Smellin Coffee says NT not inspired

[Winston]

I have been reading an interesting thread at the other forum.  "Dan" or "Smellin Coffee" who is a regular there, said this:

"I find no evidence in the Scriptures anywhere where any New Testament book in the Canon (or Apocryphal, not that it matters) to be God-breathed. It seems to me that to believe the Canon we have in the 66 books alone as God-breathed, we have to put our faith in the church in the second and third centuries who helped assemble and organize the Canon. Even then, the Apocrypha was considered Canon until the late 1600s/early 1700s.

My faith is in Jesus, not those who assimilate religious literature.

If someone would like to show me in the Bible (even New Testament) where anything other than Law and Prophets (and some Psalms Jesus quoted) are God-breathed, please bring it forward. I would love to study it out further. "

I will come back to this later, but give me your thoughts.

Find it here: http://www.fundamentalforums.com/hyles-anderson-college/105036-salvation-discussion-4.html#post2086971

 

[Izdaari]

Just two comments for now:

1) SC says there isn't a Scripture one can quote that declares the NT to be inspired. Well, I guess that's true. But I don't require a proof text in order to believe the NT is inspired.

2) He seems to see Paul as teaching 'a different gospel' than Jesus did. But to believe that, I'd have to believe Paul deceived the early church, including Peter and the other remaining members of the Twelve, who accepted Paul as one of them and gave him the title of "apostle to the gentiles". Would they have done that if they considered his teachings different than those of Jesus, different than what they themselves taught? I don't think so.

 

[Ironman]

He says his faith is in Jesus but yet does not believe the NT is inspired?  Where did he hear about Jesus?     

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I have been posting on that thread and am not really sure what exactly he believes or doesn't believe.
I think it's a young skull of mush belief system....in other words, Paul is too harsh so we choose not to give his words credence. It seems to be the buffet belief system....you choose your own truth.

I hope Dan is merly playing Devils advocate.....

 

[brianb]

Smellin Coffee has been having some doubts for some time now. He was in the Non-believers forum over there for quite awhile.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Smellin Coffee has been having some doubts for some time now. He was in the Non-believers forum over there for quite awhile.

I didn't realize that. 
IMHO, that is what is happening to many today....they react to the abuses of evangelicalism and end up at the other extreme.
SC is one of the good guys on the 666 and his direction really saddens me.

 

[Winston]

Smellin Coffee has been having some doubts for some time now. He was in the Non-believers forum over there for quite awhile.

I didn't realize that. 
IMHO, that is what is happening to many today....they react to the abuses of evangelicalism and end up at the other extreme.
SC is one of the good guys on the 666 and his direction really saddens me.

I saw your interaction with him.

This question that you posed, "Do you not believe the 23 books of the NT outside of the gospels are inspired?" I do not think he will answer. He will most likely ask you an series of questions in return.

That is how Rob Bell puts questions in everyone's minds about hell.  He never made a clear statement, just asked a lot of questions.

 

[Winston]

With regard to whether the NT is inspired, here is a good article.
Taken from Apologetics Press. It is basically the way that I would state it, so yes, I cut and pasted.

In attempts to discredit the divine origin of the New Testament, some critics have accused Christian apologists of mishandling 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The argument goes something like this:

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]

I didn't realize that. 
IMHO, that is what is happening to many today....they react to the abuses of evangelicalism and end up at the other extreme.
SC is one of the good guys on the 666 and his direction really saddens me.
[/quote]


My interpretation of his parrticipation in the basement was that of his being salt and light, not identification with their atheism/agnosticism, though his views on the canon and inspiration of Scripture certainly appeared to trend towards heterodox.

 

[Reformed Guy]

I have been reading an interesting thread at the other forum.  "Dan" or "Smellin Coffee" who is a regular there, said this:

"I find no evidence in the Scriptures anywhere where any New Testament book in the Canon (or Apocryphal, not that it matters) to be God-breathed. It seems to me that to believe the Canon we have in the 66 books alone as God-breathed, we have to put our faith in the church in the second and third centuries who helped assemble and organize the Canon. Even then, the Apocrypha was considered Canon until the late 1600s/early 1700s.

