How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Guest]

Impact on the Bible

Each of the above discordant notes within scholarly circles is a sophisticated challenge to the historic Christian view of the inspiration and authority of the Bible. And each of them employs, for the study of the Scriptures, some modified version of the historical-critical method of interpretation--a method which masquerades as "scientific" but which in actuality is a pagan ideology. When scholars pass the Bible through this critical shredding machine, what remains is a Bible bruised, battered, and torn to pieces.

[Guest]

Fragmented Text. Roman Catholic scholar Sandra M. Schneiders' evaluation of the historical-critical approach to the Bible may be equally applicable to most of the contemporary approaches to the Word of God. She noted that over the last century, "scholars

seemed to be caught in an infinite historical regress, tracing the ever more remote explanation of the ever more fragmented text into an ever receding antiquity that was ever less relevant to

the concerns of the contemporary believer."

Spiritual Emptiness. According to one knowledgeable Adventist scholar, "These methods raise all sorts of questions about how we got the text but say nothing about the truths it contains. It is like a hungry man who sits down to banquet and only dissects the food, probing down to the plate, cogitating on how each item may have arrived on the dish, but who eats nothing and leaves empty."

[Guest]

Loss of Faith.

As a result of the doubts being raised on many Bible passages, 1) preachers no longer preach with conviction on any subject; 2) teachers are tentative in their teaching of Bible doctrine; 3) leaders hesitate to make decisions on the basis of the Bible; and 4) lay people are discouraged from reading, studying, and meditating upon the Word of God.

Saddest of all, the ensuing famine for the Word of God (see Amos 8:11-12) has led many to lose their faith in Jesus Christ, the One to whom all Sripture points (John 5:39; Luke 24:25-27).

This failure to find Jesus Christ can best be appreciated if we return to the earlier analogy of the person who sits down to a banquet: "The starving man sits down to the banquet once more. This time he does not probe into the different items on the plate, nor does he try to speculate on how these items got onto the plate, nor does he try to figure out the cook's intention in choosing the items and why he arranged them as they are. Rather, he comes to the

food to see what he can add, by way of thinking, to make the food come alive, to give it meaning. He realizes that he is a co-cook and must apply his human reason to give the real meaning to this scrumptious feast. He comes to force onto this cooking his cultural ideas of cooking.

After much thought he believes that he has added significantly to the meaning of the food. With that he gets up and leaves--empty once more. He may claim to be liberated by the process, but he remains unfed. Why? He ignored the cook who handed him the plate."

Ellen G. White anticipated this sad situation: "The work of 'higher criticism,' in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation; it is

robbing God's word of power to control, uplift and inspire human lives" (Education, p. 227).

The tragedy is that theological pluralism hails this spiritual blindness as a sign of open-mindedness and scholarly enlightenment!

[Guest]

Impact on the Churches

The doubts which scholars have created regarding the Word of God have seriously undermined the confidence of average church members in the Bible. Somehow, they have come to believe that the Bible is so full of problems that only the learned scholars can understand its true meaning. This belief in the alleged obscurity of the Bible is precisely what Roman Catholicism advanced to argue for the infallibility of the pope. If ordinary church members cannot understand the Bible, they need an infallible pope to interpret it for them.

Papalism of Scholars. Therefore, to believe in the obscurity of the Bible is to accept a new form of papalism--the infallibility of scholars, to whom believers must go for biblical answers. The sixteenth-century reformers rightly rejected this position on the grounds that papalism replaces the Holy Spirit, Christ's appointed Teacher of the church (John 16:13ff.), with a fallible human being. To put it differently, this new papalism of scholars denies that

the Holy Spirit is always available to help anyone who is humbly seeking to understand His inspired Word.

Bible-believing Christians need to be aware of what is at stake in this new papalism. "Satan is constantly endeavoring to attract attention to man in the place of God. He leads the people to look to bishops, to pastors, to professors of theology, as their guides, instead of searching the Scriptures to learn their duty for themselves. Then, by controlling the minds of these leaders, he can influence the multitudes according to his will" (The Great Controversy, p. 595).

Regrettably, uncertainty over the Bible's authority has trickled down to almost every level of the church's life. We see this subtle shift from the inspired Book to an inspiring booklet being played out in many ways:

[Guest]

Practice of Laymembers.

