#STRask - How Is Biblical Inspiration Different from Automatic Writing?

Episode Date: October 31, 2024

Questions about how biblical inspiration differs from automatic writing, whether or not we don’t know who wrote 74% of the New Testament, signing a man-made statement of faith, and how, if the Word of God is powerful, someone who taught it faithfully can go rogue theologically.   How is divine inspiration of the Scriptures different from the automatic writing they have in cults? It really does not bother you that you don’t know who wrote 74% of the New Testament? It could have been anybody. Is it okay for me to comply with a new requirement for clergy in my denomination to pledge fidelity in writing to its statement of faith? If the Word of God is powerful, how can a preacher who once taught the Word faithfully go rogue theologically?

This is Stand to Reasons, hashtag SDR Ask podcast. Greg Koukl is with me. I'm Amy Hall. Hi, Amy. Hi, Greg. Today we have some questions about the Bible. So we're going to start with one from Anna. How is divine inspiration to start with one from Anna. How is divine inspiration of the scriptures different from automatic writing in cults? Well, in automatic writing, a person's not composing. Their hand's just moving as a result of the spiritual force upon them to create this writing. Okay, it's like the joke about inspiration. Somebody says, Paul, what are you writing?

He says, I don't know. I mean, it's in Greek. Inspiration is not automatic writing. What you have is an unusual blend or a partnership. And it's hard to find the right word to describe this because it is unusual. It's ineffable. It's hard to explain. It's partnership between human beings and God. So, the characteristic way of describing the process of inspiration is that God uses a human individual who uses his own vocabulary, writing style. You can tell the difference between John, for example, and Paul. They have different styles. to those who read the original languages and who use their style and vocabulary and research to write down, as it turns out, exactly what God wants them to write down.

All right? So it isn't automatic writing. It is a concursive operation, is the technical term term where they concur in their operating to produce a result that is both the product of the human being and the perfect product of God, so much so that the text can be characterized as like the breath of God, theonoustos, the God-breathed, graphe, writings. So it is the writings that are inspired, and inspired is the English word to translate theonoustos or God-breathed. The 2 Peter 1 has a characterization that it says that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Now, my understanding, and I didn't do the Greek analysis here, but I heard somebody else describe it this way, that there is a kind of, in the Greek, a word picture there of a boat being carried on by the wind. The wind fills the sails and moves the boat in a particular way. So you can see there's a concursive operation there. By the way, I'm not sure if this is the word picture in the Greek or this is a way the person is characterizing what is being described there. In any event, that's the picture of the, imagine a boat being carried along by the wind. The boat isn't moving

itself and the wind isn't moving nothing. Both are happening at the same time, and so they're both important, and they both make a contribution. But the wind is the—I don't even want to say the preeminent force, but what ends up happening, and this is our doctrine of inspiration, that it is the breath of God that guarantees that in the original documents, these are the very words that God wanted to be used in the writings. Okay? So notice, by the way, if somebody is summarizing a sermon that Jesus gave, the sermon, of course, is given by Jesus, who is God. So that's God's word. But the summary is's God's Word. But the summary

is also God's Word, because the summary is what our doctrine of inspiration secures. It's whatever writing there that is a summary of that, and you could have different summaries of the same event in parallel accounts in the Gospels. Or you can have the same sermon given multiple times that it looks a little different. Nevertheless, it's different ways of expressing the same thing, and those different ways of expressing it are inspired. It's the graphe that's inspired. It's the writings that are inspired. So our doctrine of inspiration allows for these different writers with different research and different personalities and different vocabularies to write what turns out to be the very words of

God. So God is moving people in a way that doesn't override their personhood, as would be the case with automatic writing. And we can see the personalities of the authors. We can see what their concerns were, what they cared about. We can see the personalities of the authors. We can see what their concerns were, what they cared about. We can see the way their minds worked. You know, Paul writes differently than John. You can see that. And yet, God was speaking through them in a way that Peter could say that the Holy Spirit was speaking through the mouth of David. So there is a sense where God is actually speaking through them, but it's not overriding their own personalities and their decisions. So the question then becomes,

how does God do this? And the answer is, I don't know. All I can say is, God is God. And so this is a hard thing for us to understand because I can't make you write what I want you to write every single word because I'm not God. And He has access to you in a way that's different than I do. So He has a way to speak through someone's mouth while not overriding the fact that they are acting and they are making choices and they're experiencing that way. Because I don't think the people who were writing Scripture felt like they weren't making decisions about what they were writing. I think their experience was that they were doing these things, and yet they also knew at times when it was Scripture. And so how this all works, I don't know. Only God knows because God is the Creator.

