The Bible is inspired by God?

[Pellman]

Wow.. he latches on to what he wants to see and ignores the other possibilities which don't hold the promise to reinforcing his view. What a concept..

Feel free to elaborate.

[themuzicman]

Feel free to elaborate.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...10&postcount=4

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...05&postcount=7

[Pellman]

The ultimate statement is that God wrote through John. I know who wrote the books. God wrote the entire Bible.
...
If we choose to discount portions of the Word of God intended for all men, are we choosing to discount God?

Z,

Let me try to capture the question again.

Revelation of course claims to be revelation. But in his other works, John does not claim they are inspired.

No other inspired text claims that John's letters or gospel are inspired.

So if it John's writings are inspired, that fact itself does not come to us through revelation. Therefore, the belief that John's writings are inspired is not itself based on revelation. If John's writings are inspired, then we can say the statements "God is love" and "In the beginning was the Word" are revelation. But the statement "John's writings are inspired" is not itself revelation. Therefore it is based only on men's opinions.

It would be like if the resurrected Lord did not reveal Himselfa and the apostles just found an empty tomb and theorized that the Lord was raised.

Doesn't that make you uneasy?

[Pellman]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...10&postcount=4

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...05&postcount=7

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=elaborate

[themuzicman]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=elaborate

2 Peter 1:16-21. Peter has just said that he wants to remind them of the things he taught them, so they'll remember afte he's gone. He then establishes the authority of the apostles by reminding them that the apostles didn't just repeat a story about Christ, but that they were eyewitnesses of His glory, and heard the voice of God the Father. And, because of this Peter says, "We have the propetic word made more sure", referring to their own prophecies, and then Peter gets more specific and speaks about the authority of those prophetic writings, even going so far as to say that the writers of prophecy were born by the Holy Spirit Himself as the prophet "spoke from God."

Peter then goes on to tell of false teachers who are coming, and clearly Peter's intent is to give the church a weapon agains them, namely the writings of the OT and of the apostles, establishing them as the Written Word spoken from God Himself via the Holy Spirit.

Since Muhammed didn't see Christ's glory, his writings are no more the Word of God then yours or mine.

And, before anyone objects about Paul, Peter calls Paul's writings scripture, when he says that some "twist Paul's writings as they do with other Scripture." So, Paul is definitely IN as far as Peter (writing under the bearing of the Holy Spirit) is concerned.

Happy?

[Zguy28]

Z,

Let me try to capture the question again.

Revelation of course claims to be revelation. But in his other works, John does not claim they are inspired.

No other inspired text claims that John's letters or gospel are inspired.

Do they have to expressly proclaim it? You're thinking in reverse from me, because you're using worldly wisdom. The Bible is inspired (this is spiritually discerned), and this is what I start with. I don't need it to state it such as "this is the sipired Gospel of John" because I accept Apostolic authority which was given from the Lord Jesus (and we know Jesus is Lord from Revelation which you are so keen on) to John.

So if it John's writings are inspired, that fact itself does not come to us through revelation. Therefore, the belief that John's writings are inspired is not itself based on revelation.

Yes it is, see above.

If John's writings are inspired, then we can say the statements "God is love" and "In the beginning was the Word" are revelation.

Yes they are revelation. How else would we have know "in the beginning the Word was with God and was God" (paraphrase)?

But the statement "John's writings are inspired" is not itself revelation.

Yes it is, based again on Apostolic authority REVEALED to us through the Lord Jesus.

Therefore it is based only on men's opinions.

No its not.

It would be like if the resurrected Lord did not reveal Himselfa and the apostles just found an empty tomb and theorized that the Lord was raised.

Thats not what happened. And neither did your theories. Inspiration is real thing.

Doesn't that make you uneasy?

It does not make me uneasy. Not in the slightest. Faith is not blind, its placed in a trustworthy source - God.

[Pellman]

2 Peter 1:16-21. Peter has just said that he wants to remind them of the things he taught them, so they'll remember afte he's gone. He then establishes the authority of the apostles by reminding them that the apostles didn't just repeat a story about Christ, but that they were eyewitnesses of His glory, and heard the voice of God the Father. And, because of this Peter says, "We have the propetic word made more sure", referring to their own prophecies, and then Peter gets more specific and speaks about the authority of those prophetic writings, even going so far as to say that the writers of prophecy were born by the Holy Spirit Himself as the prophet "spoke from God."

Peter then goes on to tell of false teachers who are coming, and clearly Peter's intent is to give the church a weapon agains them, namely the writings of the OT and of the apostles, establishing them as the Written Word spoken from God Himself via the Holy Spirit.

Since Muhammed didn't see Christ's glory, his writings are no more the Word of God then yours or mine.

And, before anyone objects about Paul, Peter calls Paul's writings scripture, when he says that some "twist Paul's writings as they do with other Scripture." So, Paul is definitely IN as far as Peter (writing under the bearing of the Holy Spirit) is concerned.

Happy?

I understand all of that, muzikman, and have addressed it.

How do you get from your points to the conclusion "The Gospel by Matthew was inspired by God"? Because it is "scripture" and "all Scripture is God-breathed"? But who identified it as scripture? And was it revealed by God to that person that the gospel of Matthew was inspired?

The fact that Matthew was an eye-witness to Jesus only means he is a good first-hand source, not that God directed his hand in writing. And it doesn't guarantee that Matthew made no mistakes in preserving Christ's words.

[Zguy28]

I understand all of that, muzikman, and have addressed it.

