INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE?

[Allyn]

Peter speaks of Paul's writing as scripture, thus my second question is: should the inspired portion of the bible be regarded as including the old testament prophecies, and paul's writings - but excluding all other new testament writings (e.g. Matthew).







Since the gospels particularly Matthew often claim the fulfilment of prophecy , that fulfilment itself is part of the prophecy so IMO Peter's statement about the inspiration of prophecy would include the gospels and the OT and Paul so virtually the whole bible.

I agree with you totally on this, steve7150. There is more than enough evidence that the whole Bible is inspired . Even those places where Paul said he was speaking from no command is of the Holy Spirit which filled Paul.

[steve]

The event that fulfills prophecy might well be regarded as the other end of the prophecy itself. However, the report of that event is not necessarily inspired. Josh McDowell's books make reference to some fulfilled prophecies. Allyn's posts report the fulfillment of many prophecies, in AD 70. Some of my own lectures report the fulfillment of prophecy. It would take more than this for me to call Josh's or Allyn's writings, or my lectures, as "scripture." In fact, not even all prophecy is "scripture." Many prophets prophesied, but never wrote scripture. Their utterances were inspired, but they weren't scripture (since they were never written down to be read).

To my mind, Matthew is scripture, of course, because it is apostolic—not because it mentions fulfilled prophecy. However, it seems very unlikely that anything Peter or Paul said about the inspiration of "scripture" intended to take in the written gospels. Peter spoke of every "prophecy of scripture" (he meant the prophecies which were written down in the Old Testament) and Paul spoke of the scriptures from which Timothy had been instructed from his youth (obviously, the Old Testament). I also do not know why it would make a difference to the believer—unless they were unaware of what apostolic authority entails.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
I also believe that the New Testament is not prophetic (that is, not necessarily produced by direct inspiration), but that it is apostolic, which makes it just as authoritative as if it had been prophetically inspired. Its writers do not claim to be either "prophets" or "inspired"—but most of them claim to be apostles (an office even more authoritative than that of a prophet—1 Corinthians 12:28).

An interesting outlook. How would apostolic authority compare to prophetic authority? Would every word of apostolic reflection or direction or speculation or advice be as authoritative as every word that was prophetically inspired?


You have referenced Paul's remark in I Corinthians. One might interpret this remark as articulating a hierarchy of authority in the church, but perhaps one might understand it in a different way. Paul had been speaking about value or honor, so his catalog might refer to relative value or honor ascribed in the church.

Now, value/honor could coincide with authority, naturally - but might not equate to authority in every circumstance.

steve wrote:
I also do not know why it would make a difference to the believer—unless they were unaware of what apostolic authority entails.

What, exactly, does apostolic authority entail?

[kaufmannphillips]

thrombomodulin wrote:
As steve7150 noted, Peter speaks of "no prophecy of scripture...". My first question is: Does this mean that only the prophetic portions of the old testament are inspired, and other portions are not?

...

Peter speaks of Paul's writing as scripture, thus my second question is: should the inspired portion of the bible be regarded as including the old testament prophecies, and paul's writings - but excluding all other new testament writings (e.g. Matthew).

Of course, underlying these questions: on what basis does one hold I Peter and/or II Peter as authoritative to determine what is "scripture" and/or what is "inspired"?

[steve]

An interesting outlook. How would apostolic authority compare to prophetic authority? Would every word of apostolic reflection or direction or speculation or advice be as authoritative as every word that was prophetically inspired?

What, exactly, does apostolic authority entail?

The words of an apostle of Jesus Christ are like the words of a commander-in-chief. Jesus said that He was sending them just as the Father had sent Him, and that whoever receives one that He has sent receives Him (John 13:20; 20:21). Christ sent (authorized) the apostles to lead the church. This would mean that the church is to follow their guidance. The word "authority" has lots of uses, of course, in our language. I am using it the sense that would be the practical concern for every follower of Christ. When a person in authority speaks, it answers the question "What must I do?" The commander may or may not be inspired. That is a very peripheral issue to the duty of the subordinate.

The policeman who is directing traffic must be obeyed, regardless of my opinion about how wisely or fairly he is carrying out his job. But this illustration acknowledged that poor choices of policemen have sometimes been made by those who hire them. In the case of the apostles, Jesus chose them, trained them, and gave them His Spirit as well as His commission to lead and teach. To question their competence is to question the wisdom of Christ's choice of them. Since I am a Christian, I do not question this.

You have referenced Paul's remark in I Corinthians. One might interpret this remark as articulating a hierarchy of authority in the church, but perhaps one might understand it in a different way. Paul had been speaking about value or honor, so his catalog might refer to relative value or honor ascribed in the church.

Now, value/honor could coincide with authority, naturally - but might not equate to authority in every circumstance.

You are right. It is not important for me to assert that the apostle has more authority than the prophet. My point was that apostolic writings are no less valuable as scripture than are prophetic writings.