God created us, and God has access to us. They certainly understood their writings in the New Testament sense to be authoritative. They were telling the truth. They were giving accurate information about God and doctrinal issues. Okay, let's go on to a question from Darren. Bear honest answer from you both. It really does not bother you that you don't know who wrote 74% of the New Testament, including all the Gospels? It could have been anybody. Well, it couldn't have been anybody. I don't know where that comes from. What matters is what the early church understood about the authority of the Gospels.

And very, very early on, let me back up and put it this way, because I just wrote a piece on the canon. It's coming out, or maybe it's already out when people are listening to this, it's Sulla Ground. And it's titled New Testament Canon, Which Books and Why? And when it comes to the Gospels, since that's what's in question, the Gospels were among the first things that virtually everybody who was aware of the Gospels acknowledged as being authoritative accounts of the life of Jesus. And they acknowledged that because of the source. The source was reliable. The sources were reliable. And the source, and this was the most important question with regards to canon,

was the apostolic environment in which these books were written. Either an apostle himself or a close associate of the apostle, such that the apostle is overseeing the process, all right? And this actually follows very smoothly, I think, given the notion of canon. Canon means the authority. What is the authoritative source? What books are the authoritative books that tells us about God? Well, when Jesus was here, Jesus was the authority because he was Jesus. And then he passed that authority on to the disciples, the 11 disciples there after Judas left in the upper room discourse. We have a couple of references to this. He will bring to remembrance

everything that I taught you. The Holy Spirit would do that and guide you into all truth. This is not a promise for all Christians because if it were, then the Holy Spirit failed because we don't all agree. But we do have an understanding the apostles are going to agree on these things, and that's who the promise was given to. And so where Jesus was the rule or the authority, now the apostles who he trained to follow after him were the rule and the authority. And when the apostles died, those things that the apostles had written were the rule and the authority. That's what was left behind after they were gone. And even while they're still here, those epistles and gospels, in this case, are going out.

The early church understood the authoritative sources that were responsible for the gospels. Do I know what those sources are? responsible for the Gospels. Do I know what those sources are? Well, Luke seems to be one of them, and John seems to be one of them, and Mark seems to be one of them, and Matthew seems to be one of them. Okay, in the case of John and Matthew, these were direct eyewitnesses. Mark was John Mark, and he was the companion of Peter, who was a direct eyewitness. And Luke said he researched everything carefully, and he was a companion of Paul. We know this in the book of Acts. So we have reason to believe the classical characterizations of the authors of the Gospels, the four Gospels. But the most important thing is that the early church was in a better position

to be confident about that, and they were supremely confident in this. The gospels virtually immediately received affirmation from the church. It's a 400-year process of kind of finally stabilizing the 27 books of the New Testament, but the Gospels were the first ones to be completely accepted. And anything that Paul wrote and anything that John wrote, anything that was unmistakably Pauline was instantly accepted as authoritative. By the way, there's a difference between being authoritative and being accepted as authoritative. All of these texts that were eventually accepted as being authoritative were authoritative before the ink dried, because they were God's word then, even though they weren't maybe recognized in some sense for a while.

But the gospel is very early on. And there was never any other name associated with those gospels. No. Those were the only names associated with those gospels. And those are the gospels that are in all the textual evidence. We don't have the gospel of Thomas in any New Testament manuscript at all, partly because it's 2nd century, acknowledged by all hands. And if it's 2nd century, it couldn't have been written by Thomas. So it didn't have an apostolic pedigree to it, and that was really important.

