Christy, I think the difference in our views is that I recognize the scriptures record and include special revelation, and the Bible never presents itself, in its entirety, as a special revelation.
To call the entire Bible, every word, a special revelation is not supported by scripture itself and is just a man-made philosophy.
For example, Paul wrote a letter to a church including the statement listing some people that he baptized and adding that he could not remember who else he baptized. Do you think it was a special revelation that Paul could not remember who he baptized? If not, the Bible is not, in its entirety, a special revelation.
Yes, that verse is part of the unit that as a whole gets designated special revelation. Special revelation, Scripture, and Godâs word are labels for the Bible as a whole, not philosophical claims about each individual sentence.
We disagree. I canât see how Paulâs forgetting who he baptized as a special revelation from God.
Your position seems to be that anything in the Bible, even if it was not revealed by God and even it is an error from the human who wrote the original text, is a special revelation from God. I find that quite unreasonable and completely unsubstantiated in scripture.
This reminds me of the OT laws concerning purification. Something that has been ritually purified did not impart that purification on anything it touched. And special revelation from God does convert anything written along side it into special revelation.
This is what I donât get. Itâs not something that as Christians we get to make personal assessments about. The Bible is Godâs revelation. That is a Christian doctrine. It doesnât really matter what you personally âsee.â Christianity is a confessional religion, not a smorgasbord like Buddhism or Hinduism where you get to pick your favorite parts and practice it any way you see fit.
Nope that is you imposing your view and idiosyncratic definition of special revelation on everyone else. âMy viewâ is the standard Christian affirmation that the Bible as a whole is Godâs word, special revelation. Revelation is an assessment of the function of the whole, not an evaluation of the content of individual sentences.
Jesus was special revelation. That doesnât mean everything Jesus ever said or did was a message directly from God.
I know you say that, but that is not what the Bible claims to be.
The scriptures are, as Metzger, wrote: âthe extant literary deposit of the direct and indirect apostolic witness on which the later witness of the Church depends.â
The Bible records, among other things, Godâs revelation. It is not all of Godâs revelation and it is not all Godâs revelation.
You have a philosophy about the Bible that is not consistent with the Bible.
My âphilosophy about the Bibleâ is consistent with established Christian doctrine. If you want to argue that established Christian doctrine is wrong, you are going to have to come up with something better. Again, how about you actually interact with some of the scholarship I have posted here instead of just constantly repeating your opinion.
Why did you need to reply to irony that was agreeing with you, and with something self-evident? Of course youâre not going to find âChristyâs philosophyâ explicitly delineated in the creeds.
âAll Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good workâ â 2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)
NRSV starts âAll scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correctionâŚâ you get the idea
âAll Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is trueâŚâ (NLT)
If they were inspired (or moved) to compose something good for teaching, hopefully there were some words that got written in there at the same time. But yes, I will look for Metzgerâs book on Canon of the New TestamentâŚHis book on the text is helpful.
Please refer me to several of the subset of Christian scholars who do not affirm that Scripture is special revelation and that it is inspired.
I donât doubt that âsome Christiansâ reject it. âSome Christiansâ here in Mexico believe certain relics have healing powers. Lot of Christians believe things because they are ignorant of Christian doctrine, not because there are legitimate heterodoxies within Christian doctrine on the issue at hand.
Which Christian scholars or authorities, please? I donât really care that three random forum users donât like my wording. Do you know how many flaky opinionated people spout nonsense on the internet? Lots. So, not convincing at all if we are talking about what constitutes Christian doctrine.
Find me one systematic theology textbook that does not discuss a doctrine of revelation and a doctrine of inspiration.
So? Many aspects of my Christian doctrine are not found in a few lines of a Creed which were intended to be basic formulations. Entire 500 page books are written trying to summarize all the Christian doctrines that have been developed over the history of the Church. I think you are confused about who needs to convince who here. You are the one who is saying established Christian doctrine is not valid. So the burden of proof is on you, not me.
2 Timothy 3 is the passage most often quoted in this type of discussion. I encourage you to look at it closely in context and with alternate translations. Most translations are intentional mistranslations. Here is the American Standard Version, which is closer to the Greek:
2 Timothy 3:14-17 American Standard Version (ASV)
14 But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of [a]whom thou hast learned them; 15 and that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 [b]Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for [c]instruction which is in righteousness: 17 that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
Note:
In context this refers to the sacred writings Timothy had known from his youth. That would have been the Old Testament, likely the Septuagint.
The better translation is âevery inspired scripture,â not âall scripture is inspired.â Look at the Greek and you will see no âis.â The Greek form of âevery inspired scriptureâ is more than 20 times in the scriptures, including âEvery good tree bears good fruit.â We would not translate that âevery tree is good.â
People try to turn that passage into wild claims like âGod authored the Bible.â
Even the ASV quoted above inserts an âisâ that is not in the Greek text.
One of my friends who is an expert in Koine Greek translates it closer to this:
14 But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus: every scripture inspired of God, also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
.