God Knows!

Wes Outwest · Jan 3, 2005

Koreahog2005,
Here is the difference, I DO NOT take the scriptures LITERALLY! I take them for intent and the truth revealed through them.

Literal Ephesians 2:8 "Because it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; not by anything of your own, but by a gift from God". Read it one way, and it is saying that grace (an attribute of the one possessing it) SAVES, and the means is "Through faith", or "salvation is grace through faith". It also says that Grace is a gift of God, or that faith is a gift of God. but if one reads it literally, IT can never say that "being saved" is the gift of God. Being saved is what the Gospel message is all about! And throughout scriptures Salvation is identified as a Gift of God. Literal interpretation of Ephesians does not say so! This is but one example of LITERAL interpretation, there are many many more.

Psalm 139:13-24
[13] You created my inmost self, knit me together in my mother's womb.
[14] For so many marvels I thank you; a wonder am I, and all your works are wonders. You knew me through and through,
[15] my being held no secrets from you, when I was being formed in secret, textured in the depths of the earth.
[16] Your eyes could see my embryo. In your book all my days were inscribed, every one that was fixed is there.
[17] How hard for me to grasp your thoughts, how many, God, there are!
[18] If I count them, they are more than the grains of sand; if I come to an end, I am still with you.
[19] If only, God, you would kill the wicked!- Men of violence, keep away from me!-
[20] those who speak blasphemously about you, and take no account of your thoughts.
[21] Yahweh, do I not hate those who hate you, and loathe those who defy you?
[22] My hate for them has no limits, I regard them as my own enemies.
[23] God, examine me and know my heart, test me and know my concerns.
[24] Make sure that I am not on my way to ruin, and guide me on the road of eternity.
Click to expand...

Is one to interpret verse 16 Literally? If yes, then one must interpret verse 15 just as literally! One cannot superimpose "womb" over "textured in the depths of the earth" We must accept that we were textured in the depths of the earth. Do you know what is in the depths of the earth? Liquid, unbearably hot magma which occasionally finds a path to the surface of the earth in the form of a Volcano. None of us was formed in that, not even David. So if this writing is God breathed, God has miss inspired David. We know enough of the truth of "the depths of the earth" to know that man does not come up out of them.

Psalm 139 is the writing of a man's thoughts regarding his relationship with God the creator. Most of us at one time or another, have done such "soul searching" and many of us have written our thoughts on the matter. But none of us speaks for God, only about God.

Hamtramck_Mike · Jan 3, 2005

Wes Outwest said: Is one to interpret verse 16 Literally? If yes, then one must interpret verse 15 just as literally! One cannot superimpose "womb" over "textured in the depths of the earth" We must accept that we were textured in the depths of the earth. Do you know what is in the depths of the earth? Liquid, unbearably hot magma which occasionally finds a path to the surface of the earth in the form of a Volcano. None of us was formed in that, not even David. So if this writing is God breathed, God has miss inspired David. We know enough of the truth of "the depths of the earth" to know that man does not come up out of them.

Hamtramck Mike Says:GEN 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. GEN 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Wes Outwest · Jan 3, 2005

Your point?

Let's stay literal here! That is where Koreahog2005 would have us stay.

I know that man is made of the elements of the earth, those on the surface. Not all of the surface of the earth came from "the depths" of the earth. The surface is always the surface, while the depths can range anywhere from below the surface and to the very core of the earth.

We are "created" surface dwellers, who are conceived in the womb of living flesh, who are formed in the womb and who are {normally} birthed out of that same, though temporarily, slightly altered womb.

So, the literal interpretation of Davids writings cannot be the Words of God to David, but rather David's impression of what was given to him.

The truth revealed in them cannot be taken literally else one must conclude that we truly are "textured in the depths of the earth".

David himself reveals vs 17 that God's Thoughts are hard for him to understand, and that there are so many of them.

That proves my own belief that the Word of God is not to be taken LITERALLY, but to be accepted as "the thoughts" of God. God does not think in "numbered verses", but in "complete thoughts". So taking the scriptures Literally is foolishness.

