ECT What does the Doctrine of Inspiration mean to you?

[George Affleck]

Okay...so Knight has asked for new topics - juicy ones.

Well, this one is not really new exactly. But perhaps juicy in that there is a lot of disagreement.

What exactly is the Doctrine of Inspiration to you? Do you believe the Bible is inspired? If so, what is the exact meaning and outworking of this doctrine? Which statements in various articles of faith do you agree/disagree with?

It is my experience that most Christians have no real idea what inspiration means or even how to properly state the doctrine.
To spark your interest, you should know that I believe that God's Word is inerrant but not inspired. No translation is inspired and not even the originals were inspired, in my view.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Inspiration is that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit whereby the sacred writers were divinely supervised in their production of Scripture, being restrained from error and guided in the choice of words they used, consistently with their disparate personalities and stylistic peculiarities. God is the source of Holy Scripture; Christ Jesus is the central message; and the Holy Spirit, who inspired it and illumines its message to the reader, bears witness by this inscripturated Word to the Word enfleshed, crucified, risen, and returning.

AMR

 

[Stripe]

I believe that God's Word is inerrant but not inspired. No translation is inspired and not even the originals were inspired, in my view.

You might need to define "inspired." On the face of it, you cannot get away from inspiration if you want the Bible to be accurate. For instance, descriptions of things where people were not witnesses had to be inspired, as in, God had to provide those descriptions.

Genesis 1 had to be inspired if it is to be possibly true.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Inspiration is that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit whereby the sacred writers were divinely supervised in their production of Scripture, being restrained from error and guided in the choice of words they used, consistently with their disparate personalities and stylistic peculiarities. God is the source of Holy Scripture; Christ Jesus is the central message; and the Holy Spirit, who inspired it and illumines its message to the reader, bears witness by this inscripturated Word to the Word enfleshed, crucified, risen, and returning.

AMR

I'd go with this, I think.

...with their disparate personalities and stylistic peculiarities.

I think it's very likely that God allowed a lot to stand that He might not have written Himself.

Not sure if you would agree with that, or if I've just exposed myself as a heretic. :noid:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

This discussion revolves around 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.

There are two parts to discuss.
1) What makes up the Canon of Scripture? 66 books, 73 books, 75 books or something else? Once this is determined, we look at inspiration.
2) What does "breathed out by God" (inspiration of God) mean? Could there be any error in writing if God is dictating the words?
Then we need to consider textual criticism since the time between the original writing and the extant copies represents a gap in time. It is important to ensure the same textual rules apply to the Bible that apply to all texts. We must reject the foolish claim of atheists that "incredible claims require incredible evidence." Such a goal post is easily moved by arbitrary means. Same rules for all text is required for legitimate discussion.

 

[George Affleck]

Inspiration is that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit whereby the sacred writers were divinely supervised in their production of Scripture, being restrained from error and guided in the choice of words they used, consistently with their disparate personalities and stylistic peculiarities. God is the source of Holy Scripture; Christ Jesus is the central message; and the Holy Spirit, who inspired it and illumines its message to the reader, bears witness by this inscripturated Word to the Word enfleshed, crucified, risen, and returning.

AMR

I like this very much.

I also like the addition of the "..illumines its message to the reader...". It is the message of God to the children of God. The only ones who can recognize it as such are those who have participated in the overall process designed by God to be spoken and received. A few certain men were chosen as vehicles to speak and those who are given new life are the receptors of truth by the selfsame Spirit.

If I have a criticism it is the very last clause. It being impossible to encapsulate all that revelation is, is it right to single out one aspect (albeit the most important to us) as it hints at undervaluing other truth?

 

[George Affleck]

I'd go with this, I think.

I think it's very likely that God allowed a lot to stand that He might not have written Himself.

Very much against this concept. This is the same "...the scriptures contain the word of God..." junk so prevalent in liberal theology.

 

[George Affleck]

This discussion revolves around 2 Timothy 3:16-17. (esv)

There are two parts to discuss.
1) What makes up the Canon of Scripture? 66 books, 73 books, 75 books or something else? Once this is determined, we look at inspiration.
2) What does "breathed out by God" (inspiration of God) mean? Could there be any error in writing if God is dictating the words?
Then we need to consider textual criticism since the time between the original writing and the extant copies represents a gap in time. It is important to ensure the same textual rules apply to the Bible that apply to all texts. We must reject the foolish claim of atheists that "incredible claims require incredible evidence." Such a goal post is easily moved by arbitrary means. Same rules for all text is required for legitimate discussion.

