Inspiration

SharperIron

(About this series)

CHAPTER II INSPIRATION

BY EVANGELIST L. W. MUNHALL, M. A., D. D., GERMANTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA, AUTHOR OF “THE HIGHEST CRITICS VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS”

The Bible is inspired. It is therefore God’s Word. This is fundamental to the Christian faith.” Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom. 10: 17).

But, it is asked, What do you mean by inspiration? Because there are numerous theories of inspiration, this is a proper question. Also, it is well, before answering the question, to state some of these theories. First, “The thoughts of the penman were inspired.” Second, “The thoughts were partially inspired.” But they who hold to this view are very indefinite in their statements of the extent of this inspiration. Third, “There were different degrees of inspiration.” The advocates of this view use the difference between “illumination” and inspiration to prove their theory. Fourth, “At one time the writers were inspired in the supervision of the work they did;” at another, “In the view they took of the work they were called upon to do;” and at another, “In directing the work.” But in all these views the theorists are at sea, and leave all who trust to their pilotage at sea, as to the exact character and limitations of inspiration. Fifth, “Dynamic inspiration”. But the efforts of those who hold to this view, to explain what they mean by the term are exceedingly vague and misty. But the popular and current theory now is that the “Concept” is inspired. But no one attempts to tell what the “Concept” is; indeed, I doubt if any one knows.

Also let this be said in this connection: Those who hold to any or all of the above named theories, in part or in whole, are

Discussion

The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins (Part 3)

Paul Henebury

Read the series so far.

Life not from Earth

It is a universal law which, as all scientific laws, has not witnessed an exception: life does not come from non-life. Yet evolutionists, of the non-theistic sort) must teach that it does. Going further back, ex nihilo nihil fit, out of nothing comes nothing. No one has ever seen or heard of something (i.e. that which has properties and permits predication) coming into existence from nothing (that which has no properties and does not permit predication). Yet evolutionist must adhere to the contradiction of this very basic principle. That is, unless they want to teach the eternity of matter.

Is it a sign of rationality and a coherent system to flout two empirically static principles of science at the very outset of ones thinking? So how do they get around it?

Discussion

Why I'm Not a Calvinist . . . or an Arminian, Part 3

Christopher Cone

Read the series so far.

The Remonstrance of 1610, by followers of Jacobus Arminius, counters five points of doctrine that were understood to be Calvinistic teachings. The Remonstrance first denies the five Calvinistic tenets, and then positively asserts five articles of doctrine that present a completely different idea of God’s character.

The Remonstrance on Conditional Predestination

God has immutably decreed, from eternity, to save those men who, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, believe in Jesus Christ, and by the same grace persevere in the obedience of faith to the end; and, on the other hand, to condemn the unbelievers and unconverted (John iii. 36).

Election and condemnation are thus conditioned by foreknowledge, and made dependent on the foreseen faith or unbelief of men. (Remonstrance, Article I)

Discussion

Mark 9: 13, Prophecy of Elijah's rejection

Ed Vasicek

Mark 9:13 (ESV) reads:

13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.”

Jesus is clearly referring to John the Baptist, and the prophecy is about Elijah (Malachi 4:5-6). But where is it prophesied that he would be killed/abused? Some say by means of type (Jezebel was out to get Elijah), but that seems a bit shabby to me. Any ideas?

Discussion

Gospel Issues and Weighing Doctrines

TylerR

“I’ve heard a professor put it this way before: if you put a gun to my head and said ‘Deny the deity of Jesus or you’re dead,” by God’s grace I would hope to respond by saying ‘pull the trigger.’ If you put a gun to my head and said ‘Deny the pre-tribulational return of Jesus Christ or you’re dead’ I would say ‘Put the gun down and we’ll talk.’ Some truths really are worth dying for.”

Discussion

The Incoherence of Evolutionary Origins (Part 2)

Paul Henebury

The fusion of confusion

Evolutionists, except the rather small coterie of theistic ones, believe every complex and meticulously ordered thing got here through mechanisms which we neither see now nor can see in the evidence left in the past. Even our cognitive faculties and the immaterial laws of logic and number “evolved.” The Big Bang is the most popular notion of the origin of the universe at the present time, although there is a significant lobby of dissidents. The Big Bang is an explosion. All explosions are chaotic, disorderly things. (The Big Bang exploded flat—not in all directions). In other ways it would have been like every other explosion: confused and irrational.

But from this chaos the vast complexity of the first life sprang: not, it is true, overnight, but over billions of years. From this incoherence the coherent came. Do we ever see coherence, in the form of sequenced “specified” complexity, arise out of chaos and disorder? No we do not. Nothing self-orders in complex and specific ways without a code. And a code needs someone to write it. But evolutionary naturalism requires just the opposite.

Furthermore, as we, the observers, recognize and analyze the coherence in the world, our standing (or existence) as observers must be accounted for. This was one of the questions asked by Richards and Gonzalez in their book The Privileged Planet. It is a good question. Why is the world comprehensible? Why can we do science?

Discussion