Inspired Scriptures? Especially Evangelical perspective

[Restoresmysoul]

Good question.

Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?" Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." -John 6:28-35




One of my favorites ;]

Here's some more on that subject of a forest, starting with the bit from Isaiah which Jesus read in the assembly:

“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me,
Because the LORD has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD... -Isa 61:1,2

Here's a bit which He left out:

And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,
To console those who mourn in Zion,
To give them beauty for ashes,
The oil of joy for mourning,
The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;
That they may be called trees of righteousness,
The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified.” -Verses 2,3

Yes, the symbolism is seen throughout the scriptures. The parable of the sower is one of my favorites, it not about a forest but it is about seeds and growth.


This proverb speaks of wisdom as a tree of life.


Proverbs 3:18

18 She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her;
those who hold her fast are called blessed.

 

[Radagast]

The classic Evangelical view would be the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

"... WE AFFIRM that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. ...
WE AFFIRM that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. ...
WE AFFIRM that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. ...
WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. ...
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write. ..."

Also this section of the Belgic Confession:

"... We confess that this Word of God was not sent, nor delivered by the will of man, but that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, as the apostle Peter saith. And that afterwards God, from a special care, which he has for us and our salvation, commanded his servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit his revealed word to writing; and he himself wrote with his own finger, the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures. We believe that the Holy Scriptures are contained in two books, namely, the Old and New Testament, which are canonical ... We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing without any doubt, all things contained in them, not so much because the Church receives and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Ghost witnesseth in our hearts, that they are from God, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves. ..."

 

[~Anastasia~]

The classic Evangelical view would be the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

"... WE AFFIRM that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. ...
WE AFFIRM that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. ...
WE AFFIRM that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. ...
WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. ...
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write. ..."

Also this section of the Belgic Confession:

"... We confess that this Word of God was not sent, nor delivered by the will of man, but that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, as the apostle Peter saith. And that afterwards God, from a special care, which he has for us and our salvation, commanded his servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit his revealed word to writing; and he himself wrote with his own finger, the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures. We believe that the Holy Scriptures are contained in two books, namely, the Old and New Testament, which are canonical ... We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing without any doubt, all things contained in them, not so much because the Church receives and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Ghost witnesseth in our hearts, that they are from God, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves. ..."

Thanks very much, Radagast.

Those were interesting reading, interesting links.

So far everyone holds for inspiration, though explanations for that process are not generally forthcoming beyond Scripture. This seems like a good thing. Based on inspiration, they also hold inerrancy of the original.

I suppose the logic there depends on either man's ability to perfectly follow God's inspiration or God's ability and willingness to ensure that man does (or both).

(Actually that opens another interesting question ... Does any man ever fail to hear God perfectly, neither misunderstanding, nor forgetting, nor adding his own ideas or interpretations? And would God overriding such shortcomings constitute His interference with "free will" and would He do so?) Anyway ...

This is for the Protestant Reformed Churches in America? I notice that the hold such things as obligatory liturgy and perform infant baptism.

I'm trying to decide how moderate (or not) their statement is, given their position in history and beliefs. Thank you very much for your reply.

But I understand this to be two different kinds of churches - evangelical vs. reformed ?

Thanks again.

 

[Albion]

2 Tim. 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God [God-breathed] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;



1. What does it mean that Scripture is inspired?

It's been given (by inspiration) to those who wrote it down. These are not simply the musings of thoughtful humans.

2. How did God inspire those who wrote the Scriptures - what did it look like and what process did He use?

I feel like I just covered that. No, God didn't present a finished manuscript or make the scribe's hand move.

3. Since they are inspired, does that also mean the Scriptures must necessarily be inerrant?

To the extent that we've translated them correctly and properly understand the meaning. This can be done but it takes some care.

4. What are the "Scriptures" mentioned here - OT, NT, both? Why do you think so?

Both. The reference is to the "Scriptures" and all Christians are agreed that the New Testament is Scripture.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It's been given (by inspiration) to those who wrote it down. These are not simply the musings of thoughtful humans.


I feel like I just covered that. No, God didn't present a finished manuscript or make the scribe's hand move.


To the extent that we've translated them correctly and properly understand the meaning. This can be done but it takes some care.


Both. The reference is to the "Scriptures" and all Christians are agreed that the New Testament is Scripture.

Thank you for the reply, Albion.

