The document discusses the origin of biblical prophecy as being divinely inspired rather than based on human interpretation, emphasizing that true understanding of scripture must come from God's intention, communicated through the Holy Spirit. It argues that individuals should not interpret scripture based on personal whims but respect its true meaning, highlighting the importance of studying scripture independently from institutional teachings. Ultimately, it asserts that the Bible is the inspired word of God, underlining the necessity for believers to engage directly with its content for accurate understanding.

1. THE HOLY SPIRIT IMPELLING
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the
human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from
God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Amplified: For no prophecy ever originatedbecause
some man willedit [to do so—itnever came by human
impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne
along (moved and impelled)by the Holy Spirit.
(Amplified Bible - Lockman)
GOTQUESTIONS.ORG
Question:"What does 2 Peter1:20 mean about interpreting Scripture?"
Answer: SecondPeter1:20 says, “Above all, you must understand that no
prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of
things.” Actually, 2 Peter1:20 emphasizes the source of Old Testament
prophecies, not who has the right to interpret the Bible today.
Some Bible versions do not make this clear. The NAS, for example, says that
prophecy is not “a matter of one’s own interpretation,” and the KJV says

2. Scripture is not “of any private interpretation.” However, Peterwas not
writing about how we should read or interpret God’s Word; he was writing
about how God gave us His Word in the first place. In order to persuade his
readers to pay attention to the gospel, Peteraffirmed that his words were
God’s words—just as much as the Old Testamentprophecies were.
Peter’s meaning in verse 20 is further explained by the context: “We did not
follow cleverly devised stories . . . but we were eyewitnessesofhis majesty. . . .
We ourselves heardthis voice that came from heaven. . . . We also have the
prophetic message as something completelyreliable. . . . No prophecy of
Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For
prophecy never had its origin in the human will” (2 Peter1:16–21).
Notice that Peter’s main point is not how to read and understand God’s
messages.Instead, he explains the authoritative origin and source of those
prophecies. It was GodHimself who communicated them through His chosen
spokesmen. The prophets (and Peter)did not write thoughts that they cooked
up out of their own minds, but they passedon truth that came directly from
God. As Peterputs it, they “spoke from Godas they were carriedalong by the
Holy Spirit” (verse 21).
Peter’s intent was to urge his readers to take his messageaboutJesus
seriously, as he says in verse 19, “You [therefore] will do well to pay attention
to [God’s messagethrough me], as to a light shining in a dark place.” Peter’s
accountof Jesus was straightfrom God.
Since the Bible’s words express God’s thoughts, not man’s, it is important
that we respectthem enough to study them and grasp what He wants us to
understand as we are interpreting Scripture."

3. 2 Peter1:21
by Grant Richison| Jun 4, 1998 | 2 Peter| 7 comments
ReadIntroduction to 2 Peter
“Forprophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as
they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
For prophecy never came by the will of man
Note that this verse begins with a word of explanation – “for.” The previous
verse explained that Scriptures did not come from a human source but a
divine source.
Scripture does not originate with man. Man does not originate the Bible. The
human author receivedGod’s ideas. Scripture comes by divine inspiration.
The Bible is not man’s idea. The Bible originates with God. Revelationcomes
from God to man.
Religionis man’s ideas about God. That is why religion does not have the
answer.
but holy men of God
If the Bible did not come by man’s will, how did it come? By “holy men of
God.” Approximately thirty different men wrote the thirty-nine books of the
Old Testament. About eight men wrote the twenty-seven books ofthe New
Testament. Godused holy [set apart] men to write Scripture.
These men were not automatons or robots. They used their ownpersonality
and vocabulary to write Scripture. The Holy Spirit, however, guarded them
from error as they wrote Scripture. He superintended eachword they wrote.
Therefore, the authors of Scripture made no mistakes. We have the Bible

4. exactly as God intended for us to have it. We canplace our confidence in
Scripture.
“Holy men of God” are Old and New Testamentauthors like Moses, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, John and Paul. Godpicked certain men to communicate the Bible.
spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit
“But” implies strong contrast. In contrastto human beings originating
Scripture, the Holy Spirit superintended the writing of Scripture.
“Moved” means to carry. The book of Acts uses “moved” for wind carrying a
ship (27:15, 17). The Holy Spirit so guided the human author that he wrote
without error. That is why Scripture is certain. Therefore, we cantrust
Scripture because it is the very words of God.
This word “moved” translates “upholds” and “bearing” in the book of
Hebrews:
“Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person,
and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself
purged our sins, satdown at the right hand of the Majestyon high” (Hebrews
1:3).
“Therefore letus go forth to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach”
(Hebrews 13:13).
The idea is to carry. The Holy Spirit upholds or bears the writers of Scripture
as they write Scripture. The writers of Scripture wrote better than they knew.
That is why the Bible is not full of fables.
The Holy Spirit governed the human author as he was in the process of
writing Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). The human author was aware of the content
that he wrote, but the Holy Spirit “carried” him. The Holy Spirit originates
Scripture.
The Holy Spirit so supernaturally superintended Scripture writers that
without circumventing their intelligence, their personal literary style or
personality, He enabled them to record Scripture with perfect accuracy.

