What were the last inspired writings?

[Datak]

Obviously the books of the biblical canon(s) are held to be inspired and those books included in scripture will vary. But are there other inspired writings? I know we have the various creeds, but are they considered inspired? What were the last inspired writings? I would love to know.

 

[St_Worm2]

Obviously the books of the biblical canon(s) are held to be inspired and those books included in scripture will vary. But are there other inspired writings? I know we have the various creeds, but are they considered inspired? What were the last inspired writings? I would love to know.

Hi Datak, for Protestants anyway, the NT is it. As important as we hold the creeds, confessions, councils, writings of the ECF's, etc., there is nothing written after the Canon was closed that we consider to be binding upon our consciences.

I'm not certain that is true for the EO and the RCC however, but I'm sure someone will come along who can answer that for us.

Yours and His,
David

 

[oi_antz]

Obviously the books of the biblical canon(s) are held to be inspired and those books included in scripture will vary. But are there other inspired writings? I know we have the various creeds, but are they considered inspired? What were the last inspired writings? I would love to know.

There is scriptural support that God is inspiring people to say and write even today. Jesus said "what I tell you in private, shout from the rooftops". Author of John says "the life is the light of men", and St Paul, who is broadly considered to have written inspired texts, explained in 1 Corinthian 2 that when he writes, he explains what The Spirit has taught him. I believe there are Christians even today who explain what The Spirit has taught them. .. And, what is the light, what is the inspiration, if it is not The Word of God? Of course it is! The Word became flesh and told us that He is the truth. So, wherever we see truth, we see The Word of God. Also Joel prophesied that in this age, God will pour His spirit on all sorts of people and some will prophesy. You can read about that in Joel 2.

 

[St_Worm2]

There is scriptural support that God is inspiring people to say and write even today. Jesus said "what I tell you in private, shout from the rooftops". Author of John says "the life is the light of men", and St Paul, who is broadly considered to have written inspired texts, explained in 1 Corinthian 2 that when he writes, he explains what The Spirit has taught him. I believe there are Christians even today who explain what The Spirit has taught them. .. And, what is the light, what is the inspiration, if it is not The Word of God? Of course it is! The Word became flesh and told us that He is the truth. So, wherever we see truth, we see The Word of God. Also Joel prophesied that in this age, God will pour His spirit on all sorts of people and some will prophesy. You can read about that in Joel 2.

Hi O_A, which post-NT writings, specifically, do you consider to be equal in authority to the Bible?

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

 

[oi_antz]

Hi O_A, which post-NT writings, specifically, do you consider to be equal in authority to the Bible?

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

Hi St Worm, I am not one to say that the bible has any more authority that post-NT writings as a general rule. If it is true, then it is true and I will acknowledge that. NT has more authority IMO to make claims of fact about events at that time than someone who makes conflicting claims of fact out of the blue today.

 

[oi_antz]

Hi O_A, which post-NT writings, specifically, do you consider to be equal in authority to the Bible?

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

This might be something to consider:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ts-on-a-christian-site.7879303/#post-67494350

"Everyone who willingly got distanciated from Christ is deluded and fell on sin and on pride, the worst sin of them all."

.. and although the exact words used might not be as robust as they would be if this person was taught to read and write in St Paul's era, the actual meaning of what this person is saying contains as much truth as should be expected in the bible, and is remarkably consistent with the way the bible authors think. As such, this statement can be supported with biblical material and not contradicted by it.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi St Worm, I am not one to say that the bible has any more authority that post-NT writings as a general rule. If it is true, then it is true and I will acknowledge that. NT has more authority IMO to make claims of fact about events at that time than someone who makes conflicting claims of fact out of the blue today.

Hi again O_A, so something like the Beatitudes from the 1st Century carry no more weight with you than something written more recently by someone like Nietzsche or Hume? Or do you only mean modern works that do not contradict what the Bible says?

Also, I see that you quote ViaCrucis and Razeontherock along with St. Paul in your posts' signature lines. Do you hold what our CF brothers have to say in their quotes as no less important and no less the words of God than you hold the Apostle Paul's words from Ephesians and Galatians?

Thanks!

