The Inspiration of Scripture

[Tree of Life]

When the NT letters were sent out, they were sent to certain churches in certain cities for certain reasons. While inspired, Paul, James, Peter (etc.) didn't sit down thinking, "I am writing something that will stand alongside Deuteronomy." We can do that NOW because we know they are inspired... but at that time, they were letters by Apostles sharing God's word to edify and correct. And when they wrote, they included references to the written word of God, like 2 Tim 3:16 for example. A verse like that is not a reference to his own words, but a reference to what he considered Scripture in his day... the Torah (Law), Prophets, and Psalms. The NT wasn't compiled and made into what we know to be the NT until 200AD which further drives home this point.

The end around point I am making is we have a NT only culture... but the Apostles were very much fine with the idea that we use the Law and Prophets to learn of God's will for our lives. And this idea has become almost blaspheme today... sadly.

Oh. Ok. So the whole Bible is the word of God and we should hear the OT as God's word just as much as the NT. I don't think myself or @redleghunter would have any problem with that!

What the Bible says, God says - OT and NT together!

 

[FenderTL5]

Yes. Without the Bible we would not be able to hear from God unless God authoritatively spoke in another way - perhaps through a prophet, or through appearing on a mountain, or through coming as a man and training some disciples. In other words, unless God created another Bible.

But I'm curious as to how others would answer this question who view the Bible as not necessary.

The Psalmist said, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech,and night to night reveals knowledge..."
God speaks in many ways, including the scriptures, maybe even primarily through scripture but to limit it to only scripture puts a limit on God that I'm unwilling to declare. ymmv

 

[Tree of Life]

The Psalmist said, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech,and night to night reveals knowledge..."
God speaks in many ways, including the scriptures, maybe even primarily through scripture but to limit it to only scripture puts a limit on God that I'm unwilling to declare. ymmv

I agree that the heavens declare the glory of God and that creation testifies to God. God, in that sense, speaks through creation. But the Scriptures are still most necessary. I like how the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it:

Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

IOW, Scripture is necessary because the revelation we get from creation is both (1) not enough to save us and (2) liable to be misunderstood and distorted by us because of sin.

@bekkilyn and @A Realist seem to be saying that the Bible is not necessary because the church could survive without it.

 

[A Realist]

@bekkilyn and @A Realist seem to be saying that the Bible is not necessary because the church could survive without it.

This could never happen, of course, but if all of the world's bibles were somehow destroyed....yes, the church would survive.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Didn't offer a counter explanation. I offered the only one compatible with the faith handed down from apostles, and scripture, that continues to this day. Which was never questioned in the first millenium and a half, and most Christians ( Catholics, orthodox) still hold it.

Clearly sacramental. Clearly needs succession bishop or appointee to be valid. Clearly profaning it is a problem. Clearly " real flesh" As Paul said " some are sick, some have died" because of profaning it.

So when you receive the sacrament

A/ who is your succession bishop?
Or
B/ is your Eucharist invalid therefore profaning it?

Simple choice A or B Which?

But in the end let us agree on one thing. We are both Christians, and that matters more than any fine point of doctrine. You must hold as true to what you believe to be true, as I must to what I believe to be true. In catholic theology we consider you are judged by what you knew of the truth! If you knew it and broke it. Let us end on that point of agreement.

Jesus says we will be judged by the words that He says and not .

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48).

Jesus or His followers never said anything about how if you do not accept the traditions in addition to Scripture, you will be judged by the word of those traditions on the last day. That is why your added church traditions fail. They are only self authenticating within themselves and not with the Scriptures.

 

[Tree of Life]

This could never happen, of course, but if all of the world's bibles were somehow destroyed....yes, the church would survive.

So you are saying that the Bible is not necessary?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Psalmist said, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech,and night to night reveals knowledge..."
God speaks in many ways, including the scriptures, maybe even primarily through scripture but to limit it to only scripture puts a limit on God that I'm unwilling to declare. ymmv

We don't get doctrine, and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect unto all good works via nature, but Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The communication of nature to us by God's handiwork is extremely limited. Certain things within the animal kingdom can teach us things, but this again would be confirmed by Scripture; For without Scripture it would be useless to confirm such a truth. The wondrous beauty and miracle of creation itself is a testimony to the existence of God; But again, but it is Scripture that says that God created the heavens and the Earth in six literal 24 hour days (and this truth is not revealed to us by nature). The Bible is the primary sole source for doctrine, instruction in righteousness. The is the lens by which we look at other things. We do not look at the Bible through the lens of nature or tradition or history. The Bible comes first as our lens or world view.

 

[Tree of Life]

This could never happen, of course, but if all of the world's bibles were somehow destroyed....yes, the church would survive.

I'm trying to imagine what the church would be without the word of God. How would the church remain distinct from the world, which does not listen to the word of God? As Jesus prayed: "Sanctify them in the truth. Your word is truth." (John 17:17). Paint a picture for me. Help me to see how the church could survive without God's word.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That's a dubious argument and is potentially setting people up for disappointment. It's really not different from the stuff Joel Osteen preaches.

I mean, I'm sure Mormonism and Scientology transform lives, but they are still based on hokum.

If you were to look at the link I provided, I have listed other observational evidences that back up God's Word and it is not in just transforming your lives alone without looking at the Bible. For people saying they have changed lives does not mean that their lives are changed according to the Bible and it's standards. Joel Olsteen and his followers teach that we should be rich (Which is contrary to the teachings of Jesus (Matthew 6:19-21) (Matthew 19:24), and Paul (1 Timothy 6:9-11). They can say they have changed lives, but their lives are not changed according to the moral standards of the Bible. That is what I was referring to and I was not referring to some fantasy candy land form of Christianity that ignores the Bible.

