Inspiration Theory Bible

706 Words2 Pages

Inspiration Theory Contained within the Bible is a consortium of books that are as various as they are numerous. Their genres range anywhere from histories, to letters, to narratives, to poems, and even beyond that. Something that binds all of these books together, however, is the means by which they were inspired. The muse that breathed these books into life is consistent from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21; that muse is the Holy Spirit. Many authors penned books that have been believed by many to belong in the Bible, but what separates those Apocryphal documents from the pure, holy scriptures of the Bible is the Holy Spirit; the one that inspired them. Claims of this fact are made throughout the entire Bible; 2 Timothy 3:16 says that “Every …show more content…

The natural inspiration theory says that the contents of the Bible were merely written by men of special religious insight; simply the philosophies and arguments of people that were remarkably close to the Lord. However, when one acknowledges the very nature of what the Bible is, this argument is made null. The Bible, according to John 1:1 was with God in the beginning, and is God. Looking at the Word through this lens rules out the option of its inspiration being meager religious intellect. The spiritual illumination theory says that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, yet is no more inspired than other Christian literature. This is saying, in extension, that a book by Judah Smith is just as inspired as the Bible, and that it is “the writers who are inspired, not the writings themselves” (Bible.org). Another theory, the partial inspiration theory, says that some parts of the Bible are Spirit-inspired and others are not. This theory says that the sections of the Bible that deal with heavy matters of the Christian faith, such as salvation, are inspired, while other parts, like history, are not. Charles C. Ryrie, a prominent theologian, said in regards to this theory, “But is not the biblical teaching about salvation based on historical facts? Suppose those facts are inaccurate? Then our understanding about salvation might also be erroneous. You cannot separate history and doctrine and allow for errors (however few) in the historical records and at the same time be certain that the doctrinal parts are true”

Open Document