ILUVLIGHT · Jan 3, 2005

Hi Wes;

That proves my own belief that the Word of God is not to be taken LITERALLY, but to be accepted as "the thoughts" of God. God does not think in "numbered verses", but in "complete thoughts". So taking the scriptures Literally is foolishness.
Click to expand...

Wow I hope your kidding. You are aren't you? Generally a verse is a sentence and are complete thoughts how ever not to be considered as the only thoughts stated about the subject. I take all of God's word as very literal. How can you even believe in God with out taking it literal?
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

Wes Outwest · Jan 3, 2005

I take the thoughts literally, not the verses.

If you think the verse separations are complete thoughts, you're ignoring the punctuation, and the natural flow of the text.

let me illustrate with the King James version. The scripture is John 17:1-26.

Thought 1
[1-3] These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

thought 2
[4,5] I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

thought 3
[6-8] I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

thought 4
[9-12] I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

thought 5
[13-17] And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

thought 6
[18,19] As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

thought 7
[20-23] Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

thought 8
[24] Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Thought 9
[25,26] O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
Click to expand...

You see? The thoughts flow accross verse separations. I could do this with virtually every part of the bible including Psalms and Proverbs. In truth, I study the bible by doing just what I've done above, but I usually remove the verse numbers completely. I left them in for your benefit.

koreahog2005 · Jan 3, 2005

Wes, in your last post to me, you dealt with the issue of interpretation. That’s not what I was asking you about. I was asking you if you believe that the Bible is inerrant. You did not directly answer that question. You said the following:

So if this writing is God breathed, God has miss inspired David.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Psalm 139:15 is not God-breathed Scripture? Do you disagree with 2 Timothy 3:16? Again, do you believe that the Bible is inerrant? I answered your four questions at the beginning of this thread. Please answer mine.

ILUVLIGHT · Jan 3, 2005

Hi Wes;
The numbered verses weren't numbered in the original text. They were placed there to identfy location. When I'm reading the Bible I'm not even aware of them being there.
But in each example you gave in your last post I clearly see more than one sentence.
Lets take thought two;

thought 2
[4,5] I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Click to expand...

I have glorified thee on the earth:
This is one complete thought.
I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
This is another complete thought about a different subject. Then Christ changes the subject again and talks about Himself being glorified. There are three completely different thoughts here I fail to see how you can come away with only one. I'm trying to understand what you mean but you need to clarify what you are saying here.
First you say you never take the Word literally then you tell me about this being all one thought. I think we aren't communicating very well. Maybe we are just to tired see you later.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

koreahog2005 · Jan 3, 2005

Wes, I think I just figured out why you got off on the discussion of literal interpretation. I made the following statement:

I believe that all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). Literally, all Scripture is “God-breathed” (theopneustos), and thus all biblical writers were indeed speaking for God when they wrote the inspired words that make up Scripture.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not saying that all Scripture is God-breathed only in the literal sense. I was saying that the word “inspired” in the NASB literally means “God-breathed” in the Greek.

Wes Outwest · Jan 3, 2005

Originally posted by koreahog2005:
Wes, in your last post to me, you dealt with the issue of interpretation. That’s not what I was asking you about. I was asking you if you believe that the Bible is inerrant. You did not directly answer that question. You said the following:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />So if this writing is God breathed, God has miss inspired David.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Psalm 139:15 is not God-breathed Scripture? Do you disagree with 2 Timothy 3:16? Again, do you believe that the Bible is inerrant? I answered your four questions at the beginning of this thread. Please answer mine. [/QUOTE]Koreahog2005,
Yes, the HOLY Scriptures are inerrant! Man's interpretation of them is where the errors lie. Shoot, if no man ever read the scriptures, there would never be any errors. However, since man does read them, man makes mistakes in understanding....especially when man take every phrase in a literal manner.

