Is scripture the infallible Word Of God?

[Logos1560]

I was not referring to "traditions of men" which the New Testament condemns, but rather Apostolic Tradition which the New Testament commends and even commands (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15, etc.).

The only apostolic tradition that would be commended and commanded is what was included and recorded in the New Testament.

 

[Bluecheese]

2 Timothy 3:16 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

I believe the documents making up the Bible are the work of fallible humans, with no input from any deity.

 

[iamaberean]

Putting these 2 verses together gives us a proper perspective on divine inspiration:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim 3:16KJV
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Pet 1:21KJV

It was the holy men of God who were inspired, not the literature they produced. All scripture was given by the process of breathing the Spirit of God into regenerate men who were moved to write the words God wanted them to write. It is, likewise, the indwelling Spirit of God in the regenerate believer that recognizes spirit/truth when it is encountered on the receiving end.

Any other doctrine of inspiration is virtually dictation.
The idea of theopneustos is 'God breathed'. I think He both breathed into the holy men and they breathed out His words.

Jesus is God. The New Testament teaches about Jesus and the words that He spoke. If anyone is inspired, it is Jesus, therefore the New Testament is also the inspired word of God.

 

[Cruciform]

The only apostolic tradition that would be commended and commanded is what was included and recorded in the New Testament.

And yet, the New Testament itself nowhere teaches any such notion.

 

[oatmeal]

2 Timothy 3:16 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Yes, but specifically, that which the holy men of God were moved to write down.

 

[Logos1560]

And yet, the New Testament itself nowhere teaches any such notion.

The New Testament itself does not teach the later notions and nonscriptural teachings developed by the unsound Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Cruciform]

The New Testament itself does not teach the later notions and nonscriptural teachings developed by the unsound Roman Catholic Church.

Such as...?

 

[dialm]

The Bible is just a seed. It won't be in heaven.

 

[Desert Reign]

2 Timothy 3:16 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Is scripture the infallible Word Of God?

If you can find one scripture in the Bible that says that the Bible (the 66 books) is the 'infallible Word of God' then I'll agree that it is.

You have many problems here.
1. You can't even find any scripture that defines what the Bible is so you can't be sure that 'all scripture' means the 66 books or more books or fewer books.
2. You can't establish a definition of 'infallible' that doesn't involve men making value judgements over what is infallible and what isn't.
3. The concept of the 'Word of God' meaning 'the Bible' is not in the Bible. Only Jesus is called the 'Word of God' and as soon as you make up a doctrine where the Bible is this 'Word of God', you are supplanting Jesus.
4. When you think of what is commonly understood by the term 'infallible', you cannot equate this with what Paul actually says about it, namely that it is useful for teaching. If you treat it as infallible, you are likely going to end up with nothing but disputes over its exact meaning and I don't consider that very useful when it comes to teaching. Rather, it is an open invitation to unscrupulous church leaders to impose their doctrines and ethics on you under the false authority of infallibility.

If you want a sane and tenable view of scripture, you need to stop where the scripture itself stops:
1. It is inspired by God
2. It is useful for teaching.
Anything more is a contradiction of scripture itself because if it is truly infallible then all you can say about it is the above. Your point dissolves into circularity.

 

[dialm]

If you can find one scripture in the Bible that says that the Bible (the 66 books) is the 'infallible Word of God' then I'll agree that it is.

You have many problems here.
1. You can't even find any scripture that defines what the Bible is so you can't be sure that 'all scripture' means the 66 books or more books or fewer books.
2. You can't establish a definition of 'infallible' that doesn't involve men making value judgements over what is infallible and what isn't.
3. The concept of the 'Word of God' meaning 'the Bible' is not in the Bible. Only Jesus is called the 'Word of God' and as soon as you make up a doctrine where the Bible is this 'Word of God', you are supplanting Jesus.
4. When you think of what is commonly understood by the term 'infallible', you cannot equate this with what Paul actually says about it, namely that it is useful for teaching. If you treat it as infallible, you are likely going to end up with nothing but disputes over its exact meaning and I don't consider that very useful when it comes to teaching. Rather, it is an open invitation to unscrupulous church leaders to impose their doctrines and ethics on you under the false authority of infallibility.

If you want a sane and tenable view of scripture, you need to stop where the scripture itself stops:
1. It is inspired by God
2. It is useful for teaching.
Anything more is a contradiction of scripture itself because if it is truly infallible then all you can say about it is the above. Your point dissolves into circularity.

This is reasonable. I can agree. (But I don't much care for you acronyms. Makes you look like a bottom feeder.)

 

[oatmeal]

If you can find one scripture in the Bible that says that the Bible (the 66 books) is the 'infallible Word of God' then I'll agree that it is.

