Were the Apostles’ Inspired? Or Was It Something They Wrote?

I don’t think it is mere argung over words nor do I think it is way off base. It is, in my judgment, misguided. (It is also a very common, if not the most common position, on inspiration).

To his arguments:

First, the Bible clearly says God inspired the Scripture and not the men. “All Scripture is God-breathed…” This should be enough evidence, but for some it is not. If your church doctrinal statement says something different, change it to match the Bible

I think it is tenuous to draw a distinction between “God-breathed” and “carried along.” 2 Tim 3:16 says “All Scripture is God-breathed” (did you notice the FBFI is citing the NIV here?). It does not say “Only Scripture is inspired.” And that is why that isn’t enough evidence for some. We like the words of Scripture and think they are authoritative. It is possible to conclude that “only Scripture is inspired,” but not based on that verse alone, IMO. I am not sure there is a lot of room here for a very big wedge between inspiring Scripture and not men.

Essentially what is being done here is making inspiration equal to inscripturation. One of the problems that stems from this is making essentially a tautology out of 2 Tim 3:16: All Scripture in inscripturated.

Of course that is to say nothing at all. Theopnuestos refers to its origin (from God), not to its form (in Scripture). To draw it this narrowly has never been convincing to me.

Second, if God inspired the men, their other writings should be inspired too. I cite the lost letter of Paul to the Corinthians. In 2 Corinthians 7:8, Paul referred to a letter that does not seem to fit 1 Corinthians. Why isn’t it in our Bible? The answer is that it was not an inspired Scripture. If God inspired Paul the man, 3 Corinthians could be a lost a book of the Bible.

Another common objection with another relatively easy answer, starting with the end. “Why isn’t it in our Bible?” Because it wasn’t preserved. 3 Corinthians, the letter to the Laodiceans, or Psalm 151 might be inspiredBut there is nothing requiring that an apostle who was inspired be inspired all the time. That is a non sequitur.

Part of this depends on what you think inspiration does. If inspiration is connected to inerrancy and authority, then it would seem there is a strong argument for the letter to the Laodiceans to be inspired. After all, it is elevated to the same level as Colossians with the command to read it to the church. If we were to find this letter and the church at large was to agree that it was authentic, I don’t see how we would escape the command to read it publicly. The Bible commands us to.

Third, if God inspired the men, then inspiration died with them. If God inspired the text, we still have the inspired Word of God, which is preserved for all eternity (Psalm 119:89).

No, the text is still here. I don’t think anyone claims that the men were inspired but not the text. Perhaps there are some. I will gladly join in refuting them. And citing Psalm 119:89 is not of much help since the word is settled in heaven.

Fourth, “inspired men” opens the door for men to repeat this action today.

Yes, it could happen theoretically, just like miracles or sign gifts or any other gifts. But I believe, based on Scripture, that that has ceased for this age. The “open door” argument is typically a slippery one that cannot be used dogmatically.

In the end, I tend to think that the men were inspired to write inspired Scripture. I think the “bearing along” of 2 Peter 1 is inspiration—God breathing out to them. Inspiration is about source: Where did this come from? Part of the argument has to do with canonicity—with recognizing what God has inspired. I am sympathetic to the open door argument, but the other three are don’t contribute much, IMO.

All in all I think the article picks a fight that does not need to be picked.

Here is the text in various versions:

NAU 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

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

ESV 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

NET 2Ti 3:16 Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

YLT 2Ti 3:16 every Writing is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that is in righteousness,

BGT 2Ti 3:16 πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ,

BYZ 2Ti 3:16 Πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἔλεγχον, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ·

Here is my literal translation, following the word order as close as I can:

all/every Scripture God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for child-training in the righteousness

the KJV “is given” is an attempt to smooth out the translation since the verb is assumed. The New American Update and English Standard Version do better by making the verb a simple “is” rather than “is given.”

It is the Scripture that is God-breathed, not the men.

