Why I Am/Not Charismatic: What Are Spiritual Gifts? – C Michael Patton | Parchment and Pen: "One of the great messages of the Christian faith is that we are not optional. Of course, we believe in the aseity of God, which means that God is completely non-contingent. Translation: God does not need us for any aspect of his fulfillment. God is perfect just the way he is. He is not dependent on anyone or anything. However, in his grace, God has made us necessary. Because of God’s grace, there is not a useless or optional person among us, no matter their age, race, color, or sex. God has chosen to use those who believe in him in an extraordinary way. The end goal: to accomplish his purpose. The means: the church – the body of Christ."
Struck by this how the Aseity of God and the value of the Christian are never put in conflict with each other.
DJR
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Saturday, August 06, 2011
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Book Review of Bart D. Ehrman’s “Forged” – Part 3 | Parchment and Pen
Book Review of Bart D. Ehrman’s “Forged” – Part 3 | Parchment and Pen
interesting review. Ehrmans flaws are nicely identified in Dan Wallace's review.
interesting review. Ehrmans flaws are nicely identified in Dan Wallace's review.
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Greg Carey: My Old Bible: An Honest Look at Young Faith
Greg Carey: My Old Bible: An Honest Look at Young Faith
I find this most sad, destroying the faith, that this author grew up with, demeaning the Bible rather than supporting it. But modern liberalism will do anything rather than submit to God! And that is the final reason for the objection to "wives submit yourselves to your husbands" any more than he husband both accountable and submitting to God.
To deny infalliblitiy is to deny the existance of God, for if he does exist, does care he must by definition be capable of communicating to his creation in a medium that is untarnished by man's many failures in maintaining his transmission of the Word of God
Don Raymonde
I find this most sad, destroying the faith, that this author grew up with, demeaning the Bible rather than supporting it. But modern liberalism will do anything rather than submit to God! And that is the final reason for the objection to "wives submit yourselves to your husbands" any more than he husband both accountable and submitting to God.
To deny infalliblitiy is to deny the existance of God, for if he does exist, does care he must by definition be capable of communicating to his creation in a medium that is untarnished by man's many failures in maintaining his transmission of the Word of God
Don Raymonde
Friday, July 01, 2011
What Brought Mary to the Cross
Why then was Mary at the cross? It was because of her love to Him who had redeemed her from Satan's bondage. Jesus possessed her heart, and it was that which drew her to whatever place He went, and hence, as she had been identified with Him in life, she would also be identified with Him in His death. We have two glimpses of her at the cross, one before His death, and one afterward. John alone records the former: he says, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). The beloved disciple also formed one of this company. At first, all the disciples, in the terror of the moment, when it was the hour of His enemies and of the powers of darkness, had forsaken their Master and fled. John had been recovered from his fear, and also Simon Peter in measure, for he "followed Him afar off into the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end." But alas! Peter went in trusting in his own strength, and, notwithstanding the warning he had received, fell into the awful sin of denying his Lord. Of the other disciples not a single word is said. How pleasing then to the heart of the Lord it must have been to see these faithful four beside Him at His cross. He had felt it deeply, when in Gethsemane, that the chosen three could not watch with Him one hour. Now He was comforted in that there were four who were sustained to face the power of evil, which for the moment seemed to revel unchecked and triumphant, to overcome their own unutterable sorrows, as they were lost in the contemplation of His sufferings and grief, and to encounter all and every danger in their intense affection for Him who had become everything to their souls
By:Edward DennettFrom:Dennett BooksThree Marys http://bibletruthpublishers.com/Library/LibraryArticle.aspx?Content=56540#ShareButtonLabel
Monday, May 30, 2011
Some Valuable Lessons On Theological Learning From An Analysis of Origen (Lisa Robinson)
Struck by Lisa' blog post, and her conclusions about reading the original sources, is humbling , since I have so little done this, so often accepting the views of JND , WK on the Church Fathers, the reformers and so on...... DJR
First off, this post is not really about Origen (c. 185-254). But it is about some lessons that I learned from studying Origen’s homilies in relation to how we do theology in general. Prior to taking an elective last fall in History of Exeges is, I had a certain idea about Origen and his interpretive methods. I had not read Origen’s work directly, but learned what I did of him from historical theology surveys and articles I read on the internet. Mainly, my impression of Origen being the father of Alexandrian school of exegesis was that he utilized a wildly allegorical style of interpreting scripture where symbolism ran amok and passages were assigned some arbitrary meaning. In fact, many of the descriptions I read of him identified him in relation to this but in more of a pejorative light. What I gathered was that Origen was just a wild and crazy guy when it came to interpretation.