--David

 

[oi_antz]

Hi again O_A, so something like the Beatitudes from the 1st Century carry no more weight with you than something written more recently by someone like Nietzsche or Hume? Or do you only mean modern works that do not contradict what the Bible says?

Also, I see that you quote ViaCrucis and Razeontherock along with St. Paul in your posts' signature lines. Do you hold what our CF brothers have to say in their quotes as no less important and no less the words of God than you hold the Apostle Paul's words from Ephesians and Galatians?

Thanks!

--David

I think you have summed me well, though I cannot comment specifically on the texts you have mentioned. Obviously there is advantages the ancients had that moderns do not have (culture and information) whereas moderns have hindsight which the ancients could only imagine.

Yes, I did mention why I have elevated razeontherock's statement and viacrucis' statement on par with St Paul's because I believe and state that I observe a significant truth in these statements. I did explain too how I perceive God's Word: not scribbles on paper bound in black cover, but Truth. Jesus said "I am the truth" and He also said "where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst if them". So you and I being gathered in His name has brought the truth to our midst. We have The Word of God in our midst.

 

[Willtor]

Obviously the books of the biblical canon(s) are held to be inspired and those books included in scripture will vary. But are there other inspired writings? I know we have the various creeds, but are they considered inspired? What were the last inspired writings? I would love to know.

The canon's purpose is not to collect all inspired books into a single binding, but to be a standard (which is what "canon" means) by which one measures the inspiration of everything else. I think many creeds, Church documents, sermons, speeches, encyclicals, etc. are inspired. The "canon" is simply that: a standard, rule, or metric.

 

[Architeuthus]

Yes, I did mention why I have elevated razeontherock's statement and viacrucis' statement on par with St Paul's because I believe and state that I observe a significant truth in these statements. I did explain too how I perceive God's Word: not scribbles on paper bound in black cover, but Truth. Jesus said "I am the truth" and He also said "where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst if them". So you and I being gathered in His name has brought the truth to our midst. We have The Word of God in our midst.

So ultimately, for you, "God's Word" just means "anything written by anybody that you happen to agree with"?

 

[oi_antz]

So ultimately, for you, "God's Word" just means "anything written by anybody that you happen to agree with"?

It has been a prominent pattern, but no not really. I have my own will, so I would be agreeing with things that aren't necessarily what God says. But, The Word of God does correspond to the truth, and I do not consciously disagree with that. Is that helpful?

What do you think John 1:1 says? In the beginning was the bible, and the bible was with God, and the bible was god. The bible was with God in the beginning. Through the bible everything was made, and without the bible nothing was made that has been made.

It's a fascinating truth when you dig into it.

 

[Architeuthus]

I have my own will, so I would be agreeing with things that aren't necessarily what God says.

Exactly.

Hence the problem I have with your statement "I have elevated razeontherock's statement and viacrucis' statement on par with St Paul's because I believe and state that I observe a significant truth in these statements."

What do you think John 1:1 says?

It says "In the beginning was the Logos." The term "Logos" is from Greek philosophy, but refers in John 1 to God the Son. It does not refer to anything written.

 

[oi_antz]

Exactly.

Hence the problem I have with your statement "I have elevated razeontherock's statement and viacrucis' statement on par with St Paul's because I believe and state that I observe a significant truth in these statements."



It says "In the beginning was the Logos." The term "Logos" is from Greek philosophy, but refers in John 1 to God the Son. It does not refer to anything written.

Do you think that there is not significant truth in these statements, or that somehow St Paul's statements are not just a man's statement that contains significant truth? If so, please explain why, otherwise you really should explain why you have a problem because anyone is left to guess.

Yes, the common translation in English is "Word" rather than Logos. I object to people claiming that the bible is the Word of God, because there is no indication that it is a Christian concept, so far is as evidenced by the example set by original Christians in biblical scripture. All scriptural indications, especially John chapter 1 where the phrase originates, indicate that men either wrote what they thought was their honest belief, their honest recollection of events, or what God has directly told them. St Paul seems to write mostly his honest beliefs, as have razeontherock and ViaCrucis in these statements.

Signature is copy/pasted for future reference:

Psalms 25:14
Friendship with God is reserved for those who reverence him. With them alone he shares the secrets of his promises.