The point I made with verse 15, is that if one takes verse 16 literally, then one must do the same with verse 15. And a literal interpretation of 15 reveals something other than what is intended.

As a stand-alone verse, 2 tim 3:16 can be a dangerously wielded post mall! In its context it is meaningful for instruction, and it is written to a young minister.

Wes Outwest · Jan 4, 2005

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
Hi Wes;
The numbered verses weren't numbered in the original text. They were placed there to identfy location. When I'm reading the Bible I'm not even aware of them being there.
But in each example you gave in your last post I clearly see more than one sentence.
Lets take thought two;

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> thought 2
[4,5] I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Click to expand...

I have glorified thee on the earth:
This is one complete thought.
I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
This is another complete thought about a different subject. Then Christ changes the subject again and talks about Himself being glorified. There are three completely different thoughts here I fail to see how you can come away with only one. I'm trying to understand what you mean but you need to clarify what you are saying here.
First you say you never take the Word literally then you tell me about this being all one thought. I think we aren't communicating very well. Maybe we are just to tired see you later.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike [/QUOTE]True, but all of 4 and 5 comprise one thought. or in modern lingo, a Paragraph. By dividing it as you suggest, you are separating a whole thought into two like thoughts. Nothing wrong with doing that! But for me, where thoughts seem continuous I make them so!

koreahog2005 · Jan 4, 2005

Wes, I’m glad that both of us agree that the Bible is inerrant. Thus, we both believe that Psalm 139:16 is true. Now we can get down to the business of interpreting it.

Here is Psalm 139:16 again:

“Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.” (NASB)

Let’s look first at the context for verse 16. As I stated earlier, God’s omniscience was discussed in verses 1-6 of Psalm 139, and His omnipresence was discussed in verses 7-12. In fact, the NASB gives Psalm 139 the subtitle, “God’s Omnipresence and Omniscience.” Verse 15 is discussing His omniscience as it tells us that He saw us being formed. Verses 17 and 18 also discuss His omniscience as David praises Him for the vastness of His thoughts. Thus, the context of verse 16 involves omniscience.

Let’s next look at the key Hebrew words in verse 16. The Hebrew word for “day” is “ yom .” Most of us are familiar with that word as it is used in various contexts. Another key word is the Hebrew word “ yatsar ” which can mean “ordain” or “form.” Gesenius’ Hebrew lexicon gives the definition for Psalm 139:16 under “ yatsar ” as “to be predestined.” The word “ yatsar ” is related to the word for “potter” (“former” or “fashioner”) in Jeremiah 18:2, 3, 4, and 6. It is used in Jeremiah 1:5 when God discussed “forming” Jeremiah in the womb. Millard Erickson, 2002 president of the Evangelical Theological Society, commented on “ yatsar ” and Psalm 139:16:

Several terms in both Hebrew and Greek are used to refer to God’s design. . . . ( yatsar ), which is probably the most explicit of the Hebrew terms, appears in Psalm 139:16; Isaiah 22:11; 37:26; and 46:11. It carries the idea of purpose and prior determination. . . . Even something as seemingly trivial as the building of reservoirs is described as having been planned long before (Isa. 22:11). There is a sense that every day has been designed and ordered by the Lord. Thus the psalmist writes, “your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Ps. 139:16). A similar thought is expressed by Job (14:5).
Click to expand...

Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), pages 373-375.

Some other passages follow that we might want to discuss in connection with God’s complete knowledge of the future:

Job 14:5 – “Since his days are determined, the number of his months is with Thee, and his limits Thou hast set so that he cannot pass.”

Isaiah 14:24 – “The LORD of hosts has sworn saying, ‘Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand.’ ”

Isaiah 14:27 – “For the LORD of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?”

Isaiah 25:1 – “O LORD, Thou art my God; I will exalt Thee, I will give thanks to Thy name; for Thou has worked wonders, plans formed long ago, with perfect faithfulness.”

Isaiah 42:9 – “Behold, the former things have come to pass, now I declare new things; before they spring forth I proclaim them to you.”