I am interested in the fact that almost no one will attempt to describe the method by which God inspires - exactly what that looks like. You actually didn't answer the question, but almost no one does. The fact that you think you did - probably speaks better for you. (But I can appreciate that you said what God did not do, which I also find a good answer. Thank you.)

It's also interesting to me that you say that the NT is inspired, because Scripture is inspired, and because Christians agree the NT is Scripture. I can see the logic there, but you're the first person I have heard give that answer (I have asked other places than just in this thread.).

If I may, would that be an official teaching of your Church, or a logical conclusion that you reach? I'm just very curious.

Thanks again for the reply.

 

[Albion]

Thank you for the reply, Albion.

I am interested in the fact that almost no one will attempt to describe the method by which God inspires - exactly what that looks like. You actually didn't answer the question, but almost no one does. The fact that you think you did - probably speaks better for you. (But I can appreciate that you said what God did not do, which I also find a good answer. Thank you.)

I don't exactly know what to say to that, Kylissa. I thought this was rather self-explanatory, but if we must be more precise, I was referring to inspiration--to cause, guide, motivate, or communicate by supernatural influence attributable to God.

But it may be that some who wrote heard the actual voice of God. Does that distinction matter?

It's also interesting to me that you say that the NT is inspired, because Scripture is inspired, and because Christians agree the NT is Scripture. I can see the logic there, but you're the first person I have heard give that answer (I have asked other places than just in this thread.).

If I may, would that be an official teaching of your Church, or a logical conclusion that you reach? I'm just very curious.

It's both. For my part, I'd be interested to know which churches do NOT see it that way. I have the feeling that we're debating something that doesn't need to be debated.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't exactly know what to say to that, Kylissa. I thought this was rather self-explanatory, but if we must be more precise, I was referring to inspiration--to cause, guide, motivate, or communicate by supernatural influence attributable to God.

But it may be that some who wrote heard the actual voice of God. Does that distinction matter?


It's both. For my part, I'd be interested to know which churches do NOT see it that way. I have the feeling that we're debating something that doesn't need to be debated.

Oh, I'm not debating or criticizing at all. This thread was just for the purpose of getting various perspectives. It wouldn't be very nice of me if I asked everyone to share their perspective and then attacked them for it or argued against them, would it?

But then again, most threads here ARE for debate, and I can't expect you to know my intention.

I was just hoping to see those answers spelled out by various people, and notice any trends. I have a slight idea, and of course any survey here is not scientific anyway, but it was just a way of getting a little more info.

I actually commend you for not being overly specific in spelling out the means by which God inspire the writers. Sure, some may have heard an audible voice. I suppose maybe some saw burning letters appear on a wall for all I know. We have things like that in Scripture. (Though it does seem safer to me to assume that kind of thing ONLY when it is explicitly spelled out.)

But we don't have anyone (afaik) who wrote it, telling us how they received their inspiration, nor is it a matter of any tradition that I am aware of? (Other than a few prophetic revelations - and one could argue the whole book of Revelation.)

I have heard some people give very direct answers to the question of how God inspired. But apparently none of them are in GT, or else they are not responding.

I've tried to keep my own opinions out of this thread though, because it doesn't seem fair to anyone I would ask to respond.

Thanks again for your reply.

 

[Radagast]

This is for the Protestant Reformed Churches in America? I notice that the hold such things as obligatory liturgy and perform infant baptism.

The first link was evangelical in general; the second more classically Reformed (the PRCA was just one of many groups having that historic document on their website). But, for example, the 1689 Baptist Confession is similar:

"The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. ...
Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal Himself, and to declare His will to His church; ...
it pleased the Lord to commit His revealed Truth wholly to writing. Therefore the Holy Scriptures are most necessary, those former ways by which God revealed His will unto His people having now ceased. ...
Under the title of Holy Scripture (or the written Word of God) are now contained all the following books of the Old and New Testament ...
All these books are given by the inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life. ...
The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, depends not on the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God its Author (Who is Truth itself). Therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God. ...
our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth of Scripture and its divine authority, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. ...
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture, to which nothing is to be added at any time, either by new revelation of the Spirit, or by the traditions of men. ... "

 

[SAAN]

2 Tim. 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God [God-breathed] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

What if this were mentioned elsewhere in the bible only 1 time.

For Example, if this verse was in the book of Jeremiah, would the book of Isaiah be put down as not inspired since Isaiah wanst around or written yet when Jeremiah was around.

If Joshua said all scriptures are inspired by God, would we say everything after the Torah isnt inspired since all those books were not written yet?

