The Inspiration of Scripture

redleghunter said:

What was by the will of God in his statement?

Click to expand...

See my correction above.

And how did God reveal His infallible words?

Click to expand...

God reveals himself through prayer, Christian meditation, his prophets and teachers, listening for and recognizing his voice through the Holy Spirit, and yes, through study of scriptures. Still doesn't mean that the actual words written on the page of scriptures is infallible, but that God's Word is revealed in it.

devin553344 said:

Will you point me to where it says that, because I kinda believe that, but don't know where to find it? Thanks.

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 7:12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If a brother has an unbelieving wife and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

Christians seem to ignore that bit alot. It's clear Paul doesn't think every bit of the things he says are necessarily God's own words, if he feels the need to qualify that.

My view is that Paul is working from a conservative Jewish pharisaical paradigm, and that influences his writing. But we should not understand that as the controlling method of interpretation of Paul. I believe his message is more profound: Jesus Christ reconciles all of creation in himself with all its distinctions, even things Paul cannot begin to understand due to his human limitations. This is why so often he ends his arguments in doxology at the mystery and wonder of Christ. What Paul is describing is greater in its implications than he can imagine.

bekkilyn said:

See my correction above.



God reveals himself through prayer, Christian meditation, his prophets and teachers, listening for and recognizing his voice through the Holy Spirit, and yes, through study of scriptures. Still doesn't mean that the actual words written on the page of scriptures is infallible, but that God's Word is revealed in it.

Click to expand...

My pastor says the Bible contains God's Word. That's how most people in my denomination think of it now days. Luther himself also thought about it this way at times, that the Bible is the cradle of Christ. Luther's thought wasn't "What is God saying here?" most of the time but, "What is Christ in this?"

FireDragon76 said:

1 Corinthians 7:12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If a brother has an unbelieving wife and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

Christians seem to ignore that bit alot. It's clear Paul doesn't think every bit of the things he says are necessarily God's own words, if he feels the need to qualify that.

My view is that Paul is working from a conservative Jewish pharisaical paradigm, and that influences his writing. But we should not understand that as the controlling method of interpretation of Paul. I believe his message is more profound: Jesus Christ reconciles all of creation in himself with all its distinctions, even things Paul cannot begin to understand due to his human limitations. This is why so often he ends his arguments in doxology at the mystery and wonder of Christ. What Paul is describing is greater in its implications than he can imagine.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I like Paul's writings, and I see your point.

Tone said:

Ecclesiastes is presented as biography of "Kohelet" (or "Qoheleth", meaning"Assembler", but traditionally translated by Christians as "Teacher" or "Preacher").
Ecclesiastes - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

devin553344 said:

Also was Solomon a prophet of God

Click to expand...

devin553344 said:

Yes I would tend to agree. Much of the bible would appear untrue if taken literally. For instance Matthew 16:27-28

Click to expand...

Indeed. I've discussed that before. It's lead to many misunderstandings in modern history, liberals like Schweitzer concluded Jesus was simply mistaken. But Jesus isn't speaking literally here at all. Jesus is saying something more like "I am fulfilling the image of the Son of Man in Daniel in my person". By doing this he represents the Word of God. He takes Israel's story, identify's it as God's own story, and then identifies it with himself and lives it out.

There's a good Star Trek: the Next Generation episode called Darmok, about a race of aliens that use narrative symbols as a language. That is similar to what Jesus is doing here.

To his credit, N.T. Wright was the first biblical scholar I read that really grasped this point, and he's spent more time researching the Jewish context of the New Testament than many scholars today.

devin553344 said:

Well one says the earth abides forever, the other says it will burn and be destroyed. I'm not sure what your seeing then.

Click to expand...

I see the earth burned up and everything destroyed, yet, abiding forever.

redleghunter said:

Was he speaking prophecy of the end times? Ecclesiastes makes no mention of the eschaton.