That was until I took the History of Exegesis class, where a good portion of it was spent on analyzing Origen’s interpretative methodology and some of his homilies on Luke that were delivered to new Christians. What I discovered was that there was a method to Origen’s seeming madness. Not only that, but he was consistent in his approach to interpretation. His multiple sense of interpretation always begin with the literal sense that is not divorced from the text albeit not necessarily concerned with historical accuracy. The spiritual sense of the texts correlated meaning to an overall analysis of what was going on. This would lead to the moral sense, which was to affect obedience to God. For Origen, this was the ultimate goal. Understanding the text corresponded to the reader’s spiritual maturity and the correlation between obedience to Christ and an illumination of the text. Origen’s interpretation was rooted in a strong Christology that sought to draw the reader to Him. Needless to say, this was quite a different understanding that I had going into the class. Moreover, I was refreshingly surprised at how much I was personally edified in my Christian walk as a result of better understanding of where Origen was coming from.
But like I said this was not about Origen but rather the affect of what I learned particularly as it relates to theological learning and discourse. It seems to me just as I had one impression of Origen’s interpretive methods that admittedly came with an attitude of scoffing, we often approach theological topics, positions, systems this same way. We have built an identity around particular issues or theologians that we have come to reject, treat as insufficient or just don’t agree with. And let’s face it, theological discourse can be very reactionary. Often times, that reaction can propel unexamined rebuttals that are not really honest to what is being proposed. But I propose guarding reactions in consideration of these key points that I found useful in my example of Origen.’s exegesis.
1) Always examine original sources: I think it’s safe to say that we cannot really know what a theologian or theological position espouses unless we get it right from the horses mouth. I often encounter folks who disagree with a particular doctrine or position but have not read what proponents of particular positions say. Opponents will typically find some way to cast that position in a negative light, especially since they don’t agree with it. Yet, if we take time to read and maybe analyze what others have to say, fairly and less reactionary, then we might find some agreement and some errors in our own assessment.
2) Temper your disagreement: Do not be so quick to react. Sometimes we may not have all the information needed to effectively evaluate a certain position. As noted in the first point, relying on opponents can be misleading and it is dishonest to regurgitate what they say without analysis on your part. We can certainly question statements, positions or scriptural interpretation that does not seem compatible to our theological understanding, but disagreements have to be tempered according to the facts we have. Reactions with insufficient information most likely will cause unnecessary divisions, and especially when misunderstandings are spread carelessly and irresponsibly.
3) Submit to learning: As long as a position and it’s advocates are striving to be honest to scripture and the historical witness of Christianity, there is something to be gleaned even if you don’t agree with all tenet’s or methodologies. I think if Origen were alive today and his interpretive methodology were subject to the many vehicles information is disseminated, he might meet with some harsh criticism. But I imagine there would be others who would be kind and patient enough to examine his theses and most likely determine that Origen was most concerned with the exaltation of Christ and Christian obedience to him, at least with these homilies anyway. In fact, there were a number of comments made from fellow classmates of how convicting Origen’s messages were. There was much to be learned from his homilies just as there is much to be learned from pastors/theologians and positions that we may not readily agree with. If they are seeking to honor Christ, there is something valuable there, even with the presence of disagreement.
So this post was not to advocate for Origen. I don’t agree with all of his theology, just as I find points of disagreement with other doctrinal positions or theological systems. But I am advocating for responsible and thoughtful learning and discourse. Let’s be honest folks and humble in our responses.
