Scripture Contains The Word Of God.
I Corinthians 7:12 KJV, “But to the rest speak I [Paul: , not the Lord.”
Ibid. 25, “Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: Yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.”
II Corinthians 8:8 KJV, “I speak not by commandment, but by the forwardness of others.”
Here are three examples which show Scripture, by its own disclosure, contains words other than God’s own words. Hence, not all of Scripture is God’s Word. Yet, God in His loving kindness does most often preface His Words with, “Thus saith The Lord,” or, “The Lord spake to me.”
Theopneustos #2315, “God breathed,” in II Timothy 3:16 is a singular occurrence in Scripture, and thereby we can know it cannot be used to accurately formulate a Theological Doctrine of which God approves. As well, extant Scripture at the time II Timothy was written consisted only of The Torah and The Prophets, which is indeed God’s Word. The New Testament Canon was not Scripture at the time II Timothy was penned. In His letter, Peter called Paul’s writings merely “wise,” and “difficult to understand.” Peter did not call Paul’s writings The Word of God. It is best to let Scripture disclose itself, rather than to add one’s ambitious imagination and one’s “findings” through study. Scripture is to be rightly divided, but not then rearranged.
Praise God for the specific authority of His Word.
- 1 view
Who said: “Hence, not all of Scripture is God’s Word”
Please explain how you can state agreement with the S/I doctrinal statement (which members so do when they register).
Which states:
“The plenary Divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word of God, the supreme and final authority in faith and life.”
AND
Make your statement above?
Theopneustos #2315, “God breathed,” in II Timothy 3:16 is a (1) singular occurrence in Scripture, and thereby we can know it cannot be used to accurately formulate a Theological Doctrine of which God approves. As well, (2) extant Scripture at the time II Timothy was written consisted only of The Torah and The Prophets, which is indeed God’s Word. (3) The New Testament Canon was not Scripture at the time II Timothy was penned. In His letter, Peter called Paul’s writings merely “wise,” and “difficult to understand.” Peter did not call Paul’s writings The Word of God. It is best to let Scripture disclose itself, rather than to add one’s ambitious imagination and one’s “findings” through study. Scripture is to be rightly divided, but not then rearranged.
What a mess! Numbers added for clarity of reply
1. We have a Bible, not Bibles. It is one unit.
2. 2 Tim. was the last book written by Paul. Most of the NT had already been penned before 2 Tim 3:16 was written.
3. Scripture isn’t scripture because the church recognized the cannon, but because God spoke it. It was all scripture the minute, the nanosecond, that God breathed it out.
Your misunderstanding and abuse of the passages you quote is appalling, matched only by your lack of temerity in the accusations you level.
Now, maybe someone can please explain to me why this does not rise to the level of heresy?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Methinks we have a troll in our midst.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
To quote these passages as some sort of proof text(s) for the conclusions drawn is to widely miss the message and mode of the texts in their context.
In the context of 1Cor7, Paul addresses an issue where his remarks go further than what Christ or the Law had previously said, and he affirms what has already been revealed. It is not altogether different from our Lord in Matthew 5 and 7 where He reaffirms the actual meaning of various teachings in the Law—removing misunderstandings, distortions, etc. Then in 7, our Lord further expands OT commands to their proper understanding—an understanding which would be possible to attain without His explanation BTW, but Christ spells it out.
Paul for his part is differentiating his statements from other Scripture, but not changing what Christ (or the Law for that matter) had said on the subject at hand; not subtracting authority from Christ statements or the Law’s statements, and not saying that his own remarks are somehow not authoritative. Many OT statements are further explicated in the NT. Paul is doing this very thing. In offering any statement as an opinion, he offers it as one of the ways his teaching can be applied, noting that his application is in line with grace.
As regards 2Cor8…Paul is encouraging the readers to take note of the example of others and to consider emulating their example. Because Paul is a big “grace guy” on the matter of worship, giving, and other acts of individual and corporate devotion to God, he brings his remarks as an encouragement to see his application as a viable outcome of their convictions. To see this, or his other remarks as somehow not part of Holy Writ is to make seemingly purposeful efforts to distort the Word of God.
As to theopneustos, cynical apostates even have to agree (some not all) that the orthodox understanding of this word is not only plausible, but the most likely.
Vorsicht!
SamH
Discussion