Isaiah 46:10 – “Declaring the end from the beginning and from the ancient times things which have not been done, saying, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure.’ ”

As mentioned on an earlier post on this thread, I believe that God has the ability to view the entire human timeline from His eternal perspective. I believe He has already seen every event in the future. If the open theists are correct and God does not have complete knowledge of the future, then He will be learning and changing as time passes. The Bible makes it clear, however, that God does not change:

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)

“Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow.” (James 1:17)

“For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” (Malachi 3:6)

God is infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and immutable. Our latest SBC confession of faith, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, expresses it well:

God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures.
Click to expand...

God can intervene in the human time line, but He also exists outside the human time line, and thus He can simultaneously see freewill decisions being made in the past, present, and future. Two more relevant passages follow:

Psalm 147:5 – “Great is our Lord, and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.”

1 John 3:20 – “In whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.”

If you don’t believe that Psalm 139:16 is indicating that God has complete knowledge of the future, I would like to know what you think the verse means. I would also like for you to present any other verses that you think indicate that God does not have complete knowledge of the future.

Wes Outwest · Jan 4, 2005

That's fine Koreahog2005,
But I do not see Davids writings as more than the writings of man expressing his thoughts about God. David was truly a man after God's own heart, and he possessed high and lofty thoughts toward and about God that we should all emulate in our praise and worship of God. Billy Graham would be a "modern day David" in what Billy writes about God.

The point is that because you hold that the Bible is inerrant, that it is written by God. Yes, much of it is written by God, but much of it is man writing about God. I believe David's writings fall into the latter category. Therefore I believe that 139:16 is not God telling us about himself, but rather David's thoughts on God. Evenso, that does not weaken its message, nor does it render it erroneous. It remains inerrant, and it remains valid for us to apply to our own lives.

It is the same as me making the claim that God is Omniscient! I don't know what God knows, but I know he knows a whole lot more than me.

ILUVLIGHT · Jan 4, 2005

Hi Wes;

True, but all of 4 and 5 comprise one thought. or in modern lingo, a Paragraph. By dividing it as you suggest, you are separating a whole thought into two like thoughts. Nothing wrong with doing that! But for me, where thoughts seem continuous I make them so!
Click to expand...

I disagree. They all fit together, but they are not the same thoughts. If thoughts didn't fit together things just wouldn't make much sense. A sentence is one complete thought. You can have several sentences placed together about the same subject but they are still seperate thoughts.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

koreahog2005 · Jan 4, 2005

Wes, I had thought we were in agreement about the nature of Scripture, but I guess we are not in agreement. You said the following:

But I do not see Davids writings as more than the writings of man expressing his thoughts about God. . . . Billy Graham would be a "modern day David" in what Billy writes about God. The point is that because you hold that the Bible is inerrant, that it is written by God. Yes, much of it is written by God, but much of it is man writing about God. I believe David's writings fall into the latter category. Therefore I believe that 139:16 is not God telling us about himself, but rather David's thoughts on God.
Click to expand...

Wes, 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that all Scripture is God-breathed. God does not breathe error. Also, the fact that all of it is God-breathed indicates that all of it comes from God. Scripture is much more than someone writing about God. As much as I admire Billy Graham, his comments on God or Scripture are not equal to Scripture. I’m sure Billy would agree with me on that. A crucial point in his ministry came when he decided that the Bible was the word of God:

There is a bronze tablet on a rock in the woods at the Forest Home Retreat Center in the mountains above Los Angeles (Martin 112). This is where, in 1949, Billy Graham knelt and declared his confidence in the reliability and sufficiency of the Bible. It was there that Billy told God that there were many things in the Bible that he did not understand, questions about the Bible for which he did not have an answer, seeming contradictions in the Bible that he could not square with modern knowledge. But Billy also told God that it was the Bible that had brought him to Christ, and that had proven completely trustworthy at the point of his relationship with God. And so Billy told God that he was going to trust the Bible as God’s Word, and Billy says that his confidence in Scripture has never wavered since.
Click to expand...

