All 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 complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)You'd think it would have a bigger impact on Christians.
The text talks about "inspiration," but it's not the inspiration we think of. It's more of an "expiration" -- a breathing out. Exhaling. In Greek, it's theopneustos, where "theo" is "God" and "pneustos" is "breathed." One word, one kind of "inspired." Scripture is "God-breathed." As opposed to "man-made." The writers weren't "inspired" to write this stuff; it was "breathed into" them. Scripture is God's Word.
"You're so narrow-minded on this," I've been told. "God's Word is so much bigger than Scripture." Well, sure, on one hand, that's true. No one claims that Scripture is all that God has to say. But that's not the claim. The claim is that all that is said in Scripture is God's Word.
"Scripture" -- I keep using that word. Do we know what it means? The Greek here is simply graphē -- a "writing." All Scripture is written. Every time this word appears in the New Testament it is a reference to the "sacred texts," the "holy Writ." Not merely anything that is written. So what we have written down in Scripture is breathed out by God and is, therefore, as reliable as God.
It's odd to me to hear people say, "I believe that" and then deny it. They deny it when they say that it cannot be inerrant -- without error. They deny it when they say it is not sufficient. "Sufficient?" you might ask. Oh, yes. Look a the claim. It is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." "Teaching" gives us the knowledge of what is right. "Reproof" corrects us when we are wrong. "Correction" tells us how to get back to the right. And "training in righteousness" keeps us in what is right. So sufficient is this that it will make those who use it "complete, equipped for every good work." That which makes you complete and equips you for every good work is sufficient. When handled properly (2 Tim 2:15), it is absolutely sufficient for the task. Scripture doesn't require science or philosophy, higher morals or better ideas. It doesn't require your opinion. Taken as it is given, it is all that is needed. It is beyond accusation or evaluation, where we might be allowed to disallow some of it.
There is no other alternative here. You can believe what Scripture says about itself. It premises its claims to sufficiency on the sufficiency of God. It isn't the texts that are reliable; it is God, the One who breathed it. It isn't the words that are sufficient for godly thinking and living; it is God, the One who breathed them. It isn't the Bible that is inerrant; it is God who breathed it. If you claim that you believe the Bible and disregard what the Bible claims, you deceive yourself. Sadly, I'm pretty sure that every one of us at some point does just that, substituting personal preference for the simple truth of Scripture. To our own detriment.
3 comments:
I hear too many christians who've adopted the JW position in that scripture is everything you've said, as long as it's interpreted correctly. The problem is that interpreted correctly means, interpreted the way they think it should be interpreted. Like many things, I agree that we don't treat scripture with enough reverence. Not that we worship scripture, more that we give it it's proper place.
That seems to be the sticking point, doesn't it? And Paul noted it as well. Timothy needed to "rightly handle" the Scriptures. It's interesting that too many Christians think that it's a matter of opinion; that we're all independent and figuring this out all on our own and my opinion is as good as yours. It rejects the notion that GOD is reliable and Scripture means what HE intended and we need to align OUR thinking to His with the help of the Holy Spirit. The thing is, the more we do that, the more we will agree ... in a long line of agreement. So the more my opinion differs from the historical "opinion," the more likely it is that I'm WRONG.
Absolutely. The notion that the starting place is based on our individual experience and biases, as opposed to the intent of YHWH and the writer doesn't even make sense. It's literally asserting that the author didn't really know what He meant, and now we know better. I'd argue that it's also Eurocentric, in that this attitude is used to mock non European Christians who hold to a more historic reading of scripture.
Post a Comment