Need Help Understanding Verbal Plenary

[Ralph]

What is the support for this position of inspiration? And most specificly where does support come for the position that God used the human element within man? Are there verses in Scripture that support this position?

Ralph

[Ralph]

The Theology Program, Bibliology and Hermeneutics – Workbook pg 90

xulon said:

Where is this quote from?

Ralph said:

"All Scripture is inspired by God who utilized the human element within man to accomplish this without error. (100% man, 100% God)"

[Dave Z]

Some will disagree, but I think Paul identifies some of his own human input in 1 Cor 7:7 - a personal wish, verse 12 - a command from Paul himself, with a disclaimer that it's not from the Lord and verse 40, where he states that he is offering his judgment (opinion) but then mentions that he believes it's from the Lord.

I think little asides like 2 Tim 4:13 are from Paul and represent a human input.

I think I'd go so far as to say that much of Paul's reasoning, arguments and illustrations are his own human input, with Holy Spirit oversight to ensure accuracy. As Xulon said, Luke specifically claims a human element - his own investigation. Also, the human element is considered to include writing style, vocabulary and even grammer.

However, I do feel that while evangelicals speak of a human element in scripture, in practice they/we act as if every word is direct from God, in effect, denying a human element. It's like a form of Docetism.

While I have not read it, I know that this (controversial) book addresses many of these issues. Read the Customer Reviews. I think I'm going to order it.

[xulon]

I agree that if Paul says, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that he is giving his opinion (advice) then it is opinion, not divine command masquerading as "opinion".

But concerning the section I quoted, I believe that when I am reading the Revelation then it is without error. The Human/Divine mix does not mean error/truth mix (That may not have been your point). That may come off to some as "not allowing for the human side", but I don't think a "no error" stand means "no human element".

David Zierenberg said:

However, I do feel that while evangelicals speak of a human element in scripture, in practice they/we act as if every word is direct from God, in effect, denying a human element.

[Dave Z]

I don't think a "no error" stand means "no human element".

No, that's not what I'm saying. I don't think a human element requires error. It's possible for humans to be inerrant, just not consistently. If I say "I posted a reply to Ralph's thread," there is no error - it's an inerrant statement. But not all of my statements are inerrant. But in scripture, the Holy Spirit insures accuracy beyond human ability.

So I think we agree.

[Jack]

David; "verbal inspiration" is revealed this way in the bible: "all scripture is inspired by God..." Lets examine that claim : " All scripture (Graphe) that which is written down;(the words that you requested) is inspired by God One word in the greek Theopneustos=is breathed out by God.
The claim in 2 peter 3:16 is: "that which is written down was breathed out by God". so the claim is being made that what had been written, the final result {the words} (in the original manuscripts) was fully and accurately directed by God's Spirit. The "how" is not explained to us, beyond "Holy men of God spoke (or wrote) as they were borne along by God's Spirit.

David Zierenberg said:

Neither one of the prior responses (no matter how boldly they're printed) really go to verbal (meaning God determined every single word), though the 2 Tim. passage speaks to plenary. I see those passages as arguing for inspiration in general. I think the term "theopneustos" from the Timothy verse is just too vague to demand that it means verbal. Paul seems to have coined the term but never actually defined it, thereby leaving the door open for others to define it however they wish.

The best argument I know of for verbal is the fact that both Jesus and Paul appealed to very specific wording in scripture. In Mark 12:26, Jesus' argument depends on the tense of the term "I am" while in Gal. 3:16 Paul's argument depends on the term "seed" being singular instead of plural. That's pretty specific.

That said, I have a lot of trouble with the verbal thing, because I just can't separate it from dictation - perhaps not in action, but the end result is the same - God determines the final wording. How is that different than dictation?

[Dave Z]

I covered that early on in this discussion, Jack. That verse can be used to argue for "plenary," but says nothing about "every word." "God-breathed" does not necessarily mean "words." Do you say words every time you breathe? As I have said, Paul did not define "theopneustos," so how do you know it means "words?"

[Ralph]

It seems to me the biggest reason to accept inspiration as verbal plenary is that its evident in their writtings. I don't think we can say that the Scriptures support this position conclusively, but are quiet about the process?

Ralph

David Zierenberg said:

I covered that early on in this discussion, Jack. That verse can be used to argue for "plenary," but says nothing about "every word." "God-breathed" does not necessarily mean "words." Do you say words every time you breathe? As I have said, Paul did not define "theopneustos," so how do you know it means "words?"

[Dave Z]

@Ralph - OK, if we say it is evident in the writings themselves, what is that evidence?

Also, I want to elaborate on my point about "God-breathed." If Paul was going to coin a term, he could have coined "God-spoken," but he didn't. So what's the difference and what does it mean scripturally? As I look through scripture, the concept of God-breathing comes up pretty early - In Genesis 1, then again in the next chapter. In those cases, God's breath gives life. Same thing in several references in Job (along with destroying and freezing) and in Isaiah and In Revelation, it gives life. So it seems to me that "theopneustos" would refer to scripture receiving life from God. We're told in Peter and Hebrews that the word of God is living. I think "the word of God" goes beyond scripture, but includes and is encapsulated in scripture. But I think it's a stretch to say it means "the very words."

[Ralph]

Paul speaks off of many of his personal experinces, Luke said he investigated, "compile an account" NASU, things like that show the actions of the writer.

David Zierenberg said:

@Ralph - OK, if we say it is evident in the writings themselves, what is that evidence?

Also, I want to elaborate on my point about "God-breathed." If Paul was going to coin a term, he could have coined "God-spoken," but he didn't. So what's the difference and what does it mean scripturally? As I look through scripture, the concept of God-breathing comes up pretty early - In Genesis 1, then again in the next chapter. In those cases, God's breath gives life. Same thing in several references in Job (along with destroying and freezing) and in Isaiah and In Revelation, it gives life. So it seems to me that "theopneustos" would refer to scripture receiving life from God. We're told in Peter and Hebrews that the word of God is living. I think "the word of God" goes beyond scripture, but includes and is encapsulated in scripture. But I think it's a stretch to say it means "the very words."

[Dave Z]

Ahh, and the actions, history and experiences of the writer affect what is written. I like that! That's a clear human element.