# Limited Inspiration



## reformedmedia (May 1, 2012)

Hello,
I'm wondering if someone might be able to help me find some source materials online about "limited (partial) inspiration."

I've searched for proponents of the theory from the past and from today, but haven't found very much. 

I found in Hodge's Systematic Theology he quotes Coleridge but he doesn't cite it. I believe it is Samuel Taylor Coleridge the poet maybe? Does anyone know the proponents from the early days as well as who might be of the view of limited inspiration of Scripture today?


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (May 1, 2012)

If Hodge quoted Coleridge verbatim, take the verbatim and put " " around it on Google. It'll lead you to Hodge's works, but it should take you to the Coleridge work he referenced.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 1, 2012)

What do you mean by "partial" or "limited" inspiration?

Try . . . 

"Benjamin B. Warfield’s View Of Faith And History-A Critique in the Light of the New Testament"*
Daniel P. Fuller, vol. 11, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 11, 2 (Lynchburg, VA: The Evangelical Theological Society, 1968), 73.

"Reconsidering “Limited Inerrancy”*- Richard J. Coleman, vol. 17, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 17, 4 (Lynchburg, VA: The Evangelical Theological Society, 1974), 205.


----------



## reformedmedia (May 1, 2012)

Limited (or Partial) inspiration is the theory that some parts of Scripture are inspired by the Holy Spirit and some parts are not.

---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------

I didn't realize about the verbatim trick, thanks! Although, Hodge didn't quote him verbatim, he just sums up that Coleridge believed it. I realize my error was putting that he quoted him.


----------



## reformedmedia (May 1, 2012)

Thanks Dennis, I'll try Fuller's article. He seems to be one of the modern guys that sorta held to that view.


----------



## reformedmedia (May 2, 2012)

I found a section at the end of Grudem's Systematic Theology that lists quite a number of people of noninerrancy perspective.
From what I gather, inerrancy plays a big role in whether you believe the Bible is fully inspired in every word and thought or just partially inspired. Essentially, what authority do you trust? Do you believe it is God's Words breathed out or not?
I see how Warfield could link Inspiration to Authority of Scripture.

*Noninerrancy Authors*
John Baillie - The idea of REvelation in Recent Thought
James Barr - Fundamentalism
Dewey M. Beegle - Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility
G.C. Berkouwer - Holy Scripture
James T. Burtchaell - Catholic Theories of Biblical Inspiration.
Stephen Davis - The Debate about the Bible
Donald K. McKim - The Authoritative Word: Essays on the Nature of Scripture
Clark Pinnock - The Scripture Principle
Jack Rogers - Biblical Authority
Bruce Vawter - Biblical Inspiration


----------



## DMcFadden (May 2, 2012)

Back in the dark ages when I was in seminary, Beegle was big. Jack Rogers was one of my old profs. He is DEFINITELY in this camp along with his co-author McKim (The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible). John Woodbridge's Biblical Authority is a critique of the theology and historiography of Rogers and McKim. Jack Roger's trajectory went as you might expect; he ended up endorsing homosexual unions. Pinnock originally wrote a strong defense of inerrancy publiished by Moody Press in the early 70s. His Scripture Principle is a sad commentary on how far to the left he traveled during his life. The most up-to-date book is The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority by Gregory K. Beale. He even deals with the recent Enns controversy.

Dan Fuller is a particularly painful case for me. As I have noted before, he is a resident at my retirement community and is a dear and gentle elderly man who loves God with all his heart. His article (originally an address to the ETS) presaged the changes in Fuller Seminary's doctrinal statement that dropped inerrancy barely two decades after its founding. Dan was trying to immunize the defense of the Bible against liberal attacks by drawing a tighter defensive circle (only defending the salvific core rather than the historical, scientific, and chronological details of the Bible). His intentions were pious and honorable; the unintended consequences spiraled way out of control. The non-conservative outcomes in the lives and teachings of so many of the alums from my alma mater (e.g., Rob Bell) exemplify what happens to other doctrines once you give ground on Scripture.


----------



## JohnGill (May 17, 2012)

Look up the translators for the RV of 1881, the ASV of 1901, The New English Bible, and the NRSV. Their rendering of 2 Timothy 3:16 shows sympathy towards this view.


----------



## reformedmedia (May 17, 2012)

good call, 
I dug up an old Harper Study Bible RSV that I have and behold there it was a nice footnote claiming and alternate translation "every scripture that is inspired is profitable" which aligns with what -Henry Preserved Smith- argued that some portions of Scripture are unprofitable. I'll take a look at the ASV and the other two.

thanks, I'll have to post more of my findings after my presentation is done.


----------

