New Testament Inerrancy

[Call me Nic]

As I have already indicated - Paul's letters, by and large, were written before the gospels and, probably, before Luke wrote (there may be a small overlap with a few of Paul's letters and Luke's writings). 2 Timothy was written just as the gospels were being written, but after the majority of Paul's writings. Therefore any reference to Paul's writings as scripture would be on the basis of its Tanach ('old' testament) content.

So are you saying the NT writings aren't scripture?

 

[JIMINZ]

A question regarding this verse.

2Ti 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

We see in the verse before this one the word Scriptures being used, if these Scriptures being spoken of are indeed Old Testament, then where in the Old Testament do we find anything about
"Salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."


2Ti 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Therefore when Paul uses this word (Scripture) again in verse 16, we know of assurance, he (Paul) is speaking of what we know to be New Testament writings.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi JIMINZ, I always took the "Scriptures" that St. Paul refers to in v15 to be the OT, since St. Paul speaks of Scriptures that were available to Timothy when he was a child (it would be hard to believe that the autographs had been penned and distributed while Timothy was still a young boy .. though I suppose it's possible, of course).

The Jews in OT times were looking forward in faith to Messiah's arrival, and they knew that their salvation was going to be a gracious one through faith as well. Here are a few verses/passages to consider along those lines .. Genesis 15:6; Psalm 9:6-7; Isaiah 53:5-6.

Yours and His,
David

 

[Radagast]

So are you saying the NT writings aren't scripture?

There is only one allowable answer to that. the CF rules say:

Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum). You may disagree on the interpretation and application of his writings, but not their place as canon or Paul as an inspired author of Scripture.

 

[JIMINZ]

Hi JIMINZ, I always took the "Scriptures" that St. Paul refers to in v15 to be the OT, since St. Paul speaks of Scriptures that were available to Timothy when he was a child (it would be hard to believe that the autographs had been penned and distributed while Timothy was still a young boy .. though I suppose it's possible, of course).

The Jews in OT times were looking forward in faith to Messiah's arrival, and they knew that their salvation was going to be a gracious one through faith as well. Here are a few verses/passages to consider along those lines .. Genesis 15:6; Psalm 9:6-7; Isaiah 53:5-6.


Yours and His,
David

.
What you say is true to some extent.
While yes the Jews of OT times were looking forward to the Messiah, they were at the same time not looking for what they got.

Their Salvation to them was something entirely different than what they expected, that is one reason they didn't acknowledge Jesus as Messiah.

Also the Salvation we know today, was not available in the OT at all, and was not even a full blown concept until Jesus was Sacrificed, even the Disciples didn't understand it until it happened.

My only contention was to demonstrate that verse 15 said.

"Salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." was not something which the OT Jews knew about.

And that the word Scriptures was used in connection of Paul's statement to Timothy therefore the word Scriptures being actually (Writings, or Documents) was actually used.

Be Blessed

 

[Heber Book List]

"All Scripture", by the time 2 Timothy was written, would surely include a number of post-OT Letters, would it not? (e.g. Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians................). It seems to me that this was also confirmed by St. Peter in 2 Peter 3. The Apostles and other human authors of Scripture knew what was (and what was not) inspired/breathed at the time the Epistles and Gospels were being written.

--David

I don't think it was in their minds that these letters were, or would become, scripture. Had the gospels not been written, I doubt that Paul's letters would have survived for long, bearing in mind that he does not mention the birth and death of Yeshua, or much in between, in any great detail. I think the comment in 2 Tim was clearly about the OT.

Paul's letters, however, are now a part of our Bibles, and are therefore scripture.

 

[Call me Nic]

I don't think it was in their minds that these letters were, or would become, scripture. Had the gospels not been written, I doubt that Paul's letters would have survived for long, bearing in mind that he does not mention the birth and death of Yeshua, or much in between, in any great detail. I think the comment in 2 Tim was clearly about the OT.

Paul's letters, however, are now a part of our Bibles, and are therefore scripture.

By this reasoning, friend, if the apostles themselves didn't consider their writings to be inspired scripture, then how could anyone (all who followed being lesser than the apostles in authority) declare what epistles were genuinely inspired or not? How could anyone know for sure, then, if they hadn't just decided to add them to the list of canonized books or not, that these writings were inspired? More than that, how is it that they then didn't accept that the early church writings from men such as Polycarp and Cyprian, or Irenaeus were also inspired writings? How could they tell the difference, if the apostles themselves didn't consider their own writings inspired of God?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Being "inspired of God" did not make writings Scripture. ALL THE WORDS they spoke and wrote, they considered needed to be "inspired by God". Every one of them. As Jesus taught them, let EVERY word be as from God, and every action. I think this is written once or more times in God's Word.

