As promised, we’re looking for some help from you all (and thanks to those that already did this on last week’s blog entry). Please share with us some of the questions that you ask of Scripture as you study it. What have you found helpful? What has proved useful to you? What sorts of questions/strategies have you used that has caused God’s Word to change you? This is one easy and practical way that we can all be mutually edified in our faith! Please comment!!
Recent Comments
 | Samuel Rutherford on Doctrine: Baptism |
 | Matt Borg on Doctrine: Justification |
| Anonymous on Doctrine: Justification |
| Charlie Armstrong on Doctrine: Justification |
| Charlie & Rachel… on Preparing for Paul |
- Thankful for the Effect of Living Under The Authority of Scriputure
- Our Partnership in the Gospel - Keeping our Partnership Active
- Our Partnership in the Gospel - Advancing and Exalting Christ together
- Our Partnership in the Gospel - Getting Excited About Church (2)
- Our Partnership in the Gospel - Getting Excited About Church
- The Way of Wisdom - Our Crisis of Confidence
- The Way of Wisdom - Our Crisis of Confidence
- Shiny Faces
- God Wants All People to be Saved
- Listen: Wisdom is calling ! - Communication and Community
How do we know that the the Bible is inspired? Perhaps, you have all discussed this, sorry I wasn’t there. Is the Bible a fallible collection of infallible books? Are the original divine revelations given to the Apostles inspired, and not their recollection in writing? Did the Church establish the Scripture or does the Scripture establish the Church? What about books that were originally accepted as Scripture (Paul’s letter to Laodecia) why are they not any longer?
As originally stated, all of these come down to how we know that the Bible is inspired. Any of your thoughts on this matter would be great to read!
By: Kyle Borg on April 24, 2007
at 10:59 am
We know the Bible is inspired because the Bible says it is inspired.
Why would you want to add the letter to Laodecia? What other books do you think *should* be in the Canon and why?
By: Rutherford on April 25, 2007
at 2:49 pm
Isn’t there a bit of circular reasoning to say that the Bible is inspired because the Bible says it is?
I believe 2 Tim 3:16, but I’ve struggled with the thought of Scripture declaring that Scripture is inspired.
By: Mikel Berger on April 25, 2007
at 8:13 pm
Mikel,
this doesn’t answer your question; but make sure you note that the fact this question exists says something. In other words, how many books out there have ever made these kind of claims – straight from God? Making such a claim is in and of itself noteworthy….
By: philmummert on April 25, 2007
at 11:51 pm
Phil,
At the same time what about the other “Holy” books of religions? Joseph Smith claimed he received the oracles of God through the golden plates, which has now become the Book of Mormon. The Muslim’s Koran is also a divine book thought to be the very word of God. The Hindus have the Vedas, which is sacred scripture. So how does the claim, that the Bible is straight from God, trump all other holy scriptures?
By: Kyle on April 26, 2007
at 10:15 am
I should’ve seen that question coming, right?
When a book makes unique claims about itself, that is a bit unusual and worth looking into. I believe that if you “look into” those claims, i.e. read the book, it may become clearer to an individual whether or not such unusual claims seem justified. In my opinion, for the Bible, they do seem justified; for other books, they do not. This is what I mean when I say the Bible is “self-authenticating.”
Incidentally, do the other mentioned writings themselves actually claim to be from God, or do the religions who handle these books claim that they are from God?
Here’s another thought exercise:
Suppose there is a Creator of all things. Suppose it makes sense to talk about communication from such a Being. Suppose this Being decided to communicate in time, directly to human beings, who wrote books under the direct guidance of that Creator – i.e. the Creator “breathed out” his (his/her/its/their ick!) very words in this way.
Now ask – what would you expect to be true about this “book?” Getting at epistemology, how would you “know” this book when you see it? Would there be some testable criterion? Would there be an inner spiritual “knowing”? How would you know?
By: philmummert on April 27, 2007
at 12:14 pm
Mikel, Phil, and Kyle,
The concept that the Bible is authoritative and inspired because the Bible says so IS circular reasoning, but by the very nature of its inspiration there is no other way that one could prove its inspiration.
Mikel, you are right that the Bible supports itself numerous amounts of times declaring its own inspiration. ‘In many times and places in the times past the LORD spoke through the forefathers…’ ‘And I am confident that I have the Spirit of God,’ ‘All Scripture is God-breathed…’ and many other references of the Biblical writers have made concerning their/others writings being ‘divine’.
The fact though that the Bible testifies to its own inspiration is not a valid claim to undermine its inspiration. Circular reasoning is the only means that one can use to determine the inspiration of Scripture. The other ‘holy books’ mentioned do not rely on inter-proofs of inspiration, but rather on something outside of their self-authenticating authority. The Book of Mormon relies on the testimony of Joseph Smith and the ‘claimed’ visions that one man had. Likewise the Qur’an and the visions of Muhammad in his caves. These men attempted to bind people’s consciences by their visions, the Bible has no such claim to its authority.
Speaking in a more philosophical manner, all systems of thought must rely on a foundation of circular reasoning. It would be nonsensical to say that in order to understand the *true reality* one can prove this by something that has been revealed. For example, to say that reason is the definitive litmus test for true knowledge, is to take something (reason) which has been revealed (through knowledge) and say that this revealed thing proves the true reality (or the sum total of all revealed things). Likewise to say that Scripture is *proven* any other way, other than its own self-authenticating claims, is to say that something trumps this form of divine revelation. To say that is to usurp the inspiration of Scripture, but also replace this circular form of reasoning with another system that in the end is circular. This was the dispute between Kant and Feuerbach. Kant wanted to maintain that true reality consisted in the noumenal world, but that we as humans sifted the noumenal through our categories and understood the noumenal only in relation to our experience. Feuerbach’s analysis of that was that it is no use of talking about the noumenal if we can only have an understanding of the phenomenal. The reason I bring up this age old argument is because Feuerbach is right. We only understand things and have a grasp on reality through our experiences. I only know what the color red is through experience. And if can only know things based on our personal experience then all things would be left to a subjective truth. Hence it was necessary that the noumenal (or in this instance God) would reveal Himself through a means other than that which is dependent on our understanding.
In summation, if we hold (and everyone does) that there is a form of an absolute, that absolute can only be revealed or known to us through revealing itself to us. We cannot assume the nature or existence of this true reality through things that have been revealed; lest we say that we understand the true reality through a subjective (pseudo-reality). The subjective can never prove the objective, but the objective MUST always prove itself by the objective.
So I hope that some of this makes sense. I will leave it up to the moderators if they desire to publish it. I am enjoying this conversation thus far.
Grace, mercy, and peace to you all,
S.R.
By: Rutherford on April 27, 2007
at 12:46 pm
I have a question…I sometimes struggle with what a quiet time “should” look like. Does it always have to be time spent in God’s Word? Sometimes music, prayer journals, reflection etc. can uplift, teach, convict, etc. (sorry for all the lists) I know that we should be consistently in the Word because nothing can replace its riches, but is it bad to consider the others as quality quiet time too?
By: Kristin Bergman on April 27, 2007
at 3:59 pm
Please disregard my question. I was informed by Joel that this was already discussed and that I missed out. Kinda harsh, but I guess it’s only fair since I missed ABF.
By: Kristin Bergman on April 30, 2007
at 11:54 am
Superior post.Sustain the cool work,You should definitely have to keep updating your site
By: Bible Study Verses on November 1, 2008
at 9:20 pm