The Inspiration of Scripture

[Tree of Life]

I understand why many were appalled at my statement that the Bible is God. Admittedly, this statement lacks clarity. Though I stand by the substance of my former OP, I do admit that this language is too strong and misleading.

Here’s a better way to put it. [Staff edit].

The Bible is the very words of God. Inspiration is a divine act wherein a human word is identified with a divine word. All the words in Scripture written by Moses, David, John, and Paul, etc... are God’s very words. They are also human words. But because they are divine words they carry all the authority of God and God speaks therein.

Put simply: What the Bible says, God says.

[Staff edit].

 

[Radagast]

I understand why many were appalled at my statement that the Bible is God.

I notice that you, and a few others who share your beliefs, are still defending this statement on other threads.

 

[akaDaScribe]

I understand why many were appalled at my statement that the Bible is God. Admittedly, this statement lacks clarity. Though I stand by the substance of my former OP, I do admit that this language is too strong and misleading.

Here’s a better way to put it. [Staff edit].

The Bible is the very words of God. Inspiration is a divine act wherein a human word is identified with a divine word. All the words in Scripture written by Moses, David, John, and Paul, etc... are God’s very words. They are also human words. But because they are divine words they carry all the authority of God and God speaks therein.

Put simply: What the Bible says, God says.

[Staff edit].

I could.

Maybe what you are saying could be true in a pre-destined, that's they way he wanted it kind of way, but it says that all scripture (Old Testament btw) is inspired by God.

The only things are to be God's actual words would be what God wrote himself on the mountain with Moses and the passages where the prophets said "thus saith the Lord." There are probably other times when He did dictate and it was not indicated, but I don't think that's what happened in the entire remainder of the Bible.

 

[akaDaScribe]

I feel compelled to add this. Though i do not believe that God dictated the entire Bible to all of the writers. I do believe that He did inspire them.

I do not believe that the Bible is flawless, but I regard it as a higher authority than any other opinions or writings that came after it.

Or in simplest terms, I go with what the Bible says.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I feel compelled to add this. Though i do not believe that God dictated the entire Bible to all of the writers. I do believe that He did inspire them.

I do not believe that the Bible is flawless, but I regard it as a higher authority than any other opinions or writings that came after it.

Or in simplest terms, I go with what the Bible says.

The Lord left the various writers with their personalities; this makes Scripture so rich.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Yes, and the honesty of the Bible makes it so real. Like they never went back and tried to change what it said to try to make it look better or to fix unclear things. And the people he chose to work with make you scratch your head. But that's life, that's real. And yes there are layers upon layers of meaning; like a bottomless ocean.

I don't see the Bible a flawless book, but a priceless ancient treasure that God has provided to us to seek him and communicate with him through his word. It's like a mutual language that we share with him. Want to hear from God? bury his word in your heart and He can and will speak to you through it.

Can I just say? God just rocks on so many levels! I am utterly a sold out fanboy for God. He is so beyond understanding and yet so delightful to contemplate. Who but God is magnificent enough to captivate us forever? The lord of Hosts is His name!

 

[Serving Zion]

I understand why many were appalled at my statement that the Bible is God. Admittedly, this statement lacks clarity. Though I stand by the substance of my former OP, I do admit that this language is too strong and misleading.

Here’s a better way to put it. [Staff edit].

The Bible is the very words of God. Inspiration is a divine act wherein a human word is identified with a divine word. All the words in Scripture written by Moses, David, John, and Paul, etc... are God’s very words. They are also human words. But because they are divine words they carry all the authority of God and God speaks therein.

Put simply: What the Bible says, God says.

[Staff edit].

I admire this and wish to encourage you to endure by James 4:6, even if there might be some who desire to criticise (James 3:2).

First off, the scripture is only The Word of God when He speaks through it. This means that when He spoke as spirit through the writers to the intended audience, the words were intended for that audience to gain the meaning that His spirit would convey when they received them. This does not necessarily mean that every other reader will gain the same meaning from the same words, because the words were not intended for them.