Besides the fact that not many people spend time these days

studying and meditating on the Word of God, a casual glance will reveal that fewer and fewer of our church members even bring their Bibles to church; when they do, they rarely open them. One reason may be that the Bibles are seldom used in the churches. Fo instance, during the Sabbath school Bible study hour, many teachers read more from the lesson quarterly than from the Bible itself. Not too long ago, an editor of the Adventist Review observed: "Too often

I find that what passes for Bible study in many Sabbath school classes is little more than a rehash of familiar sayings, personal opinion, and Ellen White quotations. It isn't Bible study, but simply comments about the Bible. . . . Our 'lesson study' has the guise of Bible study, but it isn't. It is more a study of the Sabbath school lesson quarterly than the Bible."

Also, during Sabbath school time, when the activities for the day are running late, the Bible study period of the Sabbath school often is reduced to make time for the seemingly "more important" programs. In some instances, the weekly Sabbath school Bible study lessons are ignored, the leaders choosing instead to use the time for "more relevant contemporary issues." These things reveal our attitudes toward the place of the Bible, not only in our private devotional lives but also in our corporate church life.

[Guest]

Practice of Ministers.

In many minds, worship means listening to a sermon. But sometimes the preachers are not much help in leading us to the Bible. In fact, they also have contributed to this growing silence of the Bible, whenever their "preaching" consists of little more than an assemblage of what they have read from some magazine, author, or newspaper, or of some "new light" from the prophets of TV talk-show programs. Some preachers who attempt preaching from the Bible create their own "folk canon," limiting their preaching to only a few books or sections of the Bible and a few favorite topics. Can you remember the last time you heard a sermon preached from books such as Leviticus, Chronicles, Obadiah, Habakkuk, Zechariah, James, Philemon, Jude, or Revelation? Are these books less inspired

than the others?

In an effort to appear relevant and up-to-date, some preachers would rather preach about therapy or healing than about repentance and costly discipleship. The consequence is that many contemporary sermons--better described as speeches or lectures, or at best sermonettes--hardly call attention to the "blessed hope" of the second coming or to the assurance of the pre-advent (investigative) judgment. And why should members study the

Bible if the ministers don't preach from it?

[phkrause]

Very interesting posts Richard.

pk

[Guest]

Thanks pk, I think it is worth reading.

[Guest]

Practice of Musicians.

The theological content of music in most Christian churches

reveals this subtle shift from Book to booklet. Many of the songs that were sung in our own Adventist churches years ago were actually filled with Bible content or themes. Familiar hymns like "Lift up the Trumpet," "We Know Not the Hour," "Guide Me, O Thou Great

Jehovah," "The Judgment Has Set," etc., are fitting examples.

In much of our contemporary practice, however, we hear more sentimental New Age music in which Jesus is re-cast as a buddy or a boyfriend, God is increasingly portrayed as an indulgent Father who will tolerate anything His spoiled children do or want, and the Holy

Spirit is reduced to one's inner self (to use the language from Hindu mystical religion), or even treated as a cosmic pill to give people a spiritual "high."

Since much contemporary Christian music does not seem to be grounded in sound biblical teaching, it is not surprising that what ought to be an effective vehicle for the proclamation of the everlasting gospel has become the occasion for the display of individual talent, often evoking applause as a response. Is this a reason why congregational hymn singing is fading out in some places?

[Guest]

Practice of Church Leaders. The growing silence of the Bible is also perceptible at the various levels of the church's decision-making bodies. In some instances, when issues of doctrine and practice come up for discussion, pragmatic considerations and the authority of the "vote" tend to hold sway over prayerful and thoughtful consideration of Bible principles.

It has become convenient to say, "The Bible is silent," in order to avoid dealing with difficult ethical and theological issues.

Thus, when theological problems arise which threaten to jeopardize God's trth and honor, some find it more expedient to wish them away with inaction or to let the individual members or world fields do as they please than to demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord." The courage of Bible-based convictions is greatly needed in many places.