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe there is a connection, which is addressed here:

Tone said:

It is interesting that there are seven assemblies and there are seven Moedim (appointed times), wherein the "called out ones" (ecclesia) are to assemble.

Ecclesia - Wikipedia

"The book concludes with the injunction: "Fear God, and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone" (12:13)" Ecclesiastes - Wikipedia

"the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Koheleth , which means "Preacher." The old and traditional view of the authorship of this book attributes it to Solomon. This view can be satisfactorily maintained, though others date it from the Captivity. The writer represents himself implicitly as ( Solomon 1:12 ). It has been appropriately styled The Confession of King Solomon. "The writer is a man who has sinned in giving way to selfishness and sensuality, who has paid the penalty of that sin in satiety and weariness of life, but who has through all this been under the discipline of a divine education, and has learned from it the lesson which God meant to teach him." "The writer concludes by pointing out that the secret of a true life is that a man should consecrate the vigour of his youth to God." The key-note of the book is sounded in ch 1:2 ,

"Vanity of vanities! saith the Preacher, Vanity of vanities! all is vanity!"

i.e., all man's efforts to find happiness apart from God are without result."
Ecclesiastes Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary

If only the "Church" as a whole would come to this same conclusion...like Solomon before...

THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES

Ecclesiastes 1 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

Parashat Emor - The Moedim and Cycles of Time

That's church history, in a nutshell.

Click to expand...

the 7 denominations of the book of Revelation

But, that's another, developing thread.

devin553344 said:

Thanks. I read on wikipedia about Solomon and it says he's widely accepted as a prophet of God.

So if I understand what your saying, Solomon just didn't know about the destruction of the earth when he said the earth abides forever?

Click to expand...

You've never heard that theme before...destruction, yet abiding forever? This is the same argument some rabbis use to not believe in Messiah...they say Yahshua could not be He,because He died (was destroyed), but the real Messiah will abide forever, yet, we know better.

*"The German historian Rudolph Bultmann claimed that neither Jesus nor his followers foresaw his arrest and execution by the Romans. In the second century AD, Christians attempted to explain this dilemma by appropriating passages out of the Jewish Scriptures, out of context, that they believed foretold that the Messiah would die and rise again. They then carelessly applied these passages to Jesus in their effort to explain his early failure to establish the messianic kingdom. According to this German theologian, the predictions of the Messiah’s death and resurrection “were later products of the Hellenistic Church . . . insofar as the idea of a suffering, dying, rising Messiah . . . was unknown to Judaism.” [4]"

There's some higher criticism for you...
Messianic Prophecy • Jews for Jesus

redleghunter said:

Yes I have a pastor too! He’s really blessed.

Click to expand...

I guess your pastor was inspired by the Holy Spirit the same way the other pastors from the other 60 thousand denominations.

redleghunter said:

Yet God wanted us to know about this conversion.

Click to expand...

How do you know? When did he say: "I want this part to be in the Bible"?

Tree of Life said:

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

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

Click to expand...

Yes and no. Paul actually states his own opinions that are not from the Lord. That being said, God still allowed it to stay in the Bible.1 Corinthians 7:12, 1 Corinthians 7:25. We are called to seek everything from God first and foremost: Proverbs 3:6-16

David Cabrera said:

I guess your pastor was inspired by the Holy Spirit the same way the other pastors from the other 60 thousand denominations.

Click to expand...

You know, I probably don't see eye to eye with @redleghunter on much of anything about the Bible or religion, but I do think I must call shenannigans on that logic. The Protestant self-understanding isn't as problematic as you think. God has cut off branches before, what makes you think Orthodoxy is not itself a withering branch or sickly vine?

FireDragon76 said:

You know, I probably don't see eye to eye with @redleghunter on much of anything about the Bible or religion, but I do think I must call shenannigans on that logic. The Protestant self-understanding isn't as problematic as you think. God has cut off branches before, what makes you think Orthodoxy is not itself a withering branch or sickly vine?