5. Human authors were not automatons or robots who actedlike a computer
when they wrote Scripture.
PRINCIPLE:
We have a trustworthy Bible because the Holy Spirit superintended the
writing of Scripture.
APPLICATION:
The Bible is the unabridged revelationof the thoughts of an omniscient God.
God put everything that we need to know about Him in writing. Scripture is
the only inspired book on earth. Other books may be profound and insightful
but God did not inspire these writings. Only the Bible is inspired because the
Holy Spirit wrote Scripture.
No single church has the exclusive right to interpret the Bible. If a single
church had this right, then no single individual would have responsibility to
understand Scripture for himself. If we blindly acceptwhata given church
teaches we place ourselves atrisk. Each of us must take responsibility to
understand the Word for ourselves.
Every Christian has the Scripture and the Holy Spirit to help him understand
the Bible for himself. The issue is not what your church teaches but what the
Word teaches. It is not what your preacherteaches but what the Bible teaches.
What does the Bible teach? We place our explicit faith in the Bible.
Men Moved by the Holy Spirit Spoke from God
Resource by John Piper
Scripture: 2 Peter1:20–21 Topic:Inspiration & Inerrancy of the Bible

6. We cansum up what we have seenso far in 2 Peter1 with three pictures: the
hot fudge sundae, a man swimming againstan oceancurrent, and a lamp
shining in the night. In 1:1–4 the main point was that Godhas given believers
divine power to lead lives devoted to brotherly kindness and love; and that
this powerbecomes effective in reallife when we stake everything joyfully on
his precious and very greatpromises. When we keepthe hot fudge sundae of
God's promises in front of us, they exert on us a divine power to allure us on
in the excellentway of love and into eternal life.
In 1:5–11 we are taught that God's divine power is given to us not to make us
lazy or limp, but to make us zealous and diligent to advance in every Christian
virtue. The evil remaining in our heart and the pressures ofunrighteousness
in the world are like an oceancurrent drawing us backwardtoward
destruction. No one who treads waterin the Christian life stays in the same
place. You always go back. Therefore we must stroke diligently againstthe
current of evil desires within and innumerable temptations without. In doing
this (as v. 10 says)we confirm our call and election. The genuineness of our
confidence in the promises of God (by which we are saved)is confirmed by the
diligence with which we stake our lives on those promises in efforts to live like
Jesus.
Then in 1:12–19 Peterzeroes in on the promise of Christ's secondcoming and
says that this prophetic word has been made more sure by his own eyewitness
experience of Christ's majesty on the mount of transfiguration. What Peter
and James and John were granted to see in the transfiguration of Christ was a
partial glimpse of what Christ would be like when he comes again. And in
verse 19 Peter compares that hope to a lamp shining in the night. The
prophetic word of hope is our lamp in the dark night of this world. It
functions just like that hot fudge sundae—to keepus on the path until the day
dawns and the morning star rises in our hearts.
In a word the chapter has said: be a people empoweredby hope to lead lives
of love. Let your confidence in the coming day of joy make you compassionate
in the present night of woe.
ReasonorManner?

7. Now we want to devote the rest of our time this morning to thinking about
verses 20 and 21. First let's look at the connectionbetweenverses 19 and 20.
All the modern English versions that I consultedmade it harder rather than
easierto understand the connectionin the original Greek. Theyall begin a
new sentence atverse 20 (and NASB even inserts a totally unwarranted
"but"). But verse 20 is not a new sentence, and the version that preserves the
original is the old King James, which translates verse 20:"Knowing this first,
that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." Remember
now that in verse 19 Peter is telling us to pay attention to the prophetic word
about the coming of Christ as to a lamp shining in a dark place. So you can
hear the connectionwhen we boil the two verses down like this: "Pay
attention to the prophetic word . . . knowing this first, that no prophecy of
scripture is of any private interpretation." There is a very close connection
betweenwhat we know about prophecy in verse 20 and our giving heed to it in
verse 19.
Now what is that connection? I see two possibilities. First, verse 20 may give
the reasonwhy we should give heed to the prophetic word. So we could
paraphrase it like this: "Give heed to the prophetic word because youknow,
first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation." The
other possible connectionwould be that verse 20 tells us not the reasonbut the
way to give heed to the prophetic word. So we could paraphrase it: "Give
heed to the prophetic word by remembering this principle first, that no
prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation." So it seems to me that
in verse 20 Peteris either giving us a reasonto pay close attentionto the
prophetic word, or is telling us how to pay attention to the prophetic word.
Whose Interpretation of What?
But which? Before we can decide that, we have to know what verse 20 means.
What does Petermean that "no prophecy of scripture is of any private
interpretation," or, as the RSV says, "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of
one's own interpretation"? I think it is only fair for me to mention three ways
this verse has been understood, and then show why I only acceptone of these

