THE PROBLEM WITH A VERBAL PLENARY VIEW OF INSPIRATION AND INERRANCY

Disclaimer: I believe the Bible to be inspired.

7 Statements why I think a Verbal plenary view of inspiration is problematic.

What is it? The idea that every Word of the entire Bible is Divinely Inspired and therefore without
error

Story: Debate… with young theologian (89.5k followers on instagram) he used the word
“Dictated”… I said “I don’t think that word is helpful”… he said, “they (writers of scripture) heard
things, it’s very helpful”... me “I live your work but that’s not your best work” - His Pastor joined
in, “I actually think it’s his best work” I ducked out... we had some private correspondence… he
shared, “I’m a verbal plenary guy.”

7 Statements:

1: It is a RECENT View: The Word inerrancy is in itself a relatively new word. The Oxford
English Dictionary points out that its first usage was 1834 and first use in a religious context was
to describe the manner in which the Pope is preserved from error in 1865. The use of the word
in this manner thus infiltrated our view biblical inspiration and has become a Protestant
distinction.

2. It is A REACTION: Obviously a reaction to the debates surrounding the Pope Verses The
Bible - but also the threat of Higher Criticism and this latter reaction being very prominent in the
1900s. Higher Criticism or higher textual crisis as it is sometimes known, was giving rise to
liberalism and people rightly wanted to maintain a belief that the Bible is true and trustworthy,
that Jesus was human but also divine, that the resurrection was a real event, that miracles
actually happened and still do and that humans sinned and need a saviour. The verbal plenary
view helped in the holding of these positions. Nevertheless it is a reactionary position to
particular issues and a particular time.

3. It denies INCONSISTENCIES and ERROR: So the Formula is God is without error, the word
is God therefore the word he spoke is without error. As the scriptures are full of apparent
inconsistencies, seeming contradictions, prescientific descriptions, anthropomorphises and what
can be called (by some) errors, seeing inerrancy this way becomes problematic. Atheists and
Agnostics love to point this out too and whilst some of their observations are frankly silly some
require serious consideration.

This position also works against prevailing world views that have had obvious impact on the way
the bible is written. Such as Ancient Near Eastern Views about creation that are found through
the scriptures but which today we know to be erroneous. It works against historical clarity and
archaeological findings and as I’ve alluded to has been opposed to scientific discovery. This is
problematic.

Peter Enns, a dangerous person to quote I know, “God let’s his children tell the story.”

It would not be unreasonable to suggest, on a reading of the Old Testament, that God is violent,
commits genocide, and is ok with polygamy and slavery. The question Obviously arises why did
God not change these views and correct the writers of scripture. The answer, I believe, is
because we are progressing towards the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ and at that point
we don’t have it.

God is like Jesus

4. We don’t have the AUTOGRAPHS: One response to the previous point has been exactly this,
“if only we had the autographs.” Then we would see, no problems, no errors, no inconsistencies.
But we don’t have them, and our surviving texts do differ from one another, sometimes in trivial
ways but sometimes in more meaningful ways with theological significance. Professor Dr.
Marvin R. Vincent weighs in on this one.

“Nothing can be more puerile or more desperate than the effort to vindicate the divine inspiration
of scripture by the assertion of the verbal inerrancy of the autographs, and to erect that
assertion into a test of orthodoxy.
For
1. There is no means of verifying the assertion, since the autographs have disappeared.
​ e goes on
2. It assumes a dictation ‘ipisima verba’ of (the very words) to the writers,...” h
with several other points

One point he makes which I like is … we obviously don’t need that perfection in the scriptures,
and how do we know this? Because we don’t have it.

5. JESUS is the Word of God: Remember the Formula? God is without error, the word is God,
therefore the word is without error. That can only be true if the word we are speaking of is
Jesus. If it’s the scriptures then we have a 4th member of the trinity and if you have that you
don’t have the trinity (selah) father, son, Holy Spirit.... not father, son, Holy Bible ... At Hillsong
Bill Johnson said, “The Bible is Jesus in written form.” I find this highly problematic.

6. This view of Inerrancy has contributed to a LOSS OF FAITH: The level of denial or cover up
when texts are questioned or analysed has for some caused them to lose faith. 1. In the Bible
and 2. Occasionally in Jesus himself. I contend that we have many people in the Church today
who don’t really believe in the Bible and my view would be that is partly because we have taught
this view of inerrancy either explicitly or implicitly and they cannot subscribe to that.

7. It changes our view of CANONICITY: It moves the canon of scripture from being the word
contained within the text (the ​forma)​ to the actual written text itself (the m ​ ritten by a
​ ateria) w
particular author. When canonicity is a matter of the actual text, (the ​materia ​view) we think of
the author (say Jeremiah) as inspired to produce the original text , instead of the surviving text
and message of Jeremiah being the inspired word of God. If we focus on the actual words on
the page we have to then wrestle with the fact that we do not possess the original inspired text
and that what we have is not that.

7 Statements why I think a Verbal plenary view of inspiration is problematic.

The Dynamic View of Inspiration: this is an alternative view and I feel more reflects the nature of
the scriptures we hold.

Definition: The thoughts contained in the Bible are inspired, but the words used were left to the
individual writers. This suggests the underlying message of the Scriptures are inspired and
inerrant, while the exact wording is dynamic.

It reflects the progression of thought, learning and revelation which ultimately gets summed up
in Jesus Christ. It allows us to wrestle with the portraits of God in the Old Testament that are
inconsistent with the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

It allows the non scientific views to be seen in their original setting and thereby draws our
attention more fully on the intended message and meaning.