Overall I’d agree with you. But I think you’re missing an important distinction.

It’s not Eugene Peterson that says “God-breathed.” It was Paul. The greek word is theopneustos - which literally means God-breathed.

I’m not going to go so far as to say that the words in the Bible were dictated by God. But the wording indicates much more than simple inspiration. I might be inspired by God when I write a song or plan a worship set, but God-breathed indicates a much more active role on God’s part and a much more passive role on man’s part.

I see the activeness of God as structure and meaning that goes deeper than what an author could have intended, and wider than an author was capable of understanding.

Deeper - meaning that distinctions between word choices are critically important, which is why study of Hebrew and Greek are critical to a full understanding of scripture, especially on finer points (such as this one).

Wider - meaning that the story is beyond the human capacity of one author to convey, and that by not limiting our study to one book or author, we will better learn the different aspects of God’s character and His will for our lives.

I believe that “God-breathed” is an intentional reference to when man was created - Genesis 2:7 - “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” That we are both independent from God and dependent on Him for life. Similarly, the Word of God was both written by man and “breathed” by God. To remove either aspect is (a) contrary to many verses of scripture itself and (b) lessens the true mystery and mystique of scripture.

Finally, the “because I said so” argument is actually important. If Christ said, “I am Christ,” then if we are to not believe He was crazy, we must believe He was the messiah. Similarly, the claims the Bible makes about itself force us to accept it or reject it on its own terms. If the Bible says it is “God-breathed,” then by faith we either believe it or we don’t believe fully in the Bible. For example:

“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Paul is talking about his own words, not as coming from himself but as coming from God. That’s quite a “because I said so.”

I should say that I don’t believe the Apostle Paul wrote 2 Timothy, so could we throw that into the mix?

But at any rate. . . What is ’scripture’ in this passage? There wasn’t a New Testament as such until the 300’s. So. . . is this in reference to the OT?

I do think Derek is on to something referencing the Bible to man by the phrasing “g-d=breathed”. There is a bridge their, but just as I would never take anything a person said as the direct word of G-d, does that transfer to a book. Even if both have the breathe of G-d sustaining them?

Josh, with the current post, what makes this inspirational book more guiding than another, are their other books, in your mind, that could be as filled with G-d’s inspiration?

The first century Christians were using the NT books shortly after they were written, notably Paul’s letters, which were written and being distributed quickly and widely in the mid and late first century AD. The books we now know as the NT were all written before the end of the first century AD and were being read and used into the next two centuries. While Nick is correct in saying that they weren’t all collected together and affirmed as true, etc until the early 300s, they were, in fact, being used as “scripture,” from the very first century AD.

Derek, I actually agree with you on this one, well stated.
Thanks Josh for this very thought provoking post…this is a great series.

I have a problem with the phrase “the Bible says”. I space out as soon as someone says it. Same with the word “Word”, as in Word of God. What exactly does it mean? Reading John, it may mean Christ. Watching Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, it may mean the name of God.

I get lost in all the “church talk”.

John - Am I correct in saying that these earliest of communities all had different ’scriptures’ some used one gospel or two, others had some of pauls letters and some just a letter or two?

nick. i think the source of authority itself lies within the community. and in more specific, the local community. basing this off of some tony and doug’s recent thoughts on provisional theology. hopefully i’ll begin to build towards that. but first i guess i had to lay my cards on the table about the “source” of scripture.

reid. i couldn’t agree more.

john. thanks for the history.

and derek. i think we are actually moderately close on agreeing on this one. if i’m not mistaken, i would assume that you find the authority of scripture in the fact that it’s “God-breathed” thus void of error. while i would say it’s authority is rooted and comes from the community.

i also agree that about the claims of jesus being messiah. in many ways that is proof-texting as well. however, scientifically you can prove at least there was a historical man named jesus and was documented (in other sources outside of the bible) doing many of the same things. whereas, the bible relies almost solely on the proof-texting because i said so foundation.

ultimately, it comes down to faith on the “because I said so” argument. with jesus, i’m willing to stick my neck on the line and have faith in that. although i also have other sources to rely on besides the bible. the history. the community that is still moving forward. etc.

with the bible. i don’t have as many luxuries. in many cases i actually have contrary or competing evidence. therefore “my faith” in a book is not as strong.

it is true that with the bible you have a history of a church that has found it to be true and authoritative. but that is making my point and setting up where i want to go. the authority is not within the pages itself or some imaginary mechanical view of the holy spirit, but rather in the dynamic community. thus its evolutionary nature. which i’m still getting too.

While Nick is correct in saying that they weren’t all collected together and affirmed as true, etc until the early 300s, they were, in fact, being used as “scripture,” from the very first century AD.

Yes and no. They were used as “scripture,” but so were other texts and letters that “we” do not consider to be “scripture” today.

So what is our working definition of Scripture?

for me and the sake of this conversation. i’m referring to what we know as the holy bible. the leather bound kind that we grew up. throw in the apocrypha if you want. but i’m not talking about any of that gnostic, jesus seminar crap.

