Interesting tunes to listen to while writing on this topic!
I think the personality of the writer comes through in the writings, as you can tell because Paul’s writings differ from those of, say, John. They used different words and sentence structures and descriptions. (it’s like a Nora Roberts book will read and sound different than a John Grisham book). So, I’d say the Spirit influenced and worked Through the individual writers, in concert with their personalities and how God wired them. So, in that way, that’s how I see “God breathed.” They surely were not robots but were inspired and influenced to write.
Why would Paul even care about Timothy, per your example? Why would he even want to give him any advice? Perhaps because he cares for Timothy, which means that’s God working through him.
How about this? What if God works through you in your creative pursuits in the same way. You aren’t taken over by the Spirit, but you clearly are influenced and inspired to create works of art or messages that speak to people about God or of his love. How is that any different than what happened with Mark, or Paul or Peter? Look at Romans 7, where Paul is going off on how messed up he is (I do what I don’t want to…..). and then breaks into the greatest chapter in the Bible, Romans 8. His Romans 7 sounds like your posts sometimes where you are transparent with how you feel and what you’re doing, very authentic.
As to the canon, I commented on Nick’s post a few days ago….the books of the NT were being widely used and read and distributed Very shortly after they were written, in the first century. So, by the time of the councils, the early church had already, informally, through practice and use, equated the canon. The councils merely ratified what the early church had already been using for many years.
And yes, of course the humanity of those at the councils came into play, but it doesn’t negate the fact that what they came up with regarding Christ’s human and divine nature is pretty dadgum solid.
Whew….you inspired me to comment a lot on this one. I’m trying to interact with what you’re saying, kinda like a long discussion over cinnabons (my choice) in the mall food court.
This is a really great post series you’ve got going.

[...] Brown has been laboring over the past several days on a blog series, The Evolutionary Trajectory of God.  It has produced a great deal of discussion and interest. Go check it out when you can. [...]

I like what someone said to me sometime recently. “You have to remember that when you are reading the epistles, essentially you are opening someones mail.” When we talk about Paul and ProtoPaul we have to take that into account.

There is a big question here. . . Was Paul correct on everything he said (ie. was it all straight from God) then there is a smaller question, was Paul setting a Universal Code. The Israelites didn’t hold other cultures to the Law, they didn’t think they had to. Was Paul writing something to set up “the Law” for Christians? Or was he trying to set up all ecclesial codes from there on out?

I think conservative Christians think that he was writing a new law for all people and all time. That’s why his writings have become as sacred as the first five and why they have to developed words like inerrant to describe it. What else in the world have you ever heard discribed as inerrant?

The dude was mailing, sometimes carbon copying. Moreover it was dictated, and there were Pauline counterfiets. Inspiration is kind of a moot point. We have copies of copies, even if the original words were the words of God himself we don’t have the originals. (Hmm, I think I have written all that jazz before).

It’s not the Law Written by a Moses type figure. They are letters that the man wrote because he was so filled with God and an inspiring view of a newly formed church he had a place to write from.

john. what you just wrote is probably the closest to what i believe. you said it very nicely.

i’m afraid i grew up with the micromanaging robot/puppet analogy.

but its much more in line with god is moving through me in the world and i respond to it.

i just think ultimately, that’s where the authority is found. not because god wrote it. but because it was true for paul to write that to timothy. it was true for john to tell his gospel story. it was true for luke to give an account of the early church. but to attach words like inerrant and absolute to it, that’s where this is a huge disconnect for me.

because if i’m an artist (which i consider myself to be) and i create a piece of art. say a design. or a painting. or a well crafted story.

i expect it to be true for my situation and my context. it’s my bit of the story that i’m telling about how the spirit is moving in me and i’m relating to god and the world.

its a true piece of art for me and my context. but can i expect that art to be binding on the next generation? or even my neighbor in the here and now? can i expect the mona lisa to mean something to me in the same way that it was meant to the painter and the woman who was being painted. it was true(r) for them in a sense that i will never understand. it doesn’t make it any less beautiful or authoritative. it’s just that it doesn’t very much apply to me in some areas.

the same way if i write a story now. the story may speak of a great truth that makes perfect sense and conveys a great deal of “truth” to me and my audience. but 50 years from now, i just don’t feel that i can expect it to be binding on someone else. as if because i wrote it (with god moving in me) that somehow it now becomes authoritative for everyone else, everywhere else, for all of time.

am i making any sense to anyone?