 

[~Anastasia~]

The first link was evangelical in general; the second more classically Reformed (the PRCA was just one of many groups having that historic document on their website). But, for example, the 1689 Baptist Confession is similar:

"The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. ...
Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal Himself, and to declare His will to His church; ...
it pleased the Lord to commit His revealed Truth wholly to writing. Therefore the Holy Scriptures are most necessary, those former ways by which God revealed His will unto His people having now ceased. ...
Under the title of Holy Scripture (or the written Word of God) are now contained all the following books of the Old and New Testament ...
All these books are given by the inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life. ...
The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, depends not on the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God its Author (Who is Truth itself). Therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God. ...
our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth of Scripture and its divine authority, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. ...
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture, to which nothing is to be added at any time, either by new revelation of the Spirit, or by the traditions of men. ... "

Thanks Radagast. I appreciate the additional info.

 

[~Anastasia~]

2 Tim. 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God [God-breathed] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

What if this were mentioned elsewhere in the bible only 1 time.

For Example, if this verse was in the book of Jeremiah, would the book of Isaiah be put down as not inspired since Isaiah wanst around or written yet when Jeremiah was around.

If Joshua said all scriptures are inspired by God, would we say everything after the Torah isnt inspired since all those books were not written yet?

The main reason that I asked are that there are at least three different opinions on what "Scriptures" are referred to. (And probably more than that.). Since the answer bears on the other questions, I wanted to include it. I'm not really wanting to debate, though the thread is several days old so I may not get very many more points of view, in which case I don't mind it being discussed. My reason for making the thread was to kind of survey some answers.

Thank you.

 

[com7fy8]

2 Tim. 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God [God-breathed] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

To me, this means that God can use any scripture, at all, for all four things > teaching knowledge with perspective, rebuking and standing against what is not of God's love, correcting a person to become loving like Jesus, and helping the person to live the way God's love has us being and living right.

1. What does it mean that Scripture is inspired?

Each word is what God has given the person to write . . . however He has done this.

2. How did God inspire those who wrote the Scriptures - what did it look like and what process did He use?

God is our Creator, and I find He is very creative; so "how" He deals with each author can be . . . different I think, among other possibilities, that He can >

a. Have a person thinking what He wants the person to write.

b. The Holy Spirit can bring to remembrance what he has already heard and have him write what the Holy Spirit has him remember > consider John 14:26.

c. Talk directly with the person and dictate what the person is to write > dictating with an audible voice or using the tone of voice used by the person in one's own thinking, except the person realizes he is not doing his "thinking", on his own

d. Like how John received the book of Revelation > he was "in the Spirit on the Lord's Day" (Revelation 1:10), and Jesus appeared to him, and all that was involved in writing the book of Revelation. In one place it seems he was writing, right while experiencing the vision of revelation, but he was told not to write some things he heard > Revelation 10:4. So, in this case, there were various dynamics going on, from the beginning of the inspiration to the end. I would say there was observation with written description, dictation at times, and recording things after they happened. And Jesus gave John those letters to the seven churches, included in the process. So, there can be inspired messages within the inspired message

e. If I remember the early scripture prophets right, ones had visions and wrote descriptions of what they saw, and could have discussion, even two-way, with God about their meaning.

The main thing I see is that the person is able to communicate and share personally with God. And God has him or her share something from a special time with God. So, love inspires

3. Since they are inspired, does that also mean the Scriptures must necessarily be inerrant?

Whatever God inspires is inerrant. But how we understand and live His message needs to be what He means! This is an adventure

This is "why" . . . I think . . . Paul starts certain letters with something like "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" > because grace is God's action personal of His love in us changing us to become how His word means for us to be, and this grace also has His own personal guiding to do what He means. So, God's word is meant to have His grace and peace escorting us. God's grace and peace in us demonstrates all that God means, by actually having us do all He knows His word means. So . . . then . . . His grace with His leading is without error!!!

What He actually does with us in His love is the only reliable way, really, to interpret scripture.

4. What are the "Scriptures" mentioned here - OT, NT, both? Why do you think so?[/B]

They mean any writing that Jesus or Paul or Peter or any other New Testament writer quotes from. And they mean all the New Testament . . . even if certain ones had not been written, yet, when Paul wrote that > God meant also any future writings that He would grant us, later.

