Thus far he has gotten little discussion, and he think his ideas deserve some further discussion. This reminds me of a couple of paragraphs I wrote for my book When People Speak for God (which this web site supports):

. . . 2 Timothy 3:16 provides us with the word “theopneustos” or “God-breathed” which has been made to carry a great deal of freight. But when God breathed into Adam he didn’t make him inerrant, he made him alive. What exactly is the content of a text that is God-breathed? But this issue applies much more to verbal inspiration. The evidence against verbal inspiration is very strong in the text and the history itself. There are certainly words that are attributed to God, but there are also words that are clearly not attributed to God. The synoptic problem presents us with clear evidence that the gospel writers copied from one another, that there are different sources in the Pentateuch, Samuel, and Kings, just as examples (237, 238).

The breathing of the Holy Spirit finds its roots, I believe, in this earlier breath of God and thus both provide an excellent analogy for the breathing of scripture. Theopneustos itself requires more definition; it doesn’t provide an adequate definition for inspiration in and of itself.

Just in case anyone wonders, my position–the position I argue for in my book–is that God still speaks today. In fact, my aim in the book was to provide a coherent and simple theology for understanding how God speaks at any time and place.

I disagree with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, even as laid out in the Chicago statement, for example, but it is important in debating for, about, or against this doctrine to define how one is using the term.

Jacob Allee writes a post in the context of the controversy over Mike Licona. Norman Geisler, amongst others, has accused Licona of denying biblical inerrancy for suggesting that the raising of the saints in Matthew might be apocalyptic language and not literally true. (I write about this and provide some links here.)

I appreciate his simplified definition, which I do think is good, and much closer to what you would expect a biblical scholar to mean when referring to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. He also distinguishes interpretation from the actual text, which is a valuable point.

None of this changes my mind, but I think it all clarifies the debate.

The emphasis is on hearing. I maintain that hearing is most often neglected. We often debate about whether the word is inerrant while ignoring whether our understanding of it can ever be inerrant. If we do not understand without error, of what value is an inerrant text?

I particularly like the emphasis on the idea that one can hear from God for oneself, which was one of my major points in the book. Other readers have focused on inerrancy, which is secondary, though one must deal with it in discussing prophecy, interpretation, and authority. But my critical concern in this book was that people get pushed around by other people who claim to speak for God.

I do not exclude the possibility of God giving a message to someone that is for someone else. That would fly in the face of the experience related in scripture and even my own personal experience. But I’m always skeptical of such messages, because in my experience, the vast majority of the time when someone tells you they heard something for God, and it wasn’t for them personally, it’s manipulative. They’re trying to make you do something they want. Is God in it? In most cases I doubt it.

One thing I may have de-emphasized in my book that would deserve more discussion is the role of the community in the authority of any book. The new release From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully by Edward W. H. Vick corrects this deficiency, though I note that the book is somewhat more challenging to the reader than mine! There are numerous points that Dr. Vick makes that could have provided footnotes for mine, had the order of publication been reversed.

I suggest that we need to derive our doctrine of inspiration more from observing it in action, as we can in Scripture, and less by trying to apply particular proof texts.

(HT:  Dr. Platypus)

I found this post by Roger Olson via my reader (HT:  Chrisendom) and it reminded me of my own recent post Inerrancy – Romancing the Term.

Though my experience is largely outside of academia, I can relate to much of what Dr. Olson says.  Inerrancy is not understood in the pews of any church I know in the same way as it’s defined by evangelical scholars.  I often find that when I discuss with someone who affirms inerrancy I’m even arguing a more conservative position than theirs, which always feels odd.

In any case check out Dr. Olson’s comments.