The Holy scriptures , are of God and from God.

[Red Baker]

The Scriptures are from God or from men; they are not from men, because neither the folly, nor the wisdom of men cannot affect such a work.

1. Because men as men cannot understand the meaning of them, nor agree upon any meaning of them; so that it appears they are a mystery above the reach of nature.

2. They are not from men, because they condemn that which is most excellent in man, as the wisdom of man, etc., it being contrary to nature to condemn that which is most excellent in nature; the Scriptures declare natures wisdom in the things of God to be foolishness, and the wisdom in man esteems the wisdom of God to be foolishness. 1st Corinthians 1:18-25

3. It is not from men, because the whole scope of the Scriptures tends to destroy that which the nature of men love most.

4. Because that which the Scriptures require, is not only contrary to the nature of man, (so that men delight and choose to read any book rather than the Scripture,) therefore before men can submit unto it, they must deny themselves. So also that which it requires, is beyond the power of men, and requires a Divine Power, as the Scriptures and Experience teach.

5. It is not from men, because the more any is ruled by it, obeying it, the more such are hated and persecuted by men, which shows it came not from nature.

6. The Scriptures came from God, because they tend to God, it being a rule in nature that everything tends to its center, a stone to the earth, and the waters to the sea from whence they came. So the Scripture runs to God; shows God in his goodness, wisdom, power and love; there is in them a Divine wisdom, they speak for God, they call men to God, to be for God.

7. They are not from men, because the way of bringing them forth into the world, was contrary to the wisdom and expectation of men, who in great matters employed great, honorable, and wise men, but God takes a quite contrary course; he chooses such who were mean and contemptible, silly tradesmen, as fishermen, and tent-makers, etc., to be the publishers and penmen of the Scriptures.

8. They are from God, because God hath wonderfully continued them, preserved them strangely; first, in making the Jews, who were enemies unto Christ, and the Scriptures, great preservers of them; also preserving them when the greatest power hath sought their destruction, by searching for them, and burning them, etc., the like preservation cannot be declared of any writings of men, which have had so great opposition.

9. The miracles that were wrought at the first publishing of them, (shows them to be immediately from God,) and for the proof of this we have the testimony of them who lived in Christ’s time, the Jews, who would not own Christ, or his doctrine, yet in their writings they confess, there was one Jesus who did such miracles as the Scriptures declare.

10. We know the Scriptures to be from God because we see some of the Prophesies accomplished in our days, according to the saying of Christ, that there shall arise false Christs, and false Prophets, that shall say, I am Christ; there being now two or three, or more, that have said so of themselves. Also the division foretold, “for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter,” etc., which is now accomplished in these days, for when there hath been but five persons in one family, every one of them of a several opinion concerning Religion. The Spirit speaks expressly, “that in the latter times some should depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils,” and how many lies are now held and received for truths, so that men dare speak against the Scriptures, deny the resurrection of the body; others teach that men and devils shall be saved; and that the soul is mortal; and that there is neither heaven nor lake of fire; with divers other opinions, that I am ashamed to name some of them which are held for truths; “this know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof,” which things our eyes have seen come to pass, more than ever hath been heard of by any that have been before us, and are like to increase more and more. And thus it must be that the Scriptures maybe fulfilled; and if men must have a reason for everything in Religion; for, saith one, how can the dead body eaten by another creature be raised again? To whom I reply, God is said to be without beginning, (and so he is, else he could not be God,) but what reason can be given, that God never had a beginning, or that God is ever present in all places, and knows, and ordered all things; yet he is so, yet I see not how reason can reach these things, etc., To believe the Scriptures is a work of faith, and unless the Holy Spirit of God persuades the truth of them, there will be doubting; the Lord persuade his of the truth of the Scriptures, and of their interest in the same. Samuel Richardson~1652

 

[JoshebB]

The Scriptures are from God or from men; they are not from men, because neither the folly, nor the wisdom of men cannot affect such a work.

Is that a typo? Did you mean to post, "The scriptures are from God [not] from men..."? "not" instead of "or"?


Help me out to understand the purpose of the op. Is the op intended to assert the divine origin of scripture as the point of discussion, or are there ten or 11 different points of discussion being asserted? I do not think any (evangelical, fundamentalist) Christian denies divine origin (liberals may, but not cons), so that's a short conversation. Historically, Richardson was writing at a time when the divinity of scripture was beginning to be questioned but that's not likely to be the consensus here in this board.