My faith is in Jesus, not those who assimilate religious literature.

If someone would like to show me in the Bible (even New Testament) where anything other than Law and Prophets (and some Psalms Jesus quoted) are God-breathed, please bring it forward. I would love to study it out further. "

I will come back to this later, but give me your thoughts.

Find it here: http://www.fundamentalforums.com/hyles-anderson-college/105036-salvation-discussion-4.html#post2086971

Since I don't know if SC is here to defend himself, I will refrain from commenting on his particular beliefs.

But regarding the question itself, as to the inspiration of the NT-- denying it, seems to me, to rip the heart right out of the Gospel.  At best you end up with a mythical. mystical sort of "Jesus" that ends up looking nothing like the Christ of the scriptures. 

A denial of this would equate to a denial of the gospel.

 

[Winston]

I have been reading an interesting thread at the other forum.  "Dan" or "Smellin Coffee" who is a regular there, said this:

"I find no evidence in the Scriptures anywhere where any New Testament book in the Canon (or Apocryphal, not that it matters) to be God-breathed. It seems to me that to believe the Canon we have in the 66 books alone as God-breathed, we have to put our faith in the church in the second and third centuries who helped assemble and organize the Canon. Even then, the Apocrypha was considered Canon until the late 1600s/early 1700s.

My faith is in Jesus, not those who assimilate religious literature.

If someone would like to show me in the Bible (even New Testament) where anything other than Law and Prophets (and some Psalms Jesus quoted) are God-breathed, please bring it forward. I would love to study it out further. "

I will come back to this later, but give me your thoughts.

Find it here: http://www.fundamentalforums.com/hyles-anderson-college/105036-salvation-discussion-4.html#post2086971

Since I don't know if SC is here to defend himself, I will refrain from commenting on his particular beliefs.

But regarding the question itself, as to the inspiration of the NT-- denying it, seems to me, to rip the heart right out of the Gospel.  At best you end up with a mythical. mystical sort of "Jesus" that ends up looking nothing like the Christ of the scriptures. 

A denial of this would equate to a denial of the gospel.

He does not believe in the inspiration of the NT.

Here are his words from today.

There is no reason for me to believe any of the NT is "God-breathed". Accurate, I'm sure some if not a majority of it is. Given by inspiration of God? Dunno. Maybe that is one reason I am clinging desperately onto what Jesus said. His words are probably the only thing keeping me in any kind of faith as the more I read and study the Bible in context, the more conflict I see within it.

 

[Fresh Air]

He's changed from IFB to a looser version but he simply overshot the mark he was originally aiming at. He became enamored with the search and when you do that you end up in theological liberalism, IMHO. I've seen it growing in him gradually for about the past year, and it is so sad.

...BTW, I'm NOT saying that people who change from IFB to something else are doomed to become liberal. I'm saying that if they become too enamored with change and don't settle themselves down somewhere they eventually shift completely off sound doctrine.

 

[Reformed Guy]

He's changed from IFB to a looser version but he simply overshot the mark he was originally aiming at. He became enamored with the search and when you do that you end up in theological liberalism, IMHO. I've seen it growing in him gradually for about the past year, and it is so sad.

...BTW, I'm NOT saying that people who change from IFB to something else are doomed to become liberal. I'm saying that if they become too enamored with change and don't settle themselves down somewhere they eventually shift completely off sound doctrine.

Good point Tom.

I've seen this too in Reformed Circles.  I wondered how liberal, Christ-&-Scripture-denying Presbyterians can still claim any right to the title Reformed.  I've learned that they do so by saying "Hey, we're always Reforming."

We're to always be Re-formed, or conformed, to the Word of God.  That is true for all sects.  But to misapply, and mis-direct that principle leads one into a slough of despond if not outright unbelief.

