In the discussion about the inspiration of Scripture, there exists a wide variety of different positions as well as a veritable dissonance in the use of inspiration terminology employed by its various proponents. What makes this quasi-Babylonian language confusion so perplexing is the fact that many of the proposed models of inspiration have some truth to it and overlap in some respects and to some degree. To make things worse, there exists no single, unanimously accepted definition of the various inspiration terminology that exists to describe the phenomenon of inspiration. Often the very same word is defined and used very differently by its supporters and detractors. I have come across at least nine different models of inspiration that are currently promoted in the scholarly discourse.¹

In this brief article I do not deal with the biblical evidence for divine inspiration, but rather will focus on some important models of inspiration with their different theological and philosophical paradigms and their ramifications for the authority of Scripture. It is not possible to deal with all nine models within the limits of this article. Hence, I will focus on four important models that have had significant influence on the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of inspiration. In doing so I will look at their respective strengths as well as their deficiencies and at some parallels in the process of inspiration of Ellen G. White and her writings.² I will conclude by proposing an alternative model with a new, distinct terminology that reflects the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of inspiration more adequately and provides greater clarity, unburdened by certain negative connotations associated with some of the other traditional models. 

Four Prominent Inspiration Models and Their Implications for the Authority of Scripture

In the discussion about inspiration in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, one typically encounters the following four major inspiration models with their respective terminology: (1) dictation inspiration, (2) verbal inspiration, (3) thought inspiration, and (4) plenary inspiration. As we will see, some ideas in these models often overlap.³ What makes a fair understanding of each model even more challenging is the fact that each term is used very differently by its proponents and opponents. Still, it is possible to highlight certain typical distinctives of each model, as well as particular strengths and deficiencies. Each model has certain theological and hermeneutical consequences that impact our understanding of the authority of Scripture.

Dictation Inspiration

The basic idea of the dictation inspiration model⁴ is that God directly dictated the very words of Scripture to the human writers. Because inspiration is understood as divine dictation, the biblical writers were totally passive and had no freedom to shape the very words they used in conveying God’s message to humanity. Instead, the biblical writers functioned more like stenographers or secretaries who transmitted mechanically, word by word, what God dictated to them. They were God’s passive pen, not His penmen. They recorded word by word what God said to them. Divine inspiration here functions in such a powerful manner that the minds and bodies of the biblical writers were so completely controlled by the Holy Spirit that they became passive instruments in the hand of God and only wrote the words that God told them. Some have called this a “docetic view of inspiration”⁵ because, for all practical purposes, the human side in the process of inspiration has no impact on the process. Dictation inspiration limits inspiration to the written words. It denies any inspiration of human beings and their thoughts and thus makes the human writer an utterly passive instrument in the hands of God.

Strengths of the Dictation Model of Inspiration

The dictation model of inspiration maximizes divine authorship and the sense that Scripture is fully and completely God’s Word. It offers a simple rationale for strong claims of absolute inerrancy, since God is presumed to choose every word that was written in Scripture. There are two passages in Scripture (Exod 31:18; Deut 9:10) where God is described as the one who wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger. In Jeremiah 36 the prophet Jeremiah is described as telling Baruch, his scribe—or in modern parlance, his secretary—to write all the words of Jeremiah, which he had received from God, at Jeremiah’s dictation (Jer 36:17, 32) in a scroll. The expression “at his dictation” (ESV) is sometimes used to support a dictation model of inspiration.

Deficiencies of the Dictation Model of Inspiration

The dictation model of inspiration neglects genuine human participation and its impact on literary style, which clearly varies across biblical books. If God had dictated every single word, one would expect a definite and recognizable style of writing across all the inspired books of Scripture.⁶ But this is not the case. This model is also inconsistent with several sections of Scripture where the author’s research (cf. Luke’s prologue, Luke 1:1–4), use of sources, or the involvement of secretaries in the writing process suggest a more complex process in the composition of the biblical text. Not every part of Scripture can claim such a direct involvement of God in the composition of the text as the Ten Commandments. In fact, the vast majority of Scripture was written differently, with no immediate and dominant control of God attested for in much of its composition. In the case of Jeremiah and Baruch, the description of the work of Baruch describes the faithful writing of the message he received from the prophet, but in the second scroll, which is the second edition of the manuscript, we read that “many similar words were added to them” (Jer 36:32 ESV), which indicates a growth in content and words beyond a mere dictation.

The dictation model of inspiration is reminiscent of the Islamic concept of the origin of the Qur’an, which most Muslims believe had its origin in the eternal mind of Allah. When the time was right, the angel Gabriel dictated the revelations to Muhammad.⁷ Since the dictated words were given in Arabic, the Qur’an is not really translatable and if you actually want to study the Qur’an you have to learn Arabic, the very language in which it was given word by word.⁸ In a strict dictation model, any (!) change to the words of the text is not appropriate and ultimately even a translation becomes problematic and less authoritative.