First off, this post is not really about Origen (c. 185-254). But it is about some lessons that I learned from studying Origen’s homilies in relation to how we do theology in general. Prior to taking an elective last fall in History of Exeges is, I had a certain idea about Origen and his interpretive methods. I had not read Origen’s work directly, but learned what I did of him from historical theology surveys and articles I read on the internet. Mainly, my impression of Origen being the father of Alexandrian school of exegesis was that he utilized a wildly allegorical style of interpreting scripture where symbolism ran amok and passages were assigned some arbitrary meaning. In fact, many of the descriptions I read of him identified him in relation to this but in more of a pejorative light. What I gathered was that Origen was just a wild and crazy guy when it came to interpretation.
That was until I took the History of Exegesis class, where a good portion of it was spent on analyzing Origen’s interpretative methodology and some of his homilies on Luke that were delivered to new Christians. What I discovered was that there was a method to Origen’s seeming madness. Not only that, but he was consistent in his approach to interpretation. His multiple sense of interpretation always begin with the literal sense that is not divorced from the text albeit not necessarily concerned with historical accuracy. The spiritual sense of the texts correlated meaning to an overall analysis of what was going on. This would lead to the moral sense, which was to affect obedience to God. For Origen, this was the ultimate goal. Understanding the text corresponded to the reader’s spiritual maturity and the correlation between obedience to Christ and an illumination of the text. Origen’s interpretation was rooted in a strong Christology that sought to draw the reader to Him. Needless to say, this was quite a different understanding that I had going into the class. Moreover, I was refreshingly surprised at how much I was personally edified in my Christian walk as a result of better understanding of where Origen was coming from.
But like I said this was not about Origen but rather the affect of what I learned particularly as it relates to theological learning and discourse. It seems to me just as I had one impression of Origen’s interpretive methods that admittedly came with an attitude of scoffing, we often approach theological topics, positions, systems this same way. We have built an identity around particular issues or theologians that we have come to reject, treat as insufficient or just don’t agree with. And let’s face it, theological discourse can be very reactionary. Often times, that reaction can propel unexamined rebuttals that are not really honest to what is being proposed. But I propose guarding reactions in consideration of these key points that I found useful in my example of Origen.’s exegesis.
1) Always examine original sources: I think it’s safe to say that we cannot really know what a theologian or theological position espouses unless we get it right from the horses mouth. I often encounter folks who disagree with a particular doctrine or position but have not read what proponents of particular positions say. Opponents will typically find some way to cast that position in a negative light, especially since they don’t agree with it. Yet, if we take time to read and maybe analyze what others have to say, fairly and less reactionary, then we might find some agreement and some errors in our own assessment.
2) Temper your disagreement: Do not be so quick to react. Sometimes we may not have all the information needed to effectively evaluate a certain position. As noted in the first point, relying on opponents can be misleading and it is dishonest to regurgitate what they say without analysis on your part. We can certainly question statements, positions or scriptural interpretation that does not seem compatible to our theological understanding, but disagreements have to be tempered according to the facts we have. Reactions with insufficient information most likely will cause unnecessary divisions, and especially when misunderstandings are spread carelessly and irresponsibly.
3) Submit to learning: As long as a position and it’s advocates are striving to be honest to scripture and the historical witness of Christianity, there is something to be gleaned even if you don’t agree with all tenet’s or methodologies. I think if Origen were alive today and his interpretive methodology were subject to the many vehicles information is disseminated, he might meet with some harsh criticism. But I imagine there would be others who would be kind and patient enough to examine his theses and most likely determine that Origen was most concerned with the exaltation of Christ and Christian obedience to him, at least with these homilies anyway. In fact, there were a number of comments made from fellow classmates of how convicting Origen’s messages were. There was much to be learned from his homilies just as there is much to be learned from pastors/theologians and positions that we may not readily agree with. If they are seeking to honor Christ, there is something valuable there, even with the presence of disagreement.
So this post was not to advocate for Origen. I don’t agree with all of his theology, just as I find points of disagreement with other doctrinal positions or theological systems. But I am advocating for responsible and thoughtful learning and discourse. Let’s be honest folks and humble in our responses.
