How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Guest]

4. Canonical Principle.

The canonical principle recognizes that the information we need to understand the Bible is found in the canon of Scripture itself; thus Scripture is to be its own interpreter. This is a valid Reformation principle (often known as the "analogy of Scripture") which Seventh-day Adventists historically have upheld.

The canonical principle rejects the widespread contemporary practice of scholars. Instead of allowing the entire sixty-six books of the Bible to be the only context for understanding biblical history and culture, they tend to read the Bible in the light of ancient cultures of Bible times, and even in the light of some modern cultures. They believe that these extra-biblical data hold the key to the meaning of Scripture.

For example, such scholars deny that Moses actually got the pattern of his sanctuary from what God revealed to him (Ex 25:40), saying instead that he borrowed the idea from some ancient Canaanite culture. Also, though Paul grounds his doctrine of male-female

relationships in creation and in the fall (1 Tim 2:11ff.; 1 Cor 11:3, 9, 11; 14:34-35), some would rather believe that his arguments were occasioned by the cultural conditions of his day (e.g., the worship of the goddess Artemis or Diana, Gnostic philosophy, etc.)

Moreover, in deciding whether tongues (Greek glossa) in 1 Corinthians 12-14 should be understood as speaking real languages or some unintelligible ecstatic utterances, some scholars are more

influenced by contemporary religious manifestations (Christian and non-Christian) than by the testimony of Scripture itself (Acts 2; 10:44-4; 11:15-17; 19:1-7).11 In these examples, cultural practices--past and present--become the ultimate norm in interpretation, not sola scriptura.

Whenever we fail to allow Scripture to interpret itself, instead depending on a few elite scholars to tell us what may have been the actual background of a particular passage, we are making fallible human speculation, tradition, experience, or custom the norm of authority. In effect, such scholarly speculations deny that Scripture is sufficient and clear. Ellen White rejected this approach: "Men need not the dim light of tradition and custom to make the Scriptures comprehensible. It is just as sensible to suppose that the sun, shining in the heavens at noon-day, needs the glimmerings of the torchlight of earth to increase its glory. In the Bible every duty is made plain, every lesson is comprehensible" (Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 391).

The Protestant principle that Scripture is its own interpreter discredits the popular belief that every person or theologian is his own interpreter. If every person is his own interpreter, one can easily misinterpret a lack of consensus among theologians on issues such as women's ordination, homosexuality, and speaking in tongues as a lack of agreement among the inspired writers themselves--implying that the authority of theologians is on an equal level with that of the inspired Bible writers. On the other hand, upholding the principle that Scripture interprets itself suggests that when Bible students lack consensus, they must prayerfully continue searching the Scriptures until God sheds further light on the issue.

Ellen White repeatedly emphasized, "Make the Bible its own expositor, bringing together all that is said concerning a given subject at different times and under varied circumstances"

(Child Guidance, p. 511). "I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another" (Early Writings, p. 221). We must submit to "the Bible as the word of God, the only sufficient, infallible rule," which "must be its own

interpreter" (The Great Controversy, p. 173). "Scripture interprets scripture, one passage being the key to other passages" (Evangelism, p. 581). "The Bible is its own expositor.

Scripture is to be compared with scripture" (Education, p. 190).

Thus, when the canonical principle asserts that we must interpret Scripture in the light of Scripture, the implications are that: (1) the information needed to understand a given passage of the Bible can be found in the pages of Scripture itself, and (2) an obscure or difficult text must always be interpreted in the light of a clear text dealing with the same subject in another part of Scripture.

[oldsailor29]

Richard - it still seems to me that you are promoting historical study and speaking out against it in the following post. This does not inspire a lot of confidence.

[Guest]

I guess I could say that your belief that even Satan is going to be saved, regardless of what Scripture says. Doesn't exactly inspire me to put a lot of trust in your study methods either.

[oldsailor29]

I guess I could say that your belief that even Satan is going to be saved, regardless of what Scripture says. Doesn't exactly inspire me to put a lot of trust in your study methods either.

Well, I cold be wrong about Satan, but that does not allow anyone to promote good Bible study methods and also denounce them. When you denounce the historical/critical method of Bible study, then it does not make any sense at all to turn around and promote the elements of that method.

[Guest]

Actually he is not promoting the historical/critical method, he is only pointing out the methods used.

