Help me flesh out an idea, please

Status
Not open for further replies.
"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."

I agree with the above statement. If for no other reason, then because the Bible itself claims that it is not possible for the Scriptures to err. John 10:35. Poole (in loc.) comments, "none must contradict what God hath said in his word; there can be no falsehood in the revelation of any part of the Divine will." To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that the Bible is false when it teaches it cannot be false.

Epistemically, by what standard could the Bible be proven false? Whatever that standard might be, it would supplant the authority of the Bible.
 
Last edited:
I would have to agree with your statement on the mere fact that to give a noun the possibility of being two different things creates doubt in the minds of those who view that noun as to what it really is. Sproul, who I dearly love, states that Christ could have sinned if He had wanted to but didn't bc He never wanted to. I whole hearted and violently disagree with him on this bc it creates doubt in the minds of ppl who view Him as having the possibility of not being perfect even if He were perfect.
 
The Word of God written and properly illumined and applied to the heart by the Spirit is the Word (i.e. Christ) because it is God speaking to us i.e. the Word (Christ). It is the communication of the whole Christ to our souls.

In fact when we read or hear God's written Word - whether we listen to it or not - God is speaking and it therefore is the voice of the Word (Christ) - which we should reverence, which is only a word for worship.

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63, ESV)

-----Added 9/12/2009 at 09:32:21 EST-----

Quote from Sarah
I would have to agree with your statement on the mere fact that to give a noun the possibility of being two different things creates doubt in the minds of those who view that noun as to what it really is. Sproul, who I dearly love, states that Christ could have sinned if He had wanted to but didn't bc He never wanted to. I whole hearted and violently disagree with him on this bc it creates doubt in the minds of ppl who view Him as having the possibility of not being perfect even if He were perfect.

Inasmuch as Christ was made a perfect human being like Adam, He could have sinned; but He was never just a human being, but also was a Divine Person with a Divine Nature. So he couldn't sin.
 
Here are a couple quotations from BB Warfield:
As our Lord declared that whatever was written in Scripture must needs be fulfilled (Mt.26:54; Lk.22:37; 24:44), so His followers explained one of the most startling facts which had occurred in their experience by pointing out that “it was needful that the scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David” (Act.1:16). Here the ground of this constant appeal to Scripture, so that it is enough that a thing “is contained in scripture” (1Pet.2:6) for it to be of indefectible authority, is plainly enough declared: Scripture must needs be fulfilled, for what is contained in it is the declaration of the Holy Ghost through the human author. What Scripture says, God says; and accordingly we read such remarkable declarations as these: “For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up” (Rom.9:17); “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham,... In thee shall all the nations be blessed” (Gal.3:8). These are not instances of simple personification of Scripture, which is itself a sufficiently remarkable usage (Mk.15:28; Jn.7:38,42; 19:37; Rom.4:3; 10:11; 11:2; Gal.4:30; 1Tim.5:18; Jas.2:23; 4:5 f), vocal with the conviction expressed by James (Jas.4:5) that Scripture cannot speak in vain. They indicate a certain confusion in current speech between “Scripture” and “God,” the outgrowth of a deep-seated conviction that the word of Scripture is the word of God. It was not “Scripture” that spoke to Pharaoh, or gave his great promise to Abraham, but God. But “Scripture” and “God” lay so close together in the minds of the writers of the New Testament that they could naturally speak of “Scripture” doing what Scripture records God as doing. It was, however, even more natural to them to speak casually of God saying what the Scriptures say; and accordingly we meet with forms of speech such as these: “Wherefore, even as the Holy Spirit saith, Today if ye shall hear His voice,” etc. (Heb.3:7, quoting Ps.95:7); “Thou art God ... who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage,” etc. (Act.4:25 the King James Version, quoting Ps.2:1); “He that raised him from the dead ... hath spoken on this wise, I will give you ... because he saith also in another (place) ....” (Act.13:34, quoting Is.55:3 and Ps.16:10), and the like. The words put into God's mouth in each case are not words of God recorded in the Scriptures, but just Scripture words in themselves. When we take the two classes of passages together, in the one of which the Scriptures are spoken of as God, while in the other God is spoken of as if He were the Scriptures, we may perceive how close the identification of the two was in the minds of the writers of the New Testament.

