The Inspiration of Scripture

[mark kennedy]

Have you considered attempting to clear any controversy you might have up by looking at the Hebrew? Inspiration does not mean perfection in translation through cultures and languages.

Great idea, does this help?

The state of being prompted by or filled with the spirit of God. Bezaleel was "filled with the spirit of God" (Ex. xxxi. 3, xxxv. 31); that is, he planned the work of the Tabernacle by inspiration. Inspiration is essential to all prophetic utterances; "the Spirit of God came upon Balaam" to make him prophesy (Num. xxiv. 2); upon the seventy men selected by Moses (Num. xi. 17, 25, 26); upon Saul and Saul's messengers (I Sam. x. 6, 10; xi. 6; xix. 20, 23); upon Elisha as heir and successor to Elijah (II Kings ii. 15); upon Amasai (I Chron. xii. 18); upon Jahaziel the Levite (II Chron. xx. 14). Inspiration empowered Micah to "tell Jacob his transgression" (Micah iii. 8). The prophet, therefore, is called "the man of the spirit," that is, the inspired one (Hosea ix. 7 [A. V., incorrectly, "spiritual man"]). All true prophets have their visions by divine inspiration (Isa. xxix. 10, xxx. 1; Zech. vii. 12; Neh. ix. 30). (Inspiration. JewishEnciclopedia.com)
​

Weren't the Apostles divinely inspired as well?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Ken Rank]

The only controversy is the idea that the bible is only God speaking, it is quite obvious more than God is speaking.

I don't disagree and never said anything that would suggest otherwise.

 

[Ken Rank]

Great idea, does this help?

The state of being prompted by or filled with the spirit of God. Bezaleel was "filled with the spirit of God" (Ex. xxxi. 3, xxxv. 31); that is, he planned the work of the Tabernacle by inspiration. Inspiration is essential to all prophetic utterances; "the Spirit of God came upon Balaam" to make him prophesy (Num. xxiv. 2); upon the seventy men selected by Moses (Num. xi. 17, 25, 26); upon Saul and Saul's messengers (I Sam. x. 6, 10; xi. 6; xix. 20, 23); upon Elisha as heir and successor to Elijah (II Kings ii. 15); upon Amasai (I Chron. xii. 18); upon Jahaziel the Levite (II Chron. xx. 14). Inspiration empowered Micah to "tell Jacob his transgression" (Micah iii. 8). The prophet, therefore, is called "the man of the spirit," that is, the inspired one (Hosea ix. 7 [A. V., incorrectly, "spiritual man"]). All true prophets have their visions by divine inspiration (Isa. xxix. 10, xxx. 1; Zech. vii. 12; Neh. ix. 30). (Inspiration. JewishEnciclopedia.com)
​

Weren't the Apostles divinely inspired as well?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Of course they were. But at that time Paul didn't sit down to write a letter to those in Corinth thinking, "This letter has the same weight as Deuteronomy." Did you know that Ezra canonized the Torah and Prophets and didn't include the writings of himself nor his friend, Nehemiah? Paul didn't write and think he was adding to the canon nor did Peter think the same.

 

[FenderTL5]

Before Paul mentions the Old Testament Scriptures, he mentions the gospel:

I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. (2 Tim. 1:11)
Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you (1 Tim. 1:14)​

Clearly Paul considers the gospel to be God’s Word:

Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God’s word is not chained. (2 Tim. 8-9)...​

Can you clarify what you mean by "Gospel", at this specific point in time?
Are you implying that the Apostle Paul is referring to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John's written account(s) that we call the Gospel Books?
​

 

[mark kennedy]

Of course they were. But at that time Paul didn't sit down to write a letter to those in Corinth thinking, "This letter has the same weight as Deuteronomy." Did you know that Ezra canonized the Torah and Prophets and didn't include the writings of himself nor his friend, Nehemiah. Paul didn't write. And think he was adding to the canon nor did Peter think the same.

So you start with of course they were, then you make the argument that Peter and Paul didn't think so? The New Testament fulfills the promises of the Law and the Prophets and you won't find a single New Testament witness that says anything less, including Jesus. The gospel doesn't have the same weight as Deuteronomy? Is that really the argument you want to make based on the New Testament witness of Peter and Paul? Really?

 

[Ken Rank]

So you start with of course they were, then you make the argument that Peter and Paul didn't think so? The New Testament fulfills the promises of the Law and the Prophets and you won't find a single New Testament witness that says anything less, including Jesus. The gospel doesn't have the same weight as Deuteronomy? Is that really the argument you want to make based on the New Testament witness of Peter and Paul? Really?

What I am saying is... all the authors of the bible were inspired to write what they did. However, to think that THEY sat down thinking, "I am writing inspired work" or that Paul sent a letter to Ephesus thinking it would be included in a "bible" is just an imposed bias that comes out of our Christian culture.

