God Knows!

Wes, you said the following:

I’m sure you are aware that the verb “inspire” can have two meanings. The archaic meaning of the verb is “to breathe, blow upon.” The normal meaning we hear today is “to motivate, influence in some way.” The Greek indicates that 2 Timothy 3:16 uses the archaic meaning of “inspire” and that every Scripture passage, including Psalm 139:16, is “God-breathed.” A classic hymn like “Amazing Grace” certainly inspires me in the sense of motivating and influencing me, and John Newton was inspired in the second sense of the word (its normal meaning) to write that hymn, but that hymn is not equal to Scripture. Our most recent SBC confession of faith, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, describes Scripture as “the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.” When you and I differ on an issue such as whether God has complete knowledge of the future, we must refer to Scripture as our supreme standard for forming an opinion on that issue.

[ January 05, 2005, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: koreahog2005 ]

 

Billy Graham and other Christian preachers still alive are inspired in the second sense of the word, not in the archaic sense. God can motivate us to write and preach. In spite of that motivation, we can make mistakes when we write and preach. The biblical writers were inspired in the archaic sense, and when they wrote those God-breathed words, they did not make any mistakes.

 

Roman Catholics will make this exact same argument when speaking of their Magisterium with regard to the authority of oral tradition. Do you then agree with them?

Is this true or not? : "The Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine, Sola Scriptura, does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority."

Is this true or not:

"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. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. "

 

Wes, many people had direct contact with Jesus when He walked on earth, but that did not guarantee that they would write “God-breathed” words. For instance, the Pharisees in Matthew 12:24 said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.” Judas Iscariot spent a lot of time with Jesus, and he looked for an opportunity to betray Him (Matthew 26:16). Physical proximity is no guarantee of spiritual correctness or inspiration in the archaic sense.

I think that 2 Peter 1:21 explains a lot about the “God-breathed” type of inspiration:

“For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

Thomas Schreiner, a professor of NT at The Southern Baptist Seminary, commented on the verse:

Thomas Schreiner, “1, 2 Peter, Jude,” The New American Commentary, vol. 37, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), page 324.

 

Some people say that Judas Iscariot is an example of a person who lost his salvation. They refer to the following passages:

“While I was with them, I was keeping them in Thy name which Thou hast given Me; and I guarded them, and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” (John 17:12)

“But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said, ‘Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii, and given to poor people?’ Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.” (John 12:4-6)

The two passages above prompt a number of questions. If God the Father has given the sheep to God the Son (John 10:29), and if Judas was given to Jesus (John 17:12), then was Judas one of God’s sheep? If Jesus was guarding the twelve disciples, how could one of them perish? Weren’t all twelve of the disciples Christians?

To answer the first question, God the Father did give the sheep to God the Son, but Judas was not one of them. The John 17:12 passage is not referring to elect sheep; rather, it is referring to the twelve original disciples. Judas was given to Jesus as a false disciple who would fulfill prophecy and play a part in God’s sovereign plan for the universe. He is an example of the fact that “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God” (Romans 8:28). Judas did not love God, and thus all things did not work together for his good, but Christians benefit from the fact that his actions played a part in the crucifixion of Jesus. Peter explained this point: “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus” (Acts 1:16). In contrast to all things working together for good for Christians, Matthew 26:24 explains the situation for Judas: “The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

To answer the second question, Jesus was guarding the twelve disciples in the sense that they were enabled to fulfill God’s sovereign will for their life. The fact that Judas perished was by no means a failure on the part of Jesus. Judas’ failure was in fact a fulfillment of Scripture: “I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘HE WHO EATS MY BREAD HAS LIFTED UP HIS HEEL AGAINST ME’ ” (John 13:18).

To answer the third question, not all of Jesus’ other disciples were Christians. Jesus had other disciples besides the original twelve, and some false disciples did not believe (John 6:64) and withdrew from Him: “As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him anymore” (John 6:66). Many of them had been following Him because they wanted His physical food, not His spiritual food (John 6:26). Jesus “knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe” (John 6:64). These people were never true disciples. Jesus also knew from the beginning “who it was that would betray Him” (John 6:64). He explained to the twelve that He had chosen them while knowing that one of them was a false disciple: “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” (John 6:70) Again, Jesus viewed eleven of them as being clean (John 15:3), but He viewed Judas as not being clean (John 13:10-11). Judas obviously merely observed Jesus. He was never willing to make an ultimate, final decision to surrender his life to Jesus in repentance and faith. Judas was never a Christian, and he certainly never wrote any God-breathed words. Again, physical proximity is no guarantee of spiritual correctness or inspiration in the archaic sense.

All Scripture is God-breathed. The human authors were moved by the Holy Spirit as they wrote the words, and thus God is the ultimate author of every Scripture passage. As 2 Peter 1:21 says, the humans “spoke from God” (NASB).

 

I think Billy would be the first to admit that his writings and sermons are not God-breathed. He understands the distinction that I clarified earlier in regard to the English word "inspire." Billy's writings and sermons are inspired in the normal sense, but not in the archaic (God-breathed) sense. Billy understands that his writings and sermons are not equal to Scripture. He knows that Scripture is God's word. As mentioned earlier, that acknowledgement was a turning point in his ministry in 1949.

 

P.S.: Wes, a couple of extended accounts of the 1949 incident follow as well as a couple of other quotes that I think will clarify Billy Graham’s beliefs about the Bible being the word of God.

http://www.preceptaustin.org/2_timothy_316-17.htm

http://www.vop.com/previous_broadcasts/1999/nov/99473.htm

http://humbleheart.org/hhjournal/winter2001.htm

http://www.billygraham.org/LFA_Article.asp?ArticleID=85

 

Wes, again I must say that I do not want to misunderstand your position. I apologize for having so much difficulty understanding you. You said the following:

If you would answer the following questions, it might help clarify your position for me. Do you mean that the inspired writings that enhance our understanding of Scripture are equal in authority to Scripture? Do you mean that the inspired writings that enhance our understanding of Scripture are inspired in exactly the same sense that Scripture is inspired? Do you mean that the inspired writings that enhance our understanding of Scripture are the word of God in the same sense that Scripture is the word of God?

 

Wes, I don't know; that's why I asked the questions. Sorry if you're offended.

 

I don't think Wes knows either and thats why he;s offended

 

Oh Wes,

I find it so ironic that in other previous posts you said NO MAN will teach you but God, when I tried to direct you in reading Jonathan Edwards... and now you are saying B.G.'s writings are great?. ... If you want to read GREAT writings try Edwards, Luther, Zwingli, Owens then.