You have many problems here.
1. You can't even find any scripture that defines what the Bible is so you can't be sure that 'all scripture' means the 66 books or more books or fewer books.
2. You can't establish a definition of 'infallible' that doesn't involve men making value judgements over what is infallible and what isn't.
3. The concept of the 'Word of God' meaning 'the Bible' is not in the Bible. Only Jesus is called the 'Word of God' and as soon as you make up a doctrine where the Bible is this 'Word of God', you are supplanting Jesus.
4. When you think of what is commonly understood by the term 'infallible', you cannot equate this with what Paul actually says about it, namely that it is useful for teaching. If you treat it as infallible, you are likely going to end up with nothing but disputes over its exact meaning and I don't consider that very useful when it comes to teaching. Rather, it is an open invitation to unscrupulous church leaders to impose their doctrines and ethics on you under the false authority of infallibility.

If you want a sane and tenable view of scripture, you need to stop where the scripture itself stops:
1. It is inspired by God
2. It is useful for teaching.
Anything more is a contradiction of scripture itself because if it is truly infallible then all you can say about it is the above. Your point dissolves into circularity.

God's word is one of God's works

His works are perfect.

Deuteronomy 32:4

He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

2 Samuel 22:31

As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.

Jesus Christ trusted and believed God's word is truth, why don't you? John 17:17

 

[oatmeal]

Putting these 2 verses together gives us a proper perspective on divine inspiration:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim 3:16KJV
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Pet 1:21KJV

It was the holy men of God who were inspired, not the literature they produced. All scripture was given by the process of breathing the Spirit of God into regenerate men who were moved to write the words God wanted them to write. It is, likewise, the indwelling Spirit of God in the regenerate believer that recognizes spirit/truth when it is encountered on the receiving end.

Any other doctrine of inspiration is virtually dictation.
The idea of theopneustos is 'God breathed'. I think He both breathed into the holy men and they breathed out His words.

The same God who authored what they spoke, authored what they wrote down to be the word of God.

 

[Desert Reign]

This is reasonable. I can agree. (But I don't much care for you acronyms. Makes you look like a bottom feeder.)

What acronyms are you talking about? Did I use any?

EDIT: I see. You mean in my signature? Well, I hasten to add that I didn't invent this acronym. And if you think it is bottom feed, then why don't you try refuting it in the normal manner? Calling it bottom feed doesn't help your case.

God's word is one of God's works

His works are perfect.

Deuteronomy 32:4

He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

2 Samuel 22:31

As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.

Jesus Christ trusted and believed God's word is truth, why don't you? John 17:17

Which part do you not think I believe?
What do you mean by 'God's word'?
How do you know that 2 Sam 22:31 is God's words and was in the Bible? How do you know that it is the word of God?

Let me answer that for you:

You know it because you were brought up to believe that the Bible comprised 66 books. If your parents were Christians, you believed the Bible was from God because they told you and you believed them. If you became a believer as an adult, you believed it because other Christians told you. You believe it because you went to the shops and when you asked for a Bible, that was what you got. Or because someone gave you one for a present and when you opened it, that was what was in it. If the Apocrypha were in it, you wouldn't have known any different. If Thomas A Kempis' The Imitation of Christ was in it, you wouldn't have known any different. If C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters was in it, or the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, you wouldn't have known any different.

You accept it for one reason only: because you tacitly accept the authority of the church. It was the church who created the Bible. Make no mistake about this. This is in practice what you believe. You did not receive a personal revelation from God that the Bible is made up of 66 books. And anyone who believes that the Bible (the 66 books) is infallible automatically believes that the church who put it together is also infallible. Because you cannot have one without the other. This is both a logical and a historical necessity.

So once again, tell me which part of God's word I don't believe in.

 

[dialm]

If you didn't invent it who did?

 

[Desert Reign]

The Four Phases of Bible Interpretation.

Putting these 2 verses together gives us a proper perspective on divine inspiration:

Phase 1: if you don't like what one verse says, find another that seems to support your view better. The Bible is a big book and usually you can easily find something that appears to support you, whatever point it is you are making.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim 3:16KJV
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: butholy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Pet 1:21KJV

It was the holy men of God who were inspired, not the literature they produced.

Phase 2: say the opposite of what scripture says as clearly and confidently as possible. At this stage, don't make any reference to the context of passages you are quoting. This would only confuse your hearers. They want it simple and it is your job to give them what they want. (In fact, there is no need at any stage to get into issues of context. This sort of depth would be lost on most people anyway.)

All scripture was given by the process of breathing the Spirit of God into regenerate men who were moved to write the words God wanted them to write. It is, likewise, the indwelling Spirit of God in the regenerate believer that recognizes spirit/truth when it is encountered on the receiving end.