And, by the way, Paul clearly does say "you are an epistle of Christ", in 2 Corinthians 3:2-3. So, the Holy Spirit has written in our hearts; whatsoever the Holy Spirit writes in us is Canon Scripture, I would say "And this writing can be deeper than the words > the love of God is the ink effecting us to become exactly how Jesus is and so we are loving the way Jesus has loved us. No words alone can have us doing all Jesus means when He says "'This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.'" (John 15:12)

No words alone can have us loving the way Jesus has loved us > we need the ink, not only what we can think And Jesus in us is the Word who is the living meaning and fulfillment of all His message

Why do I think so? It is past my ability to know why

I realize these questions are likely to be hotly debated, but I am particularly interested in the Evangelical understanding of what "inspired" means and just how God inspired the writers of Scripture.

My understanding of evangelical, in simple terms, is they say the Bible is God's word, without any error, including in science. So, if anything contradicts God's word, that "anything" is wrong and God's word is right.

I would offer a clarification > God's word is not in error in what God means, but how we understand it can be in error. So . . . again . . . we need grace in us to have us being and doing all that God means . . . how His love has us becoming and what His leading personal in each of us has us doing.

And we have demonstration, of the Holy Spirit > 1 Thessalonians 1:5-10 > so we have all which His words mean And His word, Paul says here in 1 Thessalonians 1:5-10, came with example. And Jesus said to love and demonstrated how to love. So, we need the demonstration of examples > 1 Timothy 3:1-10, 1 Peter 5:3, 1 Thessalonians 2:5-12, 1 Corinthians 11:1, Ephesians 5:1-2. In Ephesians 5:1, it says to imitate God. I experience that this means how our Father in us shows us how He is and how He loves, and then He has us becoming and loving this way, more and more as we grow in Jesus. So, we have God's own example in us so we have the really right meaning of His word.

 

[Percivale]

it pleased the Lord to commit His revealed Truth wholly to writing. Therefore the Holy Scriptures are most necessary, those former ways by which God revealed His will unto His people having now ceased. ...

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, depends not on the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God its Author (Who is Truth itself). Therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God. ...
our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth of Scripture and its divine authority, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. ...
[/COLOR]"

There seems to be a contradiction in this baptist confession. It says God's ways of revealing his will besides Scripture has ceased, but says that fact that the scriptures are infallible is communicated to individuals by the Spirit. Isn't that a communication from God that is not through Scripture? And doesn't that result in the testimony of men and the church (such as the ones writing this confession) being how people hear that the Scriptures are authoritative?

 

[~Anastasia~]

To me, this means that God can use any scripture, at all, for all four things > teaching knowledge with perspective, rebuking and standing against what is not of God's love, correcting a person to become loving like Jesus, and helping the person to live the way God's love has us being and living right.


Each word is what God has given the person to write . . . however He has done this.

God is our Creator, and I find He is very creative; so "how" He deals with each author can be . . . different I think, among other possibilities, that He can >

a. Have a person thinking what He wants the person to write.

b. The Holy Spirit can bring to remembrance what he has already heard and have him write what the Holy Spirit has him remember > consider John 14:26.

c. Talk directly with the person and dictate what the person is to write > dictating with an audible voice or using the tone of voice used by the person in one's own thinking, except the person realizes he is not doing his "thinking", on his own

d. Like how John received the book of Revelation > he was "in the Spirit on the Lord's Day" (Revelation 1:10), and Jesus appeared to him, and all that was involved in writing the book of Revelation. In one place it seems he was writing, right while experiencing the vision of revelation, but he was told not to write some things he heard > Revelation 10:4. So, in this case, there were various dynamics going on, from the beginning of the inspiration to the end. I would say there was observation with written description, dictation at times, and recording things after they happened. And Jesus gave John those letters to the seven churches, included in the process. So, there can be inspired messages within the inspired message

e. If I remember the early scripture prophets right, ones had visions and wrote descriptions of what they saw, and could have discussion, even two-way, with God about their meaning.

The main thing I see is that the person is able to communicate and share personally with God. And God has him or her share something from a special time with God. So, love inspires

Whatever God inspires is inerrant. But how we understand and live His message needs to be what He means! This is an adventure

This is "why" . . . I think . . . Paul starts certain letters with something like "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" > because grace is God's action personal of His love in us changing us to become how His word means for us to be, and this grace also has His own personal guiding to do what He means. So, God's word is meant to have His grace and peace escorting us. God's grace and peace in us demonstrates all that God means, by actually having us do all He knows His word means. So . . . then . . . His grace with His leading is without error!!!

What He actually does with us in His love is the only reliable way, really, to interpret scripture.