The Challenge Facing Adventists

The above discussion has highlighted the growing silence of the Bible in Christian churches. In spite of the increase of pluralism resulting from the erosion of biblical authority, Seventh-day Adventists must not move with the flow of current trends. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isa 8:20).

What then should the Seventh-day Adventist church do about the pressing theologicalissues which currently confront her--issues such as ordination of women, baptizing practicing polygamists, embracing homosexual lifestyle, divorce and remarriage, and fighting in the

wars of one's tribe or nation? Here are a few suggestions.

[Guest]

1. Subordinate Religious Experience to the Word of God.

Increasingly, Christians are questioning everything in the Bible except what agrees with their subjective religious experience (often called "the Holy Spirit's leading"). Thus we hear, "The Spirit has called me"; "the Spirit has assured me"; "the Spirit has accepted me"; and "the Spirit has blessed me."

Experience surely is important in Christianity (1 John 1:1-3). The real issue, however, is whether experience should have priority over Scripture. The Bible testifies that as important as even a Spirit-inspired experience may be, the Holy Scriptures are more sure than any experience.

In Chapter Five we called attention to the apostle Peter's manner of addressing this issue in 2 Peter 1:16-21. In verses 16-18 Peter rejected the claim that the Christian message is a myth with no objective basis in a factual historical event. As proof, he cited the apostles' experiential knowledge--"we were eyewitnesses . . . we heard . . . we were with Him."

However, Peter continued in verse 19 by saying that there is something "more sure" than experience: the prophetic word, the divinely-inspired, authoritative Scriptures (vv. 20-21). Peter's approach is the very opposite of our pluralistic generation's. In our case, we accept the Bible because it confirms our experience; the experience is the norm. But the apostle argues that his sanctified experience is trustworthy because it is confirmed by the Scriptures!

Jesus did something very similar. In explaining His death and resurrection (Luke 24:25-27), Jesus could have appealed to real experiences--resurrected saints, angels appearing at the tomb, etc. Instead, He pointed His disciples to "Moses and all the prophets," something "more sure" than experiences. The men from Emmaus confirmed this, testifying that what caused their hearts to "burn within" them (v. 32) was Jesus' opening of the Scriptures to them.

Ellen White explained why faith must be established on the Word of God, not one's subjective experience or feeling: "Genuine faith is founded on the Scriptures; but Satan uses so many devices to wrest the Scriptures and bring in error, that great care is needed if one

would know what they really do teach. It is one of the great delusions of this time to dwell much upon feeling, and to claim honesty while ignoring the plain utterances of the word of God because that word does not coincide with feeling. . . . Feeling may be chaff, but the word of God is the wheat. And 'what,' says the prophet, 'is the chaff to the wheat?'" (Review and Herald, November 25, 1884).

[Guest]

2. Recognize that Majority Votes Don't Establish Truth.

The quest for political freedom and democracy has also led increasingly to people demanding a say in matters affecting their lives. Not surprisingly, some within the church are insisting that Christian doctrine and lifestyle should also be defined by the will of the people, through referenda, public opinion polls, surveys, etc.; they seek theology of public opinion, not theology of

biblical revelation.

Despite the values of democracy, Bible-believing Christians need to remind themselves that Christ is the Head of the church; therefore the decisions of the church must be ratified not by a mere referendum of its members, but by the authority of the Bible. Leon Morris's helpful distinction between a church and a democracy is pertinent: "In a democracy there is no authority but that which arises from within, the will of the people. In a church there is no

authority but that which comes from outside, the will of God.

Democracy is effective when the people are energetic and help themselves, the church when God acts and redeems men."

[Guest]

3. Govern Ethical Sensitivity by the Bible.

Our generation is painfully aware of injustice and bigotry in our world--racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, apartheid, etc. Because people in the past have used the Bible to justify these oppressive acts or structures, some biblical scholars attempt to atone for such prejudice and bigotry by cutting out from the Bible, for all practical purposes, the sections that offend their ethical sensitivities on equality, fairness, justice,

compassion, etc.

