I know some people do not like the appeal to "mystery" (and probably sometimes it is an excuse), but in areas relating to Almighty God and puny man there is reason to realize we can't/don't fully comprehend the full miraculous power of God. He can do things that we struggle to explain using ideas/things to which we can relate. That is one reason I find it important to agree on the results of what God did with inspiration even when we might struggle expressing just how we accomplished it.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Scripture dictation, mechanical or otherwise
- Thread starter rlvaughn
- Start date
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Thanks John. I do believe that we do very much agree on verbal inspiration. Where we do differ, is on the use of "θεόπνευστος", in 2 Tim. 3:16, where this adjective is understood in the passive, as the verb "φερομενοι", is in 2 Peter 1:21. If we still differ on this, I am sure we can move on from it. My understaning of Inspiration is "dictation", without anything else, which I believe you also accept. Is this because of the use of the passive φερομενοι?
God still allowed them to record down as in their own style and wau of speaking, as Luke and Paul vocabulary much better then say Peters was, or Amos!
None were "foerced" to write as they did!
Luke and Paul did not write down as Amos or as Peter did!
Apostles did use scribes at times, as that would be more like dictation!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
the Greek passive in 2 Tim. 3:16, and 2 Peter 1:21 disagrees with you. You have still not addressed this. Once you have, you will have a better understanding.
The Holy Spirit made sure that what was recorded down was the very word of God, and yet there was the human factor involved in that process!
So when Paul stated this is my opinion of the issue, he was inspired, which he indeed was, but not dictating it forth?
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
change of style and vocabulary, does not mean that they were not told what to write!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
The very Word of God, with a human touch? So, the Bible is not really the Word of God, but God/man.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
see what Paul says at the end of 1 Cor 7:40, "according to my judgment; and I think I also have the Spirit of God". His own advice is also from the Spirit of God!
In 1971 I was at Bob Jones University. My evangelist grandfather had written his magnum opus, Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible, which I have quoted in this thread. The president of BJU, Dr. Bob Jones, Jr., refused to recommend the book along with the Bible faculty there, since JRR's book showed that one of the faculty had improperly used the term "mechanical dictation" in a book he wrote. Jones and his faculty then accused John R. Rice of holding to "mechanical dictation," though his book had two full chapters on why he did not, but did believe the term "dictation" was proper. (I have quoted two modern systematic theologians earlier in this thread who recognized the clear difference in JRR's book)
At that time I researched the doctrine of inspiration heavily, and came through to believe in verbal-plenary inspiration. Both verses you mention, with the adjective
p) θεοπνευστος and the participle φερομενοι were instrumental in persuading me. It was a very traumatic time for me, but God used it to bring me to solid theological ground.What is it that one must hold to a mechanical view in order to have it inspired by the Holy Spirit? Does He not have the means to overcome any and all human limitations? Is not trhe Lord jesus both fully Human and also fully God, so the scriptures are both human creations and Deity inspired also?In 1971 I was at Bob Jones University. My evangelist grandfather had written his magnum opus, Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible, which I have quoted in this thread. The president of BJU, Dr. Bob Jones, Jr., refused to recommend the book along with the Bible faculty there, since JRR's book showed that one of the faculty had improperly used the term "mechanical dictation" in a book he wrote. Jones and his faculty then accused John R. Rice of holding to "mechanical dictation," though his book had two full chapters on why he did not, but did believe the term "dictation" was proper. (I have quoted two modern systematic theologians earlier in this thread who recognized the clear difference in JRR's book)
At that time I researched the doctrine of inspiration heavily, and came through to believe in verbal-plenary inspiration. Both verses you mention, with the adjective
He did not say though I have been dictated to say this!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
We are going around in circles here. You can't seem to grasp this. No offence intended
Why must there be mechanical dictation in order to have an inspired final product?
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Just dictation. No mechanical
Did Luke collect various eye witnesses testimonies and put therm together, as a reporter does his own sources, in order to make a story?
Jones also believed in verbal-plenary inspiration. It was just that he thought the term "dictation" should not be used to describe inspiration. So one does not have to use the term "dictation" to describe it, but to Rice it was a useful term.