God-Breathed?

[UnchartedSpirit]

Some of the Apostle Pauls writings go on about his 'thorn in the flesh' and himself cursing the carnal nature he has...and taking desperate measures to prove the grace of God-well I think only once where he said something like even if it cose his relationship with Jesus-can those type of things really be writtin as God's own words to Paul?

 

[blackbird]

Absolutely!!! To deny the words written by Paul is to deny the words breathed by God to Paul!

 

[bruren777]

I concur with blackbird!

 

[UnchartedSpirit]

I didn't mean to deny the words of Paul, but isn't there some times where he's speaking as a human and not from God?

 

[Watchman]

Originally posted by UnchartedSpirit:
I didn't mean to deny the words of Paul, but isn't there some times where he's speaking as a human and not from God?

Only when he says so specifically, "Not the Lord but I." Other wise, we are to regard his words as from God; "God breathed" if you will.

 

[blackbird]

Correction, Watchman!! Even when he says specifically, "Not the Lord but I"---even then--those words are Scripture and are to be taken as if from the very mouth of God!!

 

[Eric Pement]

Originally posted by UnchartedSpirit:
Some of the Apostle Pauls writings go on about his 'thorn in the flesh' and himself cursing the carnal nature he has...and taking desperate measures to prove the grace of God-well I think only once where he said something like even if it cose his relationship with Jesus-can those type of things really be writtin as God's own words to Paul?

Personally, I believe in biblical inspiration and that this inspiration extends to all 66 books of the Bible. That said, it doesn't mean that all accounts of New Testament history are ones that we ought to emulate, or that the apostolic writers were perfected or without flaw.

Consider the dispute between Paul and Barnabas on whether to take John Mark with them. Inspiration means that Luke's account of this dispute is accurately recorded, but it doesn't mean that we ought to have disputes on our own mission work. General principle: Narrative is not imperative.

Inspiration also allows for human limitation in memory. For example, Paul wrote that he baptized no one in Corinth except Crispus and Gaius (1Cor 1:14), then two verses later adds "the household of Stephanus" and then says, "I don't know if I baptized anyone else" (1:16). Inspiration means that Paul really did baptize these people, and that Paul is telling the truth when he says he doesn't remember if/whether he baptized any others.

Next, inspiration is not dictation. The fact that the Bible is the word of God (which it is) and that it is verbally inspired does not mean that the biblical writers engaged in automatic writing or that they heard the voice of God and they copied down everything word-for-word. In inspiration, the Holy Spirit "moves" the writer (2Pe 1:21), which is not giving dictation.

Finally, inspiration is predicated of the text: "All scripture is God-breathed ..." (2Tim 3:16), not of the apostles' experiences in the Christian life. John wrote that "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1Jn 1:8), and this would include the apostles and prophets themselves. Paul could write at length about the real, inward struggle between sin and God's law (Romans 7), and he openly admitted that he had not yet "arrived or have already become perfect" (Php 3:12).

On that last thing you wrote ("once where he said something like even if it [cost] his relationship with Jesus"), I suspect you're thinking of the passage in Romans 9:2-3, "I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh."

I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. If Paul is saying that I'm willing to be damned if only my fellow Jews could be saved, it shows to me his great love for them and desire for their salvation. It doesn't mean that we should desire or seek damnation (and many people believe it's not possible for a saved person to become lost anyway), but rather that we should be willing to pay any price in order to bring the Gospel to the lost.

'Nuff said. Thanks for listening.

 

[Watchman]

Originally posted by blackbird:
Correction, Watchman!! Even when he says specifically, "Not the Lord but I"---even then--those words are Scripture and are to be taken as if from the very mouth of God!!

Clearly there were times that he was not receiving anything from the Lord (The Holy Spirit specifically), so he offered his opinion. A very good opinion, the opinion of a Godly man, yes; but he does say that it is his opinion, I will take him for what he says, and that he is true in saying "Not I but the Lord." I must take this quite literally, as I do with all scripture, unless there is compelling reasons not to take it litterally.
Sorry to disagree with one I highly repect here, but I must.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Watchman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UnchartedSpirit:
I didn't mean to deny the words of Paul, but isn't there some times where he's speaking as a human and not from God?

Only when he says so specifically, "Not the Lord but I." Other wise, we are to regard his words as from God; "God breathed" if you will. </font>[/QUOTE]The part where he says "Not the Lord but I" is not just a godly opinion.

But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 1 Cor 7.12

According to Norman Geisler in When Critics Ask , p. 457-458, "Paul is referring to the fact that the Lord did not directly address this issue when He spoke about divorce and marriage (Matt 5.31-32; 19.4-12). So Paul does speak to it here, giving his authoritative view on whether a believing wife should stay with an unbelieving husband."

There is more, which talks about Paul's claim to the HS (verse 40) and authority from the HS (1 Cor 2.13). The book concludes:

If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.

 

[Marcia]

Part 2 of my post:
The NET Bible comments on 1 Cor 7.12 this way:

I, not the Lord. Here and in v. 10 Paul distinguishes between his own apostolic instruction and Jesus' teaching during his earthly ministry. In vv. 12-16, Paul deals with a situation about which the Lord gave no instruction in his earthly ministry.

Other commentators state re 7.12:

Paul isn't backing off on inspiration; he merely claims that Jesus did not speak on this specific point, so he will!
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1135138357-8073.html

This I command, says the apostle; yet not I, but the Lord. Not that he commanded any thing of his own head, or upon his own authority. Whatever he commanded was the Lord’s command, dictated by his Spirit and enjoined by his authority. But his meaning is that the Lord himself, with his own mouth, had forbidden such separations, Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11; Lu. 16:18.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1135138474-5923.html

No commentator or pastor that I know thinks this is just Paul's "godly opinion," nor do I.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Full agreement with the "every word" and "fully inspired" even when Paul seems to be speaking personally.

It is ALL God's Words. Every one. Every iote and title.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

What about when Paul corrected himself? Was the original uncorrected phrase as inspired as the correction?
I Corinthians 1
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

 

[Deacon]

Picking and choosing between what we think might be God's word and what a particular biblical author "added" puts us at the edge of a dangerous precipice.

Re: 1 Corinthians 1:14f.
The household of Stephanas were not originally Corinthians but were from Achaia, (another Greek town; see 1 Cor 16:15, 17).
Perhaps the people of Corinth were familiar with them so Paul added their name.

Rob

 

[Linda64]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

That would be the entire Bible--would it not? The Bible IS God's Word. If we say that the Bible CONTAINS God's Word, that would give us leeway to pick and choose which parts are and are not "God breathed"

 

[ronthedisciple]

Yes, the whole Bible is is the word of God. The Bible is God's message to Humanity. Now, that means when we read the Bible we need to pay attention to God's message. Learning to discern what God is telling us to do and what not to do is NOT picking and choosing God's word, but is listening to his message. It would be a mistake for me to lie to someone and tell them my wife is my sister, as Abraham did, and later Isaac also. Sure, I could look it up, and that's what the Bible said Abraham did, and, yes, that story is given to me by God - to show me what NOT to do. So, when Paul gives us his opinion on something, and says "not the Lord", then we can know for a truth that his advice is NOT what God advises, but only what Paul advises. So why is it in God's message book? So we can better understand who Paul is, and through that better understand what God wants to know of Himself. In those instances we get a clear contrast between what God wills and what man wants. Yes, the Bible is God's word, but if you don't have a heart towards God, it's just another book on the shelf.