An interesting site

[karen freeinchristman]

I just found this page (http://newtestamentresearch.com/NT%20Research-Mk%202/bible_in_the_church.htm#The%20Use%20of%20the%20Bible%20in%20the%20Church) on a website which is written by James M. Gibbs, PhD. I thought it was really good, challenging, and interesting, and Gibbs' views are similar to my own.

What do you all think of this? :confused:

[Iosias]

I think the author is rather confused. One of the problems of today is that of scholars. In the current climate scholars champion new ideas and so they have to be constantly coming up with new ideas so they can publish articles, speak at conferences and eventually write books.

Try the following:

E. Randolph Richard's Secretary in the Letters of Paul and Anthony Kenny's Stylometric Study of the New Testament.

[karen freeinchristman]

I think the author is rather confused. One of the problems of today is that of scholars. In the current climate scholars champion new ideas and so they have to be constantly coming up with new ideas so they can publish articles, speak at conferences and eventually write books.

Try the following:

E. Randolph Richard's Secretary in the Letters of Paul and Anthony Kenny's Stylometric Study of the New Testament.
Warning: this link will not appeal to someone with a strong Reformation-theology stance!

[gtsecc]

Yep - once again, the problem is a bizzare misunderstanding on both sides, but yet both sides are of the same coin (someone's personal view of scripture.)

Neither side is the view of Scripture IN Tradition.

[norbie]

Did Jesus say all the words attributed to him? Modern scholarship would say that this is very unlikely. A simple way of handling this is not to say merely, "Jesus said ...", but rather to say, "Mark bears witness to Jesus as saying ..."

As my understanding is that the Gospel was inspirited by the Holy Spirit, I have a problem with the above quote. The Holy Spirit would have guided our Gospel writers and so the words would be Jesus teaching, so modern scholarship lost the plot, or don't believe that the Gospel was written by the Holy Spirit. Just my believe.

[karen freeinchristman]

Did Jesus say all the words attributed to him? Modern scholarship would say that this is very unlikely. A simple way of handling this is not to say merely, "Jesus said ...", but rather to say, "Mark bears witness to Jesus as saying ..."

As my understanding is that the Gospel was inspirited by the Holy Spirit, I have a problem with the above quote. The Holy Spirit would have guided our Gospel writers and so the words would be Jesus teaching, so modern scholarship lost the plot, or don't believe that the Gospel was written by the Holy Spirit. Just my believe.
I understand and respect what you are saying, but my view and belief is that God did not inspire by dictating word-for-word. He inspired the gospel writers in what they wrote and how they wrote it, but not necessarily word-for-word. Though I am sure that many of the words are exact or very nearly exact, due to the high level of experience they had in that day of oral tradition.

[haulpak]

I understand and respect what you are saying, but my view and belief is that God did not inspire by dictating word-for-word. He inspired the gospel writers in what they wrote and how they wrote it, but not necessarily word-for-word. Though I am sure that many of the words are exact or very nearly exact, due to the high level of experience they had in that day of oral tradition.

The four Gospel accounts are effectively the biographical account of the life and sayings of Jesus by each of the four sources (Mtt, Mk, Lk, Jn).

I accept them as 'inspired' to the extent that God alone determined how each of the sources recalled, remembered and transmitted their accounts.

Any variance is not contradictory (as the fanatical mad Muslims would claim as a corruption and lies) but simply a function of four people relating the same events as they saw them and understood them.

It is like asking four people to watch a football game and then give a commentary, each sees the same thing but records it in their own words with a focus on the aspects of the game which they found engaging. The same is true of the Gospel sources.

The important thing for me is reading the four Gospel accounts and being able to fill in the blanks. Rather than being contradictory they are complimentary.

[karen freeinchristman]

The four Gospel accounts are effectively the biographical account of the life and sayings of Jesus by each of the four sources (Mtt, Mk, Lk, Jn).

I accept them as 'inspired' to the extent that God alone determined how each of the sources recalled, remembered and transmitted their accounts.

Any variance is not contradictory (as the fanatical mad Muslims would claim as a corruption and lies) but simply a function of four people relating the same events as they saw them and understood them.

It is like asking four people to watch a football game and then give a commentary, each sees the same thing but records it in their own words with a focus on the aspects of the game which they found engaging. The same is true of the Gospel sources.