How do you get from your points to the conclusion "The Gospel by Matthew was inspired by God"? Because it is "scripture" and "all Scripture is God-breathed"? But who identified it as scripture? And was it revealed by God to that person that the gospel of Matthew was inspired?

The fact that Matthew was an eye-witness to Jesus only means he is a good first-hand source, not that God directed his hand in writing. And it doesn't guarantee that Matthew made no mistakes in preserving Christ's words.

Would you consider yourself to be a good person?

[themuzicman]

I understand all of that, muzikman, and have addressed it.

How do you get from your points to the conclusion "The Gospel by Matthew was inspired by God"? Because it is "scripture" and "all Scripture is God-breathed"? But who identified it as scripture? And was it revealed by God to that person that the gospel of Matthew was inspired?

The fact that Matthew was an eye-witness to Jesus only means he is a good first-hand source, not that God directed his hand in writing. And it doesn't guarantee that Matthew made no mistakes in preserving Christ's words.

But what this passage does is distinguish scripture writers and their writings from all other writiers and writings. It also establishes the means for saying that "these are the Words of God", that being the bearing of the Holy Spirit, and speaking from God.

(There is a translational issue that I deal with in a paper that I wrote, but I don't have room to post a 20 page paper, here)

The word that is commonly translated "interpretation" is a problem for translators, since it is the only use of that word in the OT, and it's not very frequently used before that time. Afterwards, the ECFs use it to mean "interpretation", but I don't think that's how Peter intended it. Given Peter's claim to authority based upon his being an eyewitness, and to having prophetic words, a better translation would be "not of one's own revelation", such that the author isn't the one speaking or revealing the truth, but the Holy Spirit working through the author.

Thus, we have a clear path from God to paper.

Michael

[James Peter]

This is one answer to the question. I take it you mean the possibility that the texts themselves are not inspired (as we moderns mean it) except in so far as they are accurately recording revelation. For instance, when Paul says he is handing on the faith which he received.

This opens a difficulty as to which parts represent revelation. Paul speaks with an authoritative style all the time and it is hard to know when he his relating revelation and when his own opinion. The inspired-Bible approach eliminates this difficulty: even when Paul is relating his own opinion, instead of revelation, God was moving him to relate that opinion in what-would-become-Scripture.

What sort of authority do the texts have, if they do not have the force of inspiration by God? Most or all of what James relates in his letter does not read as if he were relating revelation. He obviously believes he is relating the truth but is it revealed truth? And if not, why should I give James more weight than C. S. Lewis? I have good reason to think C. S. Lewis a wise man. I know little about James.

I would say that I agree with Barth that Scripture is revelation only at the point when God is actively revealing Himself through it. Revelation is an event involving a specific individual rather than a property of a text. Words alone aren't, can't be even, revelation but God can and does reveal himself through words. He also reveals himself through actions and, to be honest, all of creation. When God reveals himself that is revelation, when God is not actively revealing himself what we have is not revelation. I don't agree with Barth on much but I do about that.

As for the authority of the texts...I believe that the texts have as much authority as their author, plus a little extra gained from the Church which accepts their message through history. The letter which Paul wrote to the Galatians surely had no more authority than what Paul said and taught to them face to face. In fact if you look at letters like Philemon (and the Johaninnes Epistles) you see that Paul (and 'the Elder') considered writing a poor substitute for actually being there. The written word removed from its context clearly had less authority than the present and imminent prophetic word. With time the church realised how dangerous that was and the balance of power shifted but during the first generation (2 Peter almost certainly dates to the second or third generation of the Church) the apostles and prophets clearly were the source of guidance and authority rather than any written material.

With time certain texts formed a canon, that is something to measure new revelations against to ensure they were consistent with the original gospel but even that is a long way from something like verbal inspiration (or even non-verbal direct inspiration).

This has become my conclusion also. (and I also made mention that within scripture the phrase "word of God" does not refer to scripture per se) Except that it is not clear (yet) that an acceptance of God infallibly guiding the Church with regards to the identification of Scripture implies that He has infallibly guided in other matters.

But as the early Church considered Tradition equal to Scripture it seems to be a case of us picking and choosing (because we want Scripture to be 'special') rather than being an objective conclusion we could arrive at from the evidence alone. The emphasis on Scripture was a necessary part of the Reformation (only by greatly increasing Scripture's authority could they remove Rome's authority) but that doesn't mean that it was theologically justifiable. It was a political necessity in a largely political piece of history. Our view of Scripture would be very, very different if the political climate of the early 16th century had been different. That alone surely should be cause for concern.

[moose7237]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Zguy28]

• Edited by a Moderator •Understanding the Bible accurately and correctly requires at least two things.

1. Faith in the Lord Jesus as your Savior. Read Book of John and pray.
2. A good hermeneutic. Read Biblical Hermeneutics

[amigoxp]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[amigoxp]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Phat8594]

I don't know if you are a Christian, but I am, and while I value textual criticism, I consider higher criticism unnecessary. It concerns things such as who wrote the individual books of the Bible. Did John write John? Yes, but that is not the ultimate statement. The ultimate statement is that God wrote through John. I know who wrote the books. God wrote the entire Bible. Higher criticism is not a valid discipline. When people get into debates about authorship, someone might decide that the pagan Canaanites wrote the 10 Commandment and Moses simply found them and copied them. On what authority would they be required to obey the 10 commandments? There is no authority for that obedience

Just because somebody misuses higher textual criticism, does not make higher textual criticism in itself a bad thing. If that were the case, the same argument could be made as to why Bible Study is not a valid discipline.