Representative Advocates of the Dictation Model

In the Christian context, there are very few who promote a strict model of dictation inspiration. It is rarely defended in a sophisticated way today. There are a few scholars in the ancient world, influenced by Greek philosophy, such as Philo of Alexandria, who reportedly said, 

A prophet gives forth nothing at all of his own, but acts as interpreter at the prompting of another in all his utterances, and as long as he is under inspiration he is in ignorance, his reason departing from its place and yielding up the citadel of the soul, when the divine Spirit enters into it and dwells in it and strikes at the mechanism of the voice, sounding through it to the clear declaration of that which he prophesieth.⁹

Most Christian theologians never supported a strict dictation model of inspiration. During the time of the Protestant orthodoxy, however, after the passing of the great Protestant Reformers like Luther and Calvin, one can find a handful of orthodox Protestant theologians who promoted some form of dictation theory. It is often said that the rigid dogmatism of Protestant orthodoxy in the seventeenth century led to a more radical position, where Scripture was now regarded as inspired, “purely because it was dictated to the Biblical authors by God.”¹⁰ But the historical reality is much more complex and not as simplistic, as the careful study of church historian Richard Muller has shown.¹¹ Muller has meticulously gone through the extant primary sources of Reformed theologians of this time. His research has conclusively shown that there have been a few theologians like the English Puritan clergyman and lecturer at Cambridge William Perkins; the famous English Puritan theologian John Owen, who served as dean of Christ Church at Oxford; the Dutch Reformed theologians Gisbertus Voetius and Petrus van Mastricht; and Matthew Henry, an English non-conformist, who became famous for his commentary on the Bible, who promoted a stricter view of dictation inspiration, especially in response to increasing Roman Catholic criticisms of the authority of Scripture.¹² Some even ventured to claim that the vowel points of the Hebrew text were dictated by God in order to safeguard the divine authority of the Bible against Roman Catholic attacks. But only very few orthodox Protestant theologians during the seventeenth century promoted such an extreme position. As Muller points out, other contemporary Protestant orthodox theologians, notably

[André] Rivetus, [John] Cameron, [Johannes] Cocceius, [Herman] Witsius, [Bénédict] Pictet, and late orthodox thinkers like [Herman] Venema and [Thomas] Stackhouse differed appreciably with this strict view, and moved toward a doctrine of inspired infallibility without the assumption of a divine dictation of every word of the text.¹³

In more recent times it has been claimed that some hyper-fundamentalists may hold a mechanical dictation theory of inspiration,¹⁴ but J. I. Packer is probably right when he states that “the dictation theory is a man of straw”¹⁵ that critics of the conservative view often use as a foil. It is a misrepresentation of the true Evangelical position.

Two details are noteworthy in this discussion: (1) some of these more extreme positions of biblical inspiration that endorsed a mechanical dictation view of inspiration originated in the context of Reformed theology, which often is characterized, among other aspects, by a strong sense of God’s sovereignty and His divine predestination and election.¹⁶ Later in history the idea of absolute inerrancy also surfaces more prominently among Reformed theologians and often is endorsed by those who see inspiration from a more predestinarian perspective. (2) We can learn from this historical episode that even the best intentions (i.e., defending the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture against attacks) should not lead us to construct and promote weak solutions that can easily be shot down by critics. When our reasons for defending the authority of Scripture are weak or misguided, critics can easily question or even dismiss the idea of divine inspiration. 

Parallels Relative to the Writings of Ellen G. White and Adventist History

During Ellen G. White’s time some people apparently were inclined towards a dictation model of inspiration with regard to her writings. In 1906 White responded to a certain Dr. Paulson who said, “I was led to conclude and most firmly believe that every word that you [Ellen G. White] ever spoke in public or private, that every letter you wrote under any and all circumstances, was as inspired as the Ten Commandments.”¹⁷ Since the Ten Commandments were written with God’s finger by God Himself, Paulson had a dictation model of inspiration in mind, at least with regard to the writings of Ellen G. White. White, however, clearly denied such a dictation model of inspiration for her own writings as well as for the Bible.¹⁸ Regarding her own writings she responded to Paulson, “My brother, you have studied my writings diligently, and you have never found that I have made any such claims, neither will you find that the pioneers in our cause ever made such claims.”¹⁹ Others, like George S. Bishop, similarly claimed that only the “direct, dictated, verbal inspiration—that everything in the Bible was set down by the finger of God” properly represented the teaching taught by Scripture itself.²⁰ It seems as if other people, like A. T. Jones, Judson S. Washburn, or D. M. Canright, who later became one of the strongest critics of the Advent movement and of White, also leaned toward a dictation model of inspiration and therefore could not harmonize their own restricted and deficient understanding of how inspiration works with edits in White’s writings.²¹ 

Occasionally White used the phrase that “the scribes of God wrote as they were dictated by the Holy Spirit.”²² This expression, however, should not be interpreted to endorse a mechanical understanding of a verbal dictation model of inspiration.²³ A careful investigation of the use of the word “dictated” in her own writings makes clear that she employed this expression not to describe or to endorse a mechanical dictation of written material, but to emphasize the divine origin and divine motivation of various actions.²⁴ 

This leads us to another model of inspiration that is often seen as closely related to a dictation model.

Verbal Inspiration

The basic idea in verbal inspiration is that the process of inspiration extends to the very words (Latin verbum) of Scripture. Inspiration is believed to have a verbal dimension that extends to the text of Scripture. In this model the words of Scripture, rather than the thoughts or the person himself or herself, are inspired. In 2 Timothy 3:16 the Bible affirms that inspiration has a verbal dimension when Paul writes, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16 NKJV). Scripture (Gk. graphē) clearly refers to the written words of the Old Testament. Other passages by Paul seem to extend equal divine authority to existing New Testament writings (1 Thess 2:13; cf. 2 Pet 3:16). 