Let me ask... can somebody write a book or a letter or an article TODAY and be inspired to do so? If you say no, then you hold a doctrine that the unchanging God has changed. I believe one can be inspired to write but that doesn't mean THEY SAT DOWN thinking, "God is working through me right now." That sounds more like pride. Ezra didn't include his own writings, that should tell you something about godly humility. Paul was inspired, as was all the authors of the NT. But those writings were not compiled and included with the Tanach (OT) until 200AD. Until then they were NOT considered "bible" even though we NOW can look back and see they were inspired from the moment written.

The point? That 1 Tim 3:16 isn't talking about the NT.

 

[mark kennedy]

Can you clarify what you mean by "Gospel", at this specific point in time?
Are you implying that the Apostle Paul is referring to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John's written account(s) that we call the Gospel Books?
​

When I speak of those books I usually capitalize the word 'Gospel', simple because it's part of a title. Paul speaks repeatedly of the gospel in his writings, there isn't a single instance where Paul, or any of the other Apostles, didn't consider the gospel as the Word of God. I'm not splitting semantical hairs here, I'm talking about the Apostolic witness.

Let's try this passage from Luke on the parable of the sower:

“This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. (Luke 8:11)
​

How is that seed not the gospel?

 

[pshun2404]

In THE BIBLE Peter says he did not know Christ. Did Peter know Christ? Did God say Peter did not know Christ? Where the Bible says "And the word of the Lord came to me saying" or "and the Lord said" or when Jesus spoke, we have what the Lord said but when a man or woman said something God did not say it.

 

[mark kennedy]

What I am saying is... all the authors of the bible were inspired to write what they did. However, to think that THEY sat down thinking, "I am writing inspired work" or that Paul sent a letter to Ephesus thinking it would be included in a "bible" is just an imposed bias that comes out of our Christian culture.

Let me ask... can somebody write a book or a letter or an article TODAY and be inspired to do so? If you say no, then you hold a doctrine that the unchanging God has changed. I believe one can be inspired to write but that doesn't mean THEY SAT DOWN thinking, "God is working through me right now." That sounds more like pride. Ezra didn't include his own writings, that should tell you something about godly humility. Paul was inspired, as was all the authors of the NT. But those writings were not compiled and included with the Tanach (OT) until 200AD. Until then they were NOT considered "bible" even though we NOW can look back and see they were inspired from the moment written.

The point? That 1 Tim 3:16 isn't talking about the NT.

You have repeated references in 2 Timothy that clearly indicate that Paul considered the gospel to be the Word of God. His passing reference to the Old Testament encourages this young pastor Paul is mentoring to stand firm on the gospel. To continue to learn the Scriptures of the Old Testament because they can make you wise unto the salvation that is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 3:15). That is in the immediate verse preceding the one that describes the Scriptures as 'God breathed'. Paul makes repeated references to being inspired to the point where he tells the Corinthians:

Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. (1 Cor. 14:36,37)
​

As did Peter:

As good stewards of the manifold grace of God, each of you should use whatever gift he has received to serve one another. If anyone speaks, he should speak as one conveying the words of God. If anyone serves, he should serve with the strength God supplies, so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory and the power forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:11)
​

If you can get that Peter and Paul didn't consider the message they preached were not the Word of God, I have yet to see you establish that from the New Testament.

Let me ask... can somebody write a book or a letter or an article TODAY and be inspired to do so?

Let me ask, is it the gospel?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[bekkilyn]

I belong to the ELCA though because I feel like God personally called me to it, not merely because I just picked a church. I prayed to God to show me a church that would preach grace, and one Sunday I was frustrated at the Episcopal cathedral I could barely tolerate (they are extremely conservative and calvinistic/moralistic down here), and I heard "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" and I thought "Hmm... why have I never though of that before. I guess maybe this might be a sign from God".

There were also alot of freaky synchronicities, like my pastor being Greek and German American and having an Orthodox father, so he could relate to me, or the place being named Reformation (it was just the one nearest to my house- I don't drive so the closer the better). I didn't initially know much about Lutheranism other than they preached alot about grace, but I went with my sense of calling.

And I still struggled a while with doubts... I even stopped going for a while, until I was drawn back for Pentecost, when something really extraordinary happened. I simply stopped doubting when the pastor prayed an old Catholic prayer of invocation of the Holy Spirit. I felt like something happened in my mind, I could feel a Mind or Intelligence near me. And I was overcome by a strange peace and I just went out and sat in the garden for an hour enjoying that feeling. I had no clue what had happened to me exactly, other than I felt I had been blind and suddenly I was filled with intuition. Then I started talking to Pastor more and he engaged in serious catechism with me for months, and in the end of 2016 I actually became Lutheran.