This identification is strikingly observable in certain catenae of quotations, in which there are brought together a number of passages of Scripture closely connected with one another. The first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews supplies an example. We may begin with Heb.1:5 :”For unto which of the angels said he” - the subject being necessarily “God” - “at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?” - the citation being from Ps.2:7 and very appropriate in the mouth of God - “and again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” - from 2Sam.7:14, again a declaration of God's own - “And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him” - from Dt.32:43, Septuagint, or Ps.97:7, in neither of which is God the speaker - “And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire” - from Ps.104:4, where again God is not the speaker but is spoken of in the third person - “but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, etc.” - from Ps.45:6,7 where again God is not the speaker, but is addressed - “And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning,” etc. - from Ps.102:25-27, where again God is not the speaker but is addressed - “But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand?” etc. - from Ps.110:1, in which God is the speaker. Here we have passages in which God is the speaker and passages in which God is not the speaker, but is addressed or spoken of, indiscriminately assigned to God, because they all have it in common that they are words of Scripture, and as words of Scripture are words of God. Similarly in Rom.15:9 we have a series of citations the first of which is introduced by “as it is written,” and the next two by “again he saith,” and “again,” and the last by “and again, Isaiah saith,” the first being from Ps.18:49; the second from Dt.32:43; the third from Ps.117:1; and the last from Is.11:10. Only the last (the only one here assigned to the human author) is a word of God in the text of the Old Testament.
from "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," found in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, P&R, 1948, pp145-47; originally from ISBE, 1915.


And a second article:
The whole (of WCF ch1) is closed with the assertion that the Holy Spirit who speaks in every part of Scripture (cf.xiv.2) is the Supreme Judge in all controversies of religion, so that they all are to be determined, not on the ground of decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men or asserted private revelations--under whatever name they may masquerade, whether as traditions, deliverances of reason or of the Christian consciousness, individual or corporate--but on the ground of the unrepealable "thus saith the Lord" of Scripture itself (sct.10). Accordingly, in the Confession's sense, whenever the doctrine of Scripture is ascertained all religious strife is ended, and in its sentence we are to rest. As Rutherford says: "The Scripture makes itself the judge and determiner of all questions in religion."10 Or, as Reynolds puts it: "The Scriptures...are the alone rule of all controversies.... So then the only light by which differences are to be decided is the Word, being a full canon of God's revealed will, for the Lord doth not now as in former times make himslef known by dreams, or visions, or any other immediate way."11 Or, if we may look beyond the immediate circle of Westminster men to a Puritan divine whose praise is in all the churches, as Richard Sibbes says: "What is the supreme Judge? The Word, the Spirit of God in the Scriptures. And who is above God? It is a shameless ridiculous independency of men that will take upon them to be judges of Scripture."12 Shall we not say Amen to this, though it may condemn much modern practice and mayhap entail on us the charge of "bibliolatry"?

Such a reverence for God's Word as God's Word is no doubt an act of worship; but whom shall we worship if not the God of the Bible? At any rate, the Confessions closes the chapter on Scripture which it began by declaring Scripture "most necessary," by declaring it also final and decisive in all questions of religion. We cannot do without the Scriptures; having them we need no other guide. We need this light to light our pathway; having it we may well dispense with any other. Are we making it the light to lighten our feet? Are we following it whithersoever it leads? Are we prepared to test all religious truth by it, while it is tested by none? Are we prepared to stand by it in all things on the principle that it is God's Word and God will be true though every man be a liar?
_______________
10 A Free Disputation, 1649, p361.
11 Works, vol.5, pp152ff.
12 Works, vol.2, p.493.
from "The Westminster Doctrine of Holy Scripture," found in Selected Shorter Writings, P&R, 1970, pp569-71; original article pub. New York Observer, and The Independent, Apr.23, 1891.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top