Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

--- Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com> wrote:

> Bill,
>
> 2 Timothy 3:16 does not say scriptures are the Word of God. It says
> scriptures were inspired ("God-breathed")--not the same thing. I readily and
> often acknowledge that biblical scriptures were inspired by God. By that I
> do not mean that God dictated them word for word or anything remotely like
> that. People moved by God wrote, and God did not necessarily constrain
> content to fit his level of understanding. It's clear he often allowed
> content to stay at the writer's level of understanding.

I think we're splitting hairs. Now that I understand what you mean, I don't
have (much of) a problem with it. I will note in passing, though, that the
Westminster Confession of Faith, in the first chapter, refers to the Scriptures
as the "Word og God written". As I said elsewhere, thre are two dangers at the
extremes with regard to the Bible. One is bibliolatry, the other is treating
the Bible as just another book, written by men.
>
> You questioned my statement that "Word of God" as used in the Bible never
> means scriptures. I've looked into this more than once, and I've yet to find
> a clear case. In fact, there are very few instances where it's even possible
> to reasonably think that "Word of God" could mean scriptures. Look for
> example at usage in Acts 6:2,7 and II Peter 3:5. These are only three
> off-the-cuff cases out of a large number. Debbie Mann mentioned Heb. 4:12.
> I've heard preachers make this passage refer to scriptures, but to my mind
> that's an unwarranted stretch, especially in view of how "Word of God" is
> used elsewhere in scriptures.
>
> My view is that the term Word of God should be used to refer to something
> like the power of God active in some special way on earth, which is how the
> Bible often uses the term. It should never refer to a book, as valuable as
> that book may be.

Well, I still have a problem with _never_, but to argue about it is splitting
hairs.
>
> Don
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Hamilton<mailto:williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
> To: Don Winterstein<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com> ; Glenn
> Morton<mailto:glennmorton@entouch.net> ; asa<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 5:50 AM
> Subject: Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.
>
>
>
>
> --- Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Where does it say in the Bible that scriptures are the Word of God?
>
> 2 Timothy 3:16
>
> > In fact,
> > "Word of God" as used in the Bible never means scriptures.
> Never? I agree that often "Word of God" means Jesus Christ. But never?
>
> > And if the Bible
> > did make such a claim, why should you believe it? It was a group of mere
> men
> > who chose the writings to be included in the Bible; why should you
> believe
> > those men knew which writings were inspired and which were not? What is
> > inspiration, and what does it imply?
>
> Here you have a valid point, which I have been corresponding with a former
> colleague about (he saw the writing on the wall at GMR&D long before I did,
> quit and went to divinity school) For me I can accept the canon because
> the
> church fathers who selected it were historically closer to the events
> described
> in the Gospels. I think it's problematic to ascribe infallibility to them.
> However, because many Christians agreed on the canon and because they were
> closer in time to the events described (and therefore had access to more
> original records) I can accept what they did.
> >
> > [Aside: The current problem with YECs has its roots in the
> super-elevated
> > status conferred on the Bible presumably following the Protestant
> > Reformation. YECs are as fearful of deviating from literal
> interpretations
> > as Muslims would be in deviating from the Quran: both consider their
> texts to
> > be the literal Word of God. If anything is found to be wrong with the
> text,
> > it is God who fails; so the text must be infallible by definition. Your
> > thinking seems analogous to YECs' thinking in this respect.]
> >
> Agreed. The status of Scripture is a difficult issue. You don't want to
> indulge in Bibliolatry, neither do you want to pick and choose what is and
> isn't inspired. I have come to the conclusion that the inspired nature of
> the
> Scriptures means that the Bible will correctly guide Spirit-filled
> Christians
> who seek understanding prayerfully.
>
>
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com<http://mail.yahoo.com/>
>

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Fri Jun 2 08:19:54 2006