New Testament Inerrancy

[Andrew Restrepo]

Hello everyone,

 

Although I feel like I've recently come to my own conclusion regarding this topic, I want to hear your opinions on it.

 

Recently, during a discussion, it was made known to me that friend has been questioning the relevance of the New Testament epistles. 

 

2 Timothy 3:16 says: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness". 

 

The argument my friend brought was this: When this scripture was written it was referring to the only scriptures which existed at the time which were the Old Testament scriptures. Being that the New Testament was not written, we must give more attention and place more importance to the words of Jesus versus the words of Paul. 

 

I've done some research but would love to hear from all of you. If (allegedly) the New Testament scriptures were not written then how does 2 Tim 3:16 refer to the epistles and the majority of the new testament? And if it doesn't refer to them, why must we listen to the epistles if they're not God-breathed?

 

Thanks everyone.

 

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.ca

[Guest shiloh357]

11 minutes ago, Andrew Restrepo said:

Hello everyone,

 

Although I feel like I've recently come to my own conclusion regarding this topic, I want to hear your opinions on it.

 

Recently, during a discussion, it was made known to me that friend has been questioning the relevance of the New Testament epistles. 

 

2 Timothy 3:16 says: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness". 

 

The argument my friend brought was this: When this scripture was written it was referring to the only scriptures which existed at the time which were the Old Testament scriptures. Being that the New Testament was not written, we must give more attention and place more importance to the words of Jesus versus the words of Paul. 

 

I've done some research but would love to hear from all of you. If (allegedly) the New Testament scriptures were not written then how does 2 Tim 3:16 refer to the epistles and the majority of the new testament? And if it doesn't refer to them, why must we listen to the epistles if they're not God-breathed?

 

Thanks everyone.

 

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.ca

Much of the NT had already been written by the II Timothy had been penned.   In fact, II Timothy was likely the last epistle Paul wrote before his death.  The fact is that Paul refers to "all" Scripture is important.  The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to refer to "all" Scripture as opposed to the common ways that they referred to the Old Testament in that day.  He  did say, "the Scriptures" or "the holy Scriptures"  which were common ways of referring to the Old Testament in that day and age.

Paul knew what he had written was inspired. And refers to His writing as having their origin with God in several places like I Thess. 2:13; Gal. 1:12; I Cor. 2:10 and I Thess. 4:15.   Then you have II Peter 3:16 where Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture.   

[theworstsinner14]

Actually, your friend was right in his argument. When Paul wrote that verse in 2 Timothy, he was referring only to the Old Testament or should we say the "Hebrew Scripture". At that time, the New Testament is not yet canonized though most of the books of the New Testament were already written down. (The last book written was around 90-100 AD, the book of Revelation.)

Yes, 2 Timothy is the last letter written by Paul, but during that time he has no idea yet of the New Testament and what he has in mind when he said "all Scripture" is the Old Testament. The 27 books of the New Testament were canonized only during the time of Athanasius around 367 AD. However, even if the NT was compiled only during that time, the believers already have copies of the books in individual forms and they were using those books in churches and in their personal life. And they look at them as having the same authority as the Old Testament given the fact  that they were written by people whom they know have met the Lord personally (just like Paul and the disciples) or at least have close connections with the disciples (like Luke and Mark).

And these writers of the NT actually didn't know that as time passed, what they wrote would be regarded as part of the Scripture. What they were thinking at that time was only for the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which they did through writing since they were already dying one by one. And another thing was for the strengthening of the church.

I do not discredit the fact that the New Testament is inspired by God, and it is indeed the word of God. However, as far as the argument of your friend is concerned, he is right when he said that what Paul was pertaining to when he said "all Scripture" is only the Old Testament.

[Still Alive]

The word, "scripture" simply means "something written down". And, as you pointed out:

2 Timothy 3:16 says: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness". 

This means that "how to win friends and influence people" can fit that bill, as can "Mere Christianity". And how about the book of Thomas? After all, when you parse the words, it's actually a pretty broad statement.

Now, "holy" scripture is another matter.

I believe "holy" scripture proves itself. You read it, prayerfully, and then you apply it. If it is not from god, it becomes quite apparent, thanks to the work of the Holy Spirit.

I get in a lot of trouble from some here when I say that I don't see the bible as THE word of God but, rather, believe it CONTAINS the word of God. And to really understand it, you need Greek and Hebrew lexicons. Otherwise you won't know that "world" is really "age", and "forever" is really "age" or "for a certain time"

[Guest shiloh357]

54 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

The word, "scripture" simply means "something written down". And, as you pointed out:

2 Timothy 3:16 says: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness". 

This means that "how to win friends and influence people" can fit that bill, as can "Mere Christianity". And how about the book of Thomas? After all, when you parse the words, it's actually a pretty broad statement.

Now, "holy" scripture is another matter.

I believe "holy" scripture proves itself. You read it, prayerfully, and then you apply it. If it is not from god, it becomes quite apparent, thanks to the work of the Holy Spirit.

I get in a lot of trouble from some here when I say that I don't see the bible as THE word of God but, rather, believe it CONTAINS the word of God. And to really understand it, you need Greek and Hebrew lexicons. Otherwise you won't know that "world" is really "age", and "forever" is really "age" or "for a certain time"

The problem is that when you say that the Bible "contains" the Word of God, it means that the Bible has material that God didn't intend for it to include and that also means that what we have isn't 100% reliable since and then it allows the reader to discard any part of the Bible's teachings that he doesn't like on the grounds that no one can prove that a particular teaching was really supposed to be there.

I could easily discount the death or resurrection of Jesus.  I could discount any of his teachings or his miracles.  I could disbelieve the story of the Exodus from Egypt and any of the other stories given to us in the Bible.  Maybe all of it was just made up fables.