Representatives of verbal inspiration see God as the ultimate author who in the process of inspiration uses human writers to write the words of Scripture. Most representatives of verbal inspiration recognize and affirm human aspects in the process of writing the inspired text²⁵ and acknowledge the individualities of the human writers with their typical vocabularies, literary forms, and styles, which are not being overridden in a mechanical manner, as in a dictation inspiration model. However, by favoring a word-focused inspiration process this model gravitates toward a divine dominance in inspiration where the free human participation is less distinct. Liberal critics often associate and conflate the idea of verbal inspiration with some form of a mechanical dictation process and frequently portray verbal inspiration in a very rigid and mechanical way. This easily distorts the position of those who hold to verbal inspiration and often does not accurately portray what its advocates propose. In order to avoid reading foreign understandings into the description of verbal inspiration, it is imperative to allow these representatives themselves to define their theory. 

Strengths of the Verbal Inspiration Model 

The verbal inspiration model has a strong emphasis on the divine aspect and origin in the process of inspiration. In verbal inspiration, God superintends human writers in such a way that their words convey God’s message accurately and truthfully and Scripture carries divine authority. This model emphasizes a propositional understanding of language and truth, where the words of Scripture are objective and truthful. For several recent proponents of verbal inspiration—as affirmed, for instance, in the “Chicago Statement of Inerrancy”—inspiration is restricted to the original autographs, which are believed to be inerrant.²⁶ Since its focus is on the verbal dimension of Scripture, this model of inspiration encourages close attention to the inspired text of Scripture. It supports the grammatical and historical sense of Scripture, its literary forms, and affirms an exegesis that allows Scripture to explain itself (Scriptura sui ipsius interpres). Biblical passages like 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:19–21, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, and others provide a structured basis for an understanding that affirms a strong divine authority for the Bible where God’s truth is communicated effectively across all cultural and temporal boundaries.²⁷ In this model God is seen as the author of Scripture and because He is the “author of all truth . . . the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else.”²⁸ This position also has a strong desire to harmonize Scripture and emphasizes the unity and clarity of Scripture. It claims a long history of theological supporters across a wide spectrum of different denominations and church traditions.²⁹ 

Deficiencies of the Verbal Inspiration Model

While some human dimensions in the process of inspiration are readily acknowledged by virtually all modern representatives of verbal inspiration, this model nevertheless gravitates heavily toward the divine aspect and for all practical purposes often emphasizes the divine aspects much stronger than any human involvement. In doing so, it functionally drifts towards a divine dominance in the inspiration process that in extreme cases borders on a near-dictation view. It seems that the greater the emphasis on the divine origin of the written text, the stronger the temptation to minimize cultural peculiarities, historical and theological developments, textual tensions, genre diversity, or progressing perspectives in Scripture. In all fairness to the position of verbal inspiration, the “Chicago Statement of Inerrancy,” which represents perhaps the strongest and most recent example of this position, explicitly affirms a distinct awareness of cultural aspects, textual tensions, and even apparent contradictions in the text and thus is not negating these phenomena of Scripture.³⁰ Verbal inspiration seems to flourish especially in the context of Reformed faith with a strong predestinarian understanding of God’s sovereignty, where God is understood as being in supreme control of the inspiration process. Here the authority of Scripture is closely tied to modern notions of precision and complete freedom from error, coupled with a lack of thorough freedom on the human part, which has fostered an understanding of strict inerrancy.³¹ Another difficulty is the absence of the existence of any biblical autographs and thus the existence of any inerrant autographs as they are affirmed in the “Chicago Statement of Inerrancy.”³² 

Representative Advocates of the Verbal Inspiration Model

Since the verbal inspiration model has a very long history of supporters, all the way back to the early church fathers,³³ it is impossible to provide a comprehensive list of all its representatives. A few modern and contemporary names shall suffice: B. B. Warfield and A. A. Hodge are Old Princeton scholars who are classic formulators of a robust verbal inspiration model that is tied to a strong inerrancy view. More recently, a very large number of respected and leading Evangelical scholars in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries can be listed as exponents of this model. Among the almost three hundred individuals who signed the “Chicago Statement of Inerrancy” in 1978, some of the more prominent scholars that could be mentioned are Gleason L. Archer Jr., Greg Bahnsen, James Montgomery Boice, D. A. Carson, W. A. Criswell, Bruce Demarest, Ralph Earle, John S. Feinberg, John M. Frame, Frank E. Gaebelein, Norman L. Geisler, Wayne Grudem, Stanley N. Gundry, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., George W. Knight III, Samuel Külling, Hal Lindsey, Gordon R. Lewis, Josh P. McDowell, J. Robertson McQuilkin, John MacArthur Jr., J. P. Moreland, Roger R. Nicole, Harold J. Ockenga, Raymond Ortlund, James I. Packer, Luis Palau, Vern S. Poythress, Robert D. Preus, Earl D. Radmacher, O. Palmer Robertson, Francis Schaeffer, Eckhard Schnabel, A. E. Wilder Smith, R. C. Sproul, John W. Wenham, John C. Whitcomb, A. Skevington Wood, John D. Woodbridge, Edwin M. Yamauchi, and Ronald Youngblood.³⁴ The wide range of different ecclesiastical backgrounds of these representatives alone is an indicator of how influential and widespread this position of verbal inspiration is among Evangelical scholars to this day. The “Chicago Statement on Inerrancy” has drawn together theologians and scholars from a wide spectrum of different churches and theological traditions. While certain parts of it are often criticized by liberal scholars, very rarely is there a fair interaction and comprehensive discussion of its entire hermeneutical proposal.

