Holy Spirit in Inspiration (No. 2)
Text: (No specific text; continuation of series — II Tim. 3:16-17 governs the series)
Series: Restoration Sermons
Date:
Speaker: Ed Rangel
Location: Waupaca Church of Christ
Bible Version: NASB 1995
Sermon Type: Topical
Learning Objectives
By the close of this lesson the hearer should be able to:
- State the three main false theories of inspiration and identify the key weakness of each.
- Define the mechanical theory and explain why the variety of literary styles in the Bible disproves it.
- Define the natural inspiration theory and explain why it fails to account for the revelation of divine realities that exceed human observation.
- Define the noematical theory and identify what it gets right and what it fails to explain.
- State the proper test for any theory: what a valid theory must be able to explain, and what its failure to explain certain facts implies.
Thesis
Three theories of inspiration have been proposed that do not adequately explain all the facts of the Bible. The mechanical theory fails to account for the genuine human diversity in the biblical text. The natural inspiration theory fails to account for the divine content that exceeds human capacity. The noematical theory splits the inspired thought from the uninspired word in a way that the text itself does not support. A theory that cannot explain all the relevant facts must be rejected.
Burden
Clearing away false theories of inspiration is not merely a polemical exercise — it is preparation for understanding the true theory. The person who holds a mechanical theory cannot understand why Paul sounds like Paul and John sounds like John. The person who holds a natural inspiration theory cannot explain how human impulse produces the revelation of divine love, justice, and mercy as Paul describes them. Clearing the ground is necessary before building.
Introduction
The clear conception and sound understanding of inspiration is essential to understanding the Bible. A person's theory of inspiration determines how they read the text — what weight they give its claims, how they handle its apparent difficulties, and whether they approach it as the word of God or merely as an interesting human document. Getting the theory right is not abstract — it shapes everything that follows.
Three theories of inspiration have been proposed and have found adherents. Each one is examined in this sermon; each one is tested against the actual phenomena of the biblical text. The test is simple: if a proposed theory explains all the facts and phenomena involved in the case, it should be accepted as true and valid. If it does not explain all the facts, it should be rejected.
I. False Theories of Inspiration
1. Mechanical Theory
The mechanical theory holds that the writers of Scripture were passive instruments of the Holy Spirit — they were amanuenses, secretaries, who simply recorded the words and ideas of the Spirit without any contribution of their own mind, personality, or style.
The appeal of this theory is that it seems to maximize inspiration: if every word came directly from the Spirit with the writer as a passive conduit, then the divine origin of every word is secured.
The weakness of this theory is decisive: it cannot account for the human element in the Bible. The Bible was written by at least forty different human authors, and those authors sound different from one another. The vocabulary of Paul is not the vocabulary of John; the style of Luke is not the style of Mark; the Hebrew of Isaiah is not the Hebrew of Amos; the elevated Greek of the letter to the Hebrews is not the simple Greek of Revelation. If the Spirit dictated every word without the contribution of the human writer, why do the writers sound different? The mechanical theory has no answer. The only answer is that the human element was real — that the writers' personalities, educations, and styles were genuinely present in the writing — which is exactly what the mechanical theory denies.
2. Theory of Natural Inspiration
The theory of natural inspiration holds that the biblical writers were inspired the way any great writer is inspired — by natural genius, moral sensitivity, and the elevated impulse that can produce great literature. The Bible is inspired as Shakespeare is inspired.
The appeal of this theory is that it preserves the human element: the writers were genuinely writing, genuinely expressing themselves, genuinely using their own faculties.
The weakness is equally decisive: it fails to account for the content. A theory of natural inspiration — of elevated human impulse — can explain how a person might write beautifully, movingly, and memorably. It cannot explain the revelation of the love, justice, and mercy of God as Paul develops it in Romans; it cannot explain the detailed predictive prophecy of Isaiah or Daniel; it cannot explain the account of creation in Genesis, the account of the origin of sin in Genesis 3, or the mystery of redemption as Paul unfolds it. These are not things that elevated human impulse produces. They require a source beyond the human mind. Natural inspiration theory has no account of them.
3. Theory of Noematical Inspiration
The noematical theory (from the Greek noema, thought or concept) holds that the Spirit supplied the thoughts — the ideas, the concepts, the theological content — but left the writers free to express those thoughts in their own words. The inspiration is of the thought; the expression is human.
The appeal of this theory is that it captures something real: the human writers did genuinely use their own language; the thoughts came from God; the words were chosen by the writers.
The weakness: the theory splits thought and word in a way that the text does not support. Paul says: "We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words" (I Cor. 2:13). The Spirit's role was not limited to supplying thoughts for the writers to express in their own words; the words themselves were Spirit-taught. The noematical theory, by limiting inspiration to the thought, grants less to the Spirit than Paul claims the Spirit had.
II. How to Test a Theory
The test is straightforward: a valid theory of inspiration must explain all the facts and phenomena involved.
The facts include the human element: the diversity of styles, vocabularies, personalities, and backgrounds of the writers. A theory that eliminates the human element fails this test (mechanical theory).
The facts include the divine content: revelations of divine love, justice, mercy, redemption, prophecy, creation, and moral law that exceed what human observation or genius could produce. A theory that limits inspiration to natural human impulse fails this test (natural inspiration theory).
The facts include the verbal character of inspiration: Paul's statement in I Cor. 2:13 that the words, not only the thoughts, were Spirit-taught. A theory that limits inspiration to thoughts fails this test (noematical theory).
If a proposed theory does not explain all these facts, it should be rejected. The failure to explain even one category of facts is sufficient grounds for rejection.