The important thing for me is reading the four Gospel accounts and being able to fill in the blanks. Rather than being contradictory they are complimentary.Hey, haulpak :wave:
Welcome to foru.ms and to STR!

[higgs2]

It was interesting, and I did like a lot of what he said.

THis part bugged me:

With regard to the sermon, I would plead that it follows immediately after the readings (without the interruption of the often lengthy announcements) and that it make proper and weighty use of all the readings. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that any readings which are not going to be taken up in the sermon (and there are times when purely topical sermons are called for) would better be omitted rather than left to the ignominy of being disregarded and hence downgraded to no more than a cultic act! In synagogues the Scriptures have never been read without exposition, and the Christian Church should settle for nothing less.

What I heard is that if the preacher is not going to explain part of the readings in the sermon they should not be read. In our church all of the lectionary readings are read, and the rector usually doesn't refer to all of them. But I believe there is great value in the continuity of hearing all of the reading aloud even if they are not "explained" to us! THat was a bit patronizing.

[karen freeinchristman]

It was interesting, and I did like a lot of what he said.

THis part bugged me:
With regard to the sermon, I would plead that it follows immediately after the readings (without the interruption of the often lengthy announcements) and that it make proper and weighty use of all the readings. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that any readings which are not going to be taken up in the sermon (and there are times when purely topical sermons are called for) would better be omitted rather than left to the ignominy of being disregarded and hence downgraded to no more than a cultic act! In synagogues the Scriptures have never been read without exposition, and the Christian Church should settle for nothing less.


What I heard is that if the preacher is not going to explain part of the readings in the sermon they should not be read. In our church all of the lectionary readings are read, and the rector usually doesn't refer to all of them. But I believe there is great value in the continuity of hearing all of the reading aloud even if they are not "explained" to us! THat was a bit patronizing.
I agree totally with you, higgs.

I really like having a Psalm and either an OT reading or an epistle in addition to the gospel reading, and I don't think we need to hear a sermon that covers all of those things, but it can focus on one. Only having one reading really diminishes from the worship and the liturgy and the amount of exposure to the Bible that a lot of people will receive.

[Iosias]

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." - Psalm 12:6, 7I understand and respect what you are saying, but my view and belief is that God did not inspire by dictating word-for-word. He inspired the gospel writers in what they wrote and how they wrote it, but not necessarily word-for-word.

Just a gentle reminder that the dictation theory of Scripture is completely different from the verbal plenary view of inspiration. :thumbsup:

The verbal plebary position teaches (correctly ;) ) that the influence of the Holy Spirit over the writers of Scripture extended beyond the thoughts to the selection of the very words which the authors chose.

The dictation view which you correctly repudiate is that is the writers of Scripture were nothing more than secretaries, taking down Scripture as the Holy Spirit dictated it to them.

The former was the view taken by the English Reformers. The following is a nice quotation used by John Piper:

"To assure verbal precision God, in communicating his revelation, must be verbally precise, and inspiration must extend to the very words. This does not mean that God dictated every word. Rather his Spirit so pervaded the mind of the human writer that he chose out of his own vocabulary and experience precisely those words, thoughts and expressions that conveyed God's message with precision. In this sense the words of the human authors of Scripture can be viewed as the word of God."I hope this is of some help :)

Two links:
1. The Inspiration Of Scripture (http://reformed.org/bible/boettner/index.html) by Loraine Boettner
2. The Human Writers of the Scripture (http://www.the-highway.com/scripture_Young.html) by E J Young


"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb."

- Psalm 19:7-10

[artybloke]

In a note he mentions RPC Hanson - I was taught by him at university.

Very good theologian. Tendency to walk corridors with his nose in a book.

[gtsecc]

Lots of people wrote Epistles and Gospels.
Some were in accord with the witness of the faithful, and some weren’t.
What the Holy Spirit did was guide the faithful into knowing which were and were not true.

You know the saying about billions of monkey? It is more like picking out which monkey wrote the Shakespeare, rather than a spirit inhabiting a particular monkey, and then out came Shakespeare.

Another point, that I would support is with Scripture, is that you need a guide to understand scripture. It doesn’t say you can tune into the Holy Spirit, and God will posses you personally and reveal the meaning to you, it means you have to have the Church to know what the Bible means. Now, I know someone will disagree and tell me that that only applies to Eunichs.

[haulpak]

Hey, haulpak :wave:
Welcome to foru.ms and to STR!

Pleasure is all mine.

Thanks for the welcome :wave: