were they a robot, a leaf floating downstream, or an independent scribe offering his own voice? What we fail to include in the discussion is God’s roll in the process: His power to communicate in a way none of us has likely ever experienced; His miraculous revelation; His perfect transmission of ideas, His foreknowledge…these divine qualities needn’t be ignored. Could God so clearly communicate truth to me that I could say it in my own words and style, and yet every word I wrote would be precisely what God wanted me to say in the first place? I think so.
Discussing inspiration, and canonization, is productive because it’s one of those doctrines we tend to accept as true before we can really conceive of HOW it’s true. But we should also concede the point that even if we don’t understand exactly HOW it’s true is not evidence that the doctrine is not true. Don’t believe me? Look no further than the doctrine of the Trinity.
By the way, I didn’t bother quoting scripture, since the debate was a philosophical one, but I’d be happy to back up my ideas with citations if you like.
@Mordecai
1-what is being argued against is mechanical dictation/passive authorship, not inspiration. i agree, God can use all of the things required to get his info across accurately and authoritatively. some would not concede the resulting humanness (humanity if you will) of the text.
2-inspiration implies canonization. i was speaking mainly of inspirations, but, if a text is inspired, it should be accepted as cannon, if it is not, it should not be. the cannonicity, of a particular text is secondary in the original discussion, as it is the natural result of inspiration (the primary issue). (as a side note, it is difficult, if not impossible to prove that the 27 nt texts were “accepted immediately and unanimously as authoritative.” that’s a cute thing to say, and often quells the discussion, but it doesn’t hold water.)
3-those who hold to mechanical dictation/passive authorship diminish the ability of God. i believe the humanity of the text exemplifies the power of God (and his insistence to include people in the process which proves true to his nature).
just a few thoughts.
@ Richard
Then we agree: neither of us subscribes to the notion of mechanical dictation/passive authorship inasmuch as those terms carry baggage we reject. But if we’re talking about truth, then there are not multiple options to consider. There was one way God used the authors to communicate His word verbally. Either we understand that way or we don’t. An exact process of dictation (is it right for us to even call it a “process” or “dictation”?), whether we understand it correctly or not, did occur. Who cares what “mechanical dictation” means if it’s not the most accurate way of explaining God’s process? Instead, we seek a more detailed understanding of the process of inspiration – specifically how the Lord incorporated humanness into the process (if indeed such humanness is more than merely subjective perception). Inspiration and it’s precise process: The two concepts cannot be separated; one is a part of the other.
So, what’s at stake is only this: Is humanness in a text being used today as a litmus test for inspiration (Either for or against)? Either humanness in a text is a stronger argument for inspiration and authority, because it fortifies one’s view of the process God verbally communicated; or humanness in a text is an argument against the authority of a text because it represents a deviation from God’s process of verbal communication.
I am not so arrogant as to assume that humanness in a text (whether it’s just perceived or made abundantly and objectively evident) was not an intended product of God’s communication procedure. Rather, I should assume the incapacity is in me to conceive perfectly the Lord’s method. (Something about His ways and my ways in Scripture, and one of them is higher than the other…) Therefore, I am left to more orthodox tests and historical record to determine authority/inspiration and therefore canonization. After all, the question was whether a variant view/theological theory of “inspiration” would allow Luke/Acts to “make the cut.”