8. ways. First, there are excellentevangelicalBible scholars who say that verse
20 has nothing to do with our interpretation of prophecy, but rather with the
prophet's interpretation of history. In other words, when Petersays, "no
prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation," he means, "no
prophecy ever came from a prophet's private interpretation of historical
events." Rather, as verse 21 says, prophecies came from God through the
Holy Spirit. So the connectionwith verse 19 would be: "Give heed to the
prophetic word . . . because no prophecy is a mere private human
interpretation of events; it is from God through the Spirit." I find that
understanding of verse 20 almostpersuasive, but not quite.
A secondvery important understanding of verse 20 is the typical Roman
Catholic one. They have generallysaid, "No, verse 20 does refer to how we
interpret prophecy, not how prophets interpret history. And the point is that
no private individual caninterpret prophecy on his own. Rather the
Scriptures have been entrusted to the church, and the individuals must look to
the official pronouncements of the church to know the true teaching of
Scripture." Until twenty years ago and the secondVatican Council, that kind
of thinking had kept the Scriptures concealedin Latin and had kept the
average Catholic lay personin woeful ignorance of Scriptures. Much of that is
changing now. But even recently I read a letter from a priest in California to a
young man in our church urging him not to forfeit his connectionwith the
Catholic church and its sacraments;and in three pages there was no reference
to Scripture. And I got the distinct impression that had he used Scripture to
argue for the church, he would have been compromising his principles.
Becauseevidently it is still true for many Catholics that the church gives
credence to the Scripture, not Scripture to the church. It is the same old
problem of the Reformation:in practice, ecclesiasticaltradition, not
Scripture, is supreme. And I want us to be very aware that one of the
hallmarks of our Protestantfaith is that the church and its ministers are
judged by Scripture, and not vice versa.
I will mention one other wayof understanding verse 20. "No prophecy of
scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation" can mean no individual
should interpret prophecy according to his own personal whim. You can't just
give Scripture any old meaning you please. There is a true meaning

9. (according to v. 21)which comes from God through the prophet, and this is
our standard.
Now which of these three views of verse 20 is most likely Peter's view? As far
as the usual Catholic interpretation is concerned, it just can't be gottenout of
the text. There is not a word about who should replace the individual as the
reliable interpreter of prophecy. That has to be read into the text. It can't be
gottenout of it. So for me the choice is betweenthe first and third views. Is
verse 20 saying that no prophecy is the result of a prophet's private
interpretation of history? Or is it saying that no prophecy, after it is given,
should be twisted by individuals to make it mean whateverthey like?
I think verse 20 is a warning not to play fastand loose with the meaning of
Scripture. The reasonI opt for this secondview is that the false teachers
which Peter has in view did apparently not deny the inspiration of the
prophets, but rather twisted the prophetic writings to suit their own false
teaching. We know that Peterhad false teachers in mind here because the
very next sentence in 2:1 says, "Falseprophets also arose among the people,
just as there will be false teachers among you." And the key text for
understanding how these false teachers relatedto Scripture is found in 2 Peter
3:16. In 3:15 Petersays that the apostle Paul has written about similar things
in his letters. Then he says, "There are some things in them hard to
understand which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as
they do the other scriptures." These lastwords show how the false teachers
related to the Old TestamentScriptures. They don't rejectthem. They don't
deny that prophecies came from God. They twist them to suit their own
private purposes. Therefore, since Peteris concernedin this letter with false
teachers who twist the meaning of Scripture to fit their own personaldesires,
the most likely meaning of verse 20 is that the prophetic Scriptures may not
be handled that way. "No prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own
interpretation," means then, "no individual is entitled to interpret prophecy,
or Scripture generally, according to his personalwhim" (Kelly).
The Way in Which We Should Heed the Word

