How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Guest]

A Bible-Believing Adventist Response

As we have noted earlier, many of the "culturally conditioned" arguments are based on the myth of evolutionism which maintains that the inspired writers were "primitive" or even "barbarians." Roland M. Frye's response to this chronological snobbery is apt: "The barbarian

blindly asserts the primacy of his own temporal and cultural provincialism in judging and understanding and interpreting all that occurs, and the learned barbarian does precisely the same thing, but adds footnotes."

[Guest]

The Bible Writers' View. Peter provided the best response to the "culturally-conditioned" argument: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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 1:20-21).

The oft-made suggestion that Paul's statements on such issues as Christian dress, sexual role differentiation, and homosexuality (1 Tim 2:9-14; 1 Cor 14:34-35; 11:3, 8-12; Rom 1:21-32) are "culturally conditioned" flies in the face of his own protest: "For this I was

appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim 2:7, emphasis supplied).64 The Bible does not teach that some parts of Scripture are not inspired, while others are. Who decides which portions of Scripture are inspired and which are not?

The apostle Paul adamantly insists that his messages were not tainted by faulty logic of human wisdom or words distorted by the culture of their times. Instead, the Spirit who revealed the message to the Bible writers also enabled them to communicate it accurately:

"When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. . . . My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith

might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power. . . . This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in

spiritual words" (1 Cor 2:1, 3, 13 NIV).

Those who are tempted to fault the Bible writers' logic and understanding of spiritual truths, dismissing their teachings as culturally conditioned, need to be reminded of Paul's

statement: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are

spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14 NIV).

[Guest]

Ellen White's Position.

Ellen White rejected the "culturally-conditioned" argument of

modern scholars. She asserted that the Holy Spirit guided the Bible writers to record their accounts with such an "exact fidelity" that the Holy Scriptures are to be deemed as "truthful history of the human race, one that is unmarred by human prejudice or human pride"

(Testimonies for the Church, 4:370; Fundamentals of Christian Education, pp. 84-85; cf. Education, p. 173). Though uninspired historians are so partial that they are unable to record

history without their biases, the inspired writers "did not testify to falsehoods to prevent the pages of sacred history being clouded by the record of human frailties and faults. The scribes

of God wrote as they were dictated by the Holy Spirit, having no control of the work themselves. They penned the literal truth, ad stern, forbidding facts are revealed for reasons that our finite minds cannot fully comprehend" (Testimonies for the Church, 4:9-10).

[John317]

Excellent and VERY important point. If we conclude that the Scriptures are culturally conditioned, it would mean that such things as homosexuality or bestiality may be perfectly fine with God or that the resurrection and Second Coming may be just an idea of the ancient societies. So, too, the concept that God wants males to serve as leaders in the local congregations. It's then anyone's guess what REAL truth is.

Sad to say, we can already see some influence of this in our church today. We certainly see it expressed on this and other SDA Forums.

[Guest]

Excactly.

[Guest]

The Question of the Human and Divine.

Besides the questionable "culturally-conditioned" argument, some also attempt to separate the human and divine elements in Scripture and classify some parts (the so-called human portions) as not fully

inspired. But arguing that to be human necessarily means to be sinful and thus to err and to make mistakes is wrong biblically. "Human nature does not per se include sin. If that were the case, Jesus Christ who was the 'second Adam,' the real Man, who was truly human should have sinned. But according to Scripture, Jesus never sinned . . . (Heb 4:15). Thus a true Incarnational model of the Bible reflects that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, it is indeed

exactly as Christ is, truly divine and truly human, and both together form an inseparable unity. The Bible is not mistaken in what it tells us as He was not mistaken in what He told us. It is fully trustworthy in what it says--it is without 'sin' to use the analogical term. In the same way that Jesus did not sin intentionally nor unintentionally Scripture does not give wrong information--intentionally or unintentionally."