They mean any writing that Jesus or Paul or Peter or any other New Testament writer quotes from. And they mean all the New Testament . . . even if certain ones had not been written, yet, when Paul wrote that > God meant also any future writings that He would grant us, later.

And, by the way, Paul clearly does say "you are an epistle of Christ", in 2 Corinthians 3:2-3. So, the Holy Spirit has written in our hearts; whatsoever the Holy Spirit writes in us is Canon Scripture, I would say "And this writing can be deeper than the words > the love of God is the ink effecting us to become exactly how Jesus is and so we are loving the way Jesus has loved us. No words alone can have us doing all Jesus means when He says "'This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.'" (John 15:12)

No words alone can have us loving the way Jesus has loved us > we need the ink, not only what we can think And Jesus in us is the Word who is the living meaning and fulfillment of all His message

Why do I think so? It is past my ability to know why

My understanding of evangelical, in simple terms, is they say the Bible is God's word, without any error, including in science. So, if anything contradicts God's word, that "anything" is wrong and God's word is right.

I would offer a clarification > God's word is not in error in what God means, but how we understand it can be in error. So . . . again . . . we need grace in us to have us being and doing all that God means . . . how His love has us becoming and what His leading personal in each of us has us doing.

And we have demonstration, of the Holy Spirit > 1 Thessalonians 1:5-10 > so we have all which His words mean And His word, Paul says here in 1 Thessalonians 1:5-10, came with example. And Jesus said to love and demonstrated how to love. So, we need the demonstration of examples > 1 Timothy 3:1-10, 1 Peter 5:3, 1 Thessalonians 2:5-12, 1 Corinthians 11:1, Ephesians 5:1-2. In Ephesians 5:1, it says to imitate God. I experience that this means how our Father in us shows us how He is and how He loves, and then He has us becoming and loving this way, more and more as we grow in Jesus. So, we have God's own example in us so we have the really right meaning of His word.

Thank you very much, Comfy. That was a very complete answer. I appreciate your discussion.

You're right, Revelation is a most interesting book to consider when talking about how inspiration happens and what it might mean.

I'll have to re-read this when I get back to my computer and can look up all the Scripture references - thanks again.

 

[Albion]

There seems to be a contradiction in this baptist confession. It says God's ways of revealing his will besides Scripture has ceased, but says that fact that the scriptures are infallible is communicated to individuals by the Spirit. Isn't that a communication from God that is not through Scripture?

Yes, that's what it is, and that's why it's not a contradiction. It says that the Scriptures are God-given and they are complete. What the Holy Spirit does is communicate, it's true, but NOT TO ADD to Holy Scripture, to amend it or substitute anything for it. His role is to keep us connected to that revelation that we call the Bible. Believing the Scriptures to be complete doesn't mean there can't be communication of different sort.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There seems to be a contradiction in this baptist confession. It says God's ways of revealing his will besides Scripture has ceased, but says that fact that the scriptures are infallible is communicated to individuals by the Spirit. Isn't that a communication from God that is not through Scripture? And doesn't that result in the testimony of men and the church (such as the ones writing this confession) being how people hear that the Scriptures are authoritative?

I don't want to derail my own thread, but I have to say this is a very interesting question. I'll just say that, having been raised Baptist (mostly kinda) and first attending as a Baptist, the old Confession came as quite a surprise to me when I first (recently) saw it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, that's what it is, and that's why it's not a contradiction. It says that the Scriptures are God-given and they are complete. What the Holy Spirit does is communicate, it's true, but NOT TO ADD to Holy Scripture, to amend it or substitute anything for it. His role is to keep us connected to that revelation that we call the Bible. Believing the Scriptures to be complete doesn't mean there can't be communication of different sort.

Fwiw, the kind of Baptist I am familiar with would be even more conservative in allowing for work of the Holy Spirit. But you are quite right that no additions would have been tolerated.

Then again, I always knew there were differences among Baptists, and finding there are more even than I realized. (Not counting the more recent phenomena of entire Baptist congregations drifting into more charismatic expression).

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

1. What does it mean that Scripture is inspired?

2. How did God inspire those who wrote the Scriptures - what did it look like and what process did He use?

3. Since they are inspired, does that also mean the Scriptures must necessarily be inerrant?

4. What are the "Scriptures" mentioned here - OT, NT, both? Why do you think so?

Since your post specifically asks evangelicals, I'll confine myself to answering as I would have answered when I attended a evangelical non-denominational megachurch.