Monday, May 09, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
working on Stout class
Trying to work through the twiter materials in the UW Stout course Implementing Instr Tech Innov-SP11-966S
Trying to re-post using my posterous account
Don
Monday, January 10, 2011
Inspiration of the Scripturoes and the force of "Every"
"Every scripture [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped completely for every good work" (vers. 16, 17). The Revisers, like some others, take "inspired of God," not as the predicate but as qualifying the subject; and the clause would then run, "Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable." But who will say that this is the natural meaning? who can deny that it involves a twofold awkwardness, but both by withholding the understood copula where one cannot but look for it, and by supposing it where it jars with the flow of the sentence? None of the constructions within or without the N. T. cited by Dean Alford approaches the one before us. One near in some respects is 1 Tim. 4: 4, where it would be intolerable to make καλὸν (good) part of the subject. Still nearer perhaps is Heb. 4: 13, where nobody doubts that "naked and laid open" is the true predicate; if so, "God-breathed and profitable" ought to be thus taken here.
The truth appears to be that the conjunction καὶ though indubitably genuine was overlooked by early versions, as the Memphitic, Peschito-Syr., and many of the Latin copies, besides the Clem. Vulgate: so too some fathers Greek and Latin. This error necessitated, one may say, the view that "God-breathed" belonged to the subject. Other Latin copies, with the Gothic, Harklean-Syr., Arm. and Aeth., interpreted καὶ in the sense of "also" as introducing the predicate. Taken thus, καὶ is here feeble, and so superfluous that it was easily forgotten; whereas, wherever it is correctly so taken, it has an emphatic or supplementary force, as in Luke 1: 36, Rom. 8: 29, 34, Gal. 4: 7. It would certainly become those who contend for their construction to produce a sentence where a like severance occurs, or indeed can be, between two adjectives ostensibly connected by a conjunction.
But, if possibly allowed as grammatical, can this rendering be counted tenable on internal grounds? For if θεόπνευστος be treated as part of the subject, it must be taken either as an assumption, or as a condition. If it be assumed that scripture is God. inspired, nothing is gained by those who favour so harsh a construction. The sense is substantially alike, whether you assume or assert the inspiration of every scripture. But if the aim be to understand a condition (i.e. "if divinely inspired," rather than "being divinely inspired)," you are confronted with the acknowledged fact that γραφὴ in the N. T. is appropriated to scripture and spoken of no other writing. Hence the conditional construction, in order to apply, contradicts the known usage, and would require the wholly unauthorised sense of mere "writing:" "every writing, if inspired of God, is also profitable," etc. If we understand γ., as we must, in the sense of "scripture," and take the epithet with the subject, we gain nothing but a strangely incoherent phrase, yet in substance agreeing with its natural sense: "every scripture, being inspired of God, is also profitable," etc., as in fact Origen long ago took it, but not Athanasius, nor Greg. Nyss, nor Chrysostom, who held as the A.V.
The R. V., whether intentionally or not, is ambiguous: "every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable," etc. If it was not meant to raise a doubt, why was it so left? If it was, is it possible to conceive an object more opposed to the context? For the Spirit of God is furnishing the invaluable and needed safeguard against the difficult times of the last days; and after dwelling among the rest on the fact of Timothy's privilege in knowing from a babe the sacred writ of the O.T., he crowns all with the universal principle (which applies to the N.T. no less than to the O., and to what might yet be written as well as to what was), "every scripture [is] God-inspired, and profitable for teaching," etc.
The apostle gives first, as was most reverent and worthy, its relation to God, the Author of this incomparable boon as of all others; next, its profitable uses for the blessing of the man of God. For as no creature but man in virtue of his spirit can know the things of man, no more can one know the things of God save by the Spirit of God, Who both revealed and communicated them, and enables the believer to discern them, as we have already seen. Scripture teaches us in our ignorance, convicts us of obstinacy or errors, corrects us when shirking or straying, and disciplines us in righteousness inward and outward, that in our stand for God we might be complete on every side, and with equal fulness furnished for every good work.
