Cross Reference
New member
Inspired writings require inspired minds to comprehend them.
ECT What does the Doctrine of Inspiration mean to you?
- Thread starter George Affleck
- Start date
Inspired writings require inspired minds to comprehend them.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Inspired writings do not exist. "Inspired" is not an inherent quality of an inanimate object. It can only be said that those who produced them were inspired.
For an example of what I am thinking: Ecclesiastes. That book is just Solomon on a tear about things that don't work — in his imagination.
It reads like it only got included as an example of how not to do life.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
I will not presume to understand your question or the purpose for it when I don't. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit?
Cross Reference
New member
Whatever. Being inspired in both the "goings" and the "comings"; "reading" or the "writing" is needful.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
I think Ecclesiastes is a marvelous book and properly included as teaching truth. I love the way Solomon bares his soul.
I found this as part of a summary on the book:
"He looked like he had a wonderfully fulfilling life, but when he looked back at it, he realized that the deeds, pleasure and accomplishments did not mean anything without a close relationship with the Creator. An outward form of religion never provides a substitute to a close relationship with the Almighty God. The world stood up and recognized Solomon's great achievement, but he unashamedly admits that having all and not having God is absolute meaningless.
Down deep in Solomon's heart, there was a seed of corruptness that was not kept under self-control. It grew out of control and distorted his life perspective. Only later in life, did he finally observe the difference between life and living. Life could not find its meaning in the many projects that he had involved himself in. They only became distractions to the real meaning in life, only found in God. God was near his heart but not his first love. He loved other things more than the Lord. His life before this writing clearly showed this."
I think its a good example of self reflection and gives us an even better insight into the man, the king who built the temple.Down deep in Solomon's heart, there was a seed of corruptness that was not kept under self-control. It grew out of control and distorted his life perspective. Only later in life, did he finally observe the difference between life and living. Life could not find its meaning in the many projects that he had involved himself in. They only became distractions to the real meaning in life, only found in God. God was near his heart but not his first love. He loved other things more than the Lord. His life before this writing clearly showed this."
The teaching that "all is vanity" or "there is nothing new under the sun" are not lessons that we want to learn. But they are foundational to Jesus' teachings. Ecc 1:14KJV echoes what we all need to come to. The world is broken and only because of what God accomplishes can it be fixed. The world will pass away but the word of God will last forever.
Worldly accomplishments are no match for justification by faith. Rom 3:27KJV
There's probably that to it, but it reads like a bitter old man who's gotten a lot of things wrong and hasn't fixed them.
I don't know for sure, but it might be 50 percent warning through example.
If so, then inspiration would play only a non-necessary role.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Fair enough.
With regard to him being inspired by God to share these things with the world, if there is more to the book than you have been able to appreciate so far, it would be essential.
I don't know of many other often quoted verses at Thanksgiving, weddings, etc., than Eccles. 3:1KJV and following. It is deep wisdom on proper perspectives.
I could add some really strong support to what your saying . But to stay on point , your saying it's the human condition that prevents an exact transfer of God's spoken or inspired Word , to go through a human , into written form ? Summed up ?
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Not the best way to state it at all I don't think.
The human condition never thwarts or prevents a purpose that God has in mind.
I am just pointing out that His purpose is not to breathe into (inspire) 'things' but, rather, people. They are made in His image and are ideal for this purpose. A page or ink or letters were not designed by Him to be inspired. And I think that many people fail to think things through and get their ideas from God's revelation. Instead they get their doctrine from other people who have not thought it through.
But beyond that, 'inspired' is not a condition or attribute in the English language. It's an action; from a verb. The problem is that, in our laziness, we have shortened the explanation from "God inspired writers to produce the inerrant scriptures" to "the scriptures are inspired". If you tell the average person that over and over, they begin to get the idea that the scriptures were breathed into by God and the writers were basically insignificant.
And yet God did not think they were insignificant at all. He tells us they were "moved by the Holy Ghost". That's not an everyday occurence, but it was God's choice for inscripturation.
Many are thinking about it wrong, in my opinion. God did not give inspired words to men to pass along because words cannot be inspired. He never says that and that would be dictation anyway. He moved (inspired) and guided them to speak for Him, out of their personalities, His inerrant words of truth. He superintended the transmission of truth to sinful man by the process of inspiring some.
Oh, definitely. There will always be a lot more to scripture than any paltry description I give.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
How people completely miss the formatting issues when they post is beyond me...