Is the Bible the Word of God?? Yes or No?

[BobRyan]

This is taken from a recent discussion - and needs its own thread

Sadly there are still many in our church, even among leaders who have not grasped the importance of knowing how inspiration works.

It seems to me that this is causing considerable misunderstandings around us. I think we have some solid teachers at the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary at Andrews who are teaching the students to use the method of Ellen White when they read the Bible.

At the same time certain people are attacking Andrews for doing just that, because they think we should be more fundamentalistsic, just like some of the other protestant churches around us.

I fear this is in part destroying the confidence in the Spirit of Prophesy, even among some of our most "conservative" saints.

This matter needs our sincere prayers.

[BobRyan]

A response to the above post --

And do we also need to read this?

Quote:

The Bible points to God as its author; yet it was written by human hands; and in the varied style of its different books it presents the characteristics of the several writers. The truths revealed are all “given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); yet they are expressed in the words of men. The Infinite One by His Holy Spirit has shed light into the minds and hearts of His servants. He has given dreams and visions, symbols and figures; and those to whom the truth was thus revealed have themselves embodied the thought in human language. {GC v.3}

The Ten Commandments were spoken by God Himself, and were written by His own hand. They are of divine, and not of human composition. But the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed in the nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” John 1:14. {GC v.4}

Written in different ages, by men who differed widely in rank and occupation, and in mental and spiritual endowments, the books of the Bible present a wide contrast in style, as well as a diversity in the nature of the subjects unfolded. Different forms of expression are employed by different writers; often the same truth is more strikingly presented by one than by another. And as several writers present a subject under varied aspects and relations, there may appear, to the superficial, careless, or prejudiced reader, to be discrepancy or contradiction, where the thoughtful, reverent student, with clearer insight, discerns the underlying harmony. {GC vi.1}

As presented through different individuals, the truth is brought out in its varied aspects. One writer is more strongly impressed with one phase of the subject; he grasps those points that harmonize with his experience or with his power of perception and appreciation; another seizes upon a different phase; and each, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, presents what is most forcibly impressed upon his own mind—a different aspect of the truth in each, but a perfect harmony through all. And the truths thus revealed unite to form a perfect whole, adapted to meet the wants of men in all the circumstances and experiences of life. {GC vi.2}

God has been pleased to communicate His truth to the world by human agencies, and He Himself, by His Holy Spirit, qualified men and enabled them to do this work. He guided the mind in the selection of what to speak and what to write. The treasure was entrusted to earthen vessels, yet it is, nonetheless, from Heaven. The testimony is conveyed through the imperfect expression of human language, yet it is the testimony of God; and the obedient, believing child of God beholds in it the glory of a divine power, full of grace and truth. {GC vi.3}

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. “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, R.V. {GC vii.1}

Yet the fact that God has revealed His will to men through His word, has not rendered needless the continued presence and guiding of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, the Spirit was promised by our Saviour, to open the word to His servants, to illuminate and apply its teachings. And since it was the Spirit of God that inspired the Bible, it is impossible that the teaching of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the word. {GC vii.2}

[BobRyan]

Indeed often those who wish to ignore the Bible position and the statements by Ellen White that the Bible is the very Word of God spoken to us -- will just quote from that introductory section of GC.

But they forget that in that section Ellen White does not refute her own claim that the Bible itself is the Word of God and is to be accepted as such (nor even the Bible's own statement affirming that point). Ellen places the claim for the Bible on equal footing with the claim for Christ as we see in the example quoted.

Using the argument Ellen White employs in the introduction to Great Controversy means that to deny this teaching that the Bible is to be accepted as the Word of God -- would be to deny that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man (and claim instead that he was just fully man) - for even in that one GC introduction section quote that they will read on this subject - we find.

Quote:

The Ten Commandments were spoken by God Himself, and were written by His own hand. They are of divine, and not of human composition. But the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed in the nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” John 1:14. {GC v.4}

But those who only quote that intro section and then only pay attention to certain parts of it - have somehow gotten it in their minds to teach our pastors to ignore what the Bible says on this subject AND what Ellen White says about the Bible being accepted "THE Word" of God as if spoken directly to us - to the great damage of the church.