Without diving into each and every point as I start, I will ask about the first point because scripture, the written word, is written for the express purpose of revealing God and His purpose(s) in creation. It therefore seems contradictory to state men cannot understand the meaning of scripture. Understanding is, in fact, the purpose of revealing revelation to humanity. I would further venture to say that it is rarely, if ever, the correct understanding that is disputed but it is errors in understanding that prompt disagreement. It would be fruitless to reveal revelation that cannot be understood (and God is never fruitless). Furthermore, Scripture's inherent understandability also serves the vicarious purpose of separating those with understanding from those lacking it. Lastly, there are several places in the New Testament where it is reported the "mystery" has been revealed. We cannot, therefore, say those matters remain a mystery or that they cannot be understood.

I could not find anything specific one way or another, but since Richardson was educated in and fellowshipped in Reformed circles and he was personally a Particular Baptists, those Baptists who subscribed to Reformed theology (particularly Calvinist soteriology and view of scripture), it is, therefore, likely he subscribed to sola scriptura, a doctrine that states scripture is the sole authority for Christian faith and practice, and therefore understandable by its reader.

 

[Red Baker]

Is that a typo? Did you mean to post, "The scriptures are from God [not] from men..."? "not" instead of "or"?

Greetings,

No typo, that's the way Samuel Richardson wrote it. I did not change anything, word for word. He's one of my favorite writer's. His article on Justification by faith, is the one of the best I have ever read, with John Brine closely agreeing with him around a 100 hundred years later. Both Particular Baptist from UK.

Help me out to understand the purpose of the op. Is the op intended to assert the divine origin of scripture as the point of discussion, or are there ten or 11 different points of discussion being asserted? I do not think any (evangelical, fundamentalist) Christian denies divine origin (liberals may, but not cons), so that's a short conversation. Historically, Richardson was writing at a time when the divinity of scripture was beginning to be questioned but that's not likely to be the consensus here in this board.

I posted more for any young believers~I have another article by him that would be great to post concerning the KJV that was being attacked during his day shortly after the AV came out. I may post it. Not that any will be convinced, but more so for others to see that even then the battle was on for which scriptures are God's word. Enough said for now.

 

[Red Baker]

Greek & Hebrew Knowledge as an Idolatrous
Substitute for Understanding the Holy Scripture.
By Samuel Richardson 1649
{An Answer to the London Ministers Letter &c., 1649}

