How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Guest]

Deriving the "Positive Principle."

How can one decide which "principle" applies? The author of Inspiration suggested that "reason in dialogue with the Spirit, determines which of those cases [in Scripture] are most helpful in informing the decisions we make day by day." Instead of submitting to God's Word, human reason engages in a "dialogue" with the Spirit.

The author makes this point more explicit, stating that in his "casebook approach" to biblical interpretation he will "never take an inspired writer to be a final interpreter of a passage

written by another inspired writer," and that he will accept inspired interpretations as valid only when they are in harmony with his own scholarly "rules" of interpretation. Apparently, today's scholar is more apostolic than the apostles!

A professor of history in an Adventist university takes up this point in connection with issues raised by Inspiration: "I don't think it is possible for us to totally subject human reasoning to the higher authority of the Bible. We are, after all, humans." Instead of submitting to Scripture, proponents of the historical-critical method want to "dialogue" with Scripture. However, when they find its message unpalatable, they quarrel with Scripture and

criticize it. But the prophet Isaiah declares: "Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker" (Isa 45:9 NIV; cf. Rom 9:20-21).

[Guest]

A Bible-Believing Adventist Response

The "principle-based approach" is a sophisticated attempt to relativize the Bible. It is a form of situation ethics--the ethical system that says rightness or wrongness is determined by what is "loving"--designed for those who consider themselves "mature" Christians. Notice how the author of Inspiration contrasts his "casebook approach" with the "codebook" approach (what some today would call the "literal-based approach"):

"Admittedly, what I have outlined is a sophisticated approach to the law, one that requires a rather advanced level of mental and Christian maturity. We would not expect young children or new Christians to be able to function at that level. For that very reason, God has given rules and adaptations--codebook, if you please, for those who need them. And the church, as a body of Christ, responsible for believers of every shape and capability, will

always have a list of rules to get us started, so to speak." Observe how similar the above "casebook approach" is to the "principle-based approach"--requiring "a high level of abstract thinking" believed to be favored by those who live in regions where the church has "matured

for a century and half."

[Guest]

Principles Dependent on Literal Meaning. It appears that the "principle-based approach" is a subtle way of finding fault with the Bible by allowing human reason to be the ultimate

judge. But a true understanding of biblical principles does not create its own artificial "principles"; rather, it is based on a literal understanding of the Bible, ascertained by carefully

using the literary, grammatical, and historical information contained in the Bible itself, consistent with Scripture's nature as fully inspired, trustworthy, and authoritative. The true Seventh-day Adventist method is a principled approach to the literal meaning of the text.

Illumined Rationality, Not Perverted Rationalism.

The Bible teaches that because of the basic difference between God and human beings (i.e., because God is so much greater than we are), and because of the problems of sin and the unwillingness of unconverted human reason to surrender to God, there are limits to reason (Isa 55:8, 9; Rom 11:33; 2 Cor 4:4; 1 Cor 2:14). The greatest mind, unless guided by the Word of God, becomes bewildered;

human rationality will become perverted into rationalism. The Bible's prescription for autonomous human reason is conversion, renewing the mind and transforming it into conformity with His will (Rom 12:2). When this happens, Spirit-regenerated human reason

delights to submit totally to the higher authority of the Bible.

Against those who contradict established Bible truths by their re-interpretations and re-applications of Scripture, Ellen White wrote: "We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such

application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God" (Selected Messages, 1:161).

[Guest]

God Never Contradicts Himself. If a scholar arises with an interpretation of Scripture, even one disguised as new light from a "principled-approach," and it contradicts the established truths of our faith, we are urged: "We must be decidedon this subject; for the points that he is trying to prove by Scripture are not sound. They do not prove that the past experience of God's people was a fallacy. We had the truth; we were directed by the angels of God. It was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the presentation of the sanctuary question was given. It is eloquence for every one to keep silent in regard to the features of our faith in which they acted no part. God never contradicts Himself. Scripture proofs are

misapplied if forced to testify to that which is not true. Another and still another will arise and bring in supposedly great light, and make their assertions. But we stand by the old landmarks"

(Selected Messages, 1:161-162, emphasis supplied).

