The Inspiration of Scripture

[bekkilyn]

God can even use squirrels.

 

[Tree of Life]

God can even use squirrels.

Very insightful, bekkilyn.

 

[Ken Rank]

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!

As you wrote that, I would agree. But when anyone places the OT with equal weight with the NT, they are called a legalist. In any event, I am pretty sure as far as I am concerned, this thread has taken it's course.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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

Again, nature, historical documents, and church tradition is not going to build my faith. Without the Bible, a person cannot even be born again spiritually. For it is how we have the gospel message. Sure, nature (and sometimes history) can confirm the Bible, but they are merely MINOR supplementary forms of communication, and they are not our SOLE source of faith in regards to doctrine, and training in righteousness. An animal can only teach you so much. History can only teach you so much (if those parts in history you believe are even true). Many times, I see men trying to understand the Bible from the lens of church tradition or history, etc. When it should be the Bible as our lens or worldview first. That's the problem we run up against here. When others say that there are other essential ways God communicates to us. God can talk to our hearts silently in prayer, but it would obviously be confirmed by Scripture. Nature (animals) can talk to us silently, but it would be only in light of something we learned in God's Word. The Bible is the lens and the focus at looking at everything else. Others seem to think God talks in multiple ways as if they are on equal authority as Scripture (and this is not so).

 

[A Realist]

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?

Yet, on that remote island without a bible, the Christian faith survives. Even if your young kids or young grandkids somehow were stranded with you with no bible, the Christian faith would survive because (one would assume) you would orally teach them the faith.

My point is......faith doesn't start with printed words on paper. There are folks out there who came to the Christian faith without ever having read a bible. Before the Christian gospels/letters in the bible were even written, the Christian faith existed. Before the Torah was written down on papyrus, faith in God existed.

Faith does not exist because of written words on paper. The bible does not save.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

God can even use squirrels.

Yes, I believe God does use squirrels to talk to us silently (among other animals), but this is because God's Word tells us that the animal kingdom can teach us things. If the Bible told me to ignore the communication of the animal kingdom, then that is what I would do. Again, the Bible is our lens here and not the other way around.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oh, and speaking of animals, if anyone is interested I created a thread on animals that involves Scripture.

Post an Animal Picture with a Verse, or Post a Verse About Animals.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

The Scriptures are the only way that we may infallibly hear from God. Can God inspire us in other ways? Can he put desires in our hearts or thoughts in our minds? Sure. But can we ever be sure that our own thoughts or desires are God's authoritative words to us? Certainly not. Where can we be absolutely sure that we are hearing from God? In the Bible alone.

I actually I understand what your saying now to a certain extent. I still don’t understand what you do in the areas in scripture that isn’t so clear. If you took the Bible as it is and didn’t add it take anything away then your view would be consistent. For example if in the areas you didn’t understand you chose to just say “I don’t know” instead of coming to a conclusion that may be different than another who is trying to understand scripture just as much as you. This would be consistent because you are refusing to add your own thoughts and opinion to scripture. If you think your interpretation of scripture is always right then are you saying your interpretation is infallible as well?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I actually I understand what your saying now to a certain extent. I still don’t understand what you do in the areas in scripture that isn’t so clear. If you took the Bible as it is and didn’t add it take anything away then your view would be consistent. For example if in the areas you didn’t understand you chose to just say “I don’t know” instead of coming to a conclusion that may be different than another who is trying to understand scripture just as much as you. This would be consistent because you are refusing to add your own thoughts and opinion to scripture. If you think your interpretation of scripture is always right then are you saying your interpretation is infallible as well?

There are rules in understanding basic English.

Take for example the words:

"The dog jumps over the fence."​

How many ways can you really interpret that?

The Bible uses words and we have the context to prove what it is saying.

Yes, many get the Bible wrong on certain basic things, but that is because men read it with the interpretative lens or idea that is outside of Scripture (i.e. They read the Bible with a bias towards a certain belief that comes from a man, etc., instead of just reading and believing the Bible at face value alone). The Bible to you is a book of mystery. At least, that is the impression I am getting when I talk to you. But it is actually a book that one can easily understand if they employ both 2 Timothy 2:15, and 1 John 2:27. Seeing you are not wanting to accept these truths in the Bible, you must think there is some other way; But there isn't. The Bible alone is our authority because that is what the Scriptures teach (See 2 Timothy 3:16-17). For all Scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect unto every good work. No other method is said to be used here in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Our understanding comes from study of the Bible, and from asking for the anointing to understand God's Word. It is not church tradition, or history, or nature or some guy who says he is the reincarnated Jesus.

 

[FenderTL5]

"Without the Bible, how can we hear from God?"

Yes, I believe God does use squirrels to talk to us silently...

You see, we don't disagree as much as the posting back and forth would suggest.
I said, "creation" as did the Psalmist, you say squirrels.