Ellen White challenged the tendency of some scholars to separate the human and divine elements in Scripture, conferring uninspired or fallible status upon some portions of the written Word. "The union of the divine and the human, manifest in Christ, exists also in the

Bible. . . . And this fact, so far from being an argument against the Bible, should strengthen faith in it as the word of God. Those who pronounce upon the inspiration of the Scriptures,

accepting some portions as divine while they reject other parts as human, overlook the fact that Christ, the divine, partook of our human nature, that He might reach humanity. In the work of God for man's redemption, divinity and humanity are combined" (Testimonies for the Church, 5:747; cf. The Great Controversy, p. vi).

Bible-believing Adventists recognize the impossibility of separating what is divine from what is human in Scripture. They also recognize that attempting to do so denies the basic unity of Scripture. Against this liberal view, they assert that the Bible is ultimately the product of one divine mind, the Holy Spirit; hence, a theological unity runs through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. This unity means that we may compare Scripture with Scripture to

arrive at correct doctrine. It makes the later inspired writers the best interpreters of earlier inspired writers.

[Guest]

Sad to say, we can already see some influence of this in our church today. We certainly see it expressed on this and other SDA Forums.

It is pretty widespread in the churches. It comes through the colleges, and into the new ministers, and filters down.

[Guest]

A Warning.

Because the entire Scripture is inspired, Ellen White warned: "Do not let any living man come to you and begin to dissect God's Word, telling what is revelation, what is inspiration and what is not, without a rebuke. . . . We call on you to take your Bible, but do not put a sacrilegious hand upon it, and say, 'That is not inspired,' simply because somebody else has said so. Not a jot or tittle is ever to be taken from that Word. Hands off, brethren! Do not touch the ark. . . . When men begin to meddle with God's Word, I want to tell them to take their hands off, for they do not know what they are doing" (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 7:919-920). Again she wrote: "Brethren, cling to your Bible, as it reads, and

stop your criticisms in regard to its validity, and obey the Word, and not one of you will be lost" (Selected Messages, 1:18).

[Musicman1228]

Again, where did the idea come from that the entire Scripture is inspired by the Living God? Can this concept be supported by the words of Jesus Christ?

[Guest]

Can the Idea that the Holy Spirit is a woman be supported by the words of Jesus Christ?

No. In fact he referred to the HS as he.

[John317]

Do you believe that the God of truth allowed the lies of Satan to enter into the Old Testament? Remember that the Old Testament was written in order to help His people understand His plan and to recognize the Messiah when He came. That is, it was written in order to help the people prepare for Christ's first coming. Why would the God of truth allow Satan to inspire part of it so that God's people would find truth mixed with error in "the Word of God"? If God did that, in what sense would the Old Testament be "God's word"? Did "the God of truth" leave it up to each person to determine what was of God and what was of Satan in the OT?

[Guest]

The warnings of the word of God regarding the perils surrounding the Christian church belong to us today. As in the days of the apostles men tried by tradition and philosophy to destroy faith in the Scriptures, so today, by the pleasing sentiments of higher criticism, evolution, spiritualism, theosophy, and pantheism, the enemy of righteousness is seeking to lead souls into forbidden paths. 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. 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. {AA 474}

[John317]

Great quote. That describes exactly what is going on in the world today, and sadly, it far too often also includes our SDA church.

[Guest]

Yes it does. But that dosn't mean we have to fall for such nonsense.

[oldsailor29]

One of our major problems is a misunderstanding of the nature of inspiration. It is clear to me that with most people thinking that historical and grammatical factors are not worthy of consideration when they read the Bible, they have no knowledge of exegetical and interpretative principles. However, sometimes these people experience a miracle, and do come to a correct understanding of scripture in spite of being exegetically challenged.

[Woody]

Yes, I agree that some are 'challenged'. But, we do have some good theologians in our church to guide us. Try the following:

Ed Dickerson, Jon Paulien, Jack Sequeira, Edward Heppenstall, George Knight, Morris Vendon and Alden Thompson.

Each of them were inspired for a specific purpose to do God's work.

