The New Testament...Is it inspired Scripture ?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by pinoybaptist, Nov 29, 2005.

  1. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Is the New Testament part of inspired Scripture ? Paul says:

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    (2 Tim 3:16)

    Did Paul consider his letters to the churches to be part of Holy Writ already ? Did he not base his teachings, instructions, edifying, and doctrines on what was considered inspired writing which in his time was only the Old Testament ?

    Again, he says:

    For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. Romans 15:4


    As for Peter, he says: 2 Peter 1:21
    For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

    So, is the entire Bible the inspired, inerrant Word of God ? All 66 books ?

    If yes, where is the Scriptural proof ?
    If no, then who taught us that the entire Bible is the inspired Word ?

    Your thoughts, please.
     
  2. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Peter considers Paul's writings to be Scripture -- 2 Peter 3:15-16 -- so that takes care of a good deal of the NT. The four Gospels and Acts are essentially historical narratives. That leaves a few extra letters and Revelation. Revelation is heavily entwined with OT symbolism and cannot be understood without it, which gives it at least some credence. James, Peter, John, and Jude are left as authors of a few of the epistles and there is no indication that their letters are not inspired. They were quoted and treated as inspired by the earliest Christians.

    In the long run, however, it is God who has chosen which books were included, as He has directed (at their prayerful request) the hearts of the men involved in selecting canon.
     
  3. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said, Helen

    peace to you [​IMG]
     
  4. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    I have read that Scripture also, Helen, with all due respects, to congregations both in the Philippines and here in the states, as proof-text that the New Testament is indeed inspired Scripture, particularly the Pauline and General Epistles.

    But, here are the verses you cited:

    2 Peter 3:15-16

    Now, let's take a close look at what is being said here.

    The subject: the day of the Lord, which, in the Old Testament, is also described as quick, unexpected, sure to come.

    The Statement: Paul, according to the wisdom given unto him wrote to you. That is, explained to you in his epistles, what the meaning of certain Scriptures, which are really hard to understand.

    The warning: the unlearned, that is, those untaught in the Scriptures, as Paul is, come up with erroneous doctrines and wrong conclusions trying to explain what is clearly not given to them.

    Peter's statement has always been consistent with his earlier assertion that ..."no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time F4 by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21)

    I still do not see Peter saying that Paul's writings were itself inspired Scripture. I see him saying that Paul's writings were correct interpretations of inspired Scripture breathed by God to holy men of old, and therefore ought to be heeded and accepted.
     
  5. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    2nd-3rd century documents like p45 and p46 make it fairly certain that the canon we have today has roots as early as the 2nd or even the 1st century. Heresies and false writings abounding in the early centuries caused even some of the genuine books to be doubted, but in the end the original canon won out. My theory is that John compiled the 27 book NT in Asia Minor before his death. The NT MS tradition stemming from this area is the most rich and dominant.
     
  6. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    I agree with Helen for the simple word LOIPAS in 2 Pe. 3:16, which means "rest" or, in this case, other of the same class under consideration. If ETERAS were used, maybe pinoybaptist would have a point.
     
  7. TexasSky

    TexasSky
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The teachings of Christ were based on Old Testament teachings. They were fulfillment or clarification of old testament scripture. As Christ Himself said, He did not come to destroy it, but to fulfill it, and He did.

    The other teachings of the New Testament are proclaiming the teachings of Christ.

    Yes, they are all inspired scripture.

    That said, I ask that anyone who doubts any part of God's word, go to your knees. Ask God to open your heart and your mind. God teaches that all who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be filled. Claim that promise. Ask Him to show you His will.
     
  8. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
     
  9. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    </font>[/QUOTE]sorry about that, BF. However, would you please clarify further ? do you mean 'wrest' ? or did you really mean 'rest' ?
    thanks.
     
  10. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thank you for your concern for my soul, Texas Sky, but, my soul is alright in Christ.

    Please try to stay on topic.

    My question is prompted not by feelings of heresy, or because I am a 'lost soul', but simply that we all consider the true Bible to be a compilation of 66 books against the Roman Catholics' more than 66 books.

