Question about the Bible's inspiration
- Thread starter cih1355
- Start date
- Status
LeeJUk
Puritan Board Junior
Is there anything too hard for God?
Let me put it this way. I'm not conscious that I'm writing God ordained stuff here, but perhaps every word in this sentence regardless of my knowledge has actually come to pass by the sovereign will of God. In the same way unknown to them at the time they wrote the word of God. (well theres verses that suggest they knew at times they were writing Gods word or speaking Gods word...so im not saying all of them were ignorant of it)
Let me put it this way. I'm not conscious that I'm writing God ordained stuff here, but perhaps every word in this sentence regardless of my knowledge has actually come to pass by the sovereign will of God. In the same way unknown to them at the time they wrote the word of God. (well theres verses that suggest they knew at times they were writing Gods word or speaking Gods word...so im not saying all of them were ignorant of it)
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
It was done by the Holy Spirit by using the contextual experiences, vocabulary, and writing styles of each individual author of scripture. Not to be see as possession of an author, like a demon taking control, but instead should be seen as a cooperative effort where both man and God shines forth from the text. That way it can be both God’s Word and product of man. I think also there an issue whereby we have a different set of standards today as compared to the ancients, such as with things such as paraphrasing of an event and what someone says.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
How did God make sure that His true prophets and apostles spoke a divine message just as He wanted it?
How did God do miracles, including the miracle of regenerating you?
God wanted his pure, unadulterated, salvific Word to be injected into history - so that it could go about its salvific and recreative business aided by the Holy Spirit - through certain of His people, and He did it. We may only be able to understand a little of what that involved or how it was accomplished.
It means that the Bible is one of God's miracles.
How did God do miracles, including the miracle of regenerating you?
God wanted his pure, unadulterated, salvific Word to be injected into history - so that it could go about its salvific and recreative business aided by the Holy Spirit - through certain of His people, and He did it. We may only be able to understand a little of what that involved or how it was accomplished.
It means that the Bible is one of God's miracles.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
The same exact way that you do every single thing that God has decreed that you do, including write the above message. God has fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass - your actions and the words the human authors of the Scriptures wrote.
In addition, I cannot for the life of me understand why people object to the Word of God being a word-for-word dictation. Why is that so objectionable? They are God's Word, AND the very words the human authors intended to write.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
The reason why direct dictation or word-for word dictation is unlikely is due to the individual styles present in sentence structure, vocabulary, and arrangement (historical-how the history is packaged, doctrinal compared to practical arrangement, and so on) of the different authors of scriptures. If direct dictation were applied then the style of the author would be superseded in such a way that all of scripture would have the same applied style, whereby the style of the human author would not show through.
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
2 Peter 1:19-21
And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
In doing so, God did not remove the experiences, culture and personality of the man through whom He spoke. The Holy Spirit moved them to proclaim the truth through their personalities, without error in the meaning and never falling short of His divine purposes.
And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
In doing so, God did not remove the experiences, culture and personality of the man through whom He spoke. The Holy Spirit moved them to proclaim the truth through their personalities, without error in the meaning and never falling short of His divine purposes.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
Your argument doesn't hold any logical water. Is God not powerful enough to ensure that every word is exactly the word He wants, yet still have the words written reflect the instrument by which He wrote Scripture?
Is somehow the word choice authors used in writing Scripture exempt from the Biblical and Confessional fact that "God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass?" Surely you're not suggesting that!
Boosterseat_91
Puritan Board Freshman
In the same way we could ask, Is not God powerful enough to use any means he wanted to use to save someone by the working of the Holy Spirit besides Scripture? The question is not an objection because though the answer is yes, God choose the means of Scripture to convict and convert a sinner.
God has foreordained everything to come to pass, but surely you are not suggesting that therefore God is responsible for the sin that we commit! This is as much a faulty conclusion as saying that because God foreordains things, therefore he must have dictated word-for-word what bible authors were to write without any regard to their culture, language, writing style, and rhetoric. We call it "plenary inspiration" that God used the authors to write exactly what he wanted so that what they wrote was literally "God-breathed" without diminishing any human factor of expression, such as those previously listed.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
Clearly there is miscommunication going on.
Never, ever did I intimate that God diminished any human factor of expression. Nevertheless, every word is exactly the Word God wanted written. (so we're in agreement) I was responding against the notion that God cannot have dictated every word in any way. I readily admit that I heard that said, but probably it was not what was intended by those who reject the term "dictation". All I intended by "dictation" is that God indeed ordains every single word by means that are beyond our understanding. As long as well all agree that 1) the origination of each and every word, every jot & tittle, is God's, and that 2) human authors wrote exactly what God (first, primarily) and they (second, as God's instrument) intended to write, then we're fine.
