What is the Reformed view on the inspiration of Scripture?

[2Timothy2]

Could you all tell me your view on the inspiration of Scripture? To what extent are they inspired? To what extent are they the words God wanted used and to what extent are they the words the human authors wanted to use?

 

[Knight]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

 

[2Timothy2]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

And you interpret that how?

 

[Knight]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. All Scripture is God-breathed. It comes from Him.

Follow this up with:
2 Peter 1:20-21 ESV knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

IMO, there is very little interpretation necessary. The passages are quite plain.

 

[2Timothy2]

Could you all tell me your view on the inspiration of Scripture? To what extent are they inspired? To what extent are they the words God wanted used and to what extent are they the words the human authors wanted to use?

Implied in this question is the acceptance of the passages you quote. What I am asking is this. How do you understand God performed this? Your replies are great but do not address my question directly. I am not questioning the fact that the entire Bible is the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God. I am trying to find out what Reformed folks believe as to how this was accomplished. I hope this clarifies things for you.

 

[Knight]

I don't think the Reformed view is all that different from other Evangelical views on this topic.

However, if you want a historic answer:

Westminster Confession of Faith
1.4
The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

To quote from my Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible: (Ref. 2Tim 3:16)
"God is the source and ultimate author of Scripture. Though written by human authors, it nevertheless is breathed out by God and carries the full weight of his authority."

 

[2Timothy2]

Though written by human authors, it nevertheless is breathed out by God and carries the full weight of his authority."

OK, so you all believe that it is at the same time written by men but the very words of God, correct? In other words, while the human authors used the words they did to convey the ideas they wanted to convey, God worked in such a way as to have those words the ones He wanted used to convey the ideas He wanted to convey.

 

[Knight]

OK, so you all believe that it is at the same time written by men but the very words of God, correct? In other words, while the human authors used the words they did to convey the ideas they wanted to convey, God worked in such a way as to have those words the ones He wanted used to convey the ideas He wanted to convey.

That's a dizzying way of putting it but, yes that's basically it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the classic reformed view is best argued by B.B.Warfield
check out:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/bible.html
a links list page

scan down to the inspiration section and check out:
The Inspiration and Authority of the Scriptures by B. B. Warfield
The Meaning of "Theopneustos" by B.B. Warfield
Early Church Comments On Inspiration by B.B. Warfield

AFAIK Warfield is the best on the topic.

 

[Radagast]

From the Belgic Confession:

3 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.

7 We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe, unto salvation, is sufficiently taught therein. For, since the whole manner of worship, which God requires of us, is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul saith. For, since it is forbidden, to add unto or take away anything from the word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear, that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all...

Of course, being "moved by the Holy Ghost" does not rule out the human writers chosing their own words for inspired ideas -- i.e. having their own writing style.

-- Radagast

 

[BBAS 64]

Could you all tell me your view on the inspiration of Scripture? To what extent are they inspired? To what extent are they the words God wanted used and to what extent are they the words the human authors wanted to use?

Good Day, 2Timothy

Here is a statement that you will find useful;

http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

Followed up by a great book on the subject

https://ecom.ligonier.org/ecom/product.asp?idProduct=EXP01BP


Peace to u,

Bill