Regarding Inspiration & Men Who Wrote Bible - Archive 2 - Archives - Bible Versions Discussion Board - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Regarding Inspiration & Men Who Wrote Bible

Author	Comment
Kristi	Regarding Inspiration & Men Who Wrote Bible	Lead	[-]
Posts: 3769 (06/08/2000 07:21:05) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None As some of you may know, I have a discussion board where I talk with Roman Catholics. So, I've been doing a lot of reading about RCs and what they believe for the past several months. I have had King James Onlyists insist on THIS forum from time to time that the original writers of the Bible did not know or belive that their writings were divinely inspired. Well, when I was reading through a book about RCism, the author (Robert M. Zins) stated that this is an argument that Roman Catholics use-- RCs insist that since even the original authors did not know that their own writings were inspired, that we all needed the Roman Catholic Church to tell us which books were inspired and which ones were not. So again, I find King James Onlyists parroting an argument of another group that they would never in a million years agree with. In the past, I've noticed that some of the King James Onlyists' (or "Biblical Preservationists'") arguments echo those of atheists (e.g., the arguments of inerrancy in the Autographs etc). In their quests to promote their views, KJOers/BPers (or whatever label they give themselves) align themselves with those they oppose when it suits their fancy, when it's convenient for them.
Logos1611	Re: Regarding Inspiration & Men Who Wrote Bible	#1	[-]
Posts: 108 (06/08/2000 07:38:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	So again, I find King James Onlyists parroting an argument of another group that they would never in a million years agree with. In the past, I've noticed that some of the King James Onlyists' (or "Biblical Preservationists'") arguments echo those of atheists (e.g., the arguments of inerrancy in the Autographs etc). In their quests to promote their views, KJOers/BPers (or whatever label they give themselves) align themselves with those they oppose when it suits their fancy, when it's convenient for them. Kristi: Could this not be said also of those here who support modern versions? I have read many an argument where conservative Christians who support modern versions have align themselves with others who are neither conservative nor orthodox in their positions regarding other matters. There are those here who support modern versions who are theological liberals (or moderates), Jewish, or who support doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups. I do not group all supporters of modern versions together because of those who believe such. I try and take each person on the grounds of what they have to say. Simply because someone does not agree with me regarding the KJV and supports modern versions, does not mean he or she should be linked together with other groups. I try not to do this, and would hope others would do the same. In Christ Jesus, Thomas http://members.aol.com/Logos1611/index.html
Mitex	Simple enough	#2	[-]
Posts: 1124 (06/08/2000 09:34:42) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Kristi: It is simple enough to prove your thesis, where did Matthew claim "inspiration"? How about Mark? Luke? Jonah?
Huldrych	Good point, Doc	#3	[-]
Posts: 26 (06/08/2000 10:02:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Simply because someone does not agree with me regarding the KJV and supports modern versions, does not mean he or she should be linked together with other groups. I try not to do this, and would hope others would do the same. This sounds only reasonable. I've had KJO'ers automatically assume I reject the KJV because I tend to support the modern versions. Truth be known, I read Luther, and in English, I prefer the KJV (with no objections to using other versions, depending on the situation). In the same stroke, I think many of them also assume I must deny the virgin birth, the blood and divinity of Christ as well. Truth of that matter is, even though the RSV is the only version I have read all the way through in English, and most of the congregations I have been in teach from the NIV and NASB, I have never fallen into any of the aforementioned heresies. But, I doubt those who are quick towards namecalling would take the time to find out what it is I actually believe. And so, for my part, I don't (or at least, try not to) assume that KJO'ers worship their Bible more than God. Good to hear from you again, Doc. I trust your vacation went well. jth ...Denn wo Gotzforcht ist, da ist die Hilff Gottes -Zwingli
Logos1611	Re: Good point, Doc	#4	[-]
Posts: 108 (06/08/2000 10:32:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Dear Huldrych: Der Frieden des Gottes ist mit Ihnen, mein Freund. You write: In the same stroke, I think many of them also assume I must deny the virgin birth, the blood and divinity of Christ as well. Truth of that matter is, even though the RSV is the only version I have read all the way through in English, and most of the congregations I have been in teach from the NIV and NASB, I have never fallen into any of the aforementioned heresies. But, I doubt those who are quick towards namecalling would take the time to find out what it is I actually believe . . . I trust your vacation went well. I had a wonderful vacation, thank you for asking. I am delighted to know that we agree that name-calling and over zealous grouping is something we both desire not to be a part of. Sad to say that many fail to discern between passion and emotionalism. When we are passionate about something we speak boldly for it. Emotionalism often attacks without discretion. Thank you for your common sense in this regard. In Christ Jesus, Thomas http://members.aol.com/Logos1611/index.html
Huldrych	Re: Good point, Doc	#5	[-]