As a consequence it is not difficult at all these days to run across a well-meaning pastor that has yet to read the conflict of the ages series.

Even worse - some of them will go so far as to deny the gift of prophecy entirely by recasting it in the watered-down form - as nothing more than "forth telling" - making every bold pastor in every denomination his own "prophet".

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott, Willie White and the religion faculty of Washington Missionary College were being criticized as being apostates (in fact the last few years of her life Mrs. White was also being labled an apostate, although some blamed it on Willie's influence) on this topic.

Ironicly it was Prescott who read some of the early books on Fundamentalism, liked them and started teaching it in the church. When Mrs. White learned what he was teaching she invited him to help her with her writings.

Daniels and Prescott called for another 1919 Bible conference in Washington DC which pesented the truth about inspiration. Willie White sensing the sitauation "regretfully could not assist do to being out of town on business."

The ideas of the 1919 Washington DC Bible conference appeared to go fairly well and Daniels and Prescott told them what they learned from Mrs. White. Haskell in a moderate way and Washburn and Wilkenson in a more extream way opposed Daniels and Prescott.

The group then went on to Philadelphia and sadly took home the message of the Philadelphia 1919 Bible Conference instead of the Washington DC Bible Conference and as I said elsewhere elder Haskell's views became the typical Adventist view and Elders Washburn and Wilkenson became the view of the so called "Historic Adventist" movement

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott, Willie White and the religion faculty of Washington Missionary College were being criticized as being apostates (in fact the last few years of her life Mrs. White was also being labled an apostate, although some blamed it on Willie's influence) on this topic.

Ironicly it was Prescott who read some of the early books on Fundamentalism, liked them and started teaching it in the church. When Mrs. White learned what he was teaching she invited him to help her with her writings.

Daniels and Prescott called for another 1919 Bible conference in Washington DC which pesented the truth about inspiration. Willie White sensing the sitauation "regretfully could not assist do to being out of town on business."

The ideas of the 1919 Washington DC Bible conference appeared to go fairly well and Daniels and Prescott told them what they learned from Mrs. White. Haskell in a moderate way and Washburn and Wilkenson in a more extream way opposed Daniels and Prescott.

The group then went on to Philadelphia and sadly took home the message of the Philadelphia 1919 Bible Conference instead of the Washington DC Bible Conference and as I said elsewhere elder Haskell's views became the typical Adventist view and Elders Washburn and Wilkenson became the view of the so called "Historic Adventist" movement

Thank you for sharing that -- I did not know that history.

I do know that Ellen White claimed that people who gave private accounts of interactions with Ellen White or some other event - would attribute positions and statements to Ellen White that she herself could not even recognize at all.

And so I do not claim to have the infallible interpretation/correction of all historic meetings, discussion groups etc.

But I do know what the Bible says on this topic - and I do know what Ellen White says about accepting the Bible as the WORD of God.

Quote:

The same power that Christ exercised when He walked visibly among men is in His word. It was by His word that Jesus healed disease and cast out demons; by His word He stilled the sea and raised the dead, and the people bore witness that His word was with power. He spoke the word of God, as He had spoken to all the prophets and teachers of the Old Testament. The whole Bible is a manifestation of Christ. {MH 122.1}

The Scriptures are to be received as God's word to us, not written merely, but spoken. When the afflicted ones came to Christ, He beheld not only those who asked for help, but all who throughout the ages should come to Him in like need and with like faith. When He said to the paralytic, "Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee;" when He said to the woman of Capernaum, "Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace," He spoke to other afflicted, sin-burdened ones who should seek His help. Matthew 9:2; Luke 8:48. {MH 122.2}

Ellen White makes that same point numerous times in her writings for all to see. No need to go to undocumented meetings to find her view.

And 2Peter 1:20-21 as well as 1Tim 3:16 and even Mark 7:13 where Christ also declares the scriptures to be "The Word of God".

Pretty hard to claim that all these inspired sources did not know what they were saying because they failed to interpret the introduction to GC the way some people have been doing of late.