At a time when "to many the Bible is as a lamp without oil, because they have turned their minds into channels of speculative belief that bring misunderstanding and confusion," and at a time when "the work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation . . . robbing God's word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives" (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 474), Bible-believing Adventists must affirm with Ellen White: "Reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself. Heart and intellect must bow to the Great I AM" (The Ministry of Healing, p. 438). In

studying the Scriptures, reason must be humble enough to accept and obey what it finds in those sacred pages and must not seek to circumvent biblical teaching by resorting to abstract "positive principles."

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

"the work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation . . . robbing God's word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives" (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 474)...

that's what I see happening here on the forum a lot of times...

[Guest]

Quote:

"the work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation . . . robbing God's word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives" (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 474)...

that's what I see happening here on the forum a lot of times...

Yep, me too.

[Musicman1228]

Quote: ". . .destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation . . ."

Please define for me who and by what authority the Bible was established as a 'divine revelation', and when this took place. In other words why do you believe the Bible is in and of itself a 'divine revelation'.

[Guest]

Hey MM, me and Rudywoofs were just talking about you. If you don't believe the Bible is a divine revelation, why do you read it? Why do you trust anything it has to say?

Is it by your super intelligence that you decide which parts are trustworthy and which parts are not?

[Dr. Rich]

Richard wrote: "Is it by your super intelligence that you decide which parts are trustworthy and which parts are not?" I suppose this is regards to the whole bible being a divine revelation. So Richard, what IF the true answer to your question is 'yes'?

Why do you read it Richard? Isn't it enough just to read what others write? Isn't enough just to have faith? What difference is there if all you need is to have faith and believe in Jesus? And why in the world would God say that only the WISE will understand prophecy in the last generation? Could it be that these so called "wise" will have some kind of 'super intelligence' so that they will be able to testify to the truth during the time of trouble? Hmmm?

So how come you are not willing to learn anything new?

[Guest]

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

[jasd]

I’ve not kept up with this thread as it contains an inordinate amount of cutting and pasting – kinda like spamming. I popped in to check-out a few posts and ran across the following and apparent pull-quote. If I am taking it out of context,

disabuse me.

>>"23 Did the Bible cite "health" as the reason for prohibiting unclean animals for food, so that if one could raise pigs, snakes, lizards, earthworms, cockroaches, or vultures in a sanitized environment, their carcasses would be "clean" for food? Did not God give His own reason for designating some animals as unfit for food (cf. Deut 14:2, 3)?<<

I believe the above is a pull-quote; therefor, it invites a

deservedly forthright appraisal.

It is the sort of Biblical exposition, which is so ridiculous that it surely must epitomize the parochial exposition of Writ – last parrot on the Orinoco thingee.

Gd delivers positive and imperative statements re both ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ foods. That being so, it behooves the honest expositor to

seek reasons why Gd seemingly utilized a Janus-like approach to the matter.

Speaking practically, it matters not in the least whether Writ is Divinely inspired or no – if it is exposited wrongly or prejudicially.

[Guest]

What is a pull quote?

[Musicman1228]

Hey MM, me and Rudywoofs were just talking about you. If you don't believe the Bible is a divine revelation, why do you read it? Why do you trust anything it has to say?

Is it by your super intelligence that you decide which parts are trustworthy and which parts are not?

I see you are getting a little snippy with the 'super intelligence' quote, Richard. However, misdirection won't work. Just because I don't adhere to your own idea that the Bible as a unit is all truth all the time does not mean that I don't read, study, absorb, process and synthesize new ideas and new information from the Bible. I take that task very seriously, and in doing so I don't 'check my brain at the door' as do some who do not want to have to do the hard work of deciding for themselves what is true and what is false. The Bible contains truth, we must search for it. The Bible contains the words of God, but we must decide which words are His and which are the impostor's words. Those that believe that the Bible is ALL truth are prime targets for the deceptions of Satan, and are (quite frankly) intellectually lazy, wanting something for nothing.

Jesus Christ never declared that any Scripture but the Old Testament was to be used a ultimate proof of truth.