http://www.northwaychristian.org/Sermons/2003-08-17.htm

Psalm 139:16 is much more than David’s thoughts on God. Psalm 139:16 is God-breathed, and thus it is part of God’s word. You said that some of the Bible is written by God, but some of it is merely man’s thoughts about God. Who decides which is which? You would need an inerrant editor. If what you say is true, then the Bible is like a theological cafeteria in which a person can pick and choose what he thinks is written by God. It is clear from 2 Timothy 3:16, however, that all Scripture is God-breathed. Thomas Lea, a NT professor at Southwestern Baptist Seminary, commented on 2 Timothy 3:16:

Fourth, what is the meaning of the adjective “God-breathed”? Is it active in meaning, suggesting that all Scripture has an inspiring effect? Is it passive in meaning, suggesting that all Scripture has its origin in God, is the product of the breath of God? The Greek word ( theopneustos ) contains a suffix ( tos ), which frequently suggests a passive meaning (e.g., agapetos , “loved [by God],” Rom 1:7). The term in our text is passive in its meaning. The idea the term presents is that God has breathed his character into Scripture so that it is inherently inspired. Paul was not asserting that the Scriptures are inspiring in that they breathe information about God into us, even though the statement is true. The Scriptures owe their origin and distinctiveness to God himself. This is the abiding character of Scripture.
Click to expand...

Thomas Lea, “1, 2 Timothy,” The New American Commentary, vol. 34, ed. David Dockery (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), page 236.

Our most recent SBC confession of faith, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, has a good statement about Scripture:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.
Click to expand...

koreahog2005 · Jan 4, 2005

P.S.: The Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest commented on 2 Timothy 3:16:

After exhorting Timothy to hold fast to the sacred scriptures he was taught, and those were the Old Testament scriptures, Paul now proceeds to describe them. “All” is pas , which when used with a singular substantive without the article, means “every,” not “all.” “Scripture” here is graphe , “a writing, thing written,” used of the writings of the O.T. prophets (Matt. 26:56), and of the OT scriptures in general (Matt. 26:54). The expression pasa graphe (“every scripture”) speaks, not of the O.T. scriptures as a whole, but of each separate passage considered as a unit. The first thing Paul says about the O.T. scriptures which Timothy was taught, is that every part of them is inspired of God. The verb of being is often left out, as it is here, and the reader or translator must supply it. “Inspired of God” is theopneustos , made up of theos , “God,” and pneustos , from pnein , “to breathe.” The compound word means “God-breathed.” The statement therefore is, “Every scripture is God-breathed.”
Click to expand...

Kenneth Wuest, “The Exegesis of II Timothy,” Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), page 150.

Wes Outwest · Jan 4, 2005

I believe that David, a man, was divinely inspired and that what he wrote comes from that divine inspiration. But is it God telling us that He knows our innermost parts? No, it is David expressing his belief that God knows his innermost parts!

I too believe that God knows my innermost parts. There, I've written it, does that make it the WORD OF GOD? NO, it makes it an expression of my belief about God!

koreahog2005 · Jan 4, 2005

Wes, God is the ultimate author of every Scripture passage because He breathed each passage through a human author. Thus, Psalm 139:16 is God’s word. Do you agree with verse 16 when it speaks of “days that were ordained for me”?

Wes Outwest · Jan 5, 2005

Does that include all the inspired writings that did not make it into the Canon of scripture?

koreahog2005 · Jan 5, 2005

Nope. Erickson commented on this point:

While everything within the Bible is truth, it is not necessary to hold that all truth is within the Bible. Jude’s references to two noncanonical books do not necessarily create a problem, for one is not required thereby to believe either that Jude affirmed error or that Enoch and the Assumption of Moses are divinely inspired books that ought to be included within the canon of the Old Testament.
Click to expand...

Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), page 259.

koreahog2005 · Jan 5, 2005

P.S.: Note the following quote from “The Concept and Importance of Canonicity” as the late Greg Bahnsen, a former Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies, commented on the canon of Scripture:

In order for a book to be accounted canonical, it is necessary that it be inspired. However, while inspiration is a necessary condition of canonicity, it is not a sufficient one. Otherwise all of God's special (verbal) revelation would constitute the canon of the church; yet this is not the case, as we can see for a couple of reasons.

First, remember that not all special revelation was given in written form or subsequently committed to writing (e.g., many discourses by Jesus while on earth, John 21:25; private revelations to the apostles, II Cor. 12:4,7; Rev. 10:4; unpublished messages from New Testament prophets, I Cor. 12:28).

Second, we must note that not all of those inspired messages which were reduced to writing have been preserved by God's providence for use by His people through history, such as "The Wars of Jehovah," "The Book of Asher," Paul's previous letter to the Corinthians, etc. (c.f., Num. 21:14; Josh. 10:13; II Chron. 9:29; 12:15; I Cor. 5:9; II Cor. 2:4; 7:8). Therefore, we should say more precisely that the canon of the Christian church is constituted by those inspired writings which God has preserved for His people in all subsequent ages. . . .

To recapitulate: we know from God's Word (1) that the church of the New Covenant recognized the standing canon of the Old Testament, and (2) that the Lord intended for the New Covenant church to be built upon the word of the apostles, coming thereby to recognize the canonical literature of the New Testament. To these premises we can add the conviction (3) that all of history is governed by God's providence ("...according to the plan of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His own will," Eph. 1:11). So then, trusting Christ's promise that He would indeed build His church, and being confident in the controlling sovereignty of God, we can be assured the God-ordained recognition of the canon would be providentially accomplished -- which, in retrospect, is now a matter of historical record. . . .

The conclusion to which we come is that the books of the Roman Catholic Apocrypha fail to demonstrate the characteristic marks of inspiration and authority. They are not self-attesting, but rather contradict God's Word elsewhere. They were not recognized by God's people from the outset as inspired and have never gained acceptance of the church universal as communicating the full authority of God's own Word. We must concur with the Westminster Confession, when it says: "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings" (I, 3).
Click to expand...

http://www.reformed.org/bible/bahnsen_canon.html

The inspired messages that Bahnsen mentioned that did not make it into the canon were obviously God-breathed, but as he stated, inspiration is not sufficient for canonicity. Some of God's messages were direct and not breathed through a human writer, and some inspired writings were not preserved by God. Wes, in your last post, if you were referring to currently existing writings that are outside the canon but that someone claims to be God-breathed (like the Book of Mormon, for instance), I would reject them. I think God has preserved His God-breathed words that He intends for us to have in the canon.

[ January 05, 2005, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: koreahog2005 ]

God Knows!

Wes Outwest New Member

Hamtramck_Mike New Member

Wes Outwest New Member

ILUVLIGHT Guest

Wes Outwest New Member

koreahog2005 New Member

ILUVLIGHT Guest

koreahog2005 New Member

Wes Outwest New Member

Wes Outwest New Member

koreahog2005 New Member

Wes Outwest New Member

ILUVLIGHT Guest

koreahog2005 New Member

koreahog2005 New Member

Wes Outwest New Member

koreahog2005 New Member

Wes Outwest New Member

koreahog2005 New Member

koreahog2005 New Member

Useful Searches

God Knows!

Wes Outwest New Member

Hamtramck_Mike New Member

Wes Outwest New Member

ILUVLIGHT Guest

Wes Outwest New Member

koreahog2005 New Member

ILUVLIGHT Guest

koreahog2005 New Member

Wes Outwest New Member

Wes Outwest New Member

koreahog2005 New Member

Wes Outwest New Member

ILUVLIGHT Guest

koreahog2005 New Member

koreahog2005 New Member

Wes Outwest New Member

koreahog2005 New Member

Wes Outwest New Member

koreahog2005 New Member

koreahog2005 New Member