Phase 3: make lots of unsupported statements as if they were supported by your previous statements. Introduce new theological sounding terms like 'regenerate' and 'indwelling'. Don't forget to make it as diametrically opposite to what the text of the Bible plainly says as possible. People love that kind of thing because the fact that it is the opposite of what the Bible plainly says, makes you sound intelligent to a quite a few people. It really shows that you have thought about it in depth rather than just taking the text at face value.

Any other doctrine of inspiration is virtually dictation.
The idea of theopneustos is 'God breathed'. I think He both breathed into the holy men and they breathed out His words.

Phase 4: finally, use an actual Greek word or two (quoting from Strong's is also a good idea at this stage. It doesn't add anything but it does make you sound very clever indeed.) and then give your own opinion. This makes you sound even more authoritative. The fan club will form all by itself and your PhD is only a few years away.

 

[oatmeal]

What acronyms are you talking about? Did I use any?

EDIT: I see. You mean in my signature? Well, I hasten to add that I didn't invent this acronym. And if you think it is bottom feed, then why don't you try refuting it in the normal manner? Calling it bottom feed doesn't help your case.



Which part do you not think I believe?
What do you mean by 'God's word'?
How do you know that 2 Sam 22:31 is God's words and was in the Bible? How do you know that it is the word of God?

Let me answer that for you:

You know it because you were brought up to believe that the Bible comprised 66 books. If your parents were Christians, you believed the Bible was from God because they told you and you believed them. If you became a believer as an adult, you believed it because other Christians told you. You believe it because you went to the shops and when you asked for a Bible, that was what you got. Or because someone gave you one for a present and when you opened it, that was what was in it. If the Apocrypha were in it, you wouldn't have known any different. If Thomas A Kempis' The Imitation of Christ was in it, you wouldn't have known any different. If C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters was in it, or the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, you wouldn't have known any different.

You accept it for one reason only: because you tacitly accept the authority of the church. It was the church who created the Bible. Make no mistake about this. This is in practice what you believe. You did not receive a personal revelation from God that the Bible is made up of 66 books. And anyone who believes that the Bible (the 66 books) is infallible automatically believes that the church who put it together is also infallible. Because you cannot have one without the other. This is both a logical and a historical necessity.

So once again, tell me which part of God's word I don't believe in.

Having applied God's word to my life and saw the promised supernatural results time and time again, I have no reason to doubt the integrity and accuracy of God's word

 

[oatmeal]

The Four Phases of Bible Interpretation.



Phase 1: if you don't like what one verse says, find another that seems to support your view better. The Bible is a big book and usually you can easily find something that appears to support you, whatever point it is you are making.

Phase 2: say the opposite of what scripture says as clearly and confidently as possible. At this stage, don't make any reference to the context of passages you are quoting. This would only confuse your hearers. They want it simple and it is your job to give them what they want. (In fact, there is no need at any stage to get into issues of context. This sort of depth would be lost on most people anyway.)

Phase 3: make lots of unsupported statements as if they were supported by your previous statements. Introduce new theological sounding terms like 'regenerate' and 'indwelling'. Don't forget to make it as diametrically opposite to what the text of the Bible plainly says as possible. People love that kind of thing because the fact that it is the opposite of what the Bible plainly says, makes you sound intelligent to a quite a few people. It really shows that you have thought about it in depth rather than just taking the text at face value.

Phase 4: finally, use an actual Greek word or two (quoting from Strong's is also a good idea at this stage. It doesn't add anything but it does make you sound very clever indeed.) and then give your own opinion. This makes you sound even more authoritative. The fan club will form all by itself and your PhD is only a few years away.

No prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. II Peter 1:20

Why would anyone want to interpret scripture? Why not believe it?

 

[Caino]

God is the Living Word, alive, vibrant, expanding.

The current bible book list is mans written word about God the Living Word.

 

[Bright Raven]

The Book I read is the Living Word.

 

[badp]

The Four Phases of Bible Interpretation.
Phase 1: if you don't like what one verse says, find another that seems to support your view better. The Bible is a big book and usually you can easily find something that appears to support you, whatever point it is you are making.

You must be joking. If that were the case, men would have altered the Bible a long time ago to remove prohibitions against adultery, stealing, etc.

And yes, some men have tried it and failed because such alterations would be obvious. You interpret Scripture by Scripture. If a verse doesn't fit in with the rest of the text, then something is wrong.

Phase 2: say the opposite of what scripture says as clearly and confidently as possible. At this stage, don't make any reference to the context of passages you are quoting.

Well sadly Christians and unbelievers quote verses out of context all the time.