A learned dignitary (in loco) speaks of "God-inspired" not excluding verbal errors or possibly historical inaccuracies, and those of human transmission and transcription. But is not this doubly a mistake of grave import? It would first make the written word a divine guarantee of untruth, both originally as well as in its dissemination. Next, how he could mix up the two points is hard to say; for clerical blunders have nothing to do with the question of God's inspiration, solely with man's responsible use of its fruit. The former is a virtual denial of "God-inspired," unless the God of truth can lie: if He sanction errata in trifling matters, why not in greater things? But "scripture cannot be broken," said the Lord. Compromise is unworthy of faith. "It is written" was His answer to Satan's temptations, and is the guide and standard of all saints since grace gave scripture. It is not a question of man's spirit, but of God's, Who is beyond doubt able to secure the truth absolutely, as the Lord and the apostles and the prophets everywhere assume and assert. To imply such weakness in man as is beyond the power of God is a feeble, not the full, inspiration, taught in the Bible. But when philosophy is sought as the ally of divine truth, the issue cannot but be vacillating, inconsistent, and misleading. "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God." It is a singularly loose comment on "every scripture is also inspired of God," etc. One can scarce doubt that a rendering so halting and strange tempts to a hesitating interpretation, even though not a whisper be given that they hold any scripture to be uninspired. Yet it is a plain and peremptory utterance of the apostle, galling for a version and a comment of no uncertain sound.
In ordinary thoughts and discussion on inspiration it is not always remembered that the apostle claims it authoritatively for "every scripture." This goes far beyond what men uttered from God, moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1: 21). For we are taught, not only what the Holy Spirit gave by His living instruments, but that what is written by Him abides now of at least equal divine authority. It is painful to see the readiness of any Christian to allow the compatibility of this divine power with historical or any other inaccuracies, natural enough to man's spirit. But the apostle Paul in the text before us leaves no room for evasion or uncertainty. "Every scripture" is either assumed, as some argue, or asserted as others believe, to be God-inspired. Does He fail to exclude verbal errors? Is He capable of historical or any other inaccuracies?
The imputation really leaves God out, as every measure of scepticism does. It dwells on human infirmity and ignorance, which no believer ought for a moment to forget. But God's inspiration of "every scripture" gives to faith the certainty that no such inaccuracies attach to the written word as it came from Him; and this is all that plenary inspiration means. It in no way excludes mistakes in transcription, translation, or interpretation. But it is an abuse of language, calculated to deceive the simple and gratify the enemy, if one allow divine plenary inspiration in word and then annul it in deed. For as God cannot lie, so He does not pledge His inspiration so as to sanction errors ever so small. He used men of God as the vehicle for carrying out His purpose in giving His word; He employed their mind and heart as well as their language and style; but He communicated His own wisdom in fulfilment of His design beyond the measure of the instrument, and in absolute exclusion of mistake.
For any then to contend that plenary inspiration admits of "leaving" inspired men to themselves in any respect is really to leave out God, and to blow hot and cold in the same breath. It is openly and absolutely to contradict the apostolic canon here laid down. Not only were the writers moved by the Holy Spirit, but "every scripture is God-inspired." Scripture is no mere accident, nor simply a providential arrangement, where blemishes may naturally be. If it was God's purpose to give us His word, the Holy Spirit wrought to effectuate it in a wisdom, power, order, and end which bespoke Himself. One can understand unbelief blind even to the grace and the truth which came through Jesus Christ, and seeing only discrepancies and blunders in the Gospels, where spiritual intelligence finds the deepest demonstration of the divine mind, and a perfect result produced to Christ's glory before the eyes of faith. How strange and distressing that any who hear that word and believe Him Who sent the Lord fail to perceive that, of all theories, none is less satisfactory, tenable, or reverent! For it means that the Holy Spirit Who inspired the evangelists recalled facts and words imperfectly to their remembrance, and stamped misleading memoirs with the authority of God's word. What more inexplicable than that there should be no less than a divine Person for such compilations, supposed to be mutually inconsistent as well as defective in small points?
Here is not the place to show, not only how baseless is this unbelief, but the divinely admirable truth which the Holy Spirit set out in these inspired accounts of our Lord as everywhere else in the Bible. It would demand volumes and can be found by those who seriously enquire. But such speculations ought never to have been entertained for a moment. Their source is evil, though good men be ensnared by them. "Every scripture is God-inspired." We are entitled as believers to set one's seal to it that He is true; so is His word. We are bound in simple faith to deny errors or discrepancies in scripture as He wrote it. We may not be able to answer every objection, or to clear up every difficulty which ingenious ill-will or even weakness may muster; for this depends on our intelligence, which may be small. But if we believe the apostle's deliverance on the Bible to be "the commandment of the Lord" (as he claims generally and for smaller things in 1 Cor. 14), we are warranted to rest in the peaceful certainty that "every scripture is inspired of God."