I remember sitting in a popular Sabbath School class taught by one of the faculty while at Andrews at one point, and thinking to myself "All we are getting here is a bunch of interesting stories with comments from the class of the form - I-Think...I-Think..." as if each person was his own Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

Good points, Bob.

I'd like to add that the position that so many are taking these days with respect to the Bible and SOP undercuts Christ's statement that man cannot live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. And in this statement He was referring to the OT in its entirety. He considered scripture as His word as the eternal God. It was as real and powerful to Him as the words He spoke when creating all life in the universe.

If we cannot accept His word on the subject, then we are in serious trouble as Christians.

I'd also like to point out that undermining the authority of scripture undermines one of the most basic tenets of the SDA message, that of RbyF, for Christ said, and showed by example, that it is by scripture that we are able to resist the devil and his temptations.

[Kevin H]

Using the argument Ellen White employs in the introduction to Great Controversy means that to deny this teaching that the Bible is to be accepted as the Word of God -- would be to deny that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man (and claim instead that he was just fully man) - for even in that one GC introduction section quote that they will read on this subject - we find.

Or "claim instead that he was just fully God." There are the two ditches on either side and the truth is high and narrow and Satan will get us on one side or the other.

Once again Mrs. White discribes it as having seen snapshots that she is discribing.

When the church was falling into either liberalism or fundamentalism, there was a pastor who tried to give a ballanced view and preached a sermon on his ballanced view. It became a very unpopular sermon, he became hated for it, the sermon spread as showing the horrible things that people are saying about the inspiration of the Bible. A woman claimed to have had an affair with the pastor and he had to step down from his ministry. Later it was shown that the affair did not happen and that the woman was lieing. The woman said that she felt that she needed to tell this lie so that she could protect the Bible from what this preacher was teaching about the Bible.

Anyway, we find Mrs. White quoting this "Horrible" sermon. Only instead of condeming it, she changed where the pastor made inspiration a bit more of a subjective expirence, making it definetly an objective expirence, other wise she saw in this sermon as discribing her expirence.

Once again, I recommend the forward to Greath Controversy, the passage from Selected Messages, the information about the reform dress, the Testimony #11, and if you get a chance to read some of the corrispondence between the Whites and Haskell, or the Whites and Washburn/Wilkenson which sadly is not readally availble.

[Gibs]

Joh 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Ps 119:105 NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[BobRyan]

I'd like to add that the position that so many are taking these days with respect to the Bible and SOP undercuts Christ's statement that man cannot live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. And in this statement He was referring to the OT in its entirety. He considered scripture as His word as the eternal God. It was as real and powerful to Him as the words He spoke when creating all life in the universe.

If we cannot accept His word on the subject, then we are in serious trouble as Christians.

I'd also like to point out that undermining the authority of scripture undermines one of the most basic tenets of the SDA message, that of RbyF, for Christ said, and showed by example, that it is by scripture that we are able to resist the devil and his temptations.

Amen and Amen!

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

[BobRyan]

Once again, I recommend the forward to Greath Controversy, the passage from Selected Messages, the information about the reform dress, the Testimony #11, and if you get a chance to read some of the corrispondence between the Whites and Haskell, or the Whites and Washburn/Wilkenson which sadly is not readally availble.

[Ted Oplinger]

My personal belief on the Bible comes from this linkage of verses:

John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life"

As Jesus re-affirmed in His first temptation - we live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

James tells us to "receive the word implanted/engrafted, which is able to save our souls" (James 1:21).

Paul tells us "faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of Christ/God" (Romans 10:17).

The Bible is what God speaks to us, that we may live, hold to faith, accept His promises, and overcome sin.

Isaiah 55:11 tells us the power that God puts into His word does not fail to do that which God has spoken it for. What that word accomplishes returns back to God as bearing the fruits for which God has spoken it.

This includes the overcoming of sin, and the revealing of righteousness, in life on this side of the cross.