Posts: 26 (06/08/2000 13:51:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	*Der Frieden des Gottes ist mit Ihnen, mein Freund.* Allow me to correct your grammar a little: Die Friede Gottes sei mit dir, Freund. The peace of God be with you, friend You were using Babelfish, right? I have yet to find a decent translation program. I guess we polyglots will still be needed a while longer. But I do appreciate the thought and the effort. Thanks! Emotionalism often attacks without discretion. And sometimes undermines the attacker's credibility in the middle of an argument. That is embarrassing. Blessings, jth ...Denn wo Gotzforcht ist, da ist die Hilff Gottes -Zwingli
Kristi	Parallels on Views of Inspiration of RCC & KJOs/BP	#6	[-]
Posts: 3769 (06/09/2000 11:39:29) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Here I will quote from the Zins book, Romanism: White Horse Publications, 2nd ed., 1995, pages 32-35. Note the striking parallels between Roman Catholic thoughts on the canon (i.e., who determines which books belong in it) and the King James Onlyist thoughts on the Bible (i.e., who determines which versions are the Word of God/ how does inspiration work, what is inspired, etc): It is the teaching of the Catholic community that the only way to satisfy the intellect in believing that the Bible is inspired, is to swallow the Catholic position. The Catholic position is that they have the authority to determine which books belong in the canon of the text [just as King James Onlyists and Biblical Preservationists believe that they have the authority to determine and pronounce which versions are God's Word, perfectly preserved]. The upshot of the Catholic position is that Catholics are intellectually safer if they believe what the "Mother Church" tells them to believe. The reason that this is the most intellectually satisfying position is that the Catholic religious leaders are inspired [for the King James Onlyists, this would work out to the KJV translators being inspired, and possibly the likes of the Peter Ruckman's of the world] and sit in declaration on what else may be inspired. In other words, Christ established an infallible Church from which came the inspired Word. How did Christ establish this infallible "Church"? He allegedly did it through His Word. But, we may ask, why was this Word trustworthy to begin with? The answer is given, "Because the Catholic religion says so." Thus, we have the startling claim that the Catholic religion decided on the inspiration of the Word! The Word, they say, did not determine the Church. The Church, they say, determined the Word. This, of course, is absolutely backward from the Christian position. The historic Christian position is that the Word gave formation and direction to the Church and lives ever to protect, guide and inform the Church. For the Roman Catholic affirmations to be plausible, they have to build some straw men and set them on fire. Ridicule is cast upon those who cling to the inspiration of Scripture for reasons other than those of Rome [or that of King James Onlyists!] They are jeered as having to do so on the basis of habit, culture, family background or an unfounded claim, says Rome, to the inspirational nature of the Bible. This ridicule is not because one believes in inerrancy; rather why one holds to inspiration is held up for mockery. If someone holds to the inspiration of the Bible for reasons other than because the Roman Catholic religion says so, they are scorned. It is clear that Christians and Catholics not only radically disagree with the extent of and source of authority, but also the basic reason why the Scriptures are viewed as inspired. This is no small disagreement. The Catholic is convinced that a source outside of Scripture always has authority to both declare Scripture to be inspired and also to add to it! The Christian finds the Bible as his one and only source of authority. The Scriptures are inspired because they are "God-breathed." The Bible is found to give its own claim to authority and inspiration. Lest the reader think that we are in some sense exaggerating this point of difference, let us ponder these words of the Roman apologist: "What about the Bible's own claim to inspiration? There are not many places where such a claim is made even tangentially, and most books in the Old and New Testaments make no such claim at all. In fact, no New Testament writer seemed to be aware that he was writing under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, with the exception of the author of Revelation" (Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pg. 123). Before refuting this Catholic claim, we might ask some questions. If the Bible itself does not claim any special authority as coming from God, then does it deserve to be considered inspired? If the Bible lays no claim to inspiration and nothing in it carries the weight of special "God-breathed" revelation, then why indeed should it be labeled "inspired" by anyone? Also, given the Catholic position that the Bible makes no such claim for itself, then on what basis or criteria did the Catholic religion decide that such and such a book would be part of an inspired canon [or where does the King James Onlyist get the notion that the KJV is the Inspired Word of God if he does not believe that the original authors knew that their writings were inspired?] It really comes down to the issue of either trusting the Catholic religion [/King James translators] or the internal claim of the Scriptures. But do the Scriptures claim for themselves such "God-breathed" authority? The Christian answers a resounding Yes! We agree ... with Clark Pinnock who quotes James Orr: "It may surprise those who have not looked into the subject with care to discover how strong, full, and pervasive, the testimony of Scripture to its own inspiration is" (Pinnock, pg. 54). We shall start by letting the Scriptures speak for themselves in four main passages which present a foundation for the self-authentication of the Bible as the inspired Word of God. The first passage is found in the third chapter of the second letter of Paul to Timothy. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:14-17) Paul uses the term here theopneustic which means literally "God-breathed." Paul is not saying that the writers are inspired but rather what they wrote is inspired. It is the text, not the man, which is inspired. Paul understood that the Scriptures, which Timothy was raised upon, were in fact the deposit of "God-breathed" words. This realization of inspiration existing for the Old Testament canon gives rise, in the New Testament, to equal footing for the words of Christ and the words of Paul. Paul quotes the words of Jesus in 1 Timothy 5;18; "For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages." The latter part of this verse is found in the words of our Lord as recorded in Luke 10:17. These words are put on a par with the Old Testament citation in the first part of the verse. Thus, the words of our Lord are placed in the category of "God-breathed" by Paul in his writing to Timothy. This gives the New Testament writings a similar footing as the Old Testament insofar as inspiration is concerned. In 2 Peter 3;15, 16, Peter places the writings of Paul on the same level that Paul had placed the writings of Luke when he says: "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." Peter includes the writings of Paul as part of what he considers to be "the Scriptures." But what of the Roman Catholic claim that "no New Testament writer seemed to be aware that he was writing under inspiration"? Does this spell the death knell for the inspiration of the New Testament? No! It is not necessary that a writer of Scripture be aware of anything other than that he spoke with the Words of God [but note that even in their preface that the KJV translators did not claim perfection for their work, nor, apparently do the Autographs contain any prophecies to the effect that a 1611 copy of the Scriptures would be the result of direct Divine inspiration]. Paul was absolutely convinced that he was carrying the authority entrusted to him by Christ (cf., 1 Corinthians 15:37,38 along with 1 Thessalonians 2:13). This apostolic authority, when inscripturated to the New Covenant community, was received as the inspired Word of God. Scripture carries with it its own authority and that authority is "received" or "recognized" by men. Men do not give the Scripture authority, they merely "recognize" it. Herein lies the difference between the Catholic and Christian community. The notion that Scripture is not generated nor subject to the whim of men is given to us by Peter: "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. It is intrinsic to the nature of revelation that it must carry a weight of its own, not a derived weight from a body of men [so all the "good fruit arguments" by KJOers about how famous preacher "XYZ" used the KJV in a great revival of year "X" doesn't account for anything]. Men have not been given authority to invest into a collection of writings any importance which cannot be challenged by the next group of men who come along. There must be a supernatural character to the writings that declare for themselves such intrinsic value. The ability to place faith in such writings must also be controlled by the same authority. This is why the value of the Scriptures are not trusted or believed in by every one. What we are driving at is that it does not take a supernatural revelation to see that the Scriptures do testify of their own inspiration, but that fact alone does not guarantee they will be believed. Belief in the content of Scriptures must not be confused with the simple grasping that the Scriptures do validate themselves as the "God-breathed" writings. For them to be believed requires the illumination of the intellect by the One who authored them in the first place. The same author of the writings reveals their witness as truth. To further our case, we would ask the reader to consider the words of Jesus Christ as written in Matthew 5:17, 18; "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter [jot], not the least stroke of a pen [tittle], will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." The "law" and the "prophets" of which Jesus spoke are the entirety of the Old Testament. Our Lord recognized the value of the Word and considered it to be the Word of His father (cf., Mark 7:13). No one in the entirety of the New Testament had a higher view of the Old Testament writings, as the inspired Word of God, than did the Son of God. Witness His statement in John 10:35: If he called them `gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken-- It is important to understand that the Christian is in good company when he begins to partake of the doctrine of inspiration. The testimony of the Lord as to the veractiy of the unbroken Word of the Old Testament is the pattern for our acceptance of the same authority imparted the New Testament Scriptures. We are encouraged to take such a posture by the fact that Paul raised Luke's writings to such an extent and that Peter raises Paul's writing onto the same plane. Taking as our pattern the Old Testament, which was recognized and received as authoritative by Jesus Christ and His apostles, we can better understand the New Testament authority. Jesus left His apostles the immediate charge of teaching and preaching all that they had heard and learned from Him (cf., Matthew 28). This task was to be carried out under the auspices of the Holy Spirit and the words that the apostles were to speak were pre-authenticated by the Lord to give gravity and weight to the apostles' mission. It would be the work of the Father through the Holy Spirit to prepare the hearts of those who would receive this word (cf., Acts 16). That which the apostles spoke originally would soon be written down so as to safeguard the deposit of revelation from those who would distort the truth in the absence of those commissioned to safeguard it. Through a time process, guided and directed by the Holy Spirit, the full writings of the New Testament canon were "recognized" as coming into existence by those whom the Spirit of God had prepared to listen.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Rules Page