Parallels Relative to the Writings of Ellen G. White and Adventist History

The technical terms for different theories of inspiration, like “verbal inspiration” and “thought inspiration,” are virtually absent from Adventist publications before 1880.³⁵ Ellen G. White’s statements on inspiration, though lacking the usage of traditional verbal inspiration language, nevertheless reveals many areas of agreement with certain aspects of verbal inspiration. She also expresses significant differences.³⁶ White clearly affirms the trustworthiness and truthfulness of the words of Scripture because of its divine inspiration. She speaks of the “truth of Scripture”³⁷ and of the “reliability of the records of the Old and New Testaments,”³⁸ which affirms some verbal dimension. She affirms that the Bible is characterized by a “simple beauty of language”³⁹ and an “unerring truthfulness.”⁴⁰ Since, for her, God is the ultimate author of Holy Scripture, the Bible is called the “sure Word of God.”⁴¹ The result of this divine revelation-inspiration process is that the Bible can be fully trusted. It is the “one trustworthy book”⁴² in which God has given “definite, unmistakable instructions” and therefore we should heed “these inspired injunctions.”⁴³ The words of Scripture are “the guidebook to the inhabitants of a fallen world,”⁴⁴ “an unerring guide,”⁴⁵ and an “unerring standard,”⁴⁶ by which even man’s ideas of science have to be tested.⁴⁷ It is “the Book of books, which God has given to man to be an infallible guide.”⁴⁸ For her, the Bible is God’s voice speaking to us, just as surely as though we could hear it with our ears.”⁴⁹ Hence, “the Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will.”⁵⁰ As such, the Bible is “the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience.”⁵¹ This latter statement is also quoted in Fundamental Belief 1 of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which affirms: 

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration. The inspired authors spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to humanity the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the supreme, authoritative, and the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the definitive revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history. (Ps. 119:105; Prov 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Heb. 4:12; 2 Peter 1:20, 21.) 

While all these affirmations of divine inspiration and the authority of Scripture can easily be affirmed in a verbal inspiration model, Fundamental Belief 1 also carefully expresses another important aspect that widens the concept of inspiration and moves beyond a strictly verbal understanding of inspiration. Here inspiration is not limited only to the text of the autographs, but also is at work in the inspired authors. We will come to this important aspect when we look more closely at the model of thought inspiration. Before we turn to this next model, however, let us briefly look at some examples from early Seventh-day Adventist history.

It seems that during the early years of the Advent movement Adventist writers strongly affirmed the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture. A word-focused verbal emphasis can be seen in many pioneers.⁵² Phrases like “inspiration has said” or “inspiration has defined” something, or the “pen” of inspiration or the “language of inspiration,” and even the expression “the divinely inspired amanuenses of the Holy Spirit” indicate a strong “word-focused view of inspiration.”⁵³ This is also evident in the citation of several non-Adventist theologians in Adventist publications who promote a firm word-focused understanding of inspiration, such as Adam Clarke, Thomas Hartwell Horne, and Louis Gaussen.⁵⁴ Some have seen Gaussen’s book Theopneustos as an influential source for the early Adventist understanding of inspiration,⁵⁵ but Kaiser has conclusively shown that he was only quoted three times on the issue of inspiration in thirty years.⁵⁶ Some Adventists seemed to have promoted similar views of verbal inspiration, as is reflected by Moses Hull’s book title, The Book from Heaven: Or a Dissertation on the Evidences of Christianity,⁵⁷ in which he defends the credibility of the Bible by insisting that nothing in the Bible contradicts any of the sciences of “physiology, anatomy, hygiene, materia medica, chemistry, astronomy, or geology.”⁵⁸

White herself, while strongly affirming the trustworthiness and divine authority of Scripture, did not fit neatly into a strictly verbal model of inspiration and was not constricted by some of its difficulties and deficiencies, as we will see when we turn to the next model of inspiration that often is associated with her.

Thought Inspiration

The basic idea with thought inspiration is that God inspires the thoughts, concepts, or message of Scripture, rather than the specific words of it.⁵⁹ The term “thought inspiration” apparently was not employed in a technical sense before the early twentieth century, although the concept or idea that is expressed in this model is present even without the specific terminology.⁶⁰ In thought inspiration God is at work in the process of inspiration. God inspires the thoughts of the person, but inspiration does not pertain to the written words of the prophet nor to the original autographs, as it is affirmed in some versions of verbal inspiration. Often in thought inspiration a greater emphasis is placed on the human dimension in the process of inspiration, where the choice of specific words and stylistic features is left largely to the freedom of the human authors. The words that were used by the human writers to express inspired thoughts were freely chosen. Some representatives of thought inspiration still affirm God’s guidance in this process so that the written words ensure an accurate and reliable transmission of inspired thoughts.⁶¹ But others have suggested that the words in which the thoughts were clothed were selected without any divine guidance, hence reflecting human frailty and fallibility and implying the possibility of discrepancies and mistakes in Scripture.

 Strengths of the Thought Model of Inspiration

One of the strengths of the thought model of inspiration is that it recognizes more fully the human involvement in the process of inspiration. Since thoughts rather than words are inspired, the human participants’ freedom of choice in the selection of words to express divinely inspired thoughts is more distinctly recognized and given greater prominence. This allows greater flexibility for different vocabularies used to share the inspired thoughts, for literary aspects and artistry in the composition of the text, or for cultural aspects to be reflected in Scripture. Since divine authority is located primarily in the thoughts rather than in the specific wording of the message, there seems to be a greater openness to allow for differences in grammar, style, and cultural thought patterns in Scripture than would be the case in a mechanical, dictational, or even a strict word-focused model. While there are no explicit statements in Scripture that affirm thought inspiration, there are a number of biblical examples that seem to support the view that inspiration encompasses not just words, but thoughts. The prophet Ezekiel felt unable to adequately describe in human words the glory and majesty of God and God’s throne (cf. Ezek 10), which seems to support the idea that God had showed him divine realities but did not prescribe how to express them in specific human words. In Luke 1 the author of the gospel indicates that his careful research of eyewitnesses has enabled him to write down a reliable, trustworthy, and orderly account of what took place without claiming that every word was dictated to him or verbally dominated by God. The acknowledgment and recognition of the human dimension in inspiration counterbalances a position where inspiration is heavily dominated by God. Here the biblical writers are God’s penmen rather than God’s pen.