Of course, underlying these questions: on what basis does one hold I Peter and/or II Peter as authoritative to determine what is "scripture" and/or what is "inspired"?

This is a ghreat question! It would seem answerable only on the principle I have mentioned here.

[Allyn]

It seems like an odd statement from Steve to say that "Many prophets prophesied, but never wrote scripture. Their utterances were inspired, but they weren't scripture (since they were never written down to be read)."

What prophecies would Steve be referring to that have not been written down? Is He referring to so called modern day prophets or biblical time prophets? If the latter then who even knows there were prophecies spoken that were never recorded? I am probaly wrong but it seems I need this explained better.

BTW, I have never said I am inspired. I do believe in inspiration though. My writings that all things were fulfilled come from inspired Scripture and from the Man, Jesus who taught concerning them. Just wanted to set the record straight.

[kaufmannphillips]

RV wrote:
So is it fair to say that the bible you hold in your hand contains the word of God?

Is it also fair to say that the pastor that I sat under for many years was either, 1. Was not very educated when it came to this subject. Or 2. He lied when he said that the bible you hold in your hand is the inerrant, infallible word of God.

Did the pastor's audience have Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek bibles in their hands? Because experience with translation calls into question the notion that any English bible is "inerrant" and/or "infallible."

Then again, did the pastor's audience have pristine photoreproductions of inspired manuscripts? Because experience with textual criticism calls into question the notion that any modern editions of the bible are "inerrant" and/or "infallible" - even those in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek.

[steve]

What prophecies would Steve be referring to that have not been written down? Is He referring to so called modern day prophets or biblical time prophets? If the latter then who even knows there were prophecies spoken that were never recorded? I am probaly wrong but it seems I need this explained better.

Many prophets and prophetesses are mentioned in the Old Testament, without recording what they said. Seventy men prophesied at the tabernacle door in Numbers 11:25. There were a hundred prophets of Yahweh hidden in a cave in the time of Jezebel (1 Kings 18:4). We have no record of any of their prophecies. There were guilds of prophets, established by Samuel in several cities (2 Kings 2). Most of what they prophesied is a mystery to us. Even Saul, when pursuing David, fell into a trance and began to prophesy (1 Samuel 19:24), but we have no record of what he said.

BTW, I have never said I am inspired. I do believe in inspiration though. My writings that all things were fulfilled come from inspired Scripture and from the Man, Jesus who taught concerning them. Just wanted to set the record straight.

No, you never claimed to be inspired. And neither did Matthew. What I was responding to is your belief that Matthew must be inspired because he recorded the fulfillment of prophecy. This was the point made by steve7150, and you said you agreed "totally" with him on that point. I find no convincing argument here for the proposition under consideration. My point is that you, and many other people report such fulfillments. This tells us nothing about the inspiration of the reporter.

[Allyn]

Thanks for the clarification, Steve. I agree.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
What, exactly, does apostolic authority entail?

steve wrote:
The words of an apostle of Jesus Christ are like the words of a commander-in-chief. Jesus said that He was sending them just as the Father had sent Him, and that whoever receives one that He has sent receives Him (John 13:20; 20:21). Christ sent (authorized) the apostles to lead the church. This would mean that the church is to follow their guidance. ... In the case of the apostles, Jesus chose them, trained them, and gave them His Spirit as well as His commission to lead and teach. To question their competence is to question the wisdom of Christ's choice of them. Since I am a Christian, I do not question this.

Let’s consider a parallel: in traditional Jewish and Christian thought, David was anointed to be king of Israel; he was chosen by G-d, and the spirit of G-d was upon him from the day of his anointing onward.

Would questioning specific aspects of David’s conduct as king equate to treason and/or blasphemy? Would it equate to questioning his overall competence to be king? Would it equate to questioning the wisdom of G-d’s anointing him?


During his kingship, David probably would have issued a great many directives. Presumably these would have been authoritative until/unless he revoked them. That is, until the end of his reign. After David’s passing, his directives would not have been impervious to displacement.

Would the apostles’ authorization to lead the church have transcended their passing, any more than David’s authorization would have? Would their every directive in first-century leadership remain authoritative for the twenty-first century church, any more than David’s every directive would remain authoritative for twenty-first century Jews?


In the course of his political, military, judicial, and administrative leadership, David probably would have articulated a number of principles to those under his authority, and probably would have made a vast number of decisions.

Would David’s anointing as king guarantee the impeccability – in immediate and/or subsequent contexts – of his every articulation and decision in these areas?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Of course, underlying these questions: on what basis does one hold I Peter and/or II Peter as authoritative to determine what is "scripture" and/or what is "inspired"?

steve wrote:
This is a ghreat question! It would seem answerable only on the principle I have mentioned here.

Which would depend upon the apostolicity of these documents, which has been questioned (rather the more so in the case of II Peter).