Greek & Hebrew Knowledge as an Idolatrous Substitute for Understanding the Holy Scripture: The Priests (The LONDON MINISTERS AT THAT TIME-RB) say that we know not the original, and our Bibles are not rightly translated, nor cannot be pronounced according to the original; besides in translations there are errors, for no translation is simply authentical, and the undoubted Word of God. (SOUNDS JUST LIKE MANY SPEAKING IN OUR DAY!) We demand of you, answer if you can; as to how know you that your Hebrew and Greek copies are true copies? Is it not possible for any to write contrary to their copy, if copies may be printed false, they may be written false, the art of Printing is not above 350 years old. Can you produce the first original copy, or any of those the Apostles wrote? If not, the cause is the same and you know the original no more than those that know not Greek or Hebrew? If you may depend upon the faithfulness of the Writer and Printer of your Copies, why not others upon those that did it upon oath? Doctor Fulke in his confutation of the Rheims Testament justifieth the English Translation of the Bible. {William Fulke “New Testament Confutation,” 1589} But we receive not the truth by tradition. I would know of you that are so for Hebrew and Greek, &c., if the knowledge of the tongues be sufficient to teach those that have those tongues the mind of the Spirit of God in the Scriptures or no? If yea, then all that know these tongues know the mind of God; if no, then it is but an insufficient help, and what is an insufficient help worth more than nothing. The knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is a help to read a Greek and Hebrew Bible, because else they cannot read them. So the knowledge of the English tongue is of necessity to read the English Bible. The cause is the same; but the understanding the English tongue, and reading it in the Bible cannot give them to understand, the meaning of it no more than the knowledge of the tongues Greek and Hebrew though it helps them to read the Bible in those tongues, yet is not able to give them to understand the meaning of it. That this is so, some of them, who know the tongues confess; for Apollo was a learned man, he saw the first copies of the Bible, and if that could have caused him to know the mind of God what need had he to learn of Aquila a tradesman {one of the laity as the Priests use to say} and Priscilla his wife the mind of God as he did. {Acts.18:26} Also what is the reason that those that know the tongues cannot agree among themselves? What is the mind of God in his Word, that some of you in your expositions are as contrary to each other as light is to darkness; the natural man cannot perceive the things that be of God; a natural man may be, and some are learned men it’s confessed; some of the Jesuits are good Scholars, &c., for they know the tongues, &c.; then it will follow a man may be such a learned man and yet cannot understand nor perceive the things of God. Nicodemus was a great scholar and teacher in Israel yet how simple was he concerning the meaning of Christ’s words. Tell me then what a help their human learning is to them in spiritual knowledge in the things of the Spirit. The Word saith that he reveals to us the deep things of God by his Spirit, {I Cor.2:10;} he saith not by Greek and Hebrew. If our translation be true then we can tell the meaning of it as well as you; if it be not true tell me what is that Preaching worth that is proved by a false translation, and if we must believe contrary to our translation because you say so, what is this but an implicit faith and human? And seeing you so differ among yourselves about the meaning of the word or the mind of God in it, tell me, how I may know which of you I am to believe? Also you confess that one word {in the ‘original’} could bear nine or ten divers significations; how know you which of them is the mind of God in that place, unless he reveal it to you? And if God please he can reveal it to a simple man, and God doth do so, and this is that for which Christ thanks his Father, because he hath hid these things from the wise and the learned, and revealed it unto babes, “the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed; and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I am not learned.” “For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes; the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.” {Is.29:10-12} Neither of them can read it, both put it off for they cannot understand it, the unlearned thinks as he hath been taught, that if he were learned in Greek and Hebrew he could understand it; but the former who was such a learned man could not do it, it is hid from the learned; for it’s not in being learned, nor in not being learned. What then will some say, it is because God hath not revealed it to them therefore they do not know it. The Lord saith that none can know the things of God, but he to whom the Spirit will reveal them. {I Cor.2:9-16} {See also Ps.119:99,100} The knowledge of Greek, Hebrew and English are all human learning of equal excellency, necessity, and use for the translation and reading of the Bible; and as without the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, the Bible could not be translated into English, so he that translated the Bible into English, could not have done it without the knowledge of the English tongue; therefore there is the same use and help and necessity of the English tongue as of the Greek or Hebrew tongue; so there is the same to be said for the French and Dutch tongue, and all other tongues and therefore why the Greek and Hebrew tongues should be of any more use and excellency than other tongues, there is no reason to be given for it. As Aaron the Priest set up the golden calf it was called a god and Aaron made Proclamation, {Ex.32:4-8, &c.,} and the people idolized it and danced about it, so the Priests have set up Greek and Hebrew as a god, and the people rejoice exceedingly in it, for they Idolize it and fall down and worship it, because the Priest have made a Proclamation for it and commended it for such a rare thing to help them to the knowledge of the mind of God. A golden business by custom is turned into necessity and it is in such an esteem as they do idolize it and worship it, as they did the calf. -

But, what, are there not means and helps to the understanding the Scriptures without Greek and Hebrew? Yes, only the self-evidencing light of the Spirit of God, which first inspired the Pen-men of Scriptures, who is in the hearts of the Saints, the only Interpreter of the Scriptures. Secondly; the knowledge of the body of Divinity, or the Analogy of the faith, to which the Scripture is to be referred for its right interpretation. Thirdly; the Law of God written in the hearts of the Lord’s, which favors the truth, and disrelishes errors. The fourth help to the understanding the Scriptures, is the manifold experience of varieties of temptations, and the experiences of the work of Grace in the soul. Lastly, to compare Scriptures that are dark with Scriptures of the same nature that are more plain, and so to let the Scriptures expound themselves. I conclude this, all men are pure blind, yea dead, till God gives life, and opens men’s eyes. And although human learning is necessary for translating the Scriptures, &c. yet many idolize it, as the children of Israel did their goldenCalf.

Samuel Richardson {Answer to the London Ministers Letter &c., 1649} ALL emphasis are mine~RB

We are still fighting the same battles as Mr. Richardson did almost five hundred years ago!