Deficiencies of the Thought Model of Inspiration 

A model that restricts inspiration to thoughts only actually resembles more of a view of revelation where inspiration has no impact on the expression of what God communicates to human beings.⁶² A strict thought model of inspiration does not adequately take into consideration and explain those biblical passages which argue that Scripture itself treats words as significant and God-given (cf. 2 Tim 3:16). The separation of inspired thoughts from the words that express those thoughts seems artificial and ultimately is not convincing. Thoughts are only accessible through words, as thoughts can only be recognized and understood when they are expressed orally or in written words. No one can read thoughts. They need to be communicated verbally. Accurate thoughts cannot be separated from language. Our thinking is inseparably connected to words and thoughts are inevitably shaped and expressed in words. The model of thought inspiration is rather vague in how to distinguish a divinely inspired message in the thoughts of the prophet from fallible human additions, which may undercut our certainty about what is authoritative and binding in Scripture and what is not. Often it is presumed that being human necessarily implies being fallible and that being human means making mistakes.⁶³ Since Scripture was written by fallible human beings, it is assumed that they cannot escape these fallible elements of humanity and thus the record of the inspired thoughts that we find in Scripture is not free from errors. Instead, it reflects the limitations, imperfections, mistakes, and errors of fallible human beings.⁶⁴

But, as is the case with so many other models of inspiration, there are different shades of understanding of thought inspiration and some proponents, like Ellen G. White, seek to maintain the inspiration of thoughts as well as the words of Scripture and thus the full trustworthiness of the Bible.⁶⁵ White certainly affirms the truthfulness and reliability of Scripture and emphasizes the inspiration of thoughts over against a mechanical dictation view of inspiration. With many other scholars who support some variety of thought inspiration one can notice, however, a tendency to emphasize much more the human imperfections and so-called phenomena of Scripture, including alleged discrepancies, contradictions, and errors than is the case in a word-focused model. With this thought inspiration model there is often a less pronounced interest in the harmonization of such discrepancies and contradictions because they are assumed as a given that should be expected and accepted.

Representative Advocates of the Thought Model of Inspiration

Because the term “thought inspiration” in its technical sense is a relatively recent phenomenon, there are not very many who explicitly use the terminology “thought inspiration.” Thus, we include scholars who exhibit similarities to this position or gravitate towards a thought inspiration model rather than affirming a strict word-focused verbal model. These scholars try to differentiate themselves from strict verbal and especially from a mechanical dictation view of inspiration, while still wanting to affirm that Scripture conveys divinely intended truth. Generally speaking, thought inspiration is often associated with “neoevangelical” or more progressive and revisionist Evangelical positions. Here people still affirm the existence of divine inspiration but limit the full trustworthiness of the words of Scripture and reject its inerrancy. This leads some to promote a limited scope of authority, where Scripture is reliable in matters of salvation but not when it speaks about history, science, or cosmology. An example for such a view would be the late Clark Pinnock, who in his later views argued for a more dynamic view of inspiration with a greater appreciation of the human character of the Bible. His later understanding of the reliability of Scripture focuses more on what it teaches about salvation than on other details.⁶⁶ 

Another contemporary scholar is Peter Enns. While he affirms inspiration, he emphasizes theological intention over propositional precision. He strongly rejects any mechanical classic verbal inspiration or strict inerrantist formulations, especially as formulated in the “Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.” In his “Incarnational Model of Scripture,” the human dimension includes ancient worldview assumptions, literary conventions, and theological diversity and pluralism. In inspiration God did not override ancient cosmology, historiography, or cultural conditioning. Rather, the Bible reflects the intellectual world of the ancient Near East and Second Temple Judaism.⁶⁷ Similar ideas can be found with John H. Walton.⁶⁸

Even within the Evangelical Theological Society, which requires every member to sign annually a statement affirming, among other items, the inerrancy of Scripture,⁶⁹ there is an increasing number of members who push for a more flexible and generous view of inerrancy. This becomes evident in the internal discussions about creation or the historicity of Adam, where numerous scholars of the Evangelical Theological Society promote theistic evolution or question the historicity of Adam.⁷⁰

Some of these progressive views, associated with a thought inspiration model, have also made inroads among theologians of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. 

Parallels in the Writings of Ellen G. White and Adventist History

The idea of thought inspiration seems to be particularly popular among several Seventh-day Adventist scholars. In support of their understanding of this model, they usually do not quote Scripture but often refer to specific statements by Ellen G. White. It is important, therefore, to carefully look at what Ellen G. White wrote about thought inspiration. 