Again, look at this blogger article I created in the following link, and it will give you an idea of some of Observable Evidences (or Observable Science) that shows God's Word to be a holy document and not a fallible document created by men.

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

Please take note that history, or church tradition cannot claim to be holy, infallible and as on equal authority or footing with the Bible. There are NO evidences proving church tradition is holy and divine! They are created by men who are fallible.

 

[A Realist]

So you are saying that the Bible is not necessary?

If you were ship wrecked and stranded on an island without your bible, and it was inhabited by natives unfamiliar with your belief, would your Christian belief survive?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If you were ship wrecked and stranded on an island without your bible, and it was inhabited by natives unfamiliar with your belief, would your Christian belief survive?

If someone was a baby Christian (who just accepted Christ recently) and they were stranded on an island without the Bible for the rest of their lives, I would say.... "no." Their Christian life would not survive. We are to grow according to God's Word. But God would not do that to them, unless God knew that they were the kind of wicked person that would not want to follow Him anyways (and they thought God's grace was a license to sin on some level).

 

[Tree of Life]

If you were ship wrecked and stranded on an island without your bible, and it was inhabited by natives unfamiliar with your belief, would your Christian belief survive?

Only because I've learned the Bible and could remember much of it. But if I didn't pass on my knowledge of the Bible to my children or grandchildren, then Christian faith would not survive on that island. Do you say otherwise?

 

[FenderTL5]

First, I never said, nor will I say scripture is unnecessary. My comment actually was quite the contrary.
Secondly, you have moved the goal, the question was; "Without the Bible, how can we hear from God?"
It was not, "Without the Bible how do we develop a systematic doctrine?"
However;

...Scripture is necessary because the revelation we get from creation is...not enough to save us...

The communication of nature to us by God's handiwork is extremely limited.

The Apostle Paul's opening salvo in Romans 1 would seem to differ;
...His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse..."

The point is we have scripture. We can certainly hear from God through scripture, but God is not limited to that means only - even scripture itself tells us differently.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

You actually cannot even have faith without the Word of God.

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
(Romans 10:17).​

We are born again by the Spirit and by water (i.e. water = the Word of God) (See Ephesians 5:25-27; For it says that we are sanctified by the washing of the water of the Word, i.e. Scripture).

We are born again by the incorruptible Word of God.

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23).​

For when I accepted Jesus as my Savior, and sought His forgiveness and believed on His death and resurrection for salvation, I knew that the Word of God (the Bible) was a living and spiritual book (unlike any other). The more I read it, the more truths (confirmed by real world examples) were presented to me in my life.

 

[Tree of Life]

First, I never said, nor will I say scripture is unnecessary. My comment actually was quite the contrary.
Secondly, you have moved the goal, the question was; "Without the Bible, how can we hear from God?"
It was not, "Without the Bible how do we develop a systematic doctrine?"
However;



The Apostle Paul's opening salvo in Romans 1 would seem to differ;
...His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse..."

The point is we have scripture. We can certainly hear from God through scripture, but God is not limited to that means only - even scripture itself tells us differently.

Paul says that we have enough information from creation to be without excuse. But he says in the very same chapter that only through the gospel is the power of God for salvation revealed.

 

[bekkilyn]

I recommend reading The Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence to better understand some of the rich and various ways God speaks to us without all of the limitations we try to place on him. (There is a modern English translation that is easier to read than the original translation.)

 

[Tree of Life]

I recommend reading The Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence to better understand some of the rich and various ways God speaks to us without all of the limitations we try to place on him. (There is a modern English translation that is easier to read than the original translation.)

If I'm not mistaken, Brother Lawrence advocates meditating on Scripture, does he not?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

First, I never said, nor will I say scripture is unnecessary. My comment actually was quite the contrary.
Secondly, you have moved the goal, the question was; "Without the Bible, how can we hear from God?"
It was not, "Without the Bible how do we develop a systematic doctrine?"
However;

The Apostle Paul's opening salvo in Romans 1 would seem to differ;
...His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse..."

They are without excuse about HIS EXISTENCE, and not on the reality of the truth revealed in Scripture. They cannot really know of the Trinity or Salvation via nature. Only by the revelation of God (the Bible, i.e. His holy words for us today) can we truly know what God desires from us. No fallible church tradition, historical document, or squirrel flicking it's tail as it jumps in happy excitement or some poodle pooping up steamy hot brown land mines in a person's home can teach me these truths.

The point is we have scripture. We can certainly hear from God through scripture, but God is not limited to that means only - even scripture itself tells us differently.

The point here is that your faith can exist without the communication of nature. For if a Christian was locked up in a prison cell (with no outside light or outside visits) and they had verses memorized to their heart, it will be Scripture and not nature that would talk to them. Doctrine and instruction in righteousness is not built by nature primarily, but by Scripture. Sure, God can use nature sometimes, but is is VERY minor in the role of our faith in God's Word.

 

[bekkilyn]

If I'm not mistaken, Brother Lawrence advocates meditating on Scripture, does he not?

I also advocate meditating on scripture. Still doesn't mean God's voice is limited to scripture alone.

 

[bekkilyn]

Only because I've learned the Bible and could remember much of it. But if I didn't pass on my knowledge of the Bible to my children or grandchildren, then Christian faith would not survive on that island. Do you say otherwise?

Yes, if God wills it to be so because God does not have your limitations or mine.