 

[bekkilyn]

I thought we were talking about squirrels, not dogs.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

"Without the Bible, how can we hear from God?"

You see, we don't disagree as much as the posting back and forth would suggest.
I said, "creation" as did the Psalmist, you say squirrels.

I think we can agree that squirrels are a part of the creation,... yes?

But I think we differ when it comes to what glasses or lens or world view we put on (When reading the Bible). For when you read the Bible, is your interpretative lens of understanding the Bible via by church tradition and or man's history? It seems to me that many look to some religious dude in the past as their lens when looking at the Bible, or they look to some church tradition as their lens when reading the Bible. It seems that they cannot understand the Bible by the Bible's own instructions (See 2 Timothy 2:15, and 1 John 2:27).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I thought we were talking about squirrels, not dogs.

I mentioned both squirrels and dogs (poodles).
You like giraffes. They are fine animals within God's creation, too.
I fed some of them at my local zoo. Their tongue is really strange, but they are beautiful creatures indeed. Very cool animals.
Well, I am technically not a fan of poodles because of all the poop involved; Plus they make loud noises all the time to make up for their lack of size. No offense to anyone here who likes poodles (of course). Personally, I prefer squirrels. We live on higher story home, and all the windows in our place are really close to the trees and my wife and I see squirrels and birds every day up close from 2-3 windows. In other words, we get a free nature show every day.

In fact, praise be unto the Lord for His good creation.
However, praise be even more unto the Lord Jesus Christ who died for our sins according to the Scriptures. For the Lord our God is so good, and all His works are magnificent.

 

[Mountainmike]

You still dont understand the word "tradition". It doesnt mean anything like what you think it does. You attach a modern connotation to it that is not what was meant by either scripture or those such as iraneus commenting on it.

The word paradosis from Greek, means handing down of the totality of the faith as Paul says by "word of mouth and letter"

And you clearly have not studied the eucharist either, or indeed the development of the canon or creed or early christian history.

You are detached from those authors by 2000 years , which means you assume contemporary interpretations not those meant by authors. So you end up with an opposite view to almost all the theologians of history and everyone in the first 1500 years and continued in the largest churches, catholic and orthodox still

I will wager you come up with completely specious meanings for such as "bind and lose" as well, using contemporary meanings, not what it meant to the jews of the time. That is the power given by Jesus to apostolic succession, without which you would have no new testament. You have no basis to disagree with them.

You need to stop imposing your own view on scripture and listen to authority and tradition ( in true meaning, not yours) on what it means.

In simple terms you cannot be a non denom and have a valid eucharist in the terms that the apostles handed on to the first generation of succession (such as polycarp and ignatius) demanding the succession bishop to have a valid sacramental eucharist, without it you are profaning it. "some are sick, some have died"

There are none so blind as those who do not want to see.

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.

 

[Bumble Bee]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has been cleaned. Please refrain from flaming and goading remarks.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Athanasius377]

"So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ"

Of course, this is taken from Jurgens. It looks like the only source of the quote is from a fragment of a sermon some 200 years later. Jurgens gives it way too much weight.

SERMON TO THE NEWLY BAPTIZED [ante A.D. 373]

Athanasius’ Sermon to the Newly Baptized, which can only be dated as before the year 373, the year of Athanasius’ death, is known only from a short passage quoted by St. Eutyches, Patriarch of Constantinople († 582 A.D.), in his Sermo de paschate et de sacrosancta Eucharistia. The passage stands at the conclusion of Eutyches’ sermon (PG 86, 2401). There is no other evidence for a work of this title by Athanasius, and apparently this is the sole surviving fragment. It is impossible to speculate on the authenticity of the fragment, much less on the date of Athanasius’ sermon. On the other hand, there is no reason to suspect it of being spurious. If the language seems a bit unlike that of Athanasius in his usual style—a difficult judgment to make of so short a passage—it may be only that Eutyches has paraphrased him somewhat.

The fragment was first extracted from Eutyches and placed among the collected fragments of Athanasius by Cardinal Mai, Nova bibliotheca patrum 2, p. 583, where it stands as fragment No. 7. Mai’s edition is reprinted by Migne, PG 26, 1325.



Jurgens, W. A. (Trans.). (1970–1979). The Faith of the Early Fathers (Vol. 1, p. 345). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press.

 

[redleghunter]

@Tree of Life 77.4% said true. I guess that’s a C+ for CF?

 

[Tree of Life]

@Tree of Life 77.4% said true. I guess that’s a C+ for CF?

I'll take it. I would certainly not ordain CF to gospel ministry, but I would let CF be a member of my church.

 

[Mountainmike]

But then they are all the same : take Cyril of Jerusalem from similar time.