 

[brightfame52]

June 9​

2 Timothy 3:15​

Day 161​

‘The Holy Scriptures’​

Read 2 Peter 1: 10-21​

The Bible is the Word of God, inspired, infallible, without error. That is not a debatable point of theology. It is a fact, plainly revealed, which all Christians rejoice to acknowledge. Those who deny the inerrancy of Holy Scripture are not Christians. They are infidels. The Bible was not written and compiled by the will of man: ‘But holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost’ (2 Peter 1:21). The Bible was written by supernatural inspiration. It reveals supernatural things. It can only be understood by supernatural illumination (1 Cor. 2:9-14). To the natural man the Word of God is mysterious, unexplainable and confusing. To the man who is taught of God it is wonderfully simple and comforting. When blessed of God to the hearts of those who read it and hear it preached, the Bible has a marvelous power to transform the lives of men. It is ‘quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart’ (Heb. 4:12). As it has power to transform the lives of men, the Bible has power to comfort and encourage the hearts of men. There is no source of comfort for the troubled heart like the Word of God, no source of strength and encouragement for the despondent soul like the promises of Holy Scripture. That blessed volume is the Word of God. I have proved it to be time and again in my own heart. For me, that is stronger proof than all the arguments of learned apologists and philosophical critics. I have seen and felt the power of Holy Scripture in my own life and in the lives of others. The Holy Scriptures, being the Word of God, win our reverence, claim our faith and demand our obedience in all things. And ‘these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name’ John 20:31). The Bible was not written to be a textbook on science, history, morality, or even theology, though, where it speaks of these things, it is infallible. The Word of God was written to reveal the Lord Jesus Christ and redemption by him. http://www.donfortner.com/html_firm/Grace For Today.htm​

 

[Olde Tymer]

.
Outsiders are often curious why there are so many versions of the Bible out there
to choose from.

Well, for starters: the Bible was originally penned in Hebrew, Aramaic, and koiné
Greek. I seriously doubt that there is even one version among the many versions
available in our day that we can say is spot-on primarily because it is virtually
impossible to move thoughts from the ancient languages into a modern language
verbatim. In other words; modern versions, even the best ones, are what could be
called close approximations of the word of God but certainly not perfect duplicates
of His word.

And then there is also the problem of ambiguity. Quite a few of the ancient words
have more than one meaning. Translation committees do their best to select an
appropriate meaning, but must admit that sometimes they are taking an educated
guess.

A lexicon of the words in the Bible giving their meanings in the original languages is
helpful sometimes although lexicons aren't meant to be substitutes for an education
--and I haven't even touched on punctuation; which is a really big problem in itself
because none that's placed in modern versions came from the manuscripts. It's all
arbitrary, and possibly even biased.

Another problem faced by translators is the lack of sufficient text. It's interesting to
note in an interlinear how often, and how many, words are edited into English
versions to fill them out. Now those fills of course cannot be guaranteed either
inspired or inerrant, so caveat lector.

So the first challenge for us these days in modern America is find an inerrant
version of the Bible from among the numerous English versions available. But that's
only the beginning. Next, we have to find an inerrant person to teach it because the
Bible isn't meant to be self taught, rather, it's meant to be instructed by folks
blessed with the God-given ability to do so. (Rom 12:5-7, Eph 4:10-14)

FAQ: What about 1John 2:27 which says, in so many words, that there are
Christians who can get by on their own without assistance?

REPLY: Christians blessed with the anointing spoken of in that passage still need
assistance. However, there's only so much that a God-given Bible teacher can do.

To begin with: they cannot condition their students' spiritual ears to recognize the
truth when they hear it; viz: teachers cannot give their students a feel for the truth,
nor can teachers break down their students' natural resistance to accepting the
truth. That's where the anointing comes in really handy. (1Cor 2:11-16)

NOTE: Jehovah's Witnesses coming to our doors do not have the anointing, and
they will freely admit it. So then, what does that tell us about the Watchtower
Society's missionaries? Well right off the bat it tells me that those sad creatures are
extremely vulnerable to deception.
_

 

[Dizerner]

.
Outsiders are often curious why there are so many versions of the Bible out there
to choose from.

What made you want to write your own commentaries, OT?

Also have you been a part of any specific denominations?

 

[Olde Tymer]

What made you want to write your own commentaries, OT?

I just thought it might be fun to give it a try.

have you been a part of any specific denominations?

My mom started me out in Roman Catholicism. Twenty-four years later I switched
to Protestantism, and in time began attending community churches and finally
Baptist churches.
_