III. False Theories Tested
The mechanical theory tested. Explaining the divine content: yes, it does — if the Spirit dictated every word, the divine content is fully accounted for. Explaining the human element: no, it does not — the variety of styles and vocabularies in the biblical writers is precisely what the mechanical theory cannot account for. The theory fails this test and must be rejected.
The natural inspiration theory tested. Explaining the human element: yes, it does — natural genius explains human variety. Explaining the divine content: no, it does not — natural human impulse does not produce the revelation of the mystery of redemption, the detailed predictive prophecy, or the account of what only God could have witnessed. The theory fails this test and must be rejected.
The noematical theory tested. Explaining the human element: yes, it does — the writers expressed the divine thoughts in their own words. Explaining the divine content (at the level of thought): yes, it does — the thoughts were divinely given. Explaining the verbal character of inspiration (I Cor. 2:13): no, it does not — the Spirit taught the words, not only the thoughts. The theory fails this test, though it fails less decisively than the other two, and must be rejected.
All three theories fail. The true theory, which will be developed in the next sermon, must account for all three sets of facts.
Application
The examination of these three theories is not merely academic — it shapes how a person reads the Bible.
The person who holds the mechanical theory unconsciously dismisses the human element: they do not reckon with the genuine literary craft of the writers, the genuine historical situatedness of the letters, the genuine personality that is present in Paul's or John's or Luke's distinctive voice.
The person who holds the natural inspiration theory unconsciously domesticates the divine content: they read the revelations of divine love, justice, and mercy as elevated human insights rather than as communications from the God who cannot be discovered by human observation.
The person who holds the noematical theory unconsciously undervalues the words: they feel free to look for the thought behind the word and to treat the word itself as negotiable, when Paul's claim is that the Spirit taught the words.
Conclusion
Three theories, three failures. The test — does it explain all the facts? — is a demanding one, and none of the three theories passes it. The next step is to propose the theory that does pass it: one that accounts for the human element, the divine content, and the verbal character of the Spirit's work, all at the same time.
Invitation
The Bible that is the subject of this series is the Bible that contains the gospel. Whether the hearer has followed the argument about inspiration or not, the gospel is in the book — and the book is reliable. "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The words in that book — words the Spirit taught — include the words of Acts 2:38. Believe. Repent. Confess. Be baptized for the remission of sins. The theory of inspiration does not save anyone; the gospel that inspiration preserved does.
Word Study
| English Term | Greek Term | Basic Meaning | Usage in This Sermon | Sermon Significance | Key Texts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thought / Concept | noēma | The product of the mind — a thought, concept, perception. | Used as the basis for "noematical theory": the view that only the thoughts were Spirit-given, with the words left to the writers. | The distinction between thought (noēma) and word (logos or rhēma) is real but not as absolute as the noematical theory requires. Paul's statement in I Cor. 2:13 applies the Spirit's teaching to the words themselves (en didaktois pneumatos logois — "in words taught by the Spirit"), not only to the thoughts. | I Cor. 2:13 |
| Amanuensis | (Latin) | A secretary who writes from dictation or copies manuscripts. | Used to describe the mechanical theory's view of the writers: passive instruments recording the Spirit's dictation. | The amanuensis is the person who does not compose — they only transcribe. If the biblical writers were amanuenses, they contributed nothing. The variety of their styles disproves this: secretaries who contribute nothing write in one voice, not forty. | (Conceptual — used in discussion of mechanical theory) |
| Natural / Instinctive | psychikos | Of the soul or natural life — belonging to the natural human realm, as opposed to the spiritual. | Used by Paul in I Cor. 2:14 to describe the natural person's incapacity to receive things of the Spirit. | The natural inspiration theory proposes that the Bible was produced by the highest exercise of human natural capacity. Paul explicitly says the things of God "are foolishness to [the natural person], and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." The theory collapses on Paul's own description. | I Cor. 2:14 |
| Spiritual words | pneumatikoiς logois | Words that belong to or are characteristic of the Spirit — Spirit-words, Spirit-taught words. | Used in I Cor. 2:13: Paul says he speaks "not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words." | The phrase settles the question against noematical theory: Paul does not say "I communicate Spirit-given thoughts in my own words." He says the words themselves are Spirit-taught. The verbal character of inspiration is asserted by the apostle in the strongest terms. | I Cor. 2:13 |
Scripture Interlock Table
| Theme | Boles' Outline | Supporting Scripture |
|---|---|---|
| "Words taught by the Spirit" — verbal inspiration against noematical theory | III.3 | I Cor. 2:13 |
| "The natural person does not accept spiritual things" — against natural theory | III.2 | I Cor. 2:14 |
| "Moved by the Holy Spirit" — verbal and thought both Spirit-given | I.3 | II Pet. 1:21 |
| "All Scripture is inspired by God" — governing claim for the series | Intro. | II Tim. 3:16 |
| "Faith comes from hearing the word" — the gospel is in the inspired book | Invit. | Rom. 10:17 |
| Baptism for remission | Invit. | Acts 2:38 |
---
Converted from H. Leo Boles, Outline 163. Primary text: none stated; continuation of series (II Tim. 3:16-17 governs). This is No. 2 of a four-part series on the Holy Spirit in Inspiration. OCR corrections: "lll." → "III." Doctrinal audit: three theories examined and rejected without caricature — the partial truth in each is acknowledged; the noematical theory given the most sympathetic treatment because it captures the most truth; the mechanical theory rejected without dismissing the doctrine of inspiration itself; the decisive test (I Cor. 2:13 — "words taught by the Spirit") applied against noematical theory; invitation retains full obedient response (Acts 2:38).