So ultimately, your point, Greg, is that it couldn't have been anybody because the church accepted these, I don't know, something like 20 or 21 immediately because of the apostolic origin of those books. Very quickly. That's right. Exactly. Okay. Let's go on to a question from Dave and Betty. Oh, before we do that, though, I just want to say your piece is coming out tomorrow, if everything goes well. Oh, okay. November 1st. Okay.

So what was the name of that again, Greg? The New Testament Canon, which books and why? So if you want more details about how they decided on which books were authoritative and how they recognized that, then you can go to str.org and that will be under solid ground to scroll down to the bottom of the page. If it's not right at the top there, it will be down there with solid ground. And I caught your 20 or 21 books because that was, we actually had two different citations. One said 20 and one said 21. And we had to clarify the distinction there that had to do with the book of Revelation.

All right. There's a little teaser. If you want to know what that was about, you could go take a look. I caught that. Okay. So here's the question from Dave and Betty. I'm struggling with a new denominational requirement for its clergy to pledge fidelity in writing to its Declaration of Faith, a list of 14 core beliefs regarding what the Bible teaches. I have no issue pledging fidelity to the Word of

God, but I'm really hesitant to pledge the same fidelity to a man-made document. Thoughts or advice? Well, the fidelity to the document is in light of representing that enterprise and that organization. We have something similar. Stand to reason, we have a series of doctrinal beliefs that have to be affirmed, but then we also have some practical Christian living beliefs that have to do, for example, with decision-making the will of God. Okay, this is the way we operate. And if you disagree with us, we're not going to question your spirituality. We're just saying, then you can't be on our team because this is how we operate with regards to decision-making. If you have a different view about that, then this is going to be a practical conflict. So I don't think that there's anything wrong with agreeing to a man-made document for the purpose

specified. If you're going to work with us, you have to be with us on these issues in this way. If you're not with us on these issues in this way, well, more power to you. God bless you. Just find another place to work because this is what is required here. I don't think what is being characterized there is a, well, I guess that's their doctrinal statement, their understanding of what is sound. But I spoke to a place recently, and they had all of these statements about things that they want me to be careful not to take exception with because this is what they believed. One of them was young earth creationism, which isn't my view. But that wasn't on the table anyway in my speaking, and if it came up during a Q&A, I would respect their beliefs.

But what they were doing, and I think appropriately, was making sure that my presentation, such as it was, would be consistent with what they understood the Bible to be teaching. And I didn't have any trouble with that at all. So in a certain sense, I signed off on their parochial beliefs, even though I didn't agree with them, for the purpose that I was being hired, which was for that weekend. that I was being hired, which was for that weekend. Now, if the purpose that you're being hired is for ongoing pastoral duties, well, then you have to be on board with their understanding of the truth that they're communicating as a denomination. And I wouldn't call this pledging fidelity to their declaration of faith, because that implies the idea that, let's say something changes in the declaration of faith, now you have to pledge your fidelity, you have to follow along with whatever that says.

I think it's more about discovering what you believe because they want to make sure you fit in. Like you were saying, Greg, they want to make sure you're teaching what their church teaches. So it's more about you testifying to what your beliefs are rather than swearing fidelity to a man-made document. So I think maybe you're looking at this in a way that you don't need to look at it. Yeah, if you're swearing fidelity, just to cash this out a little bit more, if you are swearing fidelity to the pastor, well, now you're being faithful to a person, whatever that person happens to say, whatever whim or direction he's going, you have to follow him. In this situation, it's a set of concrete, precise principles that

you affirm. And if you affirm them, I mean, and it's required that you affirm them so that you are in step with that community that you're serving. So it's not being used as scripture. It's being used as a way of kind of protecting the boundaries of the theology of the church. Yes, exactly. Right. Okay, Greg, let's go on to a question from James. I've always wondered what makes a preacher who once taught the Word faithfully and soaked in it go rogue theologically. If the Word is powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword,

why does it not affect such an errant preacher Well, that verse that was just cited is from Hebrews 4, verse 12. And it is talking about the capability of the Scripture to, if you follow the verse out, to judge the thoughts and the intentions of the heart. It's capable of doing that. That doesn't mean that the person is going to respond appropriately to the judgment that the Word makes on the thoughts and intentions of the heart. So, this circumstance that's being described here, you know, it mystifies me as well when you can have otherwise solid people that go astray, and you wonder, what's up with that? But, you know, it mystifies me as well when you can have otherwise solid people that go astray. And you wonder, what's up with that?