Therefore we cannot necessarily deduce that God will speak through those words (consider 2 Peter 3:16). On that point too, we see that scripture can be mishandled, and therefore used to misrepresent God - where there is someone receiving scripture as though being of God when it does not truthfully represent the intention of The Holy Spirit (eg: John 5:39-40, 2 Timothy 3:7). Whereas someone who is handling the scripture according to The Holy Spirit does in fact represent God through the proper handling of the scripture.

One more thing I must add, that the scriptures were written in a language foreign to us, so the translator themselves might add some distortion to the original message. That is unavoidable because they first need to understand what the original writer was saying and then convey that in the new language. Every translator therefore has (unavoidably) some doctrinal lens through which they understand what the original writer would wish to say in English. For this reason, some translations can lack the essential qualities of grace and love that the original writings have, instead the carnal intellect of the translator or indeed the resentments of their heart serve to taint the meaning that is conveyed to the reader.

I am greatly encouraged to see your candid devotion to the truth, to be so quickly cleansed of impurity, maintaining a robust, blameless service (1 Corinthians 3:13, Malachi 3:3).

 

[akaDaScribe]

I admire this and wish to encourage you to endure by James 4:6, even if there might be some who desire to criticise (James 3:2).

First off, the scripture is only The Word of God when He speaks through it. This means that when He spoke as spirit through the writers to the intended audience, the words were intended for that audience to gain the meaning that His spirit would convey when they received them. This does not necessarily mean that every other reader will gain the same meaning from the same words, because the words were not intended for them.

Therefore we cannot necessarily deduce that God will speak through those words (consider 2 Peter 3:16). On that point too, we see that scripture can be mishandled, and therefore used to misrepresent God - where there is someone receiving scripture as though being of God when it does not truthfully represent the intention of The Holy Spirit (eg: John 5:39-40, 2 Timothy 3:7). Whereas someone who is handling the scripture according to The Holy Spirit does in fact represent God through the proper handling of the scripture.

One more thing I must add, that the scriptures were written in a language foreign to us, so the translator themselves might add some distortion to the original message. That is unavoidable because they first need to understand what the original writer was saying and then convey that in the new language. Every translator therefore has (unavoidably) some doctrinal lens through which they understand what the original writer would wish to say in English. For this reason, some translations can lack the essential qualities of grace and love that the original writings have, instead the carnal intellect of the translator or indeed the resentments of their heart serve to taint the meaning that is conveyed to the reader.

I am greatly encouraged to see your candid devotion to the truth, to be so quickly cleansed of impurity, maintaining a robust, blameless service (1 Corinthians 3:13, Malachi 3:3).

What a wonderful articulation of your perspective. It's like watching a really good chess player making a move. And thank you for your view. It gives me things to consider.

 

[Tayla]

What the Bible says, God says.

Yes, the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God.

 

[akaDaScribe]

I never fully explained why I don’t believe that it is that actual words God spoke.

There are variations in the new testament gospels.

In one instance the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows twice, in the other it crows once.

In one instant the thieves had contempt for Jesus in the other one of the thieves revered Jesus.

In one instance the tree that Jesus withered in another instance it was gone the next day.

In one instance the devil were cast into the swine from one man, in another instance it was 2 men.

In the parable of talents, the numbers are different.

In the fate of the servant in one case was that he got nothing, in the other case he was cast into outer darkness.

In the story about the lawyer who asked Jesus what the great commandment was, in one instance it said

Jesus said Love God and neighbors in the other the lawyer said it.

In one instant of the scenario about the the men who slay the son, Jesus says he will destroy those people, in the other the Jews responded that he will destroy those people.

So, if God dictated each of the 4 gospels that would mean He was being inconsistent in terms of telling what actually happened.

I don’t know these variants because I went looking for them. I know them because I have listened to the gospels so many times. I point these things out not to rattle believers, but because it is true. If someone were to ask me why I would consider the Bible divine, knowing these things. I would respond, “never man spake like that.”