 

[BALAAM]

There is not a single one of us that can prove that scripture is inspired. We believe it because that is what the Bible says.
There is not a single one of us that can prove that we were created by God and that all life was. We believe it because that is what the Bible says.
There is not a single one of us that can prove the Virgin Birth, Christs Sinless Perfection, The Death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as the payment for our sins. We believe it because that is what the Bible teaches.
There is not a single one of us that can prove that there is a heaven where the redeemed go after death. We believe it because that is what the Bible teaches.
There is not a single one of us that can prove life after death or eternal life. We believe it because that is what the Bible teaches.

I could go on and on. But if we could prove all of these things then why do we need faith? In order to have faith there must be some doubt or else it is not faith but knowledge.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

There is not a single one of us that can prove that scripture is inspired. We believe it because that is what the Bible says.
There is not a single one of us that can prove that we were created by God and that all life was. We believe it because that is what the Bible says.
There is not a single one of us that can prove the Virgin Birth, Christs Sinless Perfection, The Death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as the payment for our sins. We believe it because that is what the Bible teaches.
There is not a single one of us that can prove that there is a heaven where the redeemed go after death. We believe it because that is what the Bible teaches.
There is not a single one of us that can prove life after death or eternal life. We believe it because that is what the Bible teaches.

I could go on and on. But if we could prove all of these things then why do we need faith? In order to have faith there must be some doubt or else it is not faith but knowledge.

That is exactly why we are saved by faith...and condemned by our unbelief.
I think SCs questions are somewhat the norm today in this religious culture.
Bells Love Wins is another example of our move toward apostasy.
Eventually, we will have a Bible filled with love and social justice and void of sin and judgement.

 

[Bob H]

It seems to be the buffet belief system....you choose your own truth.

"buffet belief "........................ Karl Barth would be impressed

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I have been reading an interesting thread at the other forum.  "Dan" or "Smellin Coffee" who is a regular there, said this:

"I find no evidence in the Scriptures anywhere where any New Testament book in the Canon (or Apocryphal, not that it matters) to be God-breathed. It seems to me that to believe the Canon we have in the 66 books alone as God-breathed, we have to put our faith in the church in the second and third centuries who helped assemble and organize the Canon. Even then, the Apocrypha was considered Canon until the late 1600s/early 1700s.

My faith is in Jesus, not those who assimilate religious literature.

If someone would like to show me in the Bible (even New Testament) where anything other than Law and Prophets (and some Psalms Jesus quoted) are God-breathed, please bring it forward. I would love to study it out further. "

I will come back to this later, but give me your thoughts.

Find it here: http://www.fundamentalforums.com/hyles-anderson-college/105036-salvation-discussion-4.html#post2086971

I see someone talked about me before I joined.

Anyway, I have thought more and prayed more about it and have come to the same conclusion. I believe the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms and the words of Christ to be God-breathed.

God's true Word is eternal:

"Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven."

What words did Jesus say are eternal?

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My (Jesus') words will by no means pass away.

About the eternal Law:

These are the words which I (Jesus) spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.

There is no other portion of the Scriptures (that I am aware of) that make claim of being eternal.

The biggest proof text for biblical inspiration is II Timothy 3:16:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...

First, this verse is found in the 66-book canon. It is also found in the Catholic 73-book canon. It is found in the 75-book canon that was translated in the original 1611 KJV. So in which canon does this verse hold true and which ones is it a lie?

Second, Paul did not say it as it was translated. If you get out the trusty old KJV, you will notice the word "is" is in italics, meaning that the word was put in by the translators and not a part of the original text. The ASV 1901 translates it according to original context:

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness...

The Interlinear KJV New Testament also correctly translates:

 

[Castor Muscular]

For what it's worth, I can identify with what you're saying, SC.  I definitely do NOT think that being suspicious of some of the NT is a movement toward apostasy.  That would make people like Martin Luther an apostate.  He questioned the inspiration of books of the NT, and didn't think James or Revelation (and maybe some others -- I forget) belonged in the canon.  (I think he eventually changed his mind about James.) 

