Comments on: Are the Words of the Bible God's Words?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:38:34 +0000

Steve, thanks for this challenging discussion. I tried to interpret your yes, no, yes answers the best way I could. I have no idea which one I got wrong, but at this point, I'd just like to sum things up. I find one side more plausible and reasonable based on what we know, and you find the other side more plausible. Everyone else will just have to decide for themselves.
You agree that there are verses in the Bible that are the words of God, even though there is nothing in the verses themselves to indicate this. (You agree that God speaking in Scripture through the authors is possible and has occurred.)
You agree that we know these verses are the words of God because other parts of Scripture call them the words of God.
According to the words of Scripture, the early church believed at least some of the words of the Bible to be the words of God (in the sense that “God said” them). We know this because Peter, John and all their companions said so in an instance in Acts, and because other writers of the New Testament said so about other passages.
You say it's more plausible that only some words of Scripture are God's words and not all (or, at the very least, we will never know if all are God's words). Also, you say it's more plausible that the NT writers only believed that some of Scripture was God's words (though they thought they were God's words for a reason you don't know because no reason has ever been written down regarding this), rather than all.
I say that the references of Scripture to particular verses as the words of God (when they had no apparent reason believe they were so) without controversy or defense speak to the accepted view in their community of Scripture in general, and that the most plausible explanation for their calling these the words of God (without any other apparent reason) is because they're a part of Scripture and they believed Scripture to be the words of God.
Accepting this view of the early church as the most plausible explanation, I say that understanding their mindset can help us understand their other claims made about Scripture–especially when they use words that aren't defined. Some examples (this is not exhaustive):
2 Peter 1:20-21–“No prophecy of Scripture

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:21:40 +0000

Amy, no, I do not feel like your previous post accurately represents my position; most of the beliefs you attributed to me I do not in fact endorse. I think I stated, as clearly as I can, what my position is in the last two posts. I feel like we're getting bogged down.
It seems to me that we have different conceptions of how best to articulate an argument. You would like to proceed step by step, achieving agreement on every step (or at least clarifying points of disagreement), before going on to the next one. There's something to that, but I find that sort of dialogical strategy works best in face-to-face, personal dialogues. It is impossible to proceed in that manner in written arguments, since one must just lay out one's own argument, without knowing what the commitments of one's audience are. Blogs are somewhere in between, but I just don't have time to state and defend my own positions, or achieve agreement on every step of the way. Again, I did not come here to advance my own position, but strictly to criticize a standard defense of inerrancy.
So either you have a case to make or you don't. If you do, clearly state your case, and I can attempt to locate where it goes wrong in my opinion, and state my reasons for thinking so. You say earlier, “If I were to skip ahead as you're asking me to do, you would rightly condemn my answers as unsubstantiated.” Not if you were to take the time to carefully substantiate your claims! It's hard for me to believe that carefully stating why you think the defense of inerrancy succeeds would not be a more time-efficient procedure than the current one. Not to say I'm not enjoying and profiting from this, but we're already dozens of comments into this and I feel like we're regressing, not progressing, because you're intent on getting a full statement of my own position on these matters, which I simply cannot provide at this time and in this context. And besides, my own doctrine of scripture really is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is, “Are the Words of the Bible God's Words?”
In a nutshell, my case is this: (1) 'God-breathed' does not mean 'God-spoken'; so 2 Tim 3:16 does not say that the Bible is the Word of God; (2) We do not have sufficient evidence to determine which portions of scripture the various NT authors believed were the words of god and which were not, and likewise, we do not have sufficient evidence to determine what criteria they employed in determining which were; we can raise various possibilities, but we cannot determine which possibility is more plausible than the others in any given case. To attempt to do so would be wildly speculative. (3) Even if we grant that the HB scriptures that the NT authors identify as the word of god in fact are, this still does not establish that scripture in toto is the word of god. (4) Even if all of the NT authors, and even if the entire church believed that all of scripture was the word of god, that does not establish that scripture itself contains the claim that scripture is the word of god. Unless it could be shown that “possesses the property of being the word of god” just was part of the definition of “scripture.” But this cannot be shown.
Which of those claims do you think is/are incorrect and why?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:13:58 +0000

Oops–sorry! I confused the questions. You're saying:
1) yes, you agree with the testimony of Scripture that those particular verses are the words of God–that “God said” them
2) no, you do not believe that those are the only words of God (I'll assume you mean here that there could be more you don't know about, but we'll just never know for sure)
4) you believe it's more probable that the early church believed some of Scripture to be the words of God, but not others (although you think it's possible they believed all of them were)
[I don't know a lot about church history, but a quick search through the internet indicated that Luther and Calvin held to a divine source of Scripture. I also found this quote from B.B. Warfield: “Christendom has always reposed upon the belief that the utterances of this book are properly oracles of God.”]
and
5) You offer various speculations as to why they would call these the words of God other than believing Scripture is the words of God, and find these more plausible than the possibility that they considered Scripture to be the words of God.
Does that fairly represent your position?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:49:33 +0000

Okay, so you agree that those Scripture verses are saying that “God said” those other verses. Are you saying for #2 that no, you do not agree with those verses (i.e., you don't agree that they're the words of God)?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:41:54 +0000

Amy, I don't feel like you've gotten the gist of my previous post, which is to say, I have no simple, single answer to questions 1, 2, 3, & 5. My answer to 4 is no, since I have not encountered evidence that indicates the early church did believe this about scripture, although I'm open to correction on this point. Regarding 5, various possibilities exist; again, I see no need to posit a single explanation to cover all cases. It is possible that some NT authors did believe 'that which is scripture is the word of god.' It is possible that some NT authors believed that particular genres of literature were utterances of god (e.g., the psalms). It is possible that god, as god revealed the christological import of particular passages, simultaneously enlightened the author as to whether or not the passage in the hb was god's words. It's possible that the author, in recognizing that a particular passage had christological application, concluded that the passage must have been god's very words on that basis. Since nothing, for me, hangs on which of these possibilties, or still other possibilities, obtains in the case of any given passage, I have no motivation to go through case-by-case and attempt to determine the most plausible explanation for each one.
If my indeterminacy leaves you unable to proceed with your argument, then I suggest that we, for the sake of argument, stipulate the following: Q1: Yes. Q2: No. Q4: No. Q5: Unanswerable, as we have insufficient information to determine this, since the authors did not themselves specify what their criteria for 'spoken by god' was. I think what we arrive on from those assumptions will be interesting and have important bearings to the defense of inerrancy.
Equally interesting would be your assessment if I were to grant that the answer to Q4 is “yes.”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:55:44 +0000

You could speculate all day, but why don't you just answer the questions and find out? 😉
Seriously, they're very straightforward. And I don't think they need long answers, just direct ones. As you said, you came here to argue against my view, so it's only fair for you allow me to develop my response by establishing ground that we can agree on. If I were to skip ahead as you're asking me to do, you would rightly condemn my answers as unsubstantiated. I'm not sure why you're unwilling to answer them, but how can I respond at all unless you'll allow me to build a case from the beginning? You're condemning conclusions I haven't even asserted.
So here they are again with extra clarification:
1. Regarding those verses [that do not in themselves explicitly claim do be God's words as do many verses by the prophets], it wasn't just the view of the people who wrote Scripture that these verses are the words of God–it's actually contained in the words of Scripture as well. So in light of that, and in light of your opinion that it matters to you what Scripture says of itself, do you agree or disagree with these words of Scripture (and the early church) that these verses referred to are the words of God [in the sense that “God said” them, as those verses say]?
2. If you agree, then is your view that all the verses referred to as God's words [in the sense that “God said” them (including these and many others I didn't mention in Genesis, Isaiah, etc.) are actually God's words, but none others?
3. If you don't agree with Scripture that these particular verses are the words of God, then why not?
4. Would you agree that the early Church believed Scripture to be the words of God [in the sense that “God said” them]?
5. If not, then what do you see [from looking at the verses themselves] as a plausible reason for their saying these particular verses are the words of God [in the sense that “God said” them]?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:13:45 +0000