Usually the Old Testament is the target of fierce attack because of the alleged "horror stories" it contains or for its presumed male-centeredness (androcentricity), which supposedly legitimized a "patriarchal structure" and an anti-women bias. Consequently, some

theologians point to societies which have moved beyond racial segregation to integration. On that analogy, they urge the Christian church to revise its alleged doctrine of "gender segregation" to allow for gender integration ("inclusiveness"). What they are actually advocating, though, is the celebration of the values of a unisex society--a community in which gender barriers in roles, clothing, human sexuality, etc., are eliminated.

The way to accomplish this is to adopt what one Adventist scholar referred to as a "hermeneutic of compassion," a method which makes it possible for Christians to ignore, reject, or reinterpret those "non-Christian" parts of the Bible which offend their ethical

feelings. One extreme example of this effort is the campaign to get rid of the "sexist" or male-oriented language in the Bible, and to replace it with gender-inclusive expressions which blur distinctions between male and female: "Lord God" becomes "Sovereign God,"

"heavenly Father" becomes "heavenly Parent," "Son of God" becomes "Child of God," and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob becomes "the goddess Sophia."

This is an old heresy (Marcionism) dressed up in modern clothing. John Bright's response is pertinent: "I find it most interesting and not a little odd that although the Old Testament on occasion offends our Christian feelings, it did not apparently offend Christ's 'Christian feelings'! Could it really be that we are ethically and religiously more sensitive than he? Or is it perhaps that we do not view the Old Testament--and its God--as he did?"

[Guest]

4. Have Courage to Stand for Biblical Convictions.

Probably the most basic reason for the subtle shift of attitude from the Bible as an inspired Book to its perception as an inspiring

booklet is the strong pressure on Christians to conform to the contemporary drifts of new opinions.

"New" has become the operative word on every label; without it, products and ideas cannot sell. (This reflects the evolutionary theory's view of upward progress.) Who has not heard about the "New Age Religion" with its "New Theology" and "New Morality" for the

coming "New World Order"? Is it any wonder then, to find "New" Testament Christians who have experienced the "new birth" and have become "new creatures" expressing in their "new tongues" their dislike for the "Old" Testamen and the "old" paths?

[Guest]

Response to "New Truths."

What then should Bible-believing Christians say in response

to the old heresies being recycled as new truths (or as one Adventist scholar ingeniously calls them, "present" truths) for today's pluralistic age?

First, what is new is not always true. Sometimes the "new" is something which "has been already, in the ages before us" (Eccl 1:9, 10); in other cases the "old" is preferable to the "new" because it is right (Isa 58:12; Jer 6:16). Peter Taylor Forsyth wrote, "I am sure no new theology can really be theology, whatever its novelty, unless it express[es] and develop the old faith which made those theologies that are now old the mightiest things of the age when

they were new." In other words, new truths should never contradict old truths (Isa 8:19, 20).

Second, Christians must have the moral courage to move against popular tides of unbiblical opinions. This is neither easy nor palatable, since those who do so are often labeled and disdained by their peers as uninformed, obscurantist, pre-scientific, intolerant (according to the canons of pluralism), or even fundamentalist.

In a lecture given in Wycliffe Hall at Oxford University, British scholar Gordon J. Wenham aptly described the situation: "I suspect that if either you [a student] or your lecturers discover during your study that you are a Sabellian montanist or semipelagian

gnostic [these were christological heresies in the early church], it will not cause over-much excitement. Such deviants are common place today and in this pluralistic society are usually accepted without much fuss. However should you be diagnosed as a fundamentalist your fate may be very different. In the modern theology faculty fundamentalism is the great heresy.

It is regarded as nearly as dangerous as the HIV virus and is treated with similar fervour but with rather less tact and sympathy."

Regrettably, Christians who seek the applause of the world rather than the commendation of God find it more expedient to conform to society's unbiblical norms than to endure sophisticated intimidation by their peers. And when they conform, the surest way they maintain an appearance of Christianity is to adopt a hermeneutic that explains away unpopular biblical positions in a popular new light.

Though the temptation to make the distinctive teachings of the Bible compatible with the contemporary culture is strong, the Bible warns us against conforming to the world's ideas. "Be not conformed to this world" (Rom 12:1); "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world" (1 John 2:15-17). Martin Luther King, Jr., observed, "We are called to be people of conviction, not conformity; of moral nobility, not social respectability. We are commanded

to live differently and according to a higher loyalty."