“if i’m not mistaken, i would assume that you find the authority of scripture in the fact that it’s ‘God-breathed’ thus void of error. while i would say it’s authority is rooted and comes from the community.”

I’d probably say both to some extent. But the “inerrancy” argument is a syntactical problem — what is meant by the term? My view of inerrancy is probably different from most. It begins with Abraham, because I believe the stories pre-Abraham are not “history”, they are Israel’s epic mythology. Most of which is probably true, but as it was Israel’s pre-history it does not require the same scrutiny as the rest of the Bible. Yet understanding the theology of it is critical to understanding Israel’s relationship with God (as well as our own). I also do not believe in the type inerrancy that would claim such things as pi = 3, which comes from verses that the church used to persecute scientists during medieval times. Few people would claim such a thing today, yet if their view of inerrancy was consistent, they would cling to such a view.

In my view, the Bible is the complete and total expression of God to man. The Old Testament reflects the old covenant, the New Testament reflects the new covenant. They are both complete and authoritative, as God intended it. That is because God both “breathed” the scripture through His people, and directed the process of selection of scripture vs. non-scripture through His people. That is a position of faith, and without that position Christianity easily crumbles. And yes, is relies upon community. But it is complete and total. It is authoritative. And God still speaks through it - hence it is “alive” in that respect, and it is still His “Word”.

But the main reason why I view the Bible as authoritative is because of the way it has changed me and shaped me. Because of the way God speaks to me through it. This is the ultimate mystery of scripture and the final authority of it. You do not need to have it “proved” to you that it is accurate or authoritative, you only have to experience it. And that is what real, lasting faith is based on. “We can only possess what we experience.” (Charlie Peacock)

i agree derek.

but what i will (eventually) attempt to propose happened when the scripture got “put together” was the same process that happened with the pre-abraham books.

so if these epic mythologies (which i agree with btw) made it in on something outside of “god’s breath” then what does that mean for everything else.

and if the spirit did in fact breath through the councils in their formulation . . . and if the councils were full of politics and power (which i will attempt to show) . . . then to me that means the scriptures are much more dynamic rather than static. much more local than universal. or rather their universality is found through their locality.

but i’m getting ahead of myself. i’ll explore this soon. baby steps. de-construction before construction.

but i do 110% agree with your last paragraph. that to me is how i know it’s authoritative.

but again . . . i’m not equating authority with black and white “absolute” truth. but the authority is that these are time worn stories that tell of relationships between god and man and man and god.

I mean authoritative as in absolute as in this is the way we’re supposed to do things. The NT is the description of how we are supposed to relate to God under the New Covenant, in the same way that the OT is the description of how we are supposed to relate to God under the Old Covenant. In that way, it doesn’t evolve. In the Old Testament, God communicated the covenant through Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, etc. In the New Testament, God communicated the covenant directly (through Christ), His immediate followers (Peter, James, John, etc), and those who were establishing the church (Paul).

But the covenant has been made, is absolute, does not change, is complete, and is final. The Old Covenant pointed to the new (the messiah), whereas the New Covenant points to the end (Revelation).

To me the “evolution” in this regard is personal, and relates to the way in which I am evolving and being transformed into the likeness of Christ through my acceptance and obedience under the New Covenant.

So we can say that Josh’s definition of scripture is not the one used in the 1 timothy sense.

nick. very safe assumption.

derek. i’ve got a few hang-ups with covenant theology. and i don’t want to get into all of that now.

but i understand where you’re coming from. and thanks for the good insight.

[...] Blogs Posts of Interest Josh tackles scripture [...]

Derek,

Wow, I’ve never had words put to my thoughts like that. Great stuff to think about.
I like the fact that we can discuss this stuff but here are my thoughts….and they are in no way meant to be critical.

As I think of what I’d like to say I find it almost worthless to pursue. I can’t prove or convince anyone of what my faith tells me is true.
When a story in the Bible, jumps out at me, or when a verse Isaiah wrote (inspired by God I believe) so many years ago, opens my heart and mind, I can’t prove, nor do I care to prove, why I know the Bible is inspired by God.
Do you know what I mean?
I think this discussion is very good and healthy.
I guess my point would be really simple and not all that profound but it all goes back to faith.
Do I know it’s real? Do I know humans wrote it? Do I believe God was and still is in it?
Yeh.
And there is nothing I can do, but try to live my life like Christ did, that can prove that to anyone.
And to be real honest, I don’t care if I prove it. I only care that it brings me closer to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
That alone is the thing that will serve the community, humanity and God.
So, just to be clear…I enjoy the discussion and it makes me think.

If you know the grammar, idiomtic expressions of the day, the way certain words were used within the culture, and the culture and traditions of the day, there is no verse in the Bible that cannot be defended as innerant and
non-contradictory to the rest of the text. People read the Higher Critics, but they don’t read the
theologians that answer the
challenges of the Higher Critics in a sound, logical, and understandable manner. Afterall, people have been trying to dismiss the Bible as a book full of errors and inconsistencies for years, but they have yet to come up with the evidence to effectively challenge its veracity. It remains as vital and relevant in today’s world
as it has always been to every generation in history.