I question the validity of some books and several individual passages in the NT.  For example, I seriously doubt Peter really referred to Paul's letters as scripture (he said, to paraphrase, they distort Paul's letters, like they do the OTHER scriptures).  I accept that it's POSSIBLE he said that.  But I doubt it. 

There are other problems in the NT.  Jude, which is supposedly inspired, quotes the book of Enoch as inspired text.  Yet most people I know would freak out if I suggested the book of Enoch is inspired.  That contradiction makes no sense.

Along with you, I prefer to be grounded in the Gospels, esp. the words of Jesus.  The rest of the NT, I measure by how well it harmonizes with the foundation set by Jesus and the OT. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]Anyway, I have thought more and prayed more about it and have come to the same conclusion. I believe the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms and the words of Christ to be God-breathed.[/quote]

One of these is not like the others.

By what basis do you hold that "one" above similar writings also accepted by the Church universal?

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]What words did Jesus say are eternal?

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My (Jesus') words will by no means pass away.

About the eternal Law:

These are the words which I (Jesus) spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.

There is no other portion of the Scriptures (that I am aware of) that make claim of being eternal.[/quote]

Actually, what you are quoting is the writings of a person who is allegedly quoting the words of Jesus. There is as much reason to reject these words as there are to reject the other writings in the NT. (And, for the record, I don't think we should reject them.)

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]The biggest proof text for biblical inspiration is II Timothy 3:16:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...

[/quote]

It's a proof text. It's not the proof text. (And this is entirely separate from the historical reasons for accepting the NT writings.)

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]First, this verse is found in the 66-book canon. It is also found in the Catholic 73-book canon. It is found in the 75-book canon that was translated in the original 1611 KJV. So in which canon does this verse hold true and which ones is it a lie?[/quote]

Non-sequitur.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]Second, Paul did not say it as it was translated. If you get out the trusty old KJV, you will notice the word "is" is in italics, meaning that the word was put in by the translators and not a part of the original text. The ASV 1901 translates it according to original context:

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness...

The Interlinear KJV New Testament also correctly translates:

 

[christundivided]

This makes sense because the Jewish canon at that time included the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings, all of which made up "the Scriptures". In the NT era, only the Pharisees equated the Writings as authoritative as the Torah and Prophets. Jesus clearly identified that which would not pass away and that is the Torah and Prophet sections. He never mentioned the Writings in terms of authoritative or eternal. Now the Writings were considered "good stuff" (edifying) but not necessarily authoritative. So in essence, Paul is structuring his argument by using "inspired of God" as a qualifier. The use of such a qualifier is an admission on Paul's part that not all Scripture is God-breathed.

So which parts are God-breathed and which ones aren't? I hold to what Jesus taught: God's Word is eternal and He mentioned which parts will never pass away.

Hope this explains things a bit.

A couple things.

1. Christ gave the Apostles power/authority/rights. Paul even mentioned "authority/power" in

1Co 9:18  What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Also, Paul talked of the "power" give to him by God to fully preach the Gospel with mighty signs and wonders.

Rom 15:19  Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

Luke talked of this in Acts 19:11

Act 19:11  And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: KJV

Act 19:11  And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, ESV.

Do you remember Paul's bold statement in

1Co 4:18  Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.
1Co 4:19  But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.
1Co 4:20  For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

Just such verses clearly indicate that Paul had power/authority. How could God use such a man and not give him authority? If you accept the narrative of the prophets based on the power given to them by God, why would you then reject what Paul wrote as being nothing greater than "edifying"?

Second, Paul did not say it as it was translated.

Yet, it is clear that the Law, The Prophets, the Psalms have been translated into the Old Greek OT. These were even used by the Apostles and quoted by Christ Himself. Not just the Hebrew/Aramaic texts.

Translated text carry with them some form of "derivative inspiration" when accurately translated. You believe the Law, Prophets and etc to be eternal and "alive". Are they simply dead when translated into other languages?