I love Pastor alot. He has never coerced me or pressured me in any way, he's simply been my friend and shared God's love with me. During Holy Week I had another series of experience, but it was more diffuse and less specific. My S.O. also said she felt God as well. Pastor washed my feet in the pedilavium on Maundy Thursday and I was changed. I started breaking down crying at the Easter vigil, overwhelmed with happiness, because I realized God had taken me "home" to where I truly belong. Jesus words came to me, in Mark 10:29-30 (and in my case, that was all literally true). And I felt called to start giving back to the congregation, as a result, because they were like family to me now. I actually found myself smiling for the first time in a long time, something I don't usually do because I have adult autism. I am definitely becoming a more whole person than I ever have before, I'm more like my old self before I dabbled in the Orthodox Church and the experience broke me... I actually experienced autistic regression in that church.

I love your witness account here...it's so beautiful! Wish I could give it both a winner and a like!

I am very certain that God called me to Methodism back when I chose it vs. choosing some other church, but it a few years of various events unfolding to find out why. Initially it was for healing from from the cruelty and abuses of conservative institutional Christianity (which was why I'd stopped going to church...I was Southern Baptist at the time), a sudden tragedy of separation, abandonment, and a new revelation from the Spirit that God and Paul didn't really hate women. I had just been programmed to believe false doctrines and false interpretations of scripture. It opened up a whole new, more loving and nourishing relationship with God for me.

 

[bekkilyn]

I went to a United Methodist Church before going to the Orthodox Church and I see that one can believe whatever unofficially even if they contradict the Methodist teaching. I didn't believe in infant baptism at that time and believed in Calvinism. The people there were friendly, I can't deny that, but it is deceiving to go to a church you don't agree with the doctrine.

Another thing I really like about Methodism is that if someone feels more at home and closer to God in a different church or denomination, we are perfectly happy to wish them well and even help them with the transition. We are not denominational elitists. The most important thing is that a person come to know Christ, and if they can better do that in a different church or denomination, that's perfectly fine! We are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Ken Rank]

In THE BIBLE Peter says he did not know Christ. Did Peter know Christ? Did God say Peter did not know Christ?

The word "know" can have more than one meeting. I can meet somebody and even talk to them when we encounter each other but not REALLY know them. Peter spent a great deal of time with Christ but perhaps didn't understand the depth of his work, the fullness of it. So, as Peter's understanding continued to grow, and he began to make other connections that revealed said depth... he realized he didn't know him like he thought he did.

 

[FireDragon76]

I love your witness account here...it's so beautiful! Wish I could give it both a winner and a like!

I am very certain that God called me to Methodism back when I chose it vs. choosing some other church, but it a few years of various events unfolding to find out why. Initially it was for healing from from the cruelty and abuses of conservative institutional Christianity (which was why I'd stopped going to church...I was Southern Baptist at the time), a sudden tragedy of separation, abandonment, and a new revelation from the Spirit that God and Paul didn't really hate women. I had just been programmed to believe false doctrines and false interpretations of scripture. It opened up a whole new, more loving and nourishing relationship with God for me.

I actually grew up Methodist (which were wonderful memories for the most part, BTW), but after being irreligious in college and young adulthood, I did some spiritual searching and eventually ended up in the conservative, liturgical end of Christianity. Indeed, I used to be a conservative Christian at one time, even though that culture goes against my natural inclinations. I was much like people like Dave here, and very heady and wanted everything to be nice and neat in a great big seemless narrative. But then I had an Anglican lay preacher I knew, and I heard her preach for a while and I had an experience of God personally speaking to me through her, and it lead me to question the assumption that women should not preach (in some ways I was actually unsettled by God, because God had just made my life a whole lot more complicated).

Anyways, I'm fully aware that personal testimony does not easily equal theology in most Lutheran and Reformed traditions. Which is why our way of doing theology can often be obtuse. In some ways, I envy Methodist for just being able to speak plainly about what God is doing. But I also appreciate that Lutherans care alot about not being boxed in by the whims of religious authority and overly wrought ethics and religion divorced from reality. Perhaps in some ways, it takes us both to the same spot in a roundabout manner.

 

[mark kennedy]

The word "know" can have more than one meeting. I can meet somebody and even talk to them when we encounter each other but not REALLY know them. Peter spent a great deal of time with Christ but perhaps didn't understand the depth of his work, the fullness of it. So, as Peter's understanding continued to grow, and he began to make other connections that revealed said depth... he realized he didn't know him like he thought he did.

Peter seems to think he did:

That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior: (2 Peter 3:2)
​

Peter seems to equivocate the Apostle's doctrine with the words spoken by the prophets, did I miss read that?

 

[Yarddog]

The Bible is inspired by God. What does this mean?

Simply put - "What the Bible says, God says."