To the Law and to the Testimony; if they speak not according to this word there is no light in them. This text ONLY applies to the Old Testament.

So, now that I have answered your question, how about answering mine.

MM asked, "Please define for me who and by what authority the Bible was established as a 'divine revelation', and when this took place. In other words why do you believe the Bible is in and of itself a 'divine revelation".

[Musicman1228]

One more thing, Richard. I am getting a little tired of your rapacious innuendo and supercilious sarcasm. Just leave it alone.

[Guest]

So you do think you can decide which parts of scripture to keep and which ones to throw out. Talk about arrogance.

I knew this already of course, I just wanted to hear(see) you say it.

[Musicman1228]

Oops. That should have been 'super-sillyous' sarcasm. Sorry.

[Guest]

The context of 2 Timothy 3:16 suggests that "all Scripture" refers to the entire Old Testament, the books that made up the Bible in the days of Jesus and the apostles. But according to other New Testament passages, "all Scripture" also includes the New Testament writings.

For example, the apostle Peter refers to the writings of Paul on the same basis as "the other scriptures" (2 Pet 3:15, 16); and Paul in 1 Timothy 5:18 quotes the record in Luke 10:7, "The laborer is worthy of his reward," and refers to the statement as "scripture."

If "all Scripture"--consisting of both the Old and New Testaments--is inspired, this implies, contrary to the claims of critics and liberals, that the sections of the Bible which talk about miracles, history, geography, ethics, science, etc., are all inspired, just as the doctrinal sections are.

[Musicman1228]

Richard, do you mean that you are not going to answer my question?

[Musicman1228]

You did not tell my why you believe that 'all Scripture' includes both the OT and NT. I know the quotes and they all refer to the Old Testament, which (as I have said any number of time before this) IS the Scripture that Jesus Christ used. It was good enough for Him, it is good enough for me.

So, answer the question, Richard; don't dance around it.

[Guest]

I'm not dancing around it, Evidently you didn't really read my last post.

[Dr. Rich]

I did Richard and all the verses you gave point to the old testament. Or am I missing something?

[Guest]

Yes you're missing something, only the biggest part of what I said. I wonder if you study your Bible the same way you read a post. Glossing over it without seeing what it says.

How does Peter referring to Paul's writing point to the OT? And how does Paul referring to Luke's writing as scripture, point to the Old Testament.

Both you and MM claim to have read it, and neither one of you saw what it says. That's downright pitiful, you're both so tuned in to seeing only what you want to see, that you don't even know what I said.

No wonder you had to get rid of most of the New Testament. It didn't say what you wanted/needed it to. You can never arrive at truth in that way.

[phkrause]

Did you read post #299849? It looks to me like he has answered! You either didn't read or you just don't like his answer. I think I've mentioned before that if God thought that the NT was not of any value, than why did he perserve it with the OT though the years when many were trying to get rid of it MM? He could've just let it burn out than there wouldn't be this problem?

pk

[Guest]

That's true pk.

[Dr. Rich]

Richard, here is my reply and rebuttal of your attempt to show that the words in the New Testament are to be considered Holy and inspired by God.

You gave 2 Tim. 3:16 in your attempt to IMPLY that everything being written at that time (AD66) including Paul's and others who wrote, were to be called "inspired scripture". What you failed to provide is the verse directly above this verse where Paul was showing that the so called "sacred writings" were known from childhood. These so called "sacred writings" then had to be only the Law and the Prophets (Old Testament) to which he had as only a child.

As for 2Peter's words about Paul's writings, I wouldn't take anything written here to the bank since no one knows who really wrote this book or letter. Clearly Peter himself didn't write it and even the majority of the scholars today have agreed with this. In fact, history tells us that this writing was not to be considered a writing from Peter the apostle because of the style of the writing.

However, IF Peter did write this or had someone write it, it is clear that Peter did not agree with everything that Paul had written and what is written about "the rest of the Scriptures", is clearly referring to the Old Testament, for the word "Scriptures" is capitalized. The writer used the same word in 2Peter 1:20 to refer to the Old Testament only.

Therefore, I will stick to the Old Testament and the words of Jesus as my rule of thumb for understanding truth.