"Bible dictionaries, handbooks, and commentaries may be useful, although one must be extremely careful in selecting these scholarly tools. Many academic resources are based on speculative reconstructions".

[oldsailor29]

Actually he is not promoting the historical/critical method, he is only pointing out the methods used.

[Woody]

Quote:

Ordination of women is very well defended by SDA scholarship.

[Guest]

Yes it is Samuel Pipim, from his book: "Receiving The Word"

[Woody]

Yes it is Samuel Pipim, from his book: "Receiving The Word"

[oldsailor29]

when it comes to reading about how scripture is inspired, I prefer Alden Thompson. His book, "Inspiration," shows a much better grasp of the nature of inspiration than Pipim's "Receiving The Word." Those two books sit side by side on my shelf, and I must say, "Inspiration" even looks better sitting on the shelf. :)

[Guest]

I guess that's the one you should read then.

[Guest]

4. Canonical Principle.

The canonical principle recognizes that the information we need

to understand the Bible is found in the canon of Scripture itself; thus Scripture is to be its own interpreter. This is a valid Reformation principle (often known as the "analogy of Scripture")

which Seventh-day Adventists historically have upheld.

The canonical principle rejects the widespread contemporary practice of scholars. Instead of allowing the entire sixty-six books of the Bible to be the only context for understanding biblical history and culture, they tend to read the Bible in the light of ancient cultures of Bible times, and even in the light of some modern cultures. They believe that these extra-biblical data hold the key to the meaning of Scripture.

For example, such scholars deny that Moses actually got the pattern of his sanctuary from what God revealed to him (Ex 25:40), saying instead that he borrowed the idea from some ancient Canaanite culture. Also, though Paul grounds his doctrine of male-female

relationships in creation and in the fall (1 Tim 2:11ff.; 1 Cor 11:3, 9, 11; 14:34-35), some would rather believe that his arguments were occasioned by the cultural conditions of his day (e.g., the worship of the goddess Artemis or Diana, Gnostic philosophy, etc.).

Moreover, in deciding whether tongues (Greek glossa) in 1 Corinthians 12-14 should be understood as speaking real languages or some unintelligible ecstatic utterances, some scholars are more influenced by contemporary religious manifestations (Christian and non Christian) than by the testimony of Scripture itself (Acts 2; 10:44-4; 11:15-17; 19:1-7).11 In these examples, cultural practices--past and present--become the ultimate norm in interpretation, not sola

scriptura.

Whenever we fail to allow Scripture to interpret itself, instead depending on a few elite scholars to tell us what may have been the actual background of a particular passage, we are making fallible human speculation, tradition, experience, or custom the norm of authority. In effect, such scholarly speculations deny that Scripture is sufficient and clear. Ellen White rejected this approach: "Men need not the dim light of tradition and custom to make the Scriptures comprehensible. It is just as sensible to suppose that the sun, shining in the heavens at noon-day, needs the glimmerings of the torchlight of earth to increase its glory. In the Bible every duty is made plain, every lesson is comprehensible" (Fundamentals of Christian

Education, p. 391).

The Protestant principle that Scripture is its own interpreter discredits the popular belief that every person or theologian is his own interpreter. If every person is his own interpreter, one can easily misinterpret a lack of consensus among theologians on issues such as women's ordination, homosexuality, and speaking in tongues as a lack of agreement among the inspired writers themselves--implying that the authority of theologians is on an equal level with that of

the inspired Bible writers.

On the other hand, upholding the principle that Scripture interprets

itself suggests that when Bible students lack consensus, they must prayerfully continue searching the Scriptures until God sheds further light on the issue.

Ellen White repeatedly emphasized, "Make the Bible its own expositor, bringing together all that is said concerning a given subject at different times and under varied circumstances" (Child Guidance, p. 511). "I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one

portion linking into and explaining another" (Early Writings, p. 221). We must submit to "the Bible as the word of God, the only sufficient, infallible rule," which "must be its own interpreter" (The Great Controversy, p. 173).

"Scripture interprets scripture, one passage being the key to other passages" (Evangelism, p. 581). "The Bible is its own expositor.

Scripture is to be compared with scripture" (Education, p. 190).

Thus, when the canonical principle asserts that we must interpret Scripture in the light of Scripture, the implications are that: (1) the information needed to understand a given passage of the Bible can be found in the pages of Scripture itself, and (2) an obscure or difficult text must always be interpreted in the light of a clear text dealing with the same subject in another part of Scripture.