Some say that the Bible is inspired, but they are not comfortable saying that the Bible is the very words of God. They have some looser, stranger view of inspiration.

What the Bible says, God says. Can we give this a hearty "Amen"?

The Bible is the written word of God. Sadly, mankind interprets what the written word means, many times, so that the interpretation is not what God says. Thus, we need to be gentle when talking to others about the written word.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The Bible is inspired by God. What does this mean?

Simply put - "What the Bible says, God says."

Some say that the Bible is inspired, but they are not comfortable saying that the Bible is the very words of God. They have some looser, stranger view of inspiration.

What the Bible says, God says. Can we give this a hearty "Amen"?

I am not so sure I would take it as far as you do that everything in scripture was said by God. There are lots of things said by those in the book that are against God and His Son. Scripture to me is what it says itself it is as well as a historical accounting of the people God chose to bring the Messiah to the world.

 

[Ken Rank]

Peter seems to think he did:

That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior: (2 Peter 3:2)
​

Peter seems to equivocate the Apostle's doctrine with the words spoken by the prophets, did I miss read that?

There is no talking to you. Being mindful of something, placing weight on something, and thinking you just sat down and added to the bible are not the same thing. You can think they are, that's fine. 2 Tim 3:16 is a reference to the existing canon of that time.

 

[FenderTL5]

When I speak of those books I usually capitalize the word 'Gospel', simple because it's part of a title.

So your answer to my question is no. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Paul speaks repeatedly of the gospel in his writings, there isn't a single instance where Paul, or any of the other Apostles, didn't consider the gospel as the Word of God...
...I'm talking about the Apostolic witness.

Yes, the Apostles considered Jesus Christ to be The Logos, the Word of God.
The story of Jesus Christ, The Logos, with emphasis on the time from Incarnation to Ascension is the good news, which is the gospel.

I'm not splitting semantical hairs here...

that's not the impression that I'm getting.

 

[FenderTL5]

There is no talking to you. Being mindful of something, placing weight on something, and thinking you just sat down and added to the bible are not the same thing. You can think they are, that's fine. 2 Tim 3:16 is a reference to the existing canon of that time.

fwiw, I understand the point you are trying to get across. It's simple chronology.
When a writer in a New Testament epistle says, "the scriptures," they are not talking about their own writing or things yet to be written; writings that would later be canonized as the New Testament.

 

[bekkilyn]

I actually grew up Methodist (which were wonderful memories for the most part, BTW), but after being irreligious in college and young adulthood, I did some spiritual searching and eventually ended up in the conservative, liturgical end of Christianity. Indeed, I used to be a conservative Christian at one time, even though that culture goes against my natural inclinations. I was much like people like Dave here, and very heady and wanted everything to be nice and neat in a great big seemless narrative. But then I had an Anglican lay preacher I knew, and I heard her preach for a while and I had an experience of God personally speaking to me through her, and it lead me to question the assumption that women should not preach (in some ways I was actually unsettled by God, because God had just made my life a whole lot more complicated).

Anyways, I'm fully aware that personal testimony does not easily equal theology in most Lutheran and Reformed traditions. Which is why our way of doing theology can often be obtuse. In some ways, I envy Methodist for just being able to speak plainly about what God is doing. But I also appreciate that Lutherans care alot about not being boxed in by the whims of religious authority and overly wrought ethics and religion divorced from reality. Perhaps in some ways, it takes us both to the same spot in a roundabout manner.

I think so. God created each and every one of us unique and we all have different gifts, abilities, interests, and ways of doing things. If we were all put into the same organization with every church and every service conformed to one another, we would really only be reaching those who were able to receive Christ in that particular way. Our ultimate goal is Christ, but how we get there and continue in our sanctification may be very different.

I have a very politically conservative family for the most part with a few quirks, because my mother always worked outside the home after my dad retired from the U.S. Navy (and she had actually joined the Navy when she graduated from high school, and that's where she and my dad met and they got married after two weeks! She's in her 80's now and they were happily married until my father passed away a few years ago.) I was much, much younger than everyone in my family, including all the cousins, and was considered the "weird" one. I was always pushing back against various things (such as environmental destruction, financial irresponsibility, etc.) because I could easily see consequences of things far into the future, but if I said "I told you so" as often as I wanted to, I'd constantly be in trouble! It baffled me (and still often does) how people can't see things that are so incredibly obvious to me.

I was a Southern Baptist for years and though a number of things about it really grated on me, I was generally happy until it became increasingly political and ultra-conservative and I just stopped going back after college (which was a Southern Baptist college, but had excellent professors who were not afraid to teach differing points of view concerning religion, history, science, etc.)

I'd never seen a woman preacher until maybe Joyce Meyer LOL. Even so, outside of internet arguments, I get along with most people regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal or belong to this or that denomination. We are all still people in need of love from one another despite our uniqueness.