The Scriptures do tell us (Peter) that the writers of Scripture were “moved along” by the Holy Spirit as they wrote. However that process occurred, the men who wrote the Scriptures were moved by God in writing the Scriptures. i think it is safe to say that their “moving” occurred then and only then, not at other times in their lives, i.e. when giving sermons for example (except when those sermons were recorded for us in the Scripture)

I am preaching in Acts right now, and am in the midst of Acts 15. Some of the matters that were under discussion (“what about the Gentiles”) God already supernaturally revealed in the vision he gave Peter (Acts 10). Interestingly, in Acts 15, there is no record of God supernaturally intervening to tell the apostles and elders how to settle the Gentile question. They had to sort it out for themselves. Their decision became God’s revealed word when Luke wrote it down. Was Peter’s sermon (Acts 15.7-11) “inspired” in the sense we mean the Scriptures are inspired? I would say that Peter was right in what he said, but the inspiration involved being recorded in the Holy writings.

I think the point is an important distinction to make, given errors that come from assuming, for example, that the “supernatural gifts continue.” Some Charismatics claim there are apostles today. C J Mahaney used to claim the title for himself and his co-leaders in his group, though he seems to have backed off from that.

Hope that helps.

I think Larry makes some good points, but I still maintain that we need to be careful in how we state the doctrine of inspiration. The only sure word we have is the Bible. Some have made a case for General Revelation as an authority, but I think General Revelation is authoritative only insofar as it confirms Special Revelation, ie. the Bible.

I”m willing to concede that the authors of the confession could have thought of “inspired” as “informed or directed by the Spirit.” Today, though, that’s not how most people understand that terminology. I agree that the words of Scripture were breathed-out by God and that means the text was inspired, not the penmen. I”m not so sure I agree with all the points the author makes. I think his 1st and 4th are the best. In general, the reasons I would give are (1) to show that the words of Scripture are there because of they are God’s words, and not due to some special quality or talent of the penmen; and (2) the characteristics of the text take on the qualities of God as the ultimate author and thus are authoritave, inerrant, faithful, etc. There may be other reasons, but those would be my top two off the top of my head.

I also agree with the person who said the word are both God’s and the human authors — that God did not dictate the words but used their own personalities and sytles to express exactly what and how God wanted it expresed. I don’t think that teaching comes from Theopnuestos, though.

[Don Johnson] Some have made a case for General Revelation as an authority, but I think General Revelation is authoritative only insofar as it confirms Special Revelation, ie. the Bible.

I should run everything by him, I think! Clarity of expression, he’s got it.

[Don Johnson]

What is the limit of inspiration? Was everything the apostles said inspired?

Simple. I didn’t even realize this was an issue, to be honest. When an apostolic era author wrote something the Lord inspired they were “inspired” or “moved” or “divinely led” to do so. When they were not writing that specific inspired document, they were in no way inspired.

There are better ways to critique the powerful error of Bethel and most other Charismatics than to try to split hairs over whether Mark was “inspired” while he wrote the gospel named after him, or just his written words were.

is that the gift of prophecy no longer operates. That allows the apostolic era prophets to speak divinely inspired words, some of which are written down, but most are not. Interestingly, most of the ones that are written down are likely done so only in summary form, not precise dictation of exactly what was said.

As for today, NO ONE has this gift. Period.

double post

But you’re all still talking about a word that has come to have various meanings in the English language - inspired/inspiration. But it’s just a word. In the Greek, the process used, as written in the Bible (which we all agree is God’s Word), is God Breathed.

And none of us knows what that really means - it is all speculation.

Did God whisper (breathe) the words of The 66 in the ears of the writers?

Did God inject an audible, inner voice into the mind of the writers so they knew they were properly writing down what God wanted them to write?

Did the writers of The 66 write without any conscious recognition that they were writing The 66?

In the end, we simply do not know, and we never will. But that does not mean we have no ground upon which to stand regarding the authenticity of The 66. But we also must recognize that there is a supernatural aspect at work within us, which is part of why we believe in the authenticity of The 66.