 

[Call me Nic]

Being "inspired of God" did not make writings Scripture. ALL THE WORDS they spoke and wrote, they considered needed to be "inspired by God". Every one of them. As Jesus taught them, let EVERY word be as from God, and every action. I think this is written once or more times in God's Word.

So something written by a man that wasn't moved by the Holy Ghost (aka inspired of God) can be just as authoritative as the apostolic epistles?

Being "inspired of God" perhaps did make writings scripture, but all scripture is indeed "inspired of God."

 

[Heber Book List]

By this reasoning, friend, if the apostles themselves didn't consider their writings to be inspired scripture, then how could anyone (all who followed being lesser than the apostles in authority) declare what epistles were genuinely inspired or not? How could anyone know for sure, then, if they hadn't just decided to add them to the list of canonized books or not, that these writings were inspired? More than that, how is it that they then didn't accept that the early church writings from men such as Polycarp and Cyprian, or Irenaeus were also inspired writings? How could they tell the difference, if the apostles themselves didn't consider their own writings inspired of God?

No problem at all. The Holy Spirit ensured that all the necessary documents were protected, and kept. The Holy Spirit then guided those who set the canon of scripture to ensure that all that was of G_d (inspired) was included in the appropriate place. The writers did not need to know, it would save charges of them being puffed up. That is how Paul felt able to make some personal halachic decisions (as he admits) in his letters. It is also why there are slight variations between, and sometimes within, books, such as Luke saying that Paul went off and began teaching immediately after his Damascus experience, and Paul saying in Galatians that he took a 17 year sabbatical. Do remember that we do not know who wrote a number of the books in the Christian Testament - some are attributed to certain people or named by tradition; only G_d could sort that out!

It helps to trust G_d in these matters. When there is a simple answer, lets try not to look for a complicated answer

 

[Call me Nic]

No problem at all. The Holy Spirit ensured that all the necessary documents were protected, and kept. The Holy Spirit then guided those who set the canon of scripture to ensure that all that was of G_d (inspired) was included in the appropriate place. The writers did not need to know, it would save charges of them being puffed up. That is how Paul felt able to make some personal halachic decisions (as he admits) in his letters. It is also why there are slight variations between, and sometimes within, books, such as Luke saying that Paul went off and began teaching immediately after his Damascus experience, and Paul saying in Galatians that he took a 17 year sabbatical. Do remember that we do not know who wrote a number of the books in the Christian Testament - some are attributed to certain people or named by tradition; only G_d could sort that out!

It helps to trust G_d in these matters. When there is a simple answer, lets try not to look for a complicated answer

I agree with you in terms of trusting God.

However, the assertion that the apostles didn't know they were writing scripture (even though they knew they were specially chosen by God to be his witnesses to the uttermost parts of the earth) is merely conjecture, and I feel the writings in the epistles were purposefully authoritative by them because they knew that they were writing for the purpose of continuing the revelations of Christ - John, for example, the Apostle, when he wrote revelation, knew that what he was writing was a prophecy and revelation, therefore, he knew that what he was writing was scripture. I just don't buy the idea that they didn't know their writings weren't scripture, sorry.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So something written by a man that wasn't moved by the Holy Ghost (aka inspired of God) can be just as authoritative as the apostolic epistles?

Being "inspired of God" perhaps did make writings scripture, but all scripture is indeed "inspired of God."

No. Not unless God Divinely makes it so. (1st question)

No. Being "inspired of God" did not make writings Scripture, since all that the Ekklesia do is (supposed to be) inspired of God.

Scripture is God-Breathed directly, purposefully His Own Purpose and Plan Perfectly, Guarded by God even more than His Own Name, as God intended even before He Created the earth and all life. Unlike man's tradition, which often fails.

 

[Heber Book List]

I agree with you in terms of trusting God.

However, the assertion that the apostles didn't know they were writing scripture (even though they knew they were specially chosen by God to be his witnesses to the uttermost parts of the earth) is merely conjecture, and I feel the writings in the epistles were purposefully authoritative by them because they knew that they were writing for the purpose of continuing the revelations of Christ - John, for example, the Apostle, when he wrote revelation, knew that what he was writing was a prophecy and revelation, therefore, he knew that what he was writing was scripture. I just don't buy the idea that they didn't know their writings weren't scripture, sorry.

Revelation is an exception, it was almost the last to be written. If the writers knew they were writing scripture, how come there are so many mistakes in the CT? Conjecture can equally be found by insisting they knew they were writing scripture, but that conjecture ignores their own words being put in, errors appearing, books not agreeing with each other etc etc etc. If it was all inspired at the time by G_d errors should not appear, surely?