10. Now we can see the connectionbetweenverses 19 and 20 more clearly. When
Petersays, "Give heed to the prophetic word as to a lamp shining in a dark
place . . . knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private
interpretation," what he means is, "Pay close andcareful attention to the
prophetic word, and the first principle to guide you in how to pay attention is
the principle that the true meaning of Scripture does not come from the mind
of the reader." Or to put it another way: the principle that should guide our
attention to Scripture is that its meaning is objective, not subjective. The
meaning of Scripture does not change with every new reader or every new
reading. It cannotbe twistedto mean whateverwe like. It is what it is,
unchanging and unending. The first principle, therefore, in giving heed to
Scripture is that there is a true meaning and there are false meanings, and we
must submit our minds to trace out what is really there rather than
presuming that whateverpops into our minds at our first reading is the true
meaning.
God's Meaning not Man's
Now what verse 21 does is give the reasonwhy we can't treat Scripture as
though its meaning is whatever someone thinks it means. Interpretation of
Scripture dare not be a matter of personalwhim because Petersays, "no
prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit
spoke from God." In a word, the reasonwe may not fill the words of Scripture
with our ideas is that God intends that they carry his ideas. The meaning of
Scripture is not like putty that we can mold according to our desires. It is the
work of the Holy Spirit and carries a solid, firm, divine intention. The glorious
truth of this verse is that in Scripture God has spokenand not merely man,
and therefore (as verse 20 says)our aim must be to hear God's meaning, not
merely our own.
Now let me try to show how verses 20 and 21 fit into the chapter as a whole
and then draw out severalimplications for our lives. Peter's main aim in
chapter 1 is to help us confirm our call and election(v. 10). He wants us to
enjoy the assurance ofour salvation. As a means to that end he reminds us

11. that the genuineness of saving faith (v. 1) is proved by whether it produces
virtue and knowledge and self-controland patience and godliness and
brotherly affection and love (vv. 5–7). But he also reminds us that God has
already given us the powerneeded to live this way (v. 3). And he has told us
that this powerbecomes effective in our daily lives through God's precious
and very greatpromises. So as we keepour hearts content in the promises of
God, we are guarded from sinful allurements and are drawn on in paths of
righteousness into eternal life. And where are these promises to be found?
Where shall we go to fan the flames of our hope? Peter's answerin verse 19:
the prophetic word of Scripture. Do you need encouragementthat the day is
really going to dawn—that the life of self-control, patience, brotherly
affection, and love is really leading to glory? Then go to the Scriptures. Go
daily. Go long. Go deep. And when you go, remember this first: these are not
the mere words of men; they are the words of God. "Menmoved by the Holy
Spirit spoke from God" (v. 21). Seek his meaning and you will find the lamp
of hope. For as the apostle Paulsaid, "Whateverwas written in former days
was written for our instruction, that by the steadfastness andencouragement
of the scriptures men might have hope."
Three Implications for Our Lives
Now I close with three brief implications of verses 20 and 21 for us. You can
hang them on three words:discipline, humility, and the Spirit. Suppose that
you are a platoon leader and had been trapped with your platoon behind
enemy lines, and your commanding officer smuggles a coded messageto you
to inform you how to getout. What do you do with that message? Do you pass
it around the platoon and collecteveryone's impressions and then flip a coin
to decide what it means? No. You sit down and you labor to break the code.
Why? Because the impressions of your platoon are not what you need. The
mind of your commander makes allthe difference. The interpretation of that
messagehas one aim—what did the commander will to communicate? And to
that end you submit yourself to the severe discipline of memory and analysis
and construction, until you have assurancethat his meaning and not your own
has been found. And then you stake your life on it.

12. So it is with God's Word. God's intention comes to us in human language.
"Menmoved by the Holy Spirit spoke (in Hebrew and in Greek)from God."
How, then, can we know the mind of God? Answer: God has ordained that
some in his family (and some outside) submit to the discipline of mastering
Hebrew and Greek and breaking the code open into English and the other
languages ofthe world. But even English is a kind of code. Children must
acceptthe discipline of learning to read it. And adults need to submit to the
discipline of learning to read it well. The more disciplined we are in
construing meaning out of Scripture instead of pouring our ideas into
Scripture, the better we will understand God's promises and the more power
we can have for godliness.
The secondimplication is humility. If you believe that the Bible is the Word of
God with authority over your life, it takes a gooddeal of humility to interpret
it correctly. The reasonis simple: the Bible often requires of us that we feel
and think and actin ways that go againstour natural inclinations. Therefore,
the only person who will own up to these uncomfortable teachings is the
humble personwho is broken and open before the lordship of God and ready
to do whateverhe says. The proud person who still wants to give lip service to
the Bible will twist the Scriptures to fit his own desires. In the long run sound
interpretation comes only from the brokenand contrite in spirit.
Finally, humility is a fruit of the Spirit. Therefore, we have greatneed for the
assistanceofthe Holy Spirit when we read the Scripture. If he does not
overcome our proud heart and rebellious nature, we will never submit to the
uncomplimentary truths of Scripture. We will avoid them or distort them.
The work of the Spirit is not to add new information to the Scripture, but to
make us sensitive and submissive to what is already there. It was through men
moved by the Holy Spirit that God spoke ofold in the Scriptures. And
therefore today it will be people yielded to the Holy Spirit who hear his voice
most clearly in the Scriptures.
Therefore, let us give heed daily the prophetic Word with all diligence and
humility and reliance on the Spirit, knowing this first, "that no prophecy of
Scripture is a matter of one's own private interpretation, because no prophecy

13. ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke
from God."
PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
FOR NO PROPHECYWAS EVER MADE BY AN ACT OF HUMAN WILL:
ou gar thelemati anthropou enechthe (1API) propheteia pote:
Lk 1:70 2Ti 3:16 1Pe 1:11
2 Peter1 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries
2 Peter1:19-21 The Solid Foundation - StevenCole
2 Peter1:19-21 The Sure Word, Part 2 - John MacArthur
2 Pe 1:16-21 The Only Sure Word - John Sherwood
Deffinbaugh makes the interesting observationthat…
When you look through the New Testamentto read the final, parting words of
the apostles, youwill discoverthat all of them turn the focus of their readers
to the Word of God, not that they have not always done so, but that they do so
especiallyin the light of their absence (see 2Pe 1:19, 20, 21;2Ti 3:15, 16, 17,
4:2, 3, 4; 1Jn 2:18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29). (Paul’s Parting
Words in Acts 20:1-38)- e.g. see Acts 20:17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
Don't miss Acts 20:27, 28, 29, 30, 31 32 = "the Word of His grace"!)
No (3756)(ou) is the Greek word which means absolutely none (i.e.,
"absolutelyno prophecy was evermade… "). Furthermore ou is placed first
in the Greek sentence foreven greateremphasis. Petercould not have been
much clearer!God is the Author of His Word!
Peterexplains the previous statementof why no prophet starts a prophecy
himself. He is not a self-starterbut a "Spirit-supercharged" man.

14. Ever (4218)(pote ) means at some time or another(past or future) and in this
context referring to some time in the past.
Prophecy(4394)(propheteia from pró = before or forth + phemí = to tell, to
speak)has the literal meaning of speaking forth, with no connotationof
prediction or other supernatural or mystical significance. Propheteia can
refer to either spokenor written words.
RelatedResources:
Dictionary Discussionof Prophecy(see espISBE Article)
Baker's EvangelicalDictionaryof Biblical Theology - Prophecy
Propheteia is used here in 2Peter1:20 not primarily in the sense of prediction
but in its more basic and broader meaning of speaking forth, of proclaiming a
message.
Mounce writes that…
A prophecy canbe a prediction about the future, but in the majority of its
uses it refers to authoritative speechthat has its origin with God. It can refer
to prophetic words (Rev 19:10) or activities (11:6).
Propheteia refers to the words of the prophets of the OT (Mt 13:14, 2 Pet.
1:20) and in the NT church (1Co 14:6), where it is seenas a gift of the Holy
Spirit (Ro 12:6; 1Co 12:10;13:2; 14:22, 23, 24, 25).
Prophecyshould be respected, but it should also be tested(1Th 5:20, 21;cf.
1Co 14:29, 30, 31, 32). That is, while prophecy carries some authority, it is
ultimately subjectto the authority of the apostles and their writings. The gift
of prophecy may never contradictthe authoritative Word of God, such as is
found in Revelation(Re 1:3; 22:19). (Mounce's Complete Expository
Dictionary of Old & New TestamentWords. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
or Computer version)
BDAG (summarized)…
1. actof interpreting divine will or purpose, prophetic activity (Re 11:6)

15. 2. 2. the gift of interpreting divine will or purpose, gift of prophesying (Ro
12:6, 1Co 12:10, 13:2, 8, 14:22, 1Th5:20, Re 19:10)
3. the utterance of one who interprets divine will or purpose, prophecy… a. of
OT inspired statement(Mt 13:14, 2Pe 1:20, 21)… b. of inspired statements by
Christian prophets… in the form of a prophetic saying (1Co 14:6, 1Th 5:20,
1Ti 1:18, 4:14, Re 1:3) (Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testamentand Other Early Christian Literature
or Wordsearch)
Liddell-Scott says propheteia is…
the gift of interpreting the will of the gods, Orac. ap. Luc. II. in N.T., the gift
of expounding scripture, of speaking and preaching.
UBS says propheteia is…
preaching the messageofGod, the gift of preaching the messageofGod; an
inspired messageorutterance; intelligible preaching, an intelligible message
(as opposed to speaking in tongues
Thayer defines propheteia as
discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of
God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the
afflicted, or revealing things hidden; especiallyby foretelling future events.
Used in the NT
(1) of the utterances of the OT prophets: Mt 13:14; 2Pe 1:20,21
(2) of the prediction of events relating to Christ’s kingdom and its speedy
triumph, togetherwith the consolations andadmonitions pertaining thereto:
Rev 11:6; 22:19;the spirit of prophecy, the divine mind, to which the
prophetic faculty is due, Rev19:10; Rev 1:3; 22:7,10,18;
(3) of the endowment and speechof the Christian teachers calledprophetai
(see prophetes, II. 1 f.): Ro 12:6; 1Cor 12:10;13:2; 14:6,22;plural the gifts
and utterances of these prophets, 1Co 13:8; 1Th5:20 specifically, of the