[oldsailor29]

Yes, I agree that some are 'challenged'. But, we do have some good theologians in our church to guide us. Try the following:

Ed Dickerson, Jon Paulien, Jack Sequeira, Edward Heppenstall, George Knight, Morris Vendon and Alden Thompson.

Each of them were inspired for a specific purpose to do God's work.

I might argue that they each are talented, but I would hesitate to say divinely inspired. When one is given visions and dreams from God, they do not need to do exegesis. They are being given visions from the originator of that which the rest of us study to interpret. I think Alden Thompson knows how divine inspiration works, but I cannot vouch for the others on your list. Most SDA theologians don't know. The last I heard from the Adventist Theology Society of Andrews, this described their state of knowledge also.

Of course the Lord is trying to lead all of us up around the side of the mountain on that ever narrowing road we are on, 'til we get to the place where we are forced to get off. That is the bottom line message of that vision. Get off this road.

[Guest]

They are being given visions from the originator of that which the rest of us study to interpret. I think Alden Thompson knows how divine inspiration works, but I cannot vouch for the others on your list.

Most of those names teach new theology. You may as well be getting doctrine from a sunday school teacher, because that's about all it is. I used to like Morris Venden though. I don't know what he believes now.

[Guest]

Traditional Adventist Belief.

Bible-believing students accept the Bible's full reliability in

matters of salvation as well as on any other subject the Bible touches upon. When the Bible writers describe an account as actually taking place, we are to believe it as trustworthy. The

apostle Peter wrote: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Pet 1:16; cf. 1 Cor 2:10-13). John wrote: "The man who saw it has given

testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe" (John 19:35 NIV); and Luke stated: "Therefore, since I myself have

carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you. . ." (Luke 1:3 NIV).

Mainstream Adventism believes that the biblical accounts--including those touching upon science, history, geography, and other matters--are fully reliable and trustworthy. When the Bible says that the creation took six literal days, that there was a universal flood in Noah's day, an exodus of some 600,000 men from Egypt, and that the sun stood still in Joshua's day, we are to believe that the events actually took place. When the New Testament writers pointed to events in their day as fulfilling Old Testament prophecies, they were not mistaken, nor did they read the Old Testament out of context.

The first article of Seventh-day Adventists' "Fundamental Beliefs" emphasizes the trustworthiness of Scripture by stating: "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, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history." Ellen G. White wrote that the Holy Scriptures "are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His [God's]

will" (The Great Controversy, p. vii; cf. pp. 68, 102); they are "the only infallible authority in religion" (ibid., p. 238; see also pp. 89, 177), and "the only sufficient, infallible rule" (ibid., p.

173).

For Ellen White, Scripture shares in the infallibility of God. "God and heaven alone are infallible" (Selected Messages, 1:37; cf. Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 30, 105). "Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible" (Selected Messages, 1:416). She left no doubt that the Bible is "an unerring counselor and infallible guide" and the "perfect guide under all circumstances of life"; "an unerring guide," "the one unerring guide," "the unerring standard," "a unerring light," "that unerring test," and "the unerring counsel of God."

[Guest]

Theological Assumption.

The theological assumption undergirding the trustworthiness of

Scripture is the character of the triune God. Since what a person says reflects his character, we would expect that if God is the God of truth (Ex 34:6; Deut 32:4), if Jesus is Truth (John 14:6), and if the Holy Spirit is Truth (John 14:17), then the Triune God who has spoken in Scripture must speak the truth. Because God's Word says that God does not lie (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18), Bible-believing Christians maintain that His inspired Word

speaks the truth.

But in their efforts to appear "scientific," theological liberals do not accept the reliability of the accounts in Scripture. They seek to reconstruct the Bible according to what they think probably happened, and in some cases they argue that the inspired New Testament writers

were wrong in how they used the Old Testament.

How are historical-critical assumptions influencing Adventist views on Scripture's trustworthiness?