I don’t believe the Bible is true because of science or historians or any of that. I believe it’s true because the words of Jesus, the thoughts that he conveyed, rip through me to the bone and stir my spirit because they resonate of truth. I hear it and know what he is saying is true.

Don’t spend your life trying to look at every dot on the picture. Stand back and look at the actual picture.

 

[W2L]

I believe it’s true because the words of Jesus, the thoughts that he conveyed, rip through me to the bone and stir my spirit because they resonate of truth. I hear it and know what he is saying is true.

His sheep know His voice and follow Him.

 

[Serving Zion]

I believe it’s true because the words of Jesus, the thoughts that he conveyed, rip through me to the bone and stir my spirit because they resonate of truth.

Thank you for your feedback, it is nice to meet you here and I will look out for you.

If I were to write this, I would use present-tense where you have spoken of the thoughts He conveys through scripture. God is spirit, those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth, and this is how Jesus spoke with the authority of God to say "the scriptures testify of me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life" (John 4:14).

 

[Arsenios]

One more thing I must add, that the scriptures were written in a language foreign to us, so the translator themselves might add some distortion to the original message. That is unavoidable because they first need to understand what the original writer was saying and then convey that in the new language. Every translator therefore has (unavoidably) some doctrinal lens through which they understand what the original writer would wish to say in English

Exactly so -

One of the things I was astonished to find as an atheist convert was the fact that each and every protestant believer had a very specific personal understanding of the Gospel, and could evaluate each and every other believer on the same scale of belief - So what it all amounted to was individual believerism, and I must say it coufounded me...

Luther did not like James and removed that Book from the Bible...
The Puritans did not like the Apocryphal writings and removed them from the KJV...
And on and on...

Arsenios

 

[Serving Zion]

Exactly so -

One of the things I was astonished to find as an atheist convert was the fact that each and every protestant believer had a very specific personal understanding of the Gospel, and could evaluate each and every other believer on the same scale of belief - So what it all amounted to was individual believerism, and I must say it coufounded me...

Luther did not like James and removed that Book from the Bible...
The Puritans did not like the Apocryphal writings and removed them from the KJV...
And on and on...

Arsenios

The Holy Spirit is recognised by His holy quality .. being without sin (eg. envy, pride, wrath etc), and being inherently devoted to the truth in love.

In this way we can see that The Holy Spirit is a spirit that can manifest through Protestants or indeed through other sorts of believers, (if they have crucified the flesh with it's passions - because it is the flesh that wars against The Spirit).

If a person has that spiritual disposition when they act, then they will be on the path that leads to life: The Way, The Truth, The Life. They are walking in the light, they are "In Christ". Although they might have some residual ideas that are wrong (from whatever their mind has already been led to believe), when He is empowered in them to transform them through the renewing of the mind in love (and the absence of sin), He will lead them so that they eventually arrive at the same conclusion as the authentic faith teaches. That is the cleansing fire burns off the dross and purifies what remains (Malachi 3:2-3).

So I recognise that sometimes a writing is not inspired by The Holy Spirit - someone has been motivated to write by the passion of their flesh (eg. wrath, pride, lust etc). I do not view the book of James in that way though. In fact, I recognise the writer as writing in holy spirit - everything that he says is of truth and in a spirit of love, without sin or deceit.

I value what Fr. Luther achieved for The Lord, though for this matter I pity him. It shows that he did deeply struggle with this particular sensitivity, a deeply grievous wound through his fundamental objection to the way the church was promoting faith in his time - the resentment that had gripped him as he grew to see more of the devil in it's midst.

This is my assessment of his motive to remove the book of James because of James 2:14-26, that it was an unfortunate shortness of perfect judgement, provoked by the evil of the church. As I have explained, upon balance of the circumstances in all fairness (John 16:2), I find that he ought be excused of the blame and rewarded for the gifts he gave the world through courage, strength and discernment.

 

[Arsenios]

The Holy Spirit is recognised by His holy quality .. being without sin (eg. envy, pride, wrath etc), and being inherently devoted to the truth in love.

In this way we can see that The Holy Spirit is a spirit that can manifest through Protestants or indeed through other sorts of believers, (if they have crucified the flesh with it's passions - because it is the flesh that wars against The Spirit).