16. prognosticationofthose achievements whichone set apart to teachthe gospel
will accomplishfor the kingdom of Christ, 1Ti 4:14; plural 1Ti1:18.
Vine writes that…
"Thoughmuch of OT prophecy was purely predictive, see Micah5:2, e.g., and
cp. John 11:51, prophecy is not necessarily, nor even primarily, fore-telling. It
is the declarationof that which cannot be known by natural means, Mt 26:68,
it is the forth-telling of the will of God, whether with reference to the past, the
present, or the future, see Ge 20:7; Dt. 18:18;Rev 10:11;Rev 11:3. …
In such passagesas 1Co 12:28;Ep 2:20, the 'prophets' are placedafter the
'Apostles,'since not the prophets of Israelare intended, but the 'gifts' of the
ascendedLord, Ep 4:8, 11;cp. Acts 13:1…the purpose of their ministry was to
edify, to comfort, and to encourage the believers, 1Co 14:3, while its effect
upon unbelievers was to show that the secrets ofa man's heart are knownto
God, to convict of sin, and to constrainto worship, 1Co 14:24, 25.
With the completion of the canon of Scripture prophecy apparently passed
away, 1Co 13:8, 9 (Ed: But see MacArthur below). In his measure the teacher
has takenthe place of the prophet, cp. the significantchange in 2Pe 2:1. The
difference is that, whereas the messageofthe prophet was a direct revelation
of the mind of God for the occasion, the messageofthe teacheris gathered
from the completedrevelation containedin the Scriptures." (Vine, W E:
Vine's Complete Expository Dictionaryof Old and New TestamentWords.
1996. Nelson)
The gift of prophecy is simply the gift of preaching, of proclaiming the Word
of God. God used many Old and New Testamentprophets to foretellfuture
events, but that was never an indispensable part of prophetic ministry.
Paul gives perhaps the bestdefinition of the prophetic gift stating that…
one who prophesies speaksto men for edificationand exhortation and
consolation. (1Co14:3).
Peter’s admonition also applies to that gift when he states…
Whoeverspeaks, lethim speak, as it were, the utterances of God (1Pe 4:11).

17. John MacArthur notes that the relatedverb…
propheteuo means to speak forth, to proclaim. It assumes the speakeris
before an audience, and could mean “to speak publicly.” The connotationof
prediction was added sometime in the Middle Ages. Although many of the
prophets made predictions, that was not their basic ministry and the idea is
not involved in the originalterms used to describe them and their work. The
original terms, in fact, did not necessarilycarry the idea of revelation. God
revealeda greatdeal of His Word through the prophets, but much of their
ministry was simply proclaiming, expounding, and exhorting with revelation
already given. The biblical prophets sometimes revealed(see 1Ti4:14; 2Pe
1:21) and sometimes only reiterated what had already been revealed. A
prophet of God, therefore, is simply one who speaks forth God’s Word, and
prophecy is the proclaiming of that Word. The gift of prophecy is the Spirit–
given and Spirit–empoweredability to proclaim the Word effectively.
Since the completion of Scripture, prophecy has no longer been the means of
new revelation, but has only proclaimed what has already been revealedin
Scripture.
(MacArthur, J: 1Corinthians. Chicago:MoodyPress)(Bolding and color
added for emphasis).
NIDNTT writes that…
Prophetes is a noun made up of the stem -phē-, to say, proclaim, which always
has a religious connotation, and the prefix pro-, which as a temporal adv. has
the meaning of before, in advance. This may suggestthe meaning: one who
predicts, one who tells beforehand. It appears to be confirmed by the use of
prophēmi, to predict, proclaim in advance. However, prophēmi is not found
until very late, and so has no value as etymologicalevidence. Indeed, when one
examines the combination of pro- with verbs of speechin earlierwritings, it is
evident that in no case does the objectof the vb. point to the future. (Brown,
Colin, Editor. New International Dictionaryof NT Theology. 1986.
Zondervan)