Daniel E. Pilarczyk, the archbishop of Cincinnati, raised a pertinent question: "If the church is singing the same tune as everyone else, then who needs the church?" If Jeremiah were living in our day, he would ask the same question that he posed to his contemporaries: "Now why go to Egypt to drink water from the Shihor? And why go to Assyria to drink water from the River?" (Jer 2:18 NIV).

[Guest]

Conclusion

We started this chapter by calling attention to the uncertainty of some Christian churches over such contemporary issues as abortion, homosexuality, polygamy, women's ordination, divorce and remarriage, fighting in wars, etc. We suggested that this reluctance is a symptom

of the theological pluralism infecting much of Christendom and which has had a devastating impact on the life and mission of the church. What is at stake is the nature of the Bible (the exact nature of its inspiration) and the approach to the Bible (the appropriate method for its interpretation).

[Guest]

The Bible and the Bible Only.

Today the Seventh-day Adventist church also faces these foundational issues as it grapples with the question of ordaining women as elders and pastors as well as baptizing practicing polygamists. In deciding which direction to go on these issues, the church should ensure that these questions not be settled according to the cultural preferences of each local region of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist church.

Since the problems are theological rather than sociological, only the Holy Scriptures can have the final say on the issues at hand. Moreover, in both instances those ordained or baptized must be

accepted whole-heartedly by every Seventh-day Adventist believer; for in a worldwide church such as we have, ordination and baptism in one division of the world field are automatically valid for another and should remain that way.

As the church prayerfully considers such questions, it needs to remember the statement by Ellen G. White: "God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority--not one

nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain 'Thus saith the Lord' in its support" (The Great Controversy, p. 595,).

[Guest]

Promise for Bible Students.

Ellen White assured us: "If all would make the Bible their study, we should see a people who were better developed, who were capable of thinking more deeply, who would manifest greater intelligence than those who have earnestly studied the sciences and histories of the world, apart from the Bible. The Bible gives the true seeker for

truth an advanced mental discipline, and he comes from contemplation of divine things with his faculties enriched; self is humbled, while God and his revealed truth are exalted" (Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, October 1, 1892).

This promise is not reserved for the proponents of the so called "principle-approach" who claim to possess a "high level of abstract thinking." Instead, it applies to all God's end-time

people, those who seek to live by "the Bible and the Bible only," who are making a diligent effort to uphold the plain reading or literal understanding of the Bible.

But in order to uphold the Word and not distort it, we must have a clear understanding of how some are liberating the Word. This we shall take up in the next chapter.

[Guest]

Chapter Eight

Liberating the Word

The Bible was originally given in ancient Middle-Eastern cultures, in languages foreign to most people today. Bible-believing Christians have always maintained that in order for the

Scriptures to function as the "liberating Word of God," there is a need for "liberating the Word" from its ancient historical, cultural, and grammatical context. But they also insist that

this process of "liberating the Word" through translation, printing, and interpretation should not involve imposing today's ideological concerns upon inspired Scripture.

Historical-critical scholarship, on the other hand, believes that in order for the inspired Word to be liberating, the Bible must first be "liberated" from its alleged inherent shortcomings. To make the Bible "relevant," they diminish Scripture's authority from the

liberating Word, through the process of liberating the Word, to what liberal scholarship considers as the liberated Word. Thus, in "liberating the Word," different liberal groups introduce several distortions into the Bible's message.

[oldsailor29]

Well Richard, that seems like a rather exhaustive book, reflecting fundamentalist thought. Of course Satan would like nothing better than grouping all students of the historical critical method together, conservatives and liberals alike. While I agree with you that liberal theologians are wrong, I believe conservative fundamentalist theologians are also wrong.

Fundamentalist theology leads to many heresies. I would not be eager to embrace a hermeneutic which can render so many different doctrines. Without determining what the Bible meant to the authors and to their intended audience, all we can get out of it is a homily. If you want to base your beliefs on homilies, well that's up to you, but I think we can safely study ancient history, culture, and languages in order to learn what the Bible really means.

Getting back to the basic question about how much of Scripture is inspired, I would say most scripture was authored by men who were divinely inspired. The Bible is sufficient for leading us to God. It is neither inerrant nor infallible, but with guidance from the Holy Spirit, it will infallibly lead us to God.

Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father but by me." So, all these arguments about how the Old Testament should be interpreted are nothing but a diversion, aimed at attracting our attention away from Jesus. Jesus is the way. Follow Him. Don't try to be Him. Just follow.

[Kevin H]

Ellen G. White anticipated this sad situation: "The work of 'higher criticism,' in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation; it is

robbing God's word of power to control, uplift and inspire human lives" (Education, p. 227).

Mrs. White had a very ballanced view of inspiration, it is amazing how fundamentalists love to quote this one paragraph and ignore the fact that her passages in selected messages and great controversy's introduction are from sermons that were supporting a faith approach to higher criticism, instead of the unbelief that the modernists were bringing to higher criticizism. Also, may I encourage you to read the corrispondence Mrs. White wrote to leaders of the aspect of Adventism that became "Historic Adventism" such as Elders Watson and Washburn, and the friction between Willie White and Elder Wilkerson. Also study Mrs. White's writings about the reform dress and testimony# 11. Read Mrs. White's corrispondence with Stepehen Haskell when Haskell was trying to convince Mrs. White to become a fundamentalist.

Once again, Mrs. White has a very ballanced view. Don't let someone pointing out the one extreams make his extream on the other side sound correct. The truth is a stright and narrow path between these two extreams. Mrs. White faught against both Modernism and Fundamentalism. She was old when doing this fight and she lost as Fundamentalism grew, as Haskell's views gained in prominance and Mrs. White's criticizisms of Haskells view became ignored and rejected.

Yes, I fully agree with this quote in Education as it is seen in how it fits with Mrs. White's other writings instead of being stripped out of her overall context and made to say a message that she was equally conserned about, rejecting and fighting againt.

[John317]

[size:11pt] The Bible is sufficient for leading us to God. It is neither inerrant nor infallible, but with guidance from the Holy Spirit, it will infallibly lead us to God.

The Bible is not inerrant, but the Seventh-day Adventist church believes, and Ellen White taught, that the Scriptures are infallible.

"Inerrant" when referring to the Bible means "completely free of error." SDAs have never advocated biblical inerrancy, although they support the divine authority and complete reliability of the Scriptures. One reason is the fact that Ellen White allowed for minor discrepancies in the production of the Bible. (See a good discussion of this subject in The Reign of God, An Introduction to Christian Theology from a Seventh-day Adventist Perspective, Richard Rice, Andrews University Press, pp. 31-34.)

For instance, Ellen White said, "Some look to us gravely and say, 'Don't you think there might have been some mistake in the copyist or in the translators?' This is all probable...." 1 SM 16. "There is not always perfect order or apparent unity in the Scriptures. The miracles of Christ are not given in exact order, but are given just as the circumstances occurred, which called for this divine revealing of the power of Christ." 1 SM 20.

Quote:

In His Word, God has committed to men the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience. Ellen G. White. The Faith I Live By (1958), page 13, paragraph 2

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Sprit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.—Fundamental Beliefs, 1

[oldsailor29]

SDAs mistakenly limit Bible errors to translators and copyists. There were errors in the original manuscripts. The early Bible writers were not in possession of as much truth as later ones were. A clear progression of theology can be seen when the Bible is carefully read. SDAs generally believe that the words of the original manuscripts were given to the writers by God, and they twist the meaning of "infallible revelation of His will" around so that it means the same thing as inerrant. Whenever the Bible leads us to Jesus, it is always with the present help of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers, and the Holy Spirit helps the readers to understand, and the Holy Spirit influences the readers to believe. Without the Holy Spirit, the Bible certainly can fail to lead people to God, so it just as certainly is not infallible. Without the help of the Holy Spirit, the Bible will always fail to reveal the will of God.

But the question is about inspiration. Scriptures themselves were written, copied, and edited together by divinely inspired people. I think the question should be, "What percentage of Bible writers were inspired?" And I think the correct answer would be most.

[Guest]

While I agree with you that liberal theologians are wrong, I believe conservative fundamentalist theologians are also wrong.

[oldsailor29]

Do you believe EGW was a fundamentalist?