So our Lord acted with friend or foe. So He taught His own, as He had confronted the great enemy. "It is written" was the conclusive answer to temptation and to question; and if scripture were perverted, "It is written again" is the short and best refutation. What an example for us, so ready to trust in our dialectic skill of defence or in dissecting an adversary's ignorance and error! The simplest believer can reckon on the word and Spirit of God. This honours Him and His word, and is for us the humblest, holiest, and safest ground.
In vain then do men argue that there are many things in the scriptures which the writers might have known, and probably did know, by ordinary means; that for some things they must have been supernaturally endowed; and that other things again required nothing less than direct revelation The aim of this is unconsciously to lower scripture, and bring as much as possible within man's capacity. Now no believer need question God's use of means, if He pleases, or rising above them if for His glory. But "every scripture is inspired of God" settles all questions. We have there wicked men's hypocritical words, and their rebellious ones; we have even Satan's temptations and his accusations in scripture; but "every scripture is God-breathed." To present the least fact, to record the simplest word in scripture, was as truly of God's inspiration, as to reveal "the mystery" or to disclose the future glory of heaven and earth. Documents or none, the insertion in scripture was God-inspired: else the apostolic rule were infringed. But as our Lord said (John 10: 35), "the scripture cannot be broken."
As Jehovah magnified His saying above all His name, so did our Lord take His stand on the written word, the scriptures, as the most authoritative of all testimonies. All scripture, every part of it even, is God-inspired for permanence, and the true end of controversy for those that believe; while such as believe not must learn their sin and folly in the judgment. The question is in no way, whether the writers knew or did not know what they wrote (for both are found abundantly in scripture), but whether they were inspired of God to write it. And "very scripture" is so inspired. This alone makes it God's word, not its known truth or usefulness, but His inspiring it; and this we have in every scripture. Some writers may be sublime and others simple; some may be pathetic and others severe; but all are God-inspired; and the plain proof is that they are part of the scriptures. In the N.T. we have differences as wide as sever the Epistle of James from those of Paul, and the Gospel of Mark from that of John. But inspired they are equally, as their writings are part of the scriptures. Inspiration of God is a fact, and does not admit of varying degrees.
The truth appears to be that the conjunction καὶ though indubitably genuine was overlooked by early versions, as the Memphitic, Peschito-Syr., and many of the Latin copies, besides the Clem. Vulgate: so too some fathers Greek and Latin. This error necessitated, one may say, the view that "God-breathed" belonged to the subject. Other Latin copies, with the Gothic, Harklean-Syr., Arm. and Aeth., interpreted καὶ in the sense of "also" as introducing the predicate. Taken thus, καὶ is here feeble, and so superfluous that it was easily forgotten; whereas, wherever it is correctly so taken, it has an emphatic or supplementary force, as in Luke 1: 36, Rom. 8: 29, 34, Gal. 4: 7. It would certainly become those who contend for their construction to produce a sentence where a like severance occurs, or indeed can be, between two adjectives ostensibly connected by a conjunction.
But, if possibly allowed as grammatical, can this rendering be counted tenable on internal grounds? For if θεόπνευστος be treated as part of the subject, it must be taken either as an assumption, or as a condition. If it be assumed that scripture is God. inspired, nothing is gained by those who favour so harsh a construction. The sense is substantially alike, whether you assume or assert the inspiration of every scripture. But if the aim be to understand a condition (i.e. "if divinely inspired," rather than "being divinely inspired)," you are confronted with the acknowledged fact that γραφὴ in the N. T. is appropriated to scripture and spoken of no other writing. Hence the conditional construction, in order to apply, contradicts the known usage, and would require the wholly unauthorised sense of mere "writing:" "every writing, if inspired of God, is also profitable," etc. If we understand γ., as we must, in the sense of "scripture," and take the epithet with the subject, we gain nothing but a strangely incoherent phrase, yet in substance agreeing with its natural sense: "every scripture, being inspired of God, is also profitable," etc., as in fact Origen long ago took it, but not Athanasius, nor Greg. Nyss, nor Chrysostom, who held as the A.V.