If it just contains the Word of God, then I cannot trust that salvation is really true, or if it was something that a man made up and stuck in the Bible.  I can imagine there are promises in the Bible that you hold on to, but if the Bible only contains the word of God, then maybe those promises were never intended by God to be there.   No part of the Bible would carry anymore weight than another part and it would be open to subjective interpretations by billions of readers and no one would really know what parts of the Bible to believe and what parts not to believe and everyone would have their own custom made interpretations and everyone would simply do what is right in his own eyes.

I can easily decide that any prohibited behavior I want to engage in is okay on the ground that since we don't really know which parts are from God which parts are not, I can do whatever I want, no matter who it hurts.  And you could not cite an shred of biblical authority to prove to me I was wrong for my misbehavior.

Your view simply makes the Bible irrelevant and pointless.   

[Still Alive]

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The problem is that when you say that the Bible "contains" the Word of God, it means that the Bible has material that God didn't intend for it to include and that also means that what we have isn't 100% reliable since and then it allows the reader to discard any part of the Bible's teachings that he doesn't like on the grounds that no one can prove that a particular teaching was really supposed to be there.

I could easily discount the death or resurrection of Jesus.  I could discount any of his teachings or his miracles.  I could disbelieve the story of the Exodus from Egypt and any of the other stories given to us in the Bible.  Maybe all of it was just made up fables.

If it just contains the Word of God, then I cannot trust that salvation is really true, or if it was something that a man made up and stuck in the Bible.  I can imagine there are promises in the Bible that you hold on to, but if the Bible only contains the word of God, then maybe those promises were never intended by God to be there.   No part of the Bible would carry anymore weight than another part and it would be open to subjective interpretations by billions of readers and no one would really know what parts of the Bible to believe and what parts not to believe and everyone would have their own custom made interpretations and everyone would simply do what is right in his own eyes.

I can easily decide that any prohibited behavior I want to engage in is okay on the ground that since we don't really know which parts are from God which parts are not, I can do whatever I want, no matter who it hurts.  And you could not cite an shred of biblical authority to prove to me I was wrong for my misbehavior.

Your view simply makes the Bible irrelevant and pointless.   

Yep. We are all free to make of it what we will. This is a good thing!

[Guest shiloh357]

10 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Yep. We are all free to make of it what we will. This is a good thing!

No, it is not.  That is a very bad thing.  It means that you cannot put faith in anything it says.   It means that God may or may not be faithful.  It may mean that Christianity is a farce and fraud.  If nothing in the Bible can be trusted, then maybe Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

How is that good thing???

[Still Alive]

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, it is not.  That is a very bad thing.  It means that you cannot put faith in anything it says.   It means that God may or may not be faithful.  It may mean that Christianity is a farce and fraud.  If nothing in the Bible can be trusted, then maybe Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

How is that good thing???

You are free to choose what you believe, as are we all. That is a good thing.

Many are called, but few are chosen.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

You are free to choose what you believe, as are we all. That is a good thing.

Many are called, but few are chosen.

No.   It is one thing to choose what you want to believe; it is quite another to say that we can choose to pick and choose from the Bible according to our taste.  I can promise you that while you think that sounds smart, it will be rather problematic, when what one person decides is okay to believe and practice collides with someone else's interpretation of Christian faith and practice.  When someone thinks that the Bible's condemnation of rape, adultery, and stealing are probably not really "the word of God" and decides to act on that belief, the results would be tragic.  

The problem is that as Christians, we are about the truth, not personal truth.  We are about the Bible as the sole source of biblical objective truth.    You are,  on the other hand, approaching the Bible subjectively and making the Bible subject to your whims.

If the Bible is  a smorgasbord and you can just pick and choose according to what you want to believe, if the Bible has no actual authority to tell us what truth is, and there is no objective standard in the Bible for what is true and what is not true, and it is all up to you, the Bible has no value for faith.   

Simply believing something is true because you want to believe it is true is foolish, particularly if the consequences for being wrong means you lose everything.   

The resurrection of Jesus is the vindication of everything the Bible teaches.   If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, if the Bible got that wrong and the resurrection is not part of the "Word of God" contained in the Bible, there is no hope for mankind, no salvation.

There is no way that is a good thing.

[Still Alive]

19 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

No.   It is one thing to choose what you want to believe; it is quite another to say that we can choose to pick and choose from the Bible according to our taste.  I can promise you that while you think that sounds smart, it will be rather problematic, when what one person decides is okay to believe and practice collides with someone else's interpretation of Christian faith and practice.  When someone thinks that the Bible's condemnation of rape, adultery, and stealing are probably not really "the word of God" and decides to act on that belief, the results would be tragic.  

The problem is that as Christians, we are about the truth, not personal truth.  We are about the Bible as the sole source of biblical objective truth.    You are,  on the other hand, approaching the Bible subjectively and making the Bible subject to your whims.

If the Bible is  a smorgasbord and you can just pick and choose according to what you want to believe, if the Bible has no actual authority to tell us what truth is, and there is no objective standard in the Bible for what is true and what is not true, and it is all up to you, the Bible has no value for faith.   

Simply believing something is true because you want to believe it is true is foolish, particularly if the consequences for being wrong means you lose everything.   

The resurrection of Jesus is the vindication of everything the Bible teaches.   If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, if the Bible got that wrong and the resurrection is not part of the "Word of God" contained in the Bible, there is no hope for mankind, no salvation.

There is no way that is a good thing.

With freedom comes risk and responsibility, no doubt about it. But it's worth it.

 

I'm watching a great sermon on this right now on YouTube. It's called "Calvanism, Arminianism, Election & predestination: Romans 8:29-30,33 by Mike Winger.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Still Alive