As we have seen in the preceding discussion on dictation inspiration, White strongly rejected any form of a dictation theory of inspiration for her own writings. This stance also meant that she did not support the very narrow and flawed view of verbal inspiration that was supported by some contemporary Adventists who understood inspiration in a dictational word-focused mode. Some of the inspiration terminology that was used by others overlapped with a more verbal concept of inspiration. White, however, did not support such narrow notions of dictation or verbal inspiration.⁷¹ Instead she pointed out that inspiration works on the thoughts of the prophet and she affirmed the dynamic of the divine-human cooperation in the inspiration process. For her, the primary focus of inspiration is the person who is inspired. She wrote: 

The Bible is written by inspired men. . . . It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God.⁷²

This important passage indicates that for White, inspiration begins to function at the level of the thoughts of the inspired writer. In her understanding, “inspiration operated on the mind by giving thoughts, scenes, and sometimes words, without overruling her choice of language.”⁷³ The human utterances, however, are the word of God for her. She was keenly aware that the words she used were not perfect grammatically or orthographically.⁷⁴ She acknowledged that “different meanings are expressed by the same word,”⁷⁵ thereby giving everything human an imperfect touch. Yet she claims that the Bible is nevertheless characterized by a “simple beauty of language”⁷⁶ and an “unerring truthfulness.”⁷⁷ In her balanced view, she was also convinced that God was interested in conveying the message she had received from Him in a comprehensible manner and that God took care to avoid the corruption of His message. This also applies to the inspiration of Scripture.⁷⁸

White was convinced that God is able to use human language effectively to communicate His truth to humanity in a reliable manner. She believed that although “the Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language,”⁷⁹ nevertheless “God speaks to the human family in language they can comprehend.”⁸⁰ For her, the expressions of the Bible are not exaggerated.⁸¹ Rather, the Spirit of God guides in choosing “appropriate words with which to express the truth.”⁸² Thus, for White, the process of inspiration also extends to some degree to the written result of thought inspiration, whereby “the utterances of the man are the Word of God.”⁸³ This is why, for her, the product of the inspired writers is inspired by God: “I take the Bible just as it is, as the Inspired Word”;⁸⁴ as God’s Word it is infallible;⁸⁵ “His Word is true”⁸⁶ and “reliable.”⁸⁷ For her, there was no doubt that the Bible is “an unerring counselor, and infallible guide.”⁸⁸ Even though written by human hands, God is acknowledged as the ultimate author⁸⁹ who “gives the message and then takes especial care that it is not corrupted.”⁹⁰

White affirmed a divine-human process, in which the Spirit inspired the thoughts, revived her memory, and then assisted her in transmitting a divine message in a reliable and trustworthy manner. This did not eliminate her weaknesses nor did it force her to employ specific language. She was free to clothe the scenes that were revealed to her and to convey the thoughts that God inspired her with in her own language, unless she rendered the exact words of an angel who had spoken something during a vision. 

Some Adventist scholars of a more liberal mindset, however, have used her statements on thought inspiration to promote a more elastic understanding of biblical inspiration as well as White’s inspiration. For them, the thoughts are inspired but then the human writer is left to himself or herself to express them in fallible words. This allows these scholars to assert the existence of discrepancies and errors in the Bible⁹¹ as well as in the writings of Ellen G. White.⁹² Some still affirm the truthfulness of Scripture in matters of salvation but claim that in “science, history, or biblical exegesis” her books are of “limited value.”⁹³ In a recent book promoted as a new textbook on Adventist history for Adventist colleges, the authors claim that 

God revealed himself and his ways directly to a fallible human being. He then sent his Spirit to guide that person in communicating what he had shown so that the revelation of him and his ways was accurate. God’s revelation always comes in the context of human personality, religion, culture, and science. The person recording the revelation cannot escape these elements of humanity. God ensures that the revelation of him and his ways is true, but he does not miraculously preserve the record of the revelation from errors in history, cosmology, or science.⁹⁴

If the biblical statements on cosmology or history or science are fraught with error, many biblical teachings and the historical veracity and trustworthiness of Scripture are put into serious question.

Such a view effectively limits the effects of inspiration to salvific matters only, where the entire content of Scripture is no longer accepted as authoritative and trustworthy. This leads to yet another model of inspiration that deals precisely with this question: plenary inspiration.

Plenary Inspiration

The English word “plenary” is derived from the Latin word plenarius, which means “entire” or “complete” and expresses that something is “full, filled, or abounding,” not lacking any part of what properly belongs to it, or that a session is fully attended.⁹⁵ It could describe full political or military power (plenary power).⁹⁶ With regards to inspiration it states that the whole of Scripture in its entirety (plenary), not just certain parts of it, is inspired. Therefore, the divine authority of the Bible is full and complete in the sense that it extends equally to every part of the Scriptures.⁹⁷ With plenary inspiration there are no degrees of inspiration. Every part is inspired alike and the words of Scripture express inerrantly the truths that God wanted to communicate. The Bible is not a haphazard mixture of some human words here and some divine words there, but the entire Bible, all of Scripture, is God’s Word and thus the final and absolute authority for faith and practice.