The word "dictation" in many evangelical circles I'm familiar with (and some "reformed") is used to reject exactly what I've just said above. The idea that is often put forth is that if the human authors are not the originators, then they must have been robots. The argument is often made that God can only have directed the thoughts and concepts, and that the actual words and grammatical form are not what God directed. I was merely speaking out against this.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
There a difference with God through the Holy Spirit dictating scripture to be written and moving the author so that what God wants to have written is written. God is indeed powerful enough to dictate scripture; however power to accomplish and the desired means are two different things. God has the power to take over are bodies and give the gospel to an unbeliever, but does he do that? God moves us to preach and proclaim the Gospel to the unbeliever, whereby his word is spoken and at the same time uses are unique skills and experience, our currently know vocabulary and understanding. It is the desire of God that we be not empty vessels, but instead participating in his divine work. Direct dictation by God definitional subtracts the human technique applied to the writing of scripture, and we don’t see that in scripture. It is made up of several genres with the style of the authors present. Now did God approve of what was written? Yes, and would have directed the authors by the Holy Sprit to write what he wanted him to write. Why? Because the purpose was to communicate the full truth that God wanted to communicate in his revealed time. For example, God the Father may say in Heaven, “Let my writers of scriptures write on the demon possessed man by Legion.” So each of the writers, moved by the Sprit write to their own understanding and freedom that account found in Matthew 8:28-34, Luke 8:30, and Mark 5:9. Just as God said “Let there be Light” and there was light, the account of Legion was written down. God foreordained that it be written, but he also foreordained that I could choose to eat dinner right now, take a break from my Hebrew, and write this post. So we can not use the foreordained power of God for the argument for or against God’s part in the writing of scripture because it can easily be abused and place us in a hypercalvinistic realm. Scripture on God’s part should be seen in relation to the decreedal power ( which the foreordained category falls under because of the appointing past-tense nature associated with the term compared to decreedal which is more generic and tense nonspecfic) of God the Father to the Son and Holy Sprit accomplishing that decree. From there of course goes into the question of the means in which that was accomplished here on Earth for the Church. Now does this make the Holy Spirit not the author of scripture if word choice is graceful given to the style of man? No, because 2 Peter 1:21 makes it clear that scripture did not come from the will of man, but by the moving Spirit of God, and that moving is how God speaks. God is contributed as being the author of the Psalms as seen in Acts 13:35, quoting from Psalm 16:10, which is a Psalm of David. Are we to say that the Psalms were written as dictations when it is clear their authorship is both human and divine? The fact that scripture is inspired and first moved by the Holy Spirit makes scripture rightly contributing God as it’s author; however the human elements must also not be ignored. In defining scripture authorship via dictation we need to consider all of scripture, its uses and genre. Implying we must look at the uses of the Song of Songs to James and see the uses of personal style and see the elements of the divine as well. Scripture communicates that the Holy Spirit moved the writers of scripture, it doesn’t say that all of Scripture, including the New Testament was dictated by God. I think that goes a bit far.
Boosterseat_91
Puritan Board Freshman
I understand what you mean, however, they are opposed. If God dictated (word-for-word) what the authors were to write, then they did not use their own expressions. I think Grimmson sums it up well.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
They are no more opposed than God ordaining all events and actions and us actually choosing to do all the things we do and say all the things we say. I cannot fathom why you think God superintending every single word and the human authors actually choosing those words at the same time is a contradiction.
To be clear: did God or did God not ordain every single word?
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
I am not ignoring the human choices of words in ANY WAY. I am merely arguing as the confessions do that God ordained each and every word, every turn of phrase, etc - while at the same time, again, as the confessions clearly argue, human agency is used.
Boosterseat_91
Puritan Board Freshman
As you've said, we're pretty much in agreement. God ordained every word, the means by which he did it is where we disagree. If you say that God dictated every single word as it should be written verbally to them, then you cannot say that they used their individual human expressions to write it.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
Well, I never once claimed that God gave them the words verbally.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
In the dictation theory it could be done audibly/verbally or through the direct speaking of the Spirit within the mind of the author. Still the result is the same and that is the Spirit doing more then just moving, but instead saying exactly what was to be written outside of the style of the human writer.
I am surprised to see the theory of "mediate" inspiration being advocated here, especially when the Westminster Confession (1.8) explicitly teaches "immediate" inspiration.
Calvin states (Institutes, IV. viii. 8): “From this also we infer that the only thing granted to the apostles was that which the prophets had had of old. They were to expound the ancient Scripture and to show that what is taught there has been fulfilled in Christ. Yet they were not to do this except from the Lord, that is, with Christ's Spirit as precursor in a certain measure dictating the words.”
R. A. Muller, after investigating various writings and commentaries by the reformer, concludes, “very much like many of the later Reformed exegetes and theologians, Calvin assumed both that Scripture was 'dictated' and that it was reflective of the individual style and characteristic patterns of perception belonging to its human authors” (PRRD 2:247, 248).
The "later Reformed exegetes and theologians" all maintained the doctrine of dictation. Confining ourselves to an illustrious representative of the British school, we can observe this conviction in William Whitaker (A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 37, 38): “That form which the prophets use so often, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ is to be attributed also to the apostles and evangelists. For the Holy Spirit dictated to them whatever things they wrote.” This is the historic reformed doctrine of inspiration.
Calvin states (Institutes, IV. viii. 8): “From this also we infer that the only thing granted to the apostles was that which the prophets had had of old. They were to expound the ancient Scripture and to show that what is taught there has been fulfilled in Christ. Yet they were not to do this except from the Lord, that is, with Christ's Spirit as precursor in a certain measure dictating the words.”
R. A. Muller, after investigating various writings and commentaries by the reformer, concludes, “very much like many of the later Reformed exegetes and theologians, Calvin assumed both that Scripture was 'dictated' and that it was reflective of the individual style and characteristic patterns of perception belonging to its human authors” (PRRD 2:247, 248).
The "later Reformed exegetes and theologians" all maintained the doctrine of dictation. Confining ourselves to an illustrious representative of the British school, we can observe this conviction in William Whitaker (A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 37, 38): “That form which the prophets use so often, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ is to be attributed also to the apostles and evangelists. For the Holy Spirit dictated to them whatever things they wrote.” This is the historic reformed doctrine of inspiration.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
Again, David, this is absolute nonsense, and a false presumption. Why must you (or anyone) continue to insist that if God directly dictates what is to be written, and ensures that what is written is exactly what He intended to be written, that what results would be outside the human style of the writers? There is simply no logical reason to maintain this, and every reason to accept the teaching of the Reformers (as Matthew has pointed out with a helpful statement from Richard Muller).
- Status