Ephesians 3:12
In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.

Worship the true God: ISAIAH 44:6-23

Galatians 5:22-23, NLT
But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!

ViaCrucis
But Scripture seems fairly straightforward about what that forgiveness looks like, it looks like the Son of God hanging upon a cross. Jesus is God's forgiveness.

Razeontherock
Chucking your brain out the window makes Biblical Christianity impossible

 

[Architeuthus]

Do you think that there is not significant truth in these statements, or that somehow St Paul's statements are not just a man's statement that contains significant truth?

No, I believe that the Pauline Epistles in the NT are inspired, and the words of razeontherock and viacrucis are not.

I object to people claiming that the bible is the Word of God, because there is no indication that it is a Christian concept, so far is as evidenced by the example set by original Christians in biblical scripture.

"Scripture" is a Christian concept, and from very early on, the NT was viewed by Christians as Scripture.

All scriptural indications, especially John chapter 1 where the phrase originates

I think you are confused, as many are, between "Word of God = Logos = God the Son" and "word of God" = message of God (and especially, written message).

John 1 refers to "Word of God = Logos = God the Son." Other NT passages refer to "word of God" = message of God.

 

[oi_antz]

No, I believe that the Pauline Epistles in the NT are inspired, and the words of razeontherock and viacrucis are not.

Can you please explain why you believe this, and what it means. Especially what it means that St Paul's words were inspired by God whereas Razeontherock and ViaCrucis were not? I have known both Razeontherock and ViaCrucis, and I do believe those people are genuinely inspired by their faith in God.

"Scripture" is a Christian concept, and from very early on, the NT was viewed by Christians as Scripture.

I think you are confused, as many are, between "Word of God = Logos = God the Son" and "word of God" = message of God (and especially, written message).

John 1 refers to "Word of God = Logos = God the Son." Other NT passages refer to "word of God" = message of God.

Can you please provide some references to support this statement:

"Other NT passages refer to "word of God" = message of God."

 

[Architeuthus]

Can you please explain why you believe this, and what it means.

I mean "inspired" in the usual sense, as I'm sure you know.

Can you please provide some references to support this statement:

"Other NT passages refer to "word of God" = message of God."

For example, in "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God (ton logon tou theou)" -- Hebrews 13:7 -- logos is clearly "message"

Whereas in "And the Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth" -- John 1:14 -- Logos is clearly God the Son

 

[oi_antz]

I mean "inspired" in the usual sense, as I'm sure you know.

You should not make that assumption, it doesn't help anyone understand your position. There seems to be a lot of confusion about what this means, and in the Wikipedia article you have referenced, there is three different ideas described. When I read the description of Martin Luther's view, I do not see why you would disqualify Razeontherock and ViaCrucis's statements.

I wonder whether you are maybe not sure enough of what you believe, or whether you are just not feeling helpful. Either way, you have made an assertion without sufficient explanation to convey a necessary understanding, so I don't know why you would bother. Maybe you are hoping someone will agree based on an emotional sympathy, I really don't know. I would like to though, because I am curious I might be able to grow.

For example, in "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God (ton logon tou theou)" -- Hebrews 13:7 -- logos is clearly "message"

Whereas in "And the Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth" -- John 1:14 -- Logos is clearly God the Son

Excellent answer, thank you. So do you think the message of God manifests outside of the bible?

 

[Architeuthus]

You should not make that assumption, it doesn't help anyone understand your position.

I'm not going to waste time outlining a fairly stock-standard position. Try this link.

 

[oi_antz]

I'm not going to waste time outlining a fairly stock-standard position. Try this link.

It would not be a waste of time. Referring me to that link is am waste of my time. There is no explanation there, it is all baseless assertions that immediately seem wrong. I suppose though, if you can't explain yourself then you simply won't. You are not presenting a rational argument, but you are allowed to do that.

 

[Architeuthus]

It would not be a waste of time. Referring me to that link is am waste of my time. There is no explanation there, it is all baseless assertions that immediately seem wrong. I suppose though, if you can't explain yourself then you simply won't. You are not presenting a rational argument, but you are allowed to do that.

My position is exactly that of the Chicago statement. I gave you the link rather than retyping it.

Feel free to disagree with my position.