1. To say the Scriptures are inspired meant to me that every word had been placed in Scripture directly by God through the agency of human authors. Those human authors fully participated in that process, but they were somehow aware that they were writing those specific documents under divine inspiration.

2. The process he used, I thought, could differ, but the writers were always aware of their use by God to write the Scriptures. Thus, Paul had a specific desire to write his letters due to the circumstances in which he wrote, but he was entirely aware that those letters were also being inspired by God for the purpose of eventually becoming part of the New Testament. In other cases, something like divine dictation- with human cooperation, but with the Spirit as the primary actor- might take place, as in the book of Revelation and possibly the gospels.

3. Yes, I absolutely believed in historical and scientific inerrancy as well as in doctrinal and moral infallibility.

4. Because I believe that the writers of the New Testament were aware that they were writing under divine inspiration (either through Spiritual guidance or through direct Spiritual dictation), I did believe that 1 Tim 3:16 referred to the New Testament as well as the Old.

Of course, I deny pretty much every single one of the above points now.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Since your post specifically asks evangelicals, I'll confine myself to answering as I would have answered when I attended a evangelical non-denominational megachurch.

1. To say the Scriptures are inspired meant to me that every word had been placed in Scripture directly by God through the agency of human authors. Those human authors fully participated in that process, but they were somehow aware that they were writing those specific documents under divine inspiration.

2. The process he used, I thought, could differ, but the writers were always aware of their use by God to write the Scriptures. Thus, Paul had a specific desire to write his letters due to the circumstances in which he wrote, but he was entirely aware that those letters were also being inspired by God for the purpose of eventually becoming part of the New Testament. In other cases, something like divine dictation- with human cooperation, but with the Spirit as the primary actor- might take place, as in the book of Revelation and possibly the gospels.

3. Yes, I absolutely believed in historical and scientific inerrancy as well as in doctrinal and moral infallibility.

4. Because I believe that the writers of the New Testament were aware that they were writing under divine inspiration (either through Spiritual guidance or through direct Spiritual dictation), I did believe that 1 Tim 3:16 referred to the New Testament as well as the Old.

Of course, I deny pretty much every single one of the above points now.

Thank you, GCC.

I didn't actually mean to restrict answers to only evangelicals. Though I was most interested in their responses. Perhaps that shouldn't have even been mentioned. But I am glad you answered as you did.

I would have answered almost exactly as you did on most of the questions, as an evangelical too.

Thanks very much for your post. If you wish, you can post your opinions as you hold them now, but of course having stated that you deny most of those beliefs now gives an inclination at least. (meaning - I am not limiting the replies to evangelicals, that was not my intent - though I have learned something of the variety of beliefs from this thread).

Thanks again.

 

[Targaryen]

1. What does it mean that Scripture is inspired?

2. How did God inspire those who wrote the Scriptures - what did it look like and what process did He use?

3. Since they are inspired, does that also mean the Scriptures must necessarily be inerrant?

4. What are the "Scriptures" mentioned here - OT, NT, both? Why do you think so?

I'm not an evangelical and I won't answer as one, and as a theological liberal, my answers will probably differ form others.

That said:

1. What does it mean that Scripture is inspired?

It means that the authors were moved by the Holy Spirit to instruct us and led us into the awareness of God in the OT and of Christ as well as the Holy Spirit in the NT and the best way to live and walk the path God intended for us.

2. How did God inspire those who wrote the Scriptures - what did it look like and what process did He use?

While I think the OT scribes and the Apostles of the NT sat down and prayerfully and with the intention to teach and share or highlight the path with us, I do not feel that personal and cultural mores were not added as part of that path awareness. I think it wasn't divine dictation as it were so much as it was a divine calling to write.

3. Since they are inspired, does that also mean the Scriptures must necessarily be inerrant?

No, the Scriptures are very much not inerrant. As I said, cultural mores and taste plays into a lot of the Scriptures as well and should not be read in the same way to apply as a broad based brush in the light of modern sociological, scientific or theological insight.

4. What are the "Scriptures" mentioned here - OT, NT, both? Why do you think so?

At the time of this writing, this applies to the then Jewish Scriptures of the Torah, the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim, or what we'd call the OT. I do not think any of the apostles viewed their letters to the church for instruction to be Scripture but after the age of the Apostles. I believe the Church came to see the letters of the Apostles moved in the same way as the Jewish canon was, and due of course to the old Jewish laws no longer having the same meaning as they did prior to the church's decision the Levitical laws were fufilled by Christ's sacrifice.