Blessings,

[JoeMo]

When you ask "is the Bible the Word of God", are you asking whether we believe that the bible was dictated word-for-word to the writers (and the SoP dictated to EGW) by God (i.e., the writers were "God's pen"); or that the writers were journalling the downloads thay got from God - sometimes carrying into it their own histories, experiences, and other baggage (i.e., the writers were "God's pen-men")? I am of the opinion that it is the latter. That does NOT say that the Bible is not the absolutely true Word of God; it simply states that it is not the directly quoted word of God.

I am less convinced of the authority of all of EGW's writings as edited, compiled, and annotated by the White Estate (i.e., I do not give her writings the same authority as I give scripture; and never will).

[Gibs]

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So the answer is a decided absolute yes, the Bible is the Word of God to us, it is Spirit and it is life.

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[joeb]

When you ask "is the Bible the Word of God", are you asking whether we believe that the bible was dictated word-for-word to the writers (and the SoP dictated to EGW) by God (i.e., the writers were "God's pen"); or that the writers were journalling the downloads thay got from God - sometimes carrying into it their own histories, experiences, and other baggage (i.e., the writers were "God's pen-men")? I am of the opinion that it is the latter. That does NOT say that the Bible is not the absolutely true Word of God; it simply states that it is not the directly quoted word of God.

I am less convinced of the authority of all of EGW's writings as edited, compiled, and annotated by the White Estate (i.e., I do not give her writings the same authority as I give scripture; and never will).

It's very easy to step from what I bolded above to the point of accepting/denying anything in Bible based upon what we want--what our sinful nature wants--to be true. We human beings have an incredible ability to deny anything that points out our personal failings, especially when the devil is there whispering in our ear that we are right and the Bible writer only included something we don't like because it was his personal baggage that made him do it.

That's not a comment on you, personally, but a comment on human nature itself. I'm just pointing it out because of how careful we have to be when dealing with our own sinful nature.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

That's not a comment on you, personally, but a comment on human nature itself. I'm just pointing it out because of how careful we have to be when dealing with our own sinful nature.

I'm cool with that joeb. It was an honest question. I could honestly agrue it both ways. I'm open to anyone's input.

[BobRyan]

"Holy men of old - moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from GOD" 2Peter 1:20-21.

That says it all.

Jesus refers to the OT text as the "Word of God" in Mark 7:13.

I believe Jesus knew what He was talking about.

in Christ,

Bob

[joeb]

"Holy men of old - moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from GOD" 2Peter 1:20-21.

That says it all.

Jesus refers to the OT text as the "Word of God" in Mark 7:13.

I believe Jesus knew what He was talking about.

in Christ,

Bob

To me the answer to the question in the title of this thread is, yes. It's a no-brainer to me too. Why? Because if God cannot make sure the Bible accurately portrays His ideas, His attitudes toward us, and toward sin, then of what use is the Bible? It is then a mixture of the devil's and God's ideas, and just how are we supposed to know the difference if they are inextricably intertwined? We couldn't, and the Bible would not be the word of God.

If we can't trust the Bible to be God's word, then Christianity is a joke. It is not to be trusted, and the athiests around here are right.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

If we can't trust the Bible to be God's word, then Christianity is a joke. It is not to be trusted, and the athiests around here are right.

Amen, joeb - that's exactly their contention. Furthermore, if God can't protect His own revelations to us, He's not entirely in control (omnipotent); and therefore not God.

Paul even backs up your assertion in 1 Cor. 15:12-19:

Quote:

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

[Igakusei]

There's a concept in network theory called graceful degradation, where a system is able to continue operating properly in the event of the failure of some of its components.

This is directly analogous to the way we humans construct our belief systems, where one "mega" belief (e.g. belief in God (or so joeb doesn't think I'm attacking Christians it might be belief in the way a certain macroeconomic system works)) might be supported by dozens of other beliefs, and it takes convincing attacks on many of those supporting beliefs before the mega-belief is ever questioned.

The reason I bring this up is that arguments like Paul's quoted above are relying on this system as a way of avoiding actually addressing the problem. Why do you need to provide evidence of the resurrection if I can use your lack of desire to question whether everything you know is wrong instead? If one of the components of your belief is under attack, then rather than addressing that attack directly all I have to do is show you how important that component is and you'll just assume that it must be true because you aren't willing to question the whole framework. It's poor reasoning, but effective.