No, G_d is not a G_d of disorder and confusion. The letters / documents were gathered by people inspired by the Spirit to bring them all into one place and the canon to be set.

 

[Call me Nic]

No. Not unless God Divinely makes it so. (1st question)

No. Being "inspired of God" did not make writings Scripture, since all that the Ekklesia do is (supposed to be) inspired of God.

Scripture is God-Breathed directly, purposefully His Own Purpose and Plan Perfectly, Guarded by God even more than His Own Name, as God intended even before He Created the earth and all life. Unlike man's tradition, which often fails.

What you're suggesting is that extra-biblical books such as the apocrypha can be just as inspired as the Biblical texts, in that you say that all saved men are supposed to do and write as inspired from God. However, the apocrypha and other non-bible writings clearly contradict many doctrines in the Bible, and God does not contradict himself. So, it wouldn't seem to me that all writings done by "Ekklesia" are inspired, nor should they be. Because, if that were the case, we would have no ceasing of revelation from God as anybody and everybody would be writing something and claiming they were inspired of God to write it.

To have inspiration in a writing means to be influenced by an outside factor, or to draw from a source other than yourself. If all writings done by Ekklesia are inspired, then God has contradicted himself.

 

[Call me Nic]

Revelation is an exception, it was almost the last to be written. If the writers knew they were writing scripture, how come there are so many mistakes in the CT? Conjecture can equally be found by insisting they knew they were writing scripture, but that conjecture ignores their own words being put in, errors appearing, books not agreeing with each other etc etc etc. If it was all inspired at the time by G_d errors should not appear, surely?

Well, at this point, the conversation falls on what one would tend to believe regarding this. You believe the original writings were not considered authoritative scripture by the Apostles themselves, and I do. We both have points for and against it, I think.

No, G_d is not a G_d of disorder and confusion. The letters / documents were gathered by people inspired by the Spirit to bring them all into one place and the canon to be set.

I do agree with you on this.

 

[Call me Nic]

Revelation is an exception, it was almost the last to be written. If the writers knew they were writing scripture, how come there are so many mistakes in the CT? Conjecture can equally be found by insisting they knew they were writing scripture, but that conjecture ignores their own words being put in, errors appearing, books not agreeing with each other etc etc etc. If it was all inspired at the time by G_d errors should not appear, surely?

By the way, what errors are you specifically referring to? And how do we know those errors were in the originals?

 

[Heber Book List]

By the way, what errors are you specifically referring to? And how do we know those errors were in the originals?

I have already given you one, and told you about Paul saying he had made his own decision and wrote it down. He says it did not come from God. I think that to look at this subject on this thread would be to hijack the thread

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What you're suggesting is that extra-biblical books such as the apocrypha can be just as inspired as the Biblical texts, in that you say that all saved men are supposed to do and write as inspired from God. However, the apocrypha and other non-bible writings clearly contradict many doctrines in the Bible, and God does not contradict himself. So, it wouldn't seem to me that all writings done by "Ekklesia" are inspired, nor should they be. Because, if that were the case, we would have no ceasing of revelation from God as anybody and everybody would be writing something and claiming they were inspired of God to write it.

To have inspiration in a writing means to be influenced by an outside factor, or to draw from a source other than yourself. If all writings done by Ekklesia are inspired, then God has contradicted himself.

No, the apocrypha cannot be inspired - it was used too much too often against God and His Word and His people.


No, inspiration by Yahweh, Scripturally, does not mean to be influenced by an outside factor, nor to draw from a source other than yourself.

Perhaps because of that faulty premise, other understanding is not yet received .

Did you not read in God's Word, that all writings and actions of Ekklesia (those called and chosen by Yahweh, born again and set apart by Him for Himself)
are to be as from God ? This includes you if you are or become Ekklesia.

 

[JIMINZ]

By the way, what errors are you specifically referring to? And how do we know those errors were in the originals?

Errors may only be in the eyes of the beholder.

How do we know what we might call errors are actually errors indeed and not just our own misunderstanding, or Misinterpretation?

 

[Heber Book List]

Errors may only be in the eyes of the beholder.

How do we know what we might call errors are actually errors indeed and not just our own misunderstanding, or Misinterpretation?

How would you misinterpret the gap between what Luke says about Paul going to preach immediately after the Damascus Road incident, and Paul saying he took a 14 to 17 year sabbatical before actively preaching, in Galatians, during which time G_d taught him all he knew about Yeshua etc ?