Not at all.
The Bible stands alone because it has it's origin in the Infinite One. We cannot treat all the same if we consider the source.

All the other works of literature, past and present combined, are only textbooks for us to perfect our knowledge of His language of love and prepare us to hear Him. As the law is our schoolmaster to drive us to Christ, so history and languages were shaped by Him to speak His truth into our lives and glorify His Name.

 

[George Affleck]

You might need to define "inspired." On the face of it, you cannot get away from inspiration if you want the Bible to be accurate. For instance, descriptions of things where people were not witnesses had to be inspired, as in, God had to provide those descriptions.

Genesis 1 had to be inspired if it is to be possibly true.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

The reason I am asking the question is because I am convinced that the average "person in the pew" has begun to think that the words were somehow infused with truth after coming into being. And that the supernatural part was applied to the words instead of the writers. The result is that we have a quasi-magical scripture where the sentences, phrases, words and letters are themselves inspired, an object of veneration, which they are not. God was very careful never to produce scripture without inspiring a man (except for the tablets).

It is not possible for inanimate objects to be inspired at all. It is ink on a page. All the words and letters have been used at one time or another for other purposes. If we say the scriptures are inspired, we have traded, in my opinion, God's description of transmission of truth for a golden calf. The scriptures were given by the process of inspiring (breathing into) holy men, not by God inspiring (breathing into) the words on a page. This was the process by which it was possible to use the word theopneustos (God breathed). If anything, the Bible is outspired by men who were inspired by God.

In addition, it is not possible to make sense of the biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture if we say that the original autographs were inspired. They have not been physically preserved.

Descriptions of things where people were not witnesses are not themselves inspired. The men were inspired (moved by the Holy Ghost) to record that which only God witnessed. The words did not simply appear without a human author.

 

[Stripe]

The reason I am asking the question is because I am convinced that the average "person in the pew" has begun to think that the words were somehow infused with truth after coming into being. And that the supernatural part was applied to the words instead of the writers. The result is that we have a quasi-magical scripture where the sentences, phrases, words and letters are themselves inspired, an object of veneration, which they are not. God was very careful never to produce scripture without inspiring a man (except for the tablets).

It is not possible for inanimate objects to be inspired at all. It is ink on a page. All the words and letters have been used at one time or another for other purposes. If we say the scriptures are inspired, we have traded, in my opinion, God's description of transmission of truth for a golden calf. The scriptures were given by the process of inspiring (breathing into) holy men, not by God inspiring (breathing into) the words on a page. This was the process by which it was possible to use the word theopneustos (God breathed). If anything, the Bible is outspired by men who were inspired by God.

In addition, it is not possible to make sense of the biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture if we say that the original autographs were inspired. They have not been physically preserved.

Descriptions of things where people were not witnesses are not themselves inspired. The men were inspired (moved by the Holy Ghost) to record that which only God witnessed. The words did not simply appear without a human author.

That doesn't sound like an overly useful distinction.

How would you tell the difference between a man who holds the Bible as an idol and one who does not?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Faither]

Okay...so Knight has asked for new topics - juicy ones.

Well, this one is not really new exactly. But perhaps juicy in that there is a lot of disagreement.

What exactly is the Doctrine of Inspiration to you? Do you believe the Bible is inspired? If so, what is the exact meaning and outworking of this doctrine? Which statements in various articles of faith do you agree/disagree with?

It is my experience that most Christians have no real idea what inspiration means or even how to properly state the doctrine.
To spark your interest, you should know that I believe that God's Word is inerrant but not inspired. No translation is inspired and not even the originals were inspired, in my view.

Could you elaborate on your statement , that you believe Gods Word is inerrant but not inspired ?

 

[George Affleck]

Could you elaborate on your statement , that you believe Gods Word is inerrant but not inspired ?

Yes. But AMR has stated it very well.

The true doctrine of inspiration, as I have come to understand it is:

God inspired a few chosen, holy individuals by the Holy Spirit, and used their physical, mental and spiritual talents in such a way that what they produced was without error and exactly what God wanted said. Not by dictation, but by inspiration. He filled them with His truth and it spilled out of them inerrantly.