Click to expand...

Well, both you and he are Protestants. Also, my question is: What makes you think yours is the healthy one? Why not Confessional Lutheranism? Anglicanism? The Reformed Churches? Who is the one who is right?

David Cabrera said:

Well, both you and he are Protestants. Also, my question is: What makes you think yours is the healthy one? Why not Confessional Lutheranism? Anglicanism? The Reformed Churches? Who is the one who is right?

Click to expand...

Why not both/and?

bekkilyn said:

Why not both/and?

Click to expand...

Well, you are United Methodist but why aren't you Lutheran? Anglican? Especially when they have different theologies.

David Cabrera said:

Well, both you and he are Protestants. Also, my question is what makes you think yours is the healthy one? Why not Confessional Lutheranism? Anglicanism? The Reformed Churches? Who is the one who is right?

Click to expand...

First off, I think the burden is on you for making the accusation here.

Second, Christ is the Vine, and he calls us through the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, not through Byzantine and Russian institutions. I just happen to be Lutheran because I believe it is consistent with the faith of the early Church in its essential beliefs. But that doesn't mean I exclude other Protestants, necessarily, in doing so. Lutheranism is where God has called me to be, ultimately.

David Cabrera said:

Well, you are United Methodist but why aren't you Lutheran? Anglican? Especially when they have different theologies.

Click to expand...

Maybe God has called her to be Methodist?

Methodists and the ELCA recognize each others ministry, even though we do not share all doctrines the same . We recognize we both preach the Word and administer the Sacraments.

Swan7 said:

Yes and no. Paul actually states his own opinions that are not from the Lord. That being said, God still allowed it to stay in the Bible.1 Corinthians 7:12, 1 Corinthians 7:25. We are called to seek everything from God first and foremost: Proverbs 3:6-16

Click to expand...

John 11:51
"And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;"

Sometimes,men can speak words from on High unawares.


1 Corinthians 7:25
"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be trustworthy."

So Paul is saying that there is no definitive teaching (from Torah) on these matters, but, as an Apostle, he speaks.

"One phrase he repeatedly uses refers to that source: "It is written." He doesn't mean written in his own letters or in the gospel accounts of Yeshua's life. He means written in the "Scriptures": the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings — what later Jewish tradition named "Tanakh." In 1 Corinthians 14:21 he cites a passage from the book of Isaiah, which he calls "the Law.""
http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/ntstudies/nt-torah-3.html

I know some on this thread know all about Apostolic authority.

David Cabrera said:

Well, you are United Methodist but why aren't you Lutheran? Anglican? Especially when they have different theologies.

Click to expand...

I chose United Methodist because of the theological focus on grace and I agreed more closely with their social principles. The Methodist movement actually came out of the Anglican Church as John and Charles Wesley were Anglican priests all of their lives and it was never originally intended to become a separate denomination. One issue ended up being more political than anything else because after the American Revolution, the former English Colonies did not want to be under anything resembling English rule, so Methodists separated from the Anglican church, but not because of doctrinal issues. I've attended bible studies at Lutheran churches. I also currently attend Sunday evening services when I can at a local independent Baptist church, and also have SDA friends whose church I visit with them for fellowship from time to time.

Even though we have disagreements on various theological points, the focus is still Jesus Christ, and the same would be true for Catholics or Orthodox. In fact, one of the people in my former Sunday School class is Greek Orthodox and she still attended services there from time to time. (Her husband is United Methodist). There were also a number of people who grew up Catholic.

There really isn't as much denominational division as people think. When we did an informal survey of why people were there at the Methodist church instead of some other denomination, the largest reason by far was that they visited the church at some point and liked the people in it. It seems most people in general, regardless of denomination, are not very familiar with the differences between all of these denominations and just go to the church they like or because they grew up in it.

So yes, why not both/and? Why can't they all be healthy in some way as they serve the different needs of all the unique individuals that God created?