18. Propheteia - 19xin 19v- NAS = prophecies(1), prophecy(15), prophesying(1),
prophetic utterance(1), prophetic utterances(1).
Matthew 13:14 "In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which
says, 'YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;
YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
Romans 12:6-note Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given
to us, eachof us is to exercise them accordingly:if prophecy, according to the
proportion of his faith
Comment: Here propheteia refers to the gift of prophecy which is the Spirit-
endowedskill of publicly proclaiming God’s Word. In one sense all believers
since their possessthe Spirit, are equipped to speak forth the Word of God,
but some believers are specificallygiven the ability to do so as for example in
public proclamation and preaching of the gospel. (See also JohnMacArthur
Romans 12:6-7 Ministry of Spiritual Gifts, Part 2 )
1 Corinthians 12:10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another
prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various
kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.
1 Corinthians 13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and
all knowledge;and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not
have love, I am nothing.
1 Corinthians 13:8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they
will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease;if there is knowledge,
it will be done away.
Comment: Those who feel prophecy was a temporary signgift base their
interpretation primarily on this passage. JohnMacArthur assumes "that
prophecy is a permanent edifying gift." (Commentary on 1Corinthians)
1 Corinthians 14:6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues,
what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of
knowledge orof prophecy or of teaching?

19. 1 Corinthians 14:22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe
but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those
who believe.
1 Thessalonians 5:20-note do not despise prophetic utterances.
Comment: The speaking forth of the truth of God's Word is the primary
intent of this passage.Paulis not primarily referring to "new revelation". He
knew that prophecy or speaking forth of the Word of Truth (especiallysound
doctrine) which was alreadyrevealedin the Old and New Testaments was
essentialfor the spiritual health of the Body of Christ, thus the command not
to look down upon it or despise it! We are seeing a movement in modern
Christianity, in which many churches are minimizing the importance of the
Bible (it's not "seekerfriendly"!) and are in a very practicalsense,
"despising" prophetic utterances!The modern church desperatelyneeds to
read and heed the timeless truth in Jeremiah(Jer 6:16)!
1 Timothy 1:18 This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in
accordancewith the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them
you fight the goodfight,
John MacArthur comments: Timothy had a confirmation to live up to.
Timothy’s calling had been confirmed through prophecies. Prophets in the
New Testamentera spoke the revelation of God’s will to the early church.
Prophecyis the gift of proclaiming God’s Word. In one sense, anyone who
preaches or teaches God’s Wordis a prophet. Unlike present-day teachers
and preachers, however, New Testamentprophets occasionallyreceiveddirect
revelation from God. While doctrine was the province of the apostles (cf.. Acts
2:42), prophets seemto be the instruments God used to speak ofpractical
issues (cf. Acts 21:10, 11). (MacArthur, John: 1Timothy Moody Press)
1 Timothy 4:14 Do not neglectthe spiritual gift within you, which was
bestowedon you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by
the presbytery.
John MacArthur Comments: There was a public affirmation of his gift
through direct revelation from God (cf.. 1Ti1:18), though the circumstances

20. of that utterance are not given in Scripture. It likely took place, however,
shortly after Timothy met Paul on the apostle’s secondmissionaryjourney
(Acts 16:1, 2, 3). Timothy’s prophetic call was reminiscent of that of Paul
himself (cf.. Acts 13:2). In our day, God’s call comes not through special
revelation, but through providence. If Godwants a man in the ministry, He
will give him that desire and open a door of opportunity for him. (MacArthur,
John: 1Timothy Moody Press)
God gave that gift to Timothy, and then articulated that gift through the
prophecies and then confirmed it by the laying on of hands on Timothy as an
act of confirmation by the elders. So the elders laid their hands confirming
Timothy to the ministry because GodHimself through the voice of the
prophets through prophecies had articulated Timothy's ministry. (Fighting
the Noble War--Part 2 -- John MacArthur)
2 Peter1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a
matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was evermade by an
act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Revelation1:3-note Blessedis he who reads and those who hear the words of
the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
Tony Garland comments: This book is not merely an allegoryor devotional
treatise extolling the eventual victory of good overevil. The events described
within this book are bona fide prophecy and include the prediction of actual
historicalevents. (Ref)
Revelation11:6-note These have the powerto shut up the sky, so that rain will
not fall during the days of their prophesying; and they have powerover the
waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every plague, as
often as they desire.
Revelation19:10-note Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me,
"Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold
the testimony of Jesus;worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of
prophecy."