    I want to know why, and when, and who made the decision that only 66 books are truly inspired, and on what Scripture, plain and untwisted, did they base this ?

    The gospels pointing out that Christ quoted the Old Testament does not prove that the New Testament is equally God-breathed as the Old Testament, merely that Christ was drawing His teachings from the Old Testament.

    The phrase 'Thus saith the Lord' may be found more than 400 times in the Old Testament, not once in the New Testament.

    The only book in the New Testament that claims to have written what was dictated to him by God is the Book of Revelation, and the Book of Revelation does not make the whole New Testament.

    Now, am I saying that we should disregard the whole New Testament ?

    Not so.

    I simply want TRUTH, scripture based truth. Not inferences, not hints, not Bible-college taught answers to objections, only Veritas Sola Scriptura.

    Educate me.

    Don't judge my standing in Christ.
     
  11. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes

    Probably not, but that does not matter. I doubt the writers of the OT thought they were writing scripture either.

    Yes.

    There isn't any scriptural proof. There is also no scriptural proof that specific OT books are inspired scripture. We accept it by faith and by church consensus.
     
  12. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    pinoybaptist

    Concerning 2 Peter 1:21, you miss the point of the passage. 1:16-21:

    (v.16)"For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.(v.17)For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory. 'This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased'--(v.18)and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. (v.19)So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. (v.20)But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, (v.21) for no prophecy was every made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

    Peter is asserting that his, and the other apostles', eyewitness account of Jesus makes the prophecies of the Old Testament "more sure". He tells his readers they would do well to listen and heed what he is telling them because his authority is from God and just like the prophets of old, he and the other apostles speak when moved to do so by the Holy Spirit.

    In chapter 2, he immediately contrasts what he has said with that of false prophets and teachers.

    In chapter 3, he once again compares himself, and other apostles, to the Old Testament prophets. (v.2) "that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandments of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles."

    Clearly, Peter considers what he and the other apostles are saying to be in the same category of inspired sayings as the Old Testament prophets. In verse 15, or chapter 3, Peter includes Paul and his writings to be in the same category as well.

    He is saying that unlearned men twist Paul's writings just like they twist "other scripture". Clearly, Peter considers Paul's writings to be scripture. Just because Paul's writings explained other scripture, doesn't make them uninspired.

    The statement,"what the meaning of certain scriptures" doesn't appear in the text. The text says Paul spoke of "these things", which could refer to the coming of the Lord, or could refer to v. 14; that the readers should be diligent to remain blameless and be patient for the day of Lord.

    The statement, "according to the wisdom given unto him" is a statement of inspiration of the Holy Spirit, since God is the one who gives wisdom. Paul was moved to speak by the Holy Spirit, just as the others were.

    There can be no doubt that Peter considered what he was saying and writing, and what Paul was saying and writing to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    peace to you [​IMG]
     
  13. TexasSky

    TexasSky
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Piony,

    Wow. Why does suggesting you go to your knees and ask God to show you the truth of his scriptures translate to you as being concerned for your soul?

    The bible says, "If you hunger or thirst after righteousness you will be filled." The words used are extreme. As in "starve" rather than "hunger" and "dieing of thirst" rather than "thirsty". The verse means if you TRULY crave to know the truth with all your heart God will teach you. You won't "seek in vain."

    And forgive me, but if you seriously doubt that the bible is the inspired word of God, you are NOT alright with the Lord.
     
  14. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    TS, the only truth I have to know is that God is a merciful God who loved me and sent His Son to die on the cross for me, and that the cross and salvation is all about God and Him alone, and not about me.

    Now, I do not doubt that the Bible is God's Word, but, the word Bible means a library of books, and what I want to know, if you will enlighten me, is are all 66 books God-breathed, or is it just the 37 books of the Old Testament since Jesus Christ quoted from the Old Testament, Paul said that scriptures written aforetime and not during his time or after his time were written for our learning, the our including us in today's time, and Peter seems to say the same thing.
    So, where is the Scripture, tell me since you seem so well-versed in Scripture, that says Paul's, Peter's, the 3 John's, and Jude's writings were God-breathed.
     