But, you know, in 2 Timothy, isn't it 2 Timothy? This is Paul's last letter where he talks about Demas. Demas shows up in other letters. Yeah, Demas is with me and we're doing this and that and the other thing. And Demas the faithful, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And now Demas has deserted me, having loved the present world. So what do you make of that? I think that's in 2 Timothy.

But certainly, Demas does desert Paul for those reasons. And what do you make of that? I don't know. I mean, your theology is going to answer the question of whether he was saved before and unsaved now, or he was never saved, or he continues to be saved, or whatever. That's a different issue. But the point here is, on the surface, on the face of it, de facto, you've got a guy who traveled with Paul who's now gone astray badly, so much so that Paul can mention it in his last writing. I think, is it there in 2 Timothy?

It's in 2 Timothy. Yeah. And so, along with some other warnings that he makes about people who did him harm. So, yeah, this is a real thing. And what is it in the mind of man that allows such a thing? It's fallenness, it's moral freedom, and it's just the way of the flesh. I don't know, the scripture describes it in different ways. But it's interesting the way Paul addresses the correction of a believer in Galatians 6. He says, if anyone is caught in a

trespass, let you who are spiritual restore such a one, looking to yourselves, lest you also be tempted. So Paul is acknowledging that we are vulnerable. We are all vulnerable, and we have to keep on the lookout for that. So I just have a couple things. First thing is just a quick thing that I will go into more another time. I've been wanting to write something on this, but I actually don't think the word is referring in this passage to Scripture. I think it's actually referring to the word of judgment earlier in the chapter that God, because sometimes word is used for just a declaration of God. Isaiah says, God, where is this? I can't remember where it says, but there's a verse, I think it's in Romans, God will execute His word thoroughly

and quickly. So I think it's just referring to an active declaration on God that was mentioned earlier in the chapter. And I have reasons for that, but I'll leave that alone for a second. That doesn't mean I don't think the Word is powerful because God works through Scripture in a special way because it is His Word. It is, and we've already talked about that, about God inspiring His Word. There is something unique about that. But what came to mind to me with this question, Greg, is the parable of the sower. Greg, is the parable of the sower. So in that case, were the seeds powerful? Were the seeds able to grow? Were the seeds bringers of life? The answer is yes, but the problem was with the soil. And the soil, if it was bad soil, if it was rocky soil or hard soil, then the word...

Or weedy soil. Yes. Then the seeds didn't grow grow and so the fault wasn't with the seeds the fault was with the soil and so i think the same applies here god's god's word is powerful but um whether or not our soil is prepared to hear it i don't think it depends on the actual seed i think it depends on the work of god. And there is sometimes a temptation. I don't think it's inherent in this question, but there is a temptation to treat God's Word as magical. And so if you just say the words, in this case, English words of the Greek as a translation from the Greek, if you say the words, then the words go out and do magical things. And God said his word won't return void.

That's the way they read that passage also, I think, in Isaiah. But he says, no, it'll accomplish what I've intended for it. That's how he finishes that sentence. I have an intention to accomplish that. But it doesn't mean that the words are somehow magically powerful. And if you say these words in their accurate translation, it's going to have some kind of effect in virtue of the words invested with their own kind of energy or power. That's, I think, an occultic view of language.

Well, thank you, Greg. We got through four questions. We did. We haven't done that in a while. Well, thank you. We love hearing from you. Go to our website at str.org or just go to X and use the hashtag STRASKS somewhere in your question and I will see your question. All right. We appreciate you listening and we love hearing

from you. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kokel for Stand to Reason.