The R. V., whether intentionally or not, is ambiguous: "every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable," etc. If it was not meant to raise a doubt, why was it so left? If it was, is it possible to conceive an object more opposed to the context? For the Spirit of God is furnishing the invaluable and needed safeguard against the difficult times of the last days; and after dwelling among the rest on the fact of Timothy's privilege in knowing from a babe the sacred writ of the O.T., he crowns all with the universal principle (which applies to the N.T. no less than to the O., and to what might yet be written as well as to what was), "every scripture [is] God-inspired, and profitable for teaching," etc.
The apostle gives first, as was most reverent and worthy, its relation to God, the Author of this incomparable boon as of all others; next, its profitable uses for the blessing of the man of God. For as no creature but man in virtue of his spirit can know the things of man, no more can one know the things of God save by the Spirit of God, Who both revealed and communicated them, and enables the believer to discern them, as we have already seen. Scripture teaches us in our ignorance, convicts us of obstinacy or errors, corrects us when shirking or straying, and disciplines us in righteousness inward and outward, that in our stand for God we might be complete on every side, and with equal fulness furnished for every good work.
A learned dignitary (in loco) speaks of "God-inspired" not excluding verbal errors or possibly historical inaccuracies, and those of human transmission and transcription. But is not this doubly a mistake of grave import? It would first make the written word a divine guarantee of untruth, both originally as well as in its dissemination. Next, how he could mix up the two points is hard to say; for clerical blunders have nothing to do with the question of God's inspiration, solely with man's responsible use of its fruit. The former is a virtual denial of "God-inspired," unless the God of truth can lie: if He sanction errata in trifling matters, why not in greater things? But "scripture cannot be broken," said the Lord. Compromise is unworthy of faith. "It is written" was His answer to Satan's temptations, and is the guide and standard of all saints since grace gave scripture. It is not a question of man's spirit, but of God's, Who is beyond doubt able to secure the truth absolutely, as the Lord and the apostles and the prophets everywhere assume and assert. To imply such weakness in man as is beyond the power of God is a feeble, not the full, inspiration, taught in the Bible. But when philosophy is sought as the ally of divine truth, the issue cannot but be vacillating, inconsistent, and misleading. "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God." It is a singularly loose comment on "every scripture is also inspired of God," etc. One can scarce doubt that a rendering so halting and strange tempts to a hesitating interpretation, even though not a whisper be given that they hold any scripture to be uninspired. Yet it is a plain and peremptory utterance of the apostle, galling for a version and a comment of no uncertain sound.
In ordinary thoughts and discussion on inspiration it is not always remembered that the apostle claims it authoritatively for "every scripture." This goes far beyond what men uttered from God, moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1: 21). For we are taught, not only what the Holy Spirit gave by His living instruments, but that what is written by Him abides now of at least equal divine authority. It is painful to see the readiness of any Christian to allow the compatibility of this divine power with historical or any other inaccuracies, natural enough to man's spirit. But the apostle Paul in the text before us leaves no room for evasion or uncertainty. "Every scripture" is either assumed, as some argue, or asserted as others believe, to be God-inspired. Does He fail to exclude verbal errors? Is He capable of historical or any other inaccuracies?
The imputation really leaves God out, as every measure of scepticism does. It dwells on human infirmity and ignorance, which no believer ought for a moment to forget. But God's inspiration of "every scripture" gives to faith the certainty that no such inaccuracies attach to the written word as it came from Him; and this is all that plenary inspiration means. It in no way excludes mistakes in transcription, translation, or interpretation. But it is an abuse of language, calculated to deceive the simple and gratify the enemy, if one allow divine plenary inspiration in word and then annul it in deed. For as God cannot lie, so He does not pledge His inspiration so as to sanction errors ever so small. He used men of God as the vehicle for carrying out His purpose in giving His word; He employed their mind and heart as well as their language and style; but He communicated His own wisdom in fulfilment of His design beyond the measure of the instrument, and in absolute exclusion of mistake.