  15. TexasSky

    TexasSky
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Piony,

    Let me answer you by asking you a question that Ralph Smith once asked a congreation in Austin, Texas.

    "If you only believe a part of the bible - which parts do you refuse to believe? The virgin birth? The death of Christ on the cross? The resurrection of Christ? Do you accept the great flood, but reject the prophecies of the Messiah?"

    Paul was not egotistical enough to think that the letters he was writing would ever be part of the Holy Scripture. But then again, neither was David or King Solumn or Nahum or any of the other authors of God's Holy word. I don't even know if Moses realized it.

    You cannot "pick and choose". Either the bible IS the insipired word of God or it is NOT. Either it is ALL accurate or .. none of it can be trusted.

    You ask me to show where the scripture says that the New Testament is God breathed - first - look at Revelation and John's comments about dot and tittles. Then look at Paul carefully separating, "I say this, not the Lord." Clearly implying the other statements in Timothy came from God.

    Look at the fact that the greatest Jewish scholars of Christ's age tried to find a scripture to allow them to present Him as a fraud or to declare His teachings wrong and their total inability to do so.

    These men knew the Hebrew Bible more than we will EVER know it, and even they could not show any error in the teachings of Christ - though they tried despreately to do so.

    Then look, and you see that the rest of the New Testament NEVER contradicts Christ. It quotes Him, it fills in descriptions. It never contradicts Him and therefore never contradicts the old testament because HE never contradicted the old testament.
     
  16. MikeinGhana

    MikeinGhana
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Much learning hath made thee mad!

    If the NT is not inspired scripture then where do we have an authoritative plan of salvation? Pinoy, how do you know if you are alright if not for the NT teaching you so? If it is not inspired then you are using a faulty standard for judging whether or not you are alright.

    If the NT is not inspired scripture how do we know anyhting truthful about the mystery of the NT Church? All these and many more are taught only in the NT. If it is unreliable, which it may very well be if the NT is not inspired, how do we know the truth about these issues?
     
  17. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    It is Pinoy, Texas Sky, the 'n' before the 'o', I say that merely to avoid your mistakenly omitting the 'i' sometime, and so now, I become a pony, which is a small horse, and small I am not at 250 lbs. :D

    There is no part of the Bible I do not believe. I believe Peter when he says that no scripture is of any private interpretation......, I also believe Paul when he says, everything that has been written aforetime were written for our learning...I believe the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement in 2 Corinthians 5:20, the believer's present position in Christ in Ephesians 2:6, I believe in the efficacy of the blood of Christ as taught in Hebrews.
    But, you are inferring that my eternal salvation, and the success of Christ's work on my behalf, is dependent on whether or not I believe the Bible, and that I do not believe, nor find to be in Scriptures.
    I belive every prophecy that Jesus Christ has uttered, and I believe that the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night.
    I have no problem at all with the New Testament, except the fact that we teach the Epistles of Paul, Peter, John, and Jude to be as equally God-breathed as the writings of the prophets of old.
    That is where I am asking for Scripture. Not historical documents, not inferences, but Scripture, since without a doubt, your position, as well as mine, is Sola Scriptura.

    Agreed.

    [QUOTE
    But then again, neither was David or King Solumn or Nahum or any of the other authors of God's Holy word. I don't even know if Moses realized it.
    [/QUOTE]

    Disagreed. The prophets of old were told by God Himself to 'write', and more than 400 times the phrase 'Thus saith the Lord', were written down by prophets and Scripture writers. They were not egotistical, but they sure were directly told to write and repeat.

    I do not think accuracy has ever been an issue from the start of this thread. I agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but then again, which Bible ? The Bible of 39 books of the Old Testament ? or the Bible of the 27 books of the New Testament ? Or the Bible of 66 books as we know it ?

    If it is the 66 books, again the question begs itself. Where is Scripture that shows that the Epistles were, by and in themselves, God-breathed words of revelation such as the Old Testament ?


    I think I first pointed out about the book of Revelation being the only book that says write, saith the Lord, or words to that effect.