[oldsailor29]

The warnings of the word of God regarding the perils surrounding the Christian church belong to us today. As in the days of the apostles men tried by tradition and philosophy to destroy faith in the Scriptures, so today, by the pleasing sentiments of higher criticism, evolution, spiritualism, theosophy, and pantheism, the enemy of righteousness is seeking to lead souls into forbidden paths. 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. 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. {AA 474}

[Guest]

Oldsailor, I am unaware of any theological conservatives using higher critisism at all. The word "conservative" does not have the same connotations that it did in Ellen White's day.

Traditional Adventist Belief. Seventh-day Adventists generally have always upheld the sole authority of Scripture. Believing that the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments are

the clear, trustworthy revelation of God's will and His salvation, Adventists hold that the Scriptures alone constitute the standard on which all teachings and practices are to be grounded and by which they are to be tested (2 Tim 3:15-17; Ps 119:105; Prov 30:5, 6; Isa 8:20; John 17:17; 2 Thess 3:14; Heb 4:12).

The first article of the Seventh-day Adventist "Fundamental Beliefs" states: "The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His [God's] will. They are the standard of character, the

test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history."

Ellen G. White wrote, "The Word of God is the great detector of error; to it we believe everything must be brought. The Bible must be our standard for every doctrine and practice. We must study it reverentially. We are to receive no one's opinion without comparing it with the Scriptures. Here is divine authority which is supreme in matters of faith. It is the Word of the living God that is to decide all controversies" (The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, pp. 44, 45; cf.

The Great Controversy, p. 595). But under the impact of higher-critical assumptions the Bible's role as the sole source of

authority for Christian faith and lifestyle is being challenged.

[Musicman1228]

Again, just because everyone says that it is so, does not mean that it is. Who has the patience to investigate where the idea of the authority of Bible as the very words of God came from? Not many. Do you know, or are you just accepting of Christian tradition and the word of the church as valid?

Did Jesus not say, "See to it you are not deceived." If God has given an infallible, physical source of truth then how would it be possible for you to be deceived. All you would have to do is go to that singular source, see what it says, and believe that. You could not be deceived under those conditions.

Jesus knew what was ahead for His disciples and for those who would believe in Him through their words. If it was impossible to be deceived then why would Jesus give the admonition that He did in Matt.24:4.

[Guest]

Being deceived is not impossible, and no one said it was. But Jesus did not warn that the deception would come from the Holy Word of God, but of those who would come in the name of the Lord, twisting the scriptures, like you.

You cannot prove that part of the Bible was inspired by Satan. And it dosn't need to be for one to be deceived. (you are living proof of that) All anyone has to do to be deceived is listen to you or someone like you. There are plenty who would wrest the scriptures to their own destruction, and even discard parts of it like you have.

Here Peter speaks of Paul's writings specifically:

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him has written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable twist, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

[wayfinder]

Richard, first of all, if by "Holy Word of God" you are infering the Bible, think again, when Jesus spoke these words there was no Bible. The Law and Prophets were around at that time, but available only to the scribes, priests and religeous scholars. The Law and the Prophets are the words of God. Then there are the words of history written by the scribes of Israel, such as 1st and 2nd Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. Books such as Ruth and Esther. Psalms, Proverbs, Eccl. etc are songs, prose and proverbs

all of which are uplifting and informational and faithful.

When Jesus warned His disciples about deception and being deceived by those who would claim to be preaching with the authority of Christ and would deceive many, they were warned ahead of time so they would know that this would happen.

Second, the letter of 2 Peter. This is from the book "Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene" by Bart D. Ehrman. Oxford University press 2006 Page 77

"One other writer who tried to show that Peter and Paul were on the same wavelength was the author of the so-called Second Letter of Peter in the New Testament. In this particular case there is less disagreement among critical scholars: Who ever wrote 2 Peter, it was not Simon Peter the disciple of Jesus.

Unlike 1 Peter, the letter of 2 Peter was not widely accepted, or even know, in the early church. The first time any author makes a definitive reference to the book is around 220 CE, that is, nearly 150 years after it was allegedly written. It was finally admitted into the canon somewhat grudgingly, as church leaders of the later third and fourth centuries came to believe that it was written by Peter himself. But it almont certainly was not."