How much of a role?

This makes it sound as if Paul made a mistake in saying, "This is me talking." I take him at his word and believe it was him, Paul, speaking and that these passages are not as inerrant as when Paul says "This is God talking."

I suppose both positions are articles of faith and unprovable either way.


Hmmmm, font didn't become larger as I wanted for these tired old eyes. LOL

 

When I say fully God and fully man, I am not denying the absolute control God had over His word. When I say fully Man, I believe he used his God-given talents to present those words.

Peter and Paul parted ways at one point. They had a disagreement. This did not alter the word of God written by Paul and by Peter. Still their personalities came through.

If God did not have a touch upon them then we would be open to-day for a man saying God spoke to him and has given this new revelation.

When I preach, it is God who touches the heart of the sinner and brings him into God's touch,,,not me, but God uses my words, my personality, my language yet I claim no special revelation from God.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I go with 'Fully God'. That is Paul's own testimony in 2 Timothy. Otherwise we have to conclude that whatever is not 'breathed-out' by God (i.e. when Paul supposedly speaks on his own) is not Scripture.

 

By the way, What's the difference between Fully God (Man was merely an instrument) and Both Fully God and Fully Man?

 

Was Paul in error when he said, "This is me speaking?"

 

Yup! You really think God is so dense that he would let someone slide their own opinion in without His manifest direction?

 

If Paul was in error then the words, "This is me speaking" are not inerrant. Seems the ground here is getting stickly.

I take a conservative approach to this, Paul said, "This is me speaking," and it was him speaking, not God. When Paul said, "This is God speaking," then it was from God.

To interprete it otherwise is to try to make scripture say what it does not say, and that is a liberal interpretation.

 

Interesting. I have never been accused of being a 'liberal' before.

Sounds to me like one of us has to admit that certain portions of 'God's Word' aren't really His. I hesitate to do so.

 

Good question!! It all comes down to one's interpretation.

 

I will not lose sleep over either: fully God or fully God, fully man.

When Paul was speaking as a man, what he says may be good counsel, but it is not law. One particular area had to deal with marriage. He wished that all men were like him,,and I suppose that to remain single. This, however, is not imposed upon all men, just his opinion. Inspired by God or permitted by God is the question. It does not affect the plenary, verbal inspirationof the entire collection of scripture.

The canon was settled on by men, and some of those men had questionable theology. They were, however, used by God to assemble His word. The key here is the criterion they used to select the letters rather than the men who did it.

Does God select my sermon material? I would like to think He approves of what I preach, but there is no way I can even consider the divine inspiration.

In writing the letters, Paul, Peter, John and others used their own language, vernacular grammar and order of speaking. This does not taint the fact that they were conveying the very thoughts God had placed in their minds and hearts. Hence we have the very word of God, even if not the very words. The concept is there and each concept agrees wth other scriptures. Sometimes we get hung up on words.......the singular words,,,,,,,and miss the concept.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I did not mean an insult when I used the word liberal. But I believe to try to say scripture does not mean what is really written there is to make a liberal interpretation of it. That is, if Paul says this is me speaking and not God, then I believe it is Paul speaking and not God.

Cheers.

 

I knew what you were saying, that's why I used the smiley face. I guess it just comes down to one's interpretation of what Paul said and how that fits with one's view of inspiration. Blessings to you.

 

So what do you really believe about what actually happened? I'm curious.

 

I answered "fully God and fully human" because it is the best answer available while adding the caveat that while the coorelation is the nature of Christ it does not mean that Scripture is divine.

I would affirm that God's inspirational act occurred through the empowerment of people of God through whom we have received the authoritative revelation of God conditioned by their thoughts, cultural constructs, grammatical style, and other personal influences. I don't this answer provides this conclusion.

 

I too voted the same.

I mean, How else do we account for the different literary styles and so on?

 

Let me play devil's advocate here...

Could we not rightly say- since man and language are creations of God- that the Scriptures (original autographs) were ultimately wholly of God?

Just thinking out loud.

 

Let's say your language was created by God ... but man can misuse language, so I believe the logic of your statement will not hold. Also just thinking outloud.