Amy, my own views on which parts of scripture are and are not the words of god is beside the point, as far as I am concerned. I am not here to convince anyone of my views. As I see it, NT usage of HB scriptures are eclectic, improvisational appropriations, which interpret the HB in light of, and as qualified by and subjected to, the revelation of god in jesus christ and the apostolic witness concerning him. These appropriations add semantic content of their own, reading the HB in the shadow of Christ's resurrection; they are not mere recitations. They are, in R.B. Hays' term, “echoes,” providing a semantic signature that is a combination of the original voice and the landscape which reflects it. The nature of the appropriations are pluriform and non-systematic. I don't seek to provide a single answer to the question of how various authors conceived the HB or its relation to Christ. Obviously they saw the HB, as scripture, as authoritative and sacred. Certain authors saw certain passages as containing the words of god, especially the prophetic writings (that makes sense, prophetic sayings were often introduced by “and the word of the lord came to …”), the psalms, and once, even Gen 2! Beyond that… ???? My own views are further complicated by my understanding of the processes of scripture formation, which for any given passage can involve some or all of the following: the original utterances, their transmission, inscription, compilation, editing, and (again) transmission, processes which require us to specify carefully just what it is we are identifying as the words of god.
But I simply don't have the time to expound and defend my own views at length. My point here is not to press my own views. I have a rather limited concern, to argue against the position that scripture teaches that scripture in toto is the word of god; and so also against defenses of inerrancy that rely upon that view. I think most do, so this is not insignificant.
I'm not really sure where you're headed. Either you could claim that “scripture is the word of god” is true by virtue of the meaning of the term “scripture”. To use some tired philosophical categories, the statement would then be an analytic truth, like “bachelors are unmarried males.” But that seems quite the stretch, to say the least.
Or you could argue that many or most of the nt authors and their fellow church-members believed that scripture is the word of god. But that is not the same as the claim that scripture itself contains the claim that scripture is the word of god, and we then need to hear an account of why collateral beliefs of nt authors and early christians are binding.
Or you could argue that scripture does contain the claim that scripture itself is the word of god, in which case, all you need to do is point us to the book, chapter, and verse in which this claim occurs. I don't see any other route… Am I missing something?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:40:14 +0000

Vicky, actually my question doesn't depend on what they considered to be Scripture. You say there was confusion about what would be considered Scripture, and I say yes–there was confusion because Scripture was considered to be something specific, and they were trying to decide which writings belonged in that category. Regardless of what they considered to be in the category, I'm asking a question about the category itself. In other words, when they said “Scripture”–regardless of which books they were referring to–what did they mean? I hope that's a more clear way of saying it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:13:34 +0000

Amy, I've stayed out of the way because Steve does a much better job of articulating in response than I do, but I can't resist popping in to answer #4 above: “4. Would you agree, then, that the early Church believed Scripture to be the words of God?”
Biblical scholars seem to agree that “the early church” was not at all unified in their views about what constituted Scripture. In fact, it wasn't “The” early church, but perhaps “early churches”. Some believed that the Pentateuch and some other Hebrew writings constituted scripture; some believed that one or more gospels, including writings “we” now consider noncanonical such as the “gospel of Thomas”, constituted Scripture too; and if we go back to the writers of Hebrews, Peter, or any other epistle, we find different beliefs or assumptions as to what constituted Scripture. So, to answer your question: I think an informed believer today cannot claim to know precisely what was considered “Scripture” by any given author of NT writing.
Vicky

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:55:29 +0000

Steve, to clarify, at this point I'm trying to establish two things:
1) Scripture testifies that certain verses–verses that themselves don't claim to be the words of God–are actually the words of God and
2) the NT Christians believed the category of “Scripture” was made up of writings which they thought ought to be considered “the words of God.”
I don't think our discussion has reached the point of applying the conclusion that all Scripture is actually the words of God yet. But as a principle of good hermeneutics, understanding their mindset helps us understand their actual words written in Scripture. My above questions are about the words of Scripture, not the writers' unwritten opinions. For example, Hebrews clearly says, “God said