Strengths of the Plenary Model of Inspiration

The plenary inspiration model seeks to affirm that Scripture is fully inspired, not just partially. It does not divide Scripture into inspired and uninspired passages, nor does it support degrees of inspiration. Instead, plenary inspiration accepts all parts of Scripture as being inspired by God and thus invested with divine authority. It thus affirms the full or complete authority of all of Scripture rather than leaving it up to fallible human beings to decide which parts of Scripture can be accepted and which parts cannot. As such, plenary inspiration supports a high view of Scripture. In 2 Peter 1:21, the apostle claims that none of the prophecies came by human impulse but that “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (NKJV) and in 2 Timothy 3:16, the classic biblical text on the inspiration of Scripture, Paul affirms that “all Scripture is given by inspiration” (NKJV, emphasis added), thus giving support to a plenary view of inspiration. It also has been pointed out that plenary inspiration stands in opposition to any “insight theory” that views inspiration as merely a natural human activity.⁹⁸

Deficiencies of the Plenary Model of Inspiration

Since 2 Timothy 3:16 states that all Scripture is inspired, and this is a key text that focuses on the inspired words of Scripture, it is not surprising that the plenary model of inspiration is often closely associated with the concept of verbal inspiration. Frequently it is mentioned together by proponents who exhibit a robust word-focused understanding of inspiration that is often tied to a position of strong inerrancy. Thus, while plenary inspiration denotes the extent of inspiration, it is closely associated with more rigorous verbal inspiration models and their proponents who support the idea of inerrancy. The idea that everything in Scripture is inspired could lead to a simplistic and deficient proof-text approach, in which Bible passages are indiscriminately lumped together while ignoring specific contexts and circumstances or God’s progressive revelation in the history of salvation.⁹⁹

Representative Advocates of the Plenary Model of Inspiration

The concept of plenary inspiration apparently originated in the latter Reformation period with Philipp Dotteridge as an initial advocate.¹⁰⁰ Among Protestants, the concept of plenary inspiration was particularly prominent among English-speaking Evangelicals.¹⁰¹ The close ties between verbal and plenary models of inspiration can be seen in a number of influential scholars such as the Old Princeton theologians B. B. Warfield and A. A. Hodge who have promoted a robust verbal-plenary view of inspiration that is tied strongly to inerrancy. More recently, other leading Evangelical scholars have also supported a verbal-plenary view of inspiration, such as Norman Geisler and William Nix and many signers of the “Chicago Statement of Inerrancy,” such as R. C. Sproul and J. I. Packer to mention but some. 

Parallels in the Writings of Ellen G. White and Adventist History

Ellen G. White does not use the word “plenary” in connection with the concept of inspiration. While she does not employ the technical terminology, she nevertheless affirms the full inspiration of Scripture. She quotes approvingly 2 Timothy 3:16, that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.”¹⁰² Expounding on the same passage, she makes clear that “the Word of God includes the Scriptures of the Old Testament as well as the New. One is not complete without the other. The Old Testament, no less than the New, should receive attention.”¹⁰³ She also rejected the idea of degrees of inspiration¹⁰⁴ or partial inspiration, which would inevitably lead to a canon within the canon whereby some portions of Scripture are devoid of full divine authority.¹⁰⁵ Ellen G. White warns of those “measuring by their finite rule that which is inspired and that which is not inspired.”¹⁰⁶ She bemoans that “some sit in judgment on the Scriptures, declaring that this or that passage is not inspired.¹⁰⁷ For her, “it is not the province of any man to pronounce sentence upon the Scriptures, to judge or condemn any portion of God’s Word. . . . When a man feels so very wise that he dares to dissect God’s Word, his wisdom is . . . counted foolishness.”¹⁰⁸ While every reading of Scripture involves some interpretation, it seems as if with some interpreters an interpretive priority has been granted to certain presuppositions and findings of science, which leads them to limit inspiration to matters of salvation and assumes that Scripture reflects the cosmology and culture of its times to such a degree that it cannot be trusted in matters of science and history. In a similar manner, Ellen G. White is appreciated only as a devotional writer who lacks divine authority when she writes about cosmology, health, science, or history.

Having briefly looked at four major views of inspiration, we will conclude this exploration of inspiration models by proposing a new and more comprehensive model that reflects the various aspects of inspiration more harmoniously and without the negative associations of deficient models. 

The Need for New Terminology

As we have seen from our discussion of four major inspiration models, the language used to describe the phenomenon and process of inspiration is plagued by a confusing ambiguity. The current conflicting usage of inspiration terminology is bewildering. Often the terminology that is employed is comprehended very differently by its proponents and opponents. The meaning of inspiration terminology has become increasingly fluid and the diverse concepts they represent lack a stable and uniform understanding. When words are used so differently and their meaning becomes debatable, the things they want to express ultimately become incommunicable, because we become incapable of understanding each other properly. The usual language we employ to describe inspiration has become so loaded with certain negative clichés that it is no help to understand and describe inspiration adequately. Such a state of affairs does not foster theological unity. The traditional words we use are no longer the means to understand each other clearly and correctly. Instead, certain inspiration language increasingly has become a weapon to label opponents. This deplorable situation calls for a new terminology that distinguishes itself and is not burdened by negative connotations or deficient and misleading aspects that are associated with traditional terminology. I therefore suggest a new terminology that expresses the biblical realities involved in the process of inspiration unequivocally and with greater clarity.

A New Model for Inspiration: Integral Inspiration (Inspiratio Integralis)

The new terminology that I suggest is: integral inspiration (inspiratio integralis). The word “integral” has roots in Latin (integer, meaning “whole” or “untouched”)¹⁰⁹ and carries nuanced meanings across different contexts that are helpful for our discussion. The word “integral” is used to describe something essential in forming a unified whole, such as an “integral component.” Something is integral if it cannot be separated without loss. In interdisciplinary studies, it emphasizes synthesis: blending insights from multiple fields into a comprehensive view, beyond mere juxtaposition. It describes different components or parts that together constitute the existence of something and that only together is complete and whole. Being integral means that it belongs to the totality of something and only with the integration of these different parts does it become what it is. 

By integral inspiration we affirm the harmonious integration of the divine and human aspects in the process of inspiration. The emphasis is not on the divine or the human aspects in inspiration, because both are essential to its completeness and only together in the concursus between the divine and the human is the inspiration of Scripture fully grasped and appreciated. 

This integrated understanding of inspiration affirms the divine origin and authority of the biblical text and allows for the free human participation in the composition of Scripture. Divine inspiration is not the product of human genius nor is it a human achievement. It is a divine grace and gift, given to those through whom God sees fit to communicate His will to human beings. 

While Scripture is ultimately authored by God, who inspires thoughts in the mind of the biblical writers, the human instrumentality is not just a mechanical pen in the hand of God, but contributes style, composition, literary forms, and language that is typical of the writer. The biblical writers did not communicate in a “heavenly Esperanto,”¹¹⁰ but spoke and wrote in the customary language of their times and used ideas that were familiar to the audience to whom they spoke or wrote. Inspired by God, Scripture is written by imperfect human beings. Ellen G. White has expressed this as follows:

The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes.¹¹¹

A purely divine mode of communication would be absolutely accurate and precise. Any human mode of communication necessarily carries certain limitations and weaknesses. Even the best human products are finite and fall incalculably short of absolute perfection.¹¹² The following example shall illustrate this point:

Bethoven composed 822 brilliant works written over fifty-five years. But his greatest composition falls far short of the music of heaven. Serena Wiliams is among the greatest athletes in history. She has won 22 Grand Slam Tennis tournaments and three Olympic gold medals. Her success on the Tennis court is unmatched. But her talents do not match the talent of heaven. Even the greatest human achievements are finite and thus imperfect.¹¹³

In this paragraph there are numerous misspelled names, and slightly incorrect numbers. This raises the question: “Do such mistakes, however, change the meaning in any significant way? No. None of the mistakes concern anything integral to the subject matter communicated or make any material difference to the message communicated.”¹¹⁴ The decisive issue is not whether there are any apparent mistakes in the Bible, such as minor copying or spelling errors, but whether any such defects in any way compromise the subject matter of the message that Scripture communicates.¹¹⁵ 

An analogy to the incarnation might help illustrate the point. With the inspiration of Scripture there is a certain parallel with the nature of Christ (Christological analogy). In Jesus Christ, both aspects—His divine nature and His human nature—are harmoniously united and integrated. His origin was from God. He is one with God the Father (John 10:30), but He was born of a human being, the virgin Mary. When Jesus was born, He accepted the frailty of a human body that was affected and weakened by thousands of years of sin. He got tired. He was hungry. He experienced a weak and feeble human body. Yet, He was never infected by sin. He never sinned and there was no sin in Him. In a similar manner, Scripture has a divine cause but is written by human writers and thus is affected by human frailty and imperfection. Every human language is inadequate to some extent and cannot perfectly cover or reflect all aspects of reality. There can be grammatical and orthographic imperfections or inaccuracies, but Scripture does not mislead or deceive us. Scripture is truthful, reliable, and trustworthy in what it affirms. While human beings have the potential to make mistakes, error is not necessary or inevitable. Even sinful and imperfect human beings are capable of communicating things truthfully and accurately. 

While Jesus was 100 percent human, He wanted to be acknowledged for who He really is: the Son of God! In a similar manner, the Bible was written by imperfect human beings and yet it wants to be acknowledged for what it really is: the written Word of God. Jesus lived in a specific place, at a specific time, in a specific culture, but that did not make Him culturally relative. Although He came into this world at a specific, unrepeatable historical moment, He can still be the universal Savior of all human beings around the globe who have ever lived. In a similar manner, Scripture is not historically conditioned and thereby limited and relative; but Scripture is historically constituted¹¹⁶ and thus binding for all time and all places. Of course, there are significant differences between Jesus Christ and the Bible. Only Jesus Christ became incarnated. God did not incarnate Himself into a book. We worship Jesus, but we do not worship a book. That would be bibliolatry, a form of worshiping an idol. But we respect the words of Scripture because they testify of Jesus who regarded the Scriptures as His authoritative norm for faith and practice. When Scripture is not the context for our understanding of Jesus Christ, Jesus becomes the pretext for judging Scripture!¹¹⁷ It is noteworthy that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever criticized parts of Scripture nor did they feel the need to point out mistakes or errors in it. Never did they insinuate that Scripture is not trustworthy or lacks divine authority. When it comes to our attitude about Scripture, can we be more apostolic than the apostles were? Can we be more Christian than Christ Himself? 

Conclusion

The integral nature of the divine and human in the process of inspiration is crucial for a proper and balanced understanding of the nature of Scripture and the proper authority of Scripture. The need for a new model of inspiration grows out of the awareness that for the Protestant Reformation, including Luther and Calvin, the doctrine of inspiration was the decisive framework for their biblical hermeneutic.¹¹⁸ This insight certainly also holds true for Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutics.¹¹⁹ Wherever the divine and human factors are less than fully integral parts in the process of inspiration, whenever they are not carefully integrated so that one dominates the other, hermeneutical issues arise that negatively affect our understanding of Scripture and have repercussions for the authority of the Bible. The model of integral inspiration can foster a deeper understanding and appreciation of the integral factors at work in the process of inspiration. It can enable authentic dialogue without prejudice and thus help to foster an understanding that affirms the inspired witness about inspiration and acknowledges common ground that exists among various positions. 

A big “Thank You!” goes to Brad LaLonde, for his creative art work throughout the entire article. Brad wants to use art to draw others to Christ and His truth for our time. His favorite pass time is making Sermon Skechnotes. He currently lives in Montana with his wife Nicole and their two kids: Azalea (5) and Aadrik (2). He can be contacted at LaLonde.brad@gmail.com