    I think I will disaggree with that. Paul is pretty much like any modern preacher who, at this point, is saying, 'this is what I think, but I do not say take this as doctrine'. If you preach, you probably have been in just such a situation, when trying to drive home a point to which you cannot testify to be accurate Biblical doctrine.
    I know I have been in such a situation at times.
    Gray areas in Scripture can present such a situation, where we say what, to us, seems to be what Scripture indicates.

    I will agree to your second point, that the entire letter to Timothy, except those that Paul had clearly identified as his, is from God, but only in the sense that Paul builds his premise from the writings of the Old Testament, and those , not the letter to Timothy, were God-breathed.

    Of course they would not be able to find anything to pin on Him, He was the One who breathed those words in the Book they were holding, which, by the way, is the Old Testament, not the 66 books of the Bible we say are all God-breathed.

     
  18. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thank you, MikeinGhana. I will take that as a compliment. As a matter of fact, I am not much learned or much cultured as some of you in this Board apparently are.
    I have had three years of Bible College, and reject everything I have learned in those three years concerning my part in my salvation. As for the rest, I follow Paul's precepts: prove all things. hold fast to that which is good.
    Unfortunately, or is it fortunately, my salvation does not depend on any authoritative plan, but on the executed and finished work of Christ, and that alone.

    MikeinGhana.
    The handle seems to indicate that you are probably a missionary in Ghana, from the US or some other English speaking country.
    Tell me, have all in Ghana head the gospel as preached, taught, and presented by MikeinGhana and his fellows ?
    In relation to the deaths that occur per minute among the millions of Ghanaians, to the number of those who heard and believe the NT teaching about the plan of God for their salvation, how many therefore are alright compared to those who are not ?
    Like I said, quote Scripture that shows the entire New Testament to be God-breathed in the sense that the Old Testament is.
    All you can do is infer. That is not enough.
    Do you, MikeinGhana, as a missionary, preacher, and teacher, teach that the Bible and only the Bible is the sole authority ? Sola Scriptura ? Good, and I agree. BUT, where, oh, where, is the Scripture that points to the New Testament, particularly the Pauline and General Epistles, to be God-breathed, in the way that Paul and Peter point to the Old Testament, as God-breathed ?
    Where is the Scripture, or account in Scripture, that shows the original New Testament church, believed, held, and taught, that the writings of Paul and Peter, John and Jude, were all God-breathed ?

    Like I said. Scripture, please.
    And like I said, Christ's being my Savior does not depend on what I know about Him, but on what He knows about me, and what He did for me.
    If knowledge is a prerequisite to anybody's eternal redemption, then we condemn a lot of people.
     
  19. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    The RCC regards the other books as deuterocanonical books. They classify them as a second canon of books. If one reads them he will quickly come to the conclusion that they are not inspired by God but simply writings of man.

    Peter and Jude quote pseudepigraphal and apocryphal books outside of the OT such as Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch. Paul made a quote naming all Cretans as liars.

    There are quotes in the NT from the OT which are paraphrased. Some quotes from the OT have been quoted and applied to a different situation.
     
  20. MikeinGhana

    MikeinGhana
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pinoy, you did not relly answer my questions at all. If the NT is not inspired how do you know Peter and Paul,were even speaking the truth.

    How do you know that the work of Christ on the cross is effectual to save you but for the MT information, which is God breathed.

    I am assuming you believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and was saved, why did you do that? Maybe that portion of scripture was Paul's own idea and not God's. You believe because God said it!

    I totally disagree with you about not having an authoritative plan for salvation, that was God's idea, not mine. He said, You must be born again. He said, whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, He said all that the Father giveth me shall come to me, He said all these things, or did He? If your answer is yes, then the NT must be inspired, God breathed, and without error. If it is not maybe you have believed man's wisdom!

    You asking proof that the NT is inspired as Peter and Paul say the OT was inspired. Do you see the irony of that statement? If the NT was not inspired who cares what Peter and Paul says. It is just their words and not God's.

    The more you talk the more you make our arguments for us.
     

Share This Page

Loading...