Scripture dictation, mechanical or otherwise

[Yeshua1]

Did you know that the Apostle Paul wrote 3 or possibly 4 Letters to the Church at Corinth? Yet it pleased the Holy Spirit that only 2 are Inspired and worthy of the Bible. The others are not Inspired though written by the same Paul

That is true, but Jesus also said and did things that were never recorded down to us in the Bible, were they not as valid as if they were?

 

[SavedByGrace]

That is true, but Jesus also said and did things that were never recorded down to us in the Bible, were they not as valid as if they were?

ONLY the 66 Books of the Holy Bible are 100 % Inspired by the Holy in the Original Autographs. Nothing else is

 

[rlvaughn]

IF he did not tell her to express it as she would normally do, yes!

A human being who takes dictation is a robot. Got it. I'm sure all secretaries will be thrilled with your answer.

 

[Stratton7]

Not to answer for him, but if I may have some input, this is a good time to mention the difference between revelation and inspiration. Revelation occurs when God tells us things important to know. There are two kinds. First of all, general or natural revelation is God showing Himself through His creation (Ps. 97:6, Romans 1:20). Special revelation is that given to us through the Word of God. So then, inspiration (already defined) is the process by which God gives us special revelation.

Thanks John for the clarification.

 

[Yeshua1]

A human being who takes dictation is a robot. Got it. I'm sure all secretaries will be thrilled with your answer.

Do you hold that the Lord forced them to record what he wanted thru them, but did not allow them to express it in a way unique to their styles and vocabularies then?
That He could not allow for any human factor, as that would dilute the final product?

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks John for the clarification.

Still very sure that when Paul or peter or John spoke, their theology would be perfect!

 

[rlvaughn]

Do you hold that the Lord forced them to record what he wanted thru them, but did not allow them to express it in a way unique to their styles and vocabularies then?

I hold that, according to Scripture, God gave the writers his word perfectly and without error (e. g. 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 1 Peter 1:19-21; Deuteronomy 8:3; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:8,17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 1:1; 1 Peter 1:10-11; Revelation 21:5). By observation we believe that the writers wrote in a way that reflects what we assume is their own language, backgrounds, and personalities. I do not think that our teaching should emphasize the observation over the plain statements of Scripture.

 

[Stratton7]

Still very sure that when Paul or peter or John spoke, their theology would be perfect!

I got to thinking that if Peter’s theology was always perfect, would he have cut off the Roman soldiers ear or sank in the water?
The understanding is that if anything were perfect outside of the Bible would (going by what John of Japan said), would be natural revelation whereas what was said in the Words of the Bible would be special revelation by Inspiration. That’s how I understood what he said.

 

[Yeshua1]

I hold that, according to Scripture, God gave the writers his word perfectly and without error (e. g. 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 1 Peter 1:19-21; Deuteronomy 8:3; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:8,17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 1:1; 1 Peter 1:10-11; Revelation 21:5). By observation we believe that the writers wrote in a way that reflects what we assume is their own language, backgrounds, and personalities. I do not think that our teaching should emphasize the observation over the plain statements of Scripture.

So you do then would see this as there being both a Human factor and God involved?

 

[Yeshua1]

I got to thinking that if Peter’s theology was always perfect, would he have cut off the Roman soldiers ear or sank in the water?
The understanding is that if anything were perfect outside of the Bible would (going by what John of Japan said), would be revelation whereas what was said in the Words of the Bible would be Inspiration. That’s how I understood what he said.

I was not referring to peter when he did that sinful act, nor would he refused to honor his own theology wehen confronted by Paul!

 

[John of Japan]

I got to thinking that if Peter’s theology was always perfect, would he have cut off the Roman soldiers ear or sank in the water?
The understanding is that if anything were perfect outside of the Bible would (going by what John of Japan said), would be revelation whereas what was said in the Words of the Bible would be Inspiration. That’s how I understood what he said.

If by "anything perfect outside of the Bible" you mean truth revealed for all people (my definition of revelation), I don't see that as possible. There are various passages that condemn adding anything to or subtracting anything from the Word of God (Revelation 22:18-19, Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6). Therefore, the Word of God is as complete as God wants it to be.

Now, anything happening concerning revelation outside of the inspiration of Scripture is by definition not perfect. Natural revelation is of necessity incomplete, not perfect; any truth we receive through natural revelation exists because of God's providence, not miracles.

 

[Stratton7]

If by "anything perfect outside of the Bible" you mean truth revealed for all people (my definition of revelation), I don't see that as possible. There are various passages that condemn adding anything to or subtracting anything from the Word of God (Revelation 22:18-19, Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6). Therefore, the Word of God is as complete as God wants it to be.

Now, anything happening concerning revelation outside of the inspiration of Scripture is by definition not perfect. Natural revelation is of necessity incomplete, not perfect; any truth we receive through natural revelation exists because of God's providence, not miracles.