The doctrine of the inspiration of scripture applies to the writers, not to the words and phrases they produced. Inerrancy is the only possible result of this process as it was guided by the Holy Ghost.

All scripture is given by inspiration (the process of) 2Ti 3:16KJV
They were moved by the holy Spirit. 2Pe 1:21KJV

 

[Cross Reference]

What is a docrine of inspiration? Who thought it up it?

Never heard of one. Was maybe "Inspiration"was the name of a monk?

 

[Cross Reference]

"If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine …" John 7:17.

 

[Faither]

Yes. But AMR has stated it very well.

The true doctrine of inspiration, as I have come to understand it is:

God inspired a few chosen, holy individuals by the Holy Spirit, and used their physical, mental and spiritual talents in such a way that what they produced was without error and exactly what God wanted said. Not by dictation, but by inspiration. He filled them with His truth and it spilled out of them inerrantly.

The doctrine of the inspiration of scripture applies to the writers, not to the words and phrases they produced. Inerrancy is the only possible result of this process as it was guided by the Holy Ghost.

All scripture is given by inspiration (the process of) 2Ti 3:16KJV
They were moved by the holy Spirit. 2Pe 1:21KJV

What I'm asking you to elaborate on , is you said God's word is inerrant ( infalable ) , but not inspired . Not even the original manuscripts .

Then in your last post , you said the writers are inspired , but their words and phrases aren't . Then you said the process or result of God's word is inerrant or infalable .

Do you see the contradictions

 

[George Affleck]

What I'm asking you to elaborate on , is you said God's word is inerrant ( infalable ) , but not inspired . Not even the original manuscripts .

Then in your last post , you said the writers are inspired , but their words and phrases aren't . Then you said the process or result of God's word is inerrant or infalable .

Do you see the contradictions

No, I don't.

 

[Faither]

No, I don't.

Ok thank you !

 

[Faither]

Okay...so Knight has asked for new topics - juicy ones.


To spark your interest, you should know that I believe that God's Word is inerrant but not inspired. No translation is inspired and not even the originals were inspired, in my view.

In the Spirit of just trying to understand what your standing on , how can Gods Word be inerrant or infalable but not be inspired by the Holy Spirit ?

How can the authors be inspired by the Holy Spirit , but what they wrote while being inspired by the Holy Spirit isn't ?

 

[whitestone]

Jesus said that the things he spoke were those things that he received of the father,,,who did Jesus speak them to?

 

[George Affleck]

In the Spirit of just trying to understand what your standing on , how can Gods Word be inerrant or infalable but not be inspired by the Holy Spirit ?

How can the authors be inspired by the Holy Spirit , but what they wrote while being inspired by the Holy Spirit isn't ?

Ok, now I see what you are saying. Let me see if I can be clearer. A spiritual action cannot be deposited as a quality in an object.

There are 2 ways of using the words inspire, inspired, inspiration (breathing in from outside) in English.
One is familiar, colloquial; with a rather fluid meaning. It speaks of genius expression of mankind in poetry, music, invention, etc. As in "Handel's Messiah is such an inspired work!" This is not the type of inspiration being considered.

The other is in Christian theology and it denotes a supernatural action always performed by God upon individuals; never inanimate objects. Webster describes inspiration as: "a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify him or her to receive and communicate sacred revelation". When the Bible talks about God's breath in relation to objects it is never breathing into them. He only talks about breathing into people. Gen 2:7KJV, Job 27:3KJV, Eze 37:9KJV
When Paul invents the compound word 'theopneustos', God-breathed, 2Ti 3:16KJV to explain to Timothy the ultimate origin of the scriptures he knew that God had not bypassed the human condition in it's production and poofed the words into being on their own. He was well aware that God had temporarily empowered special men, by His Spirit, in the same way that the disciples received the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Act 2:4KJV

By contrast, no human (except Jesus, the living Word) is ever spoken of as being without error or infallible in the Bible. Rom 3:23KJV, Mar 10:18KJV

Inspiration and inerrancy are two different things. The first is an action performed by God upon selected individuals to produce spirit/truth. The second is a quality exhibited by the scriptures and recognized by those who have been energized by that same Spirit to receive spirit/truth.

To give an example;
A carpenter uses his training and experience to produce a piece of furniture. The finished product is beautiful and could not have been produced except for the carpenter's proficiency. But these things are not transferred to the furniture because it is not trained, experienced or proficient. And, in all probability, he is not beautiful!