For any then to contend that plenary inspiration admits of "leaving" inspired men to themselves in any respect is really to leave out God, and to blow hot and cold in the same breath. It is openly and absolutely to contradict the apostolic canon here laid down. Not only were the writers moved by the Holy Spirit, but "every scripture is God-inspired." Scripture is no mere accident, nor simply a providential arrangement, where blemishes may naturally be. If it was God's purpose to give us His word, the Holy Spirit wrought to effectuate it in a wisdom, power, order, and end which bespoke Himself. One can understand unbelief blind even to the grace and the truth which came through Jesus Christ, and seeing only discrepancies and blunders in the Gospels, where spiritual intelligence finds the deepest demonstration of the divine mind, and a perfect result produced to Christ's glory before the eyes of faith. How strange and distressing that any who hear that word and believe Him Who sent the Lord fail to perceive that, of all theories, none is less satisfactory, tenable, or reverent! For it means that the Holy Spirit Who inspired the evangelists recalled facts and words imperfectly to their remembrance, and stamped misleading memoirs with the authority of God's word. What more inexplicable than that there should be no less than a divine Person for such compilations, supposed to be mutually inconsistent as well as defective in small points?
Here is not the place to show, not only how baseless is this unbelief, but the divinely admirable truth which the Holy Spirit set out in these inspired accounts of our Lord as everywhere else in the Bible. It would demand volumes and can be found by those who seriously enquire. But such speculations ought never to have been entertained for a moment. Their source is evil, though good men be ensnared by them. "Every scripture is God-inspired." We are entitled as believers to set one's seal to it that He is true; so is His word. We are bound in simple faith to deny errors or discrepancies in scripture as He wrote it. We may not be able to answer every objection, or to clear up every difficulty which ingenious ill-will or even weakness may muster; for this depends on our intelligence, which may be small. But if we believe the apostle's deliverance on the Bible to be "the commandment of the Lord" (as he claims generally and for smaller things in 1 Cor. 14), we are warranted to rest in the peaceful certainty that "every scripture is inspired of God."
So our Lord acted with friend or foe. So He taught His own, as He had confronted the great enemy. "It is written" was the conclusive answer to temptation and to question; and if scripture were perverted, "It is written again" is the short and best refutation. What an example for us, so ready to trust in our dialectic skill of defence or in dissecting an adversary's ignorance and error! The simplest believer can reckon on the word and Spirit of God. This honours Him and His word, and is for us the humblest, holiest, and safest ground.
In vain then do men argue that there are many things in the scriptures which the writers might have known, and probably did know, by ordinary means; that for some things they must have been supernaturally endowed; and that other things again required nothing less than direct revelation The aim of this is unconsciously to lower scripture, and bring as much as possible within man's capacity. Now no believer need question God's use of means, if He pleases, or rising above them if for His glory. But "every scripture is inspired of God" settles all questions. We have there wicked men's hypocritical words, and their rebellious ones; we have even Satan's temptations and his accusations in scripture; but "every scripture is God-breathed." To present the least fact, to record the simplest word in scripture, was as truly of God's inspiration, as to reveal "the mystery" or to disclose the future glory of heaven and earth. Documents or none, the insertion in scripture was God-inspired: else the apostolic rule were infringed. But as our Lord said (John 10: 35), "the scripture cannot be broken."
As Jehovah magnified His saying above all His name, so did our Lord take His stand on the written word, the scriptures, as the most authoritative of all testimonies. All scripture, every part of it even, is God-inspired for permanence, and the true end of controversy for those that believe; while such as believe not must learn their sin and folly in the judgment. The question is in no way, whether the writers knew or did not know what they wrote (for both are found abundantly in scripture), but whether they were inspired of God to write it. And "very scripture" is so inspired. This alone makes it God's word, not its known truth or usefulness, but His inspiring it; and this we have in every scripture. Some writers may be sublime and others simple; some may be pathetic and others severe; but all are God-inspired; and the plain proof is that they are part of the scriptures. In the N.T. we have differences as wide as sever the Epistle of James from those of Paul, and the Gospel of Mark from that of John. But inspired they are equally, as their writings are part of the scriptures. Inspiration of God is a fact, and does not admit of varying degrees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)