Yes, and no.

The commandments of Christ were true when He spoke them, and as binding in the context of His day as they are today.

When Christ says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me,” that is as true and authoritative today as it was when He said it. Same goes for “love one another.” And all that stuff.

And then the point of the history portrayed in Acts and Paul’s letters are helpful for us to see how Christ’s commandments played out. I agree with you that they are not necessarily law, but they are a part of the complete description of what God intended for us to have. I’m not sure about the “binding” syntax, but I am sure about “authoritative.”

The point of it being “Scripture,” after all, is that we recognize that we are a part of this narrative, and that we do not start from scratch. That the people who Christ entrusted to begin His church (as He commanded them to do), through the power of the Holy Spirit, established the church in the way God intended. And that “Scripture” was completed to capture the description of what they were doing, so that we could become a part of that narrative, apart from any diversions that might occur throughout history.

Because Christ told them to “train everyone you meet in this way of life.” The rest of the New Testament reflects their fulfillment of that command. In that, and in its completeness of the description of their fulfilling that command, it is authoritative.

[...] haven’t forgotten to finish my thoughts on The Evolutionary Trajectory of the Story of God (how’s that for a mouthful). I just wanted there to be a bit of a pause between my [...]

[...] The Essays: Part One — An Introduction Part Two — The Mystique Part Three — Purpose Part Four — Inerrancy & Inspiration Part Five — The Problem of the Holy Spirit [...]

I think that just by reading the letters one can rule out the idea that God grabbed ahold of Paul, his eyes rolled back in his head, and his hand just started moving. There is an obvious personality to each letter. But the idea of the Holy Spirit guiding Paul’s thoughts is not absurd at all.

Consider the fact that Paul was an all out Jew, a “Hebrew of Hebrews” as he says in Phillipians. What, then, did he know about the deeper doctrines of God and Christ before his conversion? He wrote very in-depth about things that a person could not just know. Consider the weighty theology of Romans, or the first two chapters of Ephesians. To say that Paul wrote some of the more personal letters (Timothy, Titus, etc.) completely of his own accord could be understandable (although I still disagree), but to say that Paul outlined the heavy theological concepts that he did all on his own is not believable to me.

For his thoughts on those subjects to carry any real weight, they would have to be God-inspired. And if you read through the Bible, there are many instances where God uses people without their even knowing it, yet still holds them accountable for their actions. So yes, the words are inspired by the Spirit to edify the body, and yes they are Paul’s words and communicate his personality.

Josh, I hear what you are saying but I think Derek is onto something.
If we start thinking of the Bible as simple little stories and art, you misplace something very important…”Authoritative”.

All of the sudden, when Jesus says he was the truth and life and no one comes to the father without going through Him, becomes just another “Saying”.

It all boils down to “Faith”.
And I’m not talking about Blind Faith where we believe it because Pastor So and So, said it.
We have to do this….talk about it…boil it down….ask questions….but at some point you must experience it.
Just my thoughts.

yeah. but i think the authority is in the community and not in the words.

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying.
I believe God is the only authority.
The community, the word, none of it has any authority unless given by the Father.
We may be saying the same thing and I’m not hearing your correctly.

i’m on vacation now. but i’ll develop it more shortly.

I know this topic has been put to rest, but I have one more question. If we deny the authority of scripture, then where do we get any of our ideas about the Christian faith? The gospel is communicated to us through scripture, and if we deny it, then we have to deny the truth of the entire gospel. There is no other source for any of our information concerning Jesus, his commands, his life, his death, etc.

I do not understand the idea of keeping Jesus while rejecting scripture.

the subject isn’t dropped. i’m going to finish it when i get back from vacation.

and i’m not rejecting scripture. i’m proposing that the authority is found in the local community and not the black and white words.