I definitely wasn’t referring to anything being removed or added to the Word of God. It is perfect as is.
I was trying to say (and probably not doing a good job of it), that I thought that if anything outside the Bible, say conversations that would have been perfect through the Holy Spirit but weren’t meant for all people or the Bible, had happened (speculation and not suggesting it had), that I thought you said that would be natural or general revelation. That which was recorded in the Bible for all would be called special revelation. Maybe I misunderstood your meaning. I think from your quote here I have a better sense of what you’re saying.

 

[rlvaughn]

So you do then would see this as there being both a Human factor and God involved?

Of course, there is a human factor. All of the writers-down of Scripture were humans. None were aliens, animals, or automatons, so far as I can tell. (We know God can speak through an animal - Numbers 22:28-30 - but none of which I am aware put anything in writing.) In my opinion, the more and more people talk and write emphasizing the human factor (which, as far as I know, very few Bible-believers deny), the more and more we sound like we are saying the Bible is a human writing rather than a Divine one.

 

[John of Japan]

I definitely wasn’t referring to anything being removed or added to the Word of God. It is perfect as is.
I was trying to say (and probably not doing a good job of it), that I thought that if anything outside the Bible, say conversations that would have been perfect through the Holy Spirit but weren’t meant for all people or the Bible, had happened (speculation and not suggesting it had), that I thought you said that would be natural or general revelation. That which was recorded in the Bible for all would be called special revelation. Maybe I misunderstood your meaning. I think from your quote here I have a better sense of what you’re saying.

One theologian has written, "The traditional loci of general revelation are three: nature, history, and the constitution of the human being" (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd. ed., p. 123). General revelation does not occur through human words, then, but we can see the image of God and His glory in creation, in how a human being is made, and throughout human history, such as when the North won the Civil War, or the Normandy Invasion took place in WW2.

It often occurs through nature, such as when a tribal native looks up at the sky and says, "There must be a God. Dear God, reveal yourself to me." One such event is recorded in a book by my great uncle, evangelist Bill Rice, Cowboy Boots in Darkest Africa. The man who prayed that was a pygmy, and his prayer was answered when my uncle, a missionary, and an interpreter arrived in his village years later.

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course, there is a human factor. All of the writers-down of Scripture were humans. None were aliens, animals, or automatons, so far as I can tell. (We know God can speak through an animal - Numbers 22:28-30 - but none of which I am aware put anything in writing.) In my opinion, the more and more people talk and write emphasizing the human factor (which, as far as I know, very few Bible-believers deny), the more and more we sound like we are saying the Bible is a human writing rather than a Divine one.

It is human writings that were inspired by the Holy Spirit!

 

[Yeshua1]

One theologian has written, "The traditional loci of general revelation are three: nature, history, and the constitution of the human being" (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd. ed., p. 123). General revelation does not occur through human words, then, but we can see the image of God and His glory in creation, in how a human being is made, and throughout human history, such as when the North won the Civil War, or the Normandy Invasion took place in WW2.

It often occurs through nature, such as when a tribal native looks up at the sky and says, "There must be a God. Dear God, reveal yourself to me." One such event is recorded in a book by my great uncle, evangelist Bill Rice, Cowboy Boots in Darkest Africa. The man who prayed that was a pygmy, and his prayer was answered when my uncle, a missionary, and an interpreter arrived in his village years later.

Do you see that when the Apostles were giving message/sermon, that the Holy Spirit inspired their teaching to be revelation from God?

 

[John of Japan]

Do you see that when the Apostles were giving message/sermon, that the Holy Spirit inspired their teaching to be revelation from God?

When the spoken word is recorded in historical accounts in the Bible, the revelation we are given is inerrant in the sense that the Bible perfectly records what was said. And to the exact extent that the speaker was filled with the Holy Spirit and lead by God, we receive revelation to live by. However, there are spoken words recorded inerrantly in the Bible which do not contain revelation that we can live by per se, but revelation of evil: the words of Satan in Job, the words of evil OT kings, the words of Pilate or Herod, the words of Satan tempting Jesus (except when he quotes the OT), etc.

 

[John of Japan]

It is human writings that were inspired by the Holy Spirit!

Are you saying that the Bible was first written, then inspired, in a two step process?

 

[Yeshua1]

When the spoken word is recorded in historical accounts in the Bible, the revelation we are given is inerrant in the sense that the Bible perfectly records what was said. And to the exact extent that the speaker was filled with the Holy Spirit and lead by God, we receive revelation to live by. However, there are spoken words recorded inerrantly in the Bible which do not contain revelation that we can live by per se, but revelation of evil: the words of Satan in Job, the words of evil OT kings, the words of Pilate or Herod, the words of Satan tempting Jesus (except when he quotes the OT), etc.

I agree with that, but was just asking in regards to the Apostles of the Lord Jesus themselves!

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you saying that the Bible was first written, then inspired, in a two step process?

nope, that when the writers "penned" down to the material their recordings, at that moment was the inspired word of God to us!