If a person has that spiritual disposition when they act, then they will be on the path that leads to life: The Way, The Truth, The Life. They are walking in the light, they are "In Christ". Although they might have some residual ideas that are wrong (from whatever their mind has already been led to believe), when He is empowered in them to transform them through the renewing of the mind in love (and the absence of sin), He will lead them so that they eventually arrive at the same conclusion as the authentic faith teaches. That is the cleansing fire burns off the dross and purifies what remains (Malachi 3:2-3).

So I recognise that sometimes a writing is not inspired by The Holy Spirit - someone has been motivated to write by the passion of their flesh (eg. wrath, pride, lust etc). I do not view the book of James in that way though. In fact, I recognise the writer as writing in holy spirit - everything that he says is of truth and in a spirit of love, without sin or deceit.

I value what Fr. Luther achieved for The Lord, though for this matter I pity him. It shows that he did deeply struggle with this particular sensitivity, a deeply grievous wound through his fundamental objection to the way the church was promoting faith in his time - the resentment that had gripped him as he grew to see more of the devil in it's midst.

This is my assessment of his motive to remove the book of James because of James 2:14-26, that it was an unfortunate shortness of perfect judgement, provoked by the evil of the church. As I have explained, upon balance of the circumstances in all fairness (John 16:2), I find that he ought be excused of the blame and rewarded for the gifts he gave the world through courage, strength and discernment.

Thank-you...

Arsenios

 

[redleghunter]

One of the things I was astonished to find as an atheist convert was the fact that each and every protestant believer had a very specific personal understanding of the Gospel, and could evaluate each and every other believer on the same scale of belief - So what it all amounted to was individual believerism, and I must say it coufounded me.

Any examples to go with the order of assertions.

Luther did not like James and removed that Book from the Bible...

Actually this is not true.

The Puritans did not like the Apocryphal writings and removed them from the KJV

Actually this as well is not true.

 

[redleghunter]

I value what Fr. Luther achieved for The Lord, though for this matter I pity him. It shows that he did deeply struggle with this particular sensitivity, a deeply grievous wound through his fundamental objection to the way the church was promoting faith in his time - the resentment that had gripped him as he grew to see more of the devil in it's midst.

Luther's comments on James had Catholic historic support as James was part of the early church antilegomena.

Luther in his first edition German Bible had all 27 NT books.

This is my assessment of his motive to remove the book of James because of James 2:14-26, that it was an unfortunate shortness of perfect judgement, provoked by the evil of the church. As I have explained, upon balance of the circumstances in all fairness (John 16:2), I find that he ought be excused of the blame and rewarded for the gifts he gave the world through courage, strength and discernment.

He never removed James from his Bible translations.

 

[Serving Zion]

Luther's comments on James had Catholic historic support as James was part of the early church antilegomena.

Thank you for contributing, to clarify facts that have been mentioned. Could you also please include the comments that you have referred to here?

 

[redleghunter]

Thank you for contributing, to clarify facts that have been mentioned. Could you also please include the comments that you have referred to here?

Luther never removed James from his Bible.

The below from a former Lutheran and now Roman Catholic:

Trashing Luther | Russell E. Saltzman

 

[Serving Zion]

Luther never removed James from his Bible.

The below from a former Lutheran and now Roman Catholic:

Trashing Luther | Russell E. Saltzman

Yes, I see that a reader might have been misled to believe that Fr. Luther had successfully removed the book of James from his canon, whereas in fact he did not do that. So, thank you for ensuring clarity to that point.

My comments in post #14 are addressing his motive for having viewed the writing of James with less credibility than I do.

I had read this article before submitting my views, wherein the following words had influenced my words:

Several religious and other kinds of encyclopedias offer various explanations regarding why Martin Luther (at least during part of his life) did not like the book of James. [...] The Believer's Study Bible states that Luther, at least for a period of time, thought that the book of James contradicted what (he believed) was the Apostle Paul's teaching that justification came by faith alone [...]