Coincidentally the SDA church uses the exact same approach in its official position on evolution, too. If evolution is true then we are wrong about the creation week, and if we're wrong about the creation week the Sabbath isn't special and the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

So Christ MUST have risen from the dead, and evolution CAN'T be true, because we know we're not wrong about all those other things. That's a bad argument.

[JoeMo]

Hey Igakusei,

Quote:

Why do you need to provide evidence of the resurrection if I can use your lack of desire to question whether everything you know is wrong instead?

Sorry about being unclear in my post. My intent was not to "prove" anything; it was to support joeb's contention that if we can't trust God's Word, then the bible is a joke. Basically, I think Paul is saying in the verses I quoted that "if you don't believe Christ is who He says He is, what are you doing here?" Even Paul - as a believer - understands that people will doubt.

I have learned over the past few weeks that trying to prove my faith to non-Christians by quoting the Bible is unfruitful at best (for me) and frustrating/disrespectful at worst (for you).

Quote:

it takes convincing attacks on many of those supporting beliefs before the mega-belief is ever questioned.

If my beliefs about God were simply based on what someone else (i.e., the Bible or SoP) told me, your contentions might be true. Following up on many of the resources you have provided has indeed changed my closed-minded literalist views on creation of the universe taking place in six 24-hour peiods (I still believe in an intelligently designed universe). My recent readings on the history of the Middle East from non-biblical sources has opened my mind to the feasibility of history not taking place exactly as depicted in scripture (definitely a pro-Jewish bias there).

Fact is, the bulk of my belief is based on personal experiences with deity, especially over the past 5 years. I know it sounds kinda crazy (and I admit some of the experiences might just be my imagination), but I haven't just "read" or "heard" about God; I think I have actually experienced Him through my physical senses. You and some others might think these experiences prove that I need serious therapy; but to deny these manifestations is to deny the input of my eyes, ears, nose, and mind. To deny the input of my senses seems crazy to me; so I have to believe in God (or a deity) or believe I'm crazy. I'm more comfortable with the former.

Could my interpretation of these 'supernatural" manifestations be influenced by what I've learned from the Bible? Yes ...

[Igakusei]

I wasn't really intending to argue with you or your experience, I only meant to point out that (and why) Paul's argument isn't very good.

[joeb]

I wasn't really intending to argue with you or your experience, I only meant to point out that (and why) Paul's argument isn't very good.

So, Paul's logic is faulty? Just how is that? If Christ hasn't risen from the dead, then Christians are believing a lie. That's his argument, and it's both logical and true.

If-then statements are not logically weak. They are very sound. Ask any computer programmer.

[Igakusei]

I didn't say it wasn't logically sound, I said it wasn't very good. Try to actually understand my post next time.

[joeb]

I didn't say it wasn't logically sound, I said it wasn't very good. Try to actually understand my post next time.

LOL.... For an argument to be not be good it must have fallacies or logical flaws. Paul's has none, and neither does the SDA argument you cited.

Your "graceful degredation" argument is based on the athiestic belief that belief in God is a mega-belief . The "graceful degredation" argument is applied against all Christian points of view and so defines any argument for Christianity as "not very good".

Sorry, no sale.

[Igakusei]

/sigh

Pauls argument goes like this:

A. Some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead.

B. If there was no resurrection, then Christ did not rise, and we will not rise, and we are all wrong.

C. Therefore there must have been a resurrection.

He doesn't explicitly say C, but it's essentially the whole point. It's also where the fallacy lies, because it doesn't follow from B.

Similarly, the SDA position on evolution goes something like this:

A. Some of you suggest that evolution is true

B. If evolution were true, everything we believe would be thrown into disarray and much of our most cherished beliefs would be wrong.

C. Therefore, evolution is wrong

Same thing. My entire point was that using these arguments to justify the conclusions at 'C' is poor reasoning, and you seem to have replied that 'B' is logically coherent. B is logically coherent, but deriving C from B, as I explained in my previous point but you apparently didn't take the time to understand, is not.