"the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the apparent Wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so"
Mystagogic

Or will you argue with that because it doesn't suit your dogma? You would call black white, to avoid the obvious truth that to quote Justin martyr " is the flesh of Jesus"

So When you dismiss Jurgens, by what authority does your opinion outrank his?

Like Luther , you seem to ignore what does not agree with your a priori opinion, so he changed it all in the sixteenth century. He didn't so much want to abolish the pope, Luther wanted to be the pope, but sadly he was not the Lords choice.

Do you also agree with Luthers selective editing both of the canon and of the text of the New Testament, because it didn't fit his doctrine, calling it "epistle of straw"?
Reformationists stand on shaky intellectual ground. Confirmation bias is everywhere in their reasoning.

Of course, this is taken from Jurgens. It looks like the only source of the quote is from a fragment of a sermon some 200 years later. Jurgens gives it way too much weight.

SERMON TO THE NEWLY BAPTIZED [ante A.D. 373]

Athanasius’ Sermon to the Newly Baptized, which can only be dated as before the year 373, the year of Athanasius’ death, is known only from a short passage quoted by St. Eutyches, Patriarch of Constantinople († 582 A.D.), in his Sermo de paschate et de sacrosancta Eucharistia. The passage stands at the conclusion of Eutyches’ sermon (PG 86, 2401). There is no other evidence for a work of this title by Athanasius, and apparently this is the sole surviving fragment. It is impossible to speculate on the authenticity of the fragment, much less on the date of Athanasius’ sermon. On the other hand, there is no reason to suspect it of being spurious. If the language seems a bit unlike that of Athanasius in his usual style—a difficult judgment to make of so short a passage—it may be only that Eutyches has paraphrased him somewhat.

The fragment was first extracted from Eutyches and placed among the collected fragments of Athanasius by Cardinal Mai, Nova bibliotheca patrum 2, p. 583, where it stands as fragment No. 7. Mai’s edition is reprinted by Migne, PG 26, 1325.



Jurgens, W. A. (Trans.). (1970–1979). The Faith of the Early Fathers (Vol. 1, p. 345). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press.

 

[Athanasius377]

But then they are all the same : take Cyril of Jerusalem from similar time.


"the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the apparent Wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so"
Mystagogic

Or will you argue with that because it doesn't suit your dogma? You would call black white, to avoid the obvious truth that to quote Justin martyr " is the flesh of Jesus"

So When you dismiss Jurgens, by what authority does your opinion outrank his?

The authority that I can read myself. And they are certainly not all the same. The ECF say vastly different things about a wide array of topics. And this is the problem with quote books is they don't capture what the father in question may actually think about a topic. Lets take your quote for example. On the surface it appears to teach something akin to transubstantiation but not so fast. Your quote is from paragraph 9 which is the summary of an entire lecture. But let's back up here a second and see if Cyril really means what you say he means:

Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mayest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we became partakers of the divine nature.

4. Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood, ye have no life in you. They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.

Having learnt these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, “strengthen thou thine heart,” by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.” And so having it unveiled with a pure conscience, mayest thou reflect as a mirror the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory, in Christ Jesus our Lord:—To whom be honour, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.


Cyril of Jerusalem. (1894). Five. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), R. W. Church & E. H. Gifford (Trans.), S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen (Vol. 7, pp. 151–152). New York: Christian Literature Company.

So just five paragraphs before Cyril seems to be saying something more akin the Reformed doctrine of the Real Presence and not Transubstantiation. So I ask your question right back at you. Will you argue that black is white and white is black in order to avoid the obvious truth?

Like Luther , you seem to ignore what does not agree with your a priori opinion, so he changed it all in the sixteenth century. He didn't so much want to abolish the pope, Luther wanted to be the pope, but sadly he was not the Lords choice.

Do you also agree with Luthers selective editing both of the canon and of the text of the New Testament, because it didn't fit his doctrine, calling it "epistle of straw"?
Reformationists stand on shaky intellectual ground. Confirmation bias is everywhere in their reasonin

Show me and edition of Luther's bible where James is missing from the canon. I challenge you to do this because I know you won’t find any such thing. Luther refers to the James as the epistle of straw not in its truthfulness but rather is mundane moral topics and not its usefulness. This was done in 1522 and he did not repeat the comment in later editions of his German NT. Luther also translated the book and included in his German NT so I don't know what your problem here is. Was Luther inconsistent with regards to James over his lifetime. You betcha. That doesn't mean he threw it out of the canon as you assert. In fact in his preface to James he says the following: “a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God".


Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. American Edition. General editors Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann. 56 vols. St. Louis: Concordia, and Philadelphia: Muhlenberg and Fortress, 1955–86.

Weird that he would write a preface to a book that he didn't include in the canon, eh?

So if reformationists are as you say on shaky intellectual ground why all the deception, deceit and really bad arguments?