21. Comment: The idea of "spirit of prophecy" is that "Genuine prophecy
reports God’s own revelation of Christ and never deviates from Scripture."
(MacArthur)
Tony Garland has a lengthy comment on spirit of prophecy: All revelation
given by God through His prophets was by the Spirit.
“The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue” (2S.
23:2).
“But truly I am full of powerby the Spirit of the LORD, and of justice and
might, to declare to Jacobhis transgressionandto Israelhis sin” (Mic. 3:8).
When Jesus referred to David’s statementin Psalm 110, He said, “How then
does David in the Spirit call Him “Lord”?” (Mt 22:43). Peter said, “this
Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth
of David concerning Judas” (Acts 1:16).
Jesus saidit would be by “the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father”
that the apostles would receive testimony concerning Him (John 15:26), “He
will tell you things to come” (John 16:13).
The NT prophet Agabus “stoodup and showedby the Spirit that there as
going to be a greatfamine throughout all the world” (Acts 11:28).
Later, he took Paul’s belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, “Thus says
the Holy Spirit, ‘So shall the Jews atJerusalembind the man who owns this
belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles’” (Acts 21:11).
Two passageswritten by Peter, by the power of the Spirit, are of particular
importance:
(1Pe. 1:10,11, 12)Peterindicates that it was “the Spirit of Christ who was in”
the prophets that testified. Thus, the Spirit of Jesus was the empowering
source of their testimony. Yet Peteralso indicates that the Spirit “testified
beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.” In
other words, the messagewhichthe Spirit testified concernedJesus Christ.

22. (2Pe 1:19, 20, 21)Peterindicates that all prophecy came by the Spirit. When
the prophets spoke, Godspoke by His Spirit. They were moved (pheromenoi)
by the Holy Spirit. It was not their ownwill, but God’s initiative which
produced their inspired testimony. They were born along by God’s Spirit
much like a ship is driven by wind and weather (Acts 27:15). They were not in
ultimate control, but were vessels whichGod moved according to His purpose
(John 3:8). (A Testimony of Jesus Christ)
Revelation22:7-note "And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessedis he who
heeds the words of the prophecy of this book."
Tony Garland writes: In order to keepthe words of the prophecy of this book,
believers must:
1. Guard the text from tampering and corruption.
2. Guard the proper interpretation of the words. “Believers are calledto
guard or protectthe book of Revelation. It must be defended against
detractors who deny its relevance, againstcritics who deny its veracity and
authority, as well as againstconfusedinterpreters who obscure its meaning.”
See Systems of Interpretation..
3. Apply the lessons ofthe book to their ownlives (Lk 6:46; Jn 14:15;15:10).
4. Promulgate the message ofthe book to the church and to those who have
not heard. (note)
Revelation22:10-note And he said to me, "Do not sealup the words of the
prophecy of this book, for the time is near.
Revelation22:18-note I testify to everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, Godwill add to him the
plagues which are written in this book;
Revelation22:19-note and if anyone takes awayfrom the words of the book of
this prophecy, God will take awayhis part from the tree of life and from the
holy city, which are written in this book.

23. There are only 6 uses of propheteia in the Septuagint(LXX) - 2Chr 15:8;
32:32;Ezra 5:1; 6:14; Neh 6:12; Jer 23:31
Ezra 5:1 When the prophets, Haggaithe prophet and Zechariahthe sonof
Iddo, prophesied to the Jews who were in Judah and Jerusalemin the name of
the Godof Israel, who was overthem,
Ezra 6:14 And the elders of the Jews were successfulin building through the
prophesying of Haggaithe prophet and Zechariahthe sonof Iddo. And they
finished building according to the command of the God of Israeland the
decree of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.
Nehemiah 6:12 Then I perceivedthat surely God had not senthim, but he
uttered his prophecy againstme because Tobiahand Sanballat had hired him.
Jeremiah23:31 "Behold, I am againstthe prophets," declares the LORD,
"who use their tongues (Lxx translates with propheteia = prophecies)and
declare, 'The Lord declares.'
SCRIPTURE:
DIVINE ORIGIN
HUMAN OPERATION
Made (5342)(phero) means to bear, bring forth (see discussionof the second
use of phero below)
What was "borne along"? In context phero refers to bearing along or
conveying a divine proclamation (prophecy). The bearing along was not the
result of men's powerbut of the Spirit.
Deffinbaugh - Prophets did not originate prophecy; they were instruments of
the Holy Spirit who used them to speak from God. Prophecy does not begin
with man’s will but with God’s will. Thus, the interpretation of prophecy
must not be subject to man’s will. Conversely, man’s will must be subject to
the Scriptures, as the Spirit of God makes their meaning clear. (Peter’s
Readiness to Remind)

24. Beloved, don't miss what this verse is saying - Simply stated, Peteris teaching
that the Scriptures are inspired by God (cf 2Ti 3:16, 17-note). Statedanother
way, what Peteris saying (in essence)in 2Peter1:20, 21 is that one Author
guided the Biblical writers through the process ofrecording His Words with
their pens. Indeed, the resulting inarguable unity of the 66 books is another
amazing proof of the divine inspiration and authority of the entire Bible!
Hallelujah! (See A W Pink's The Divine Inspiration of the Bible)
Will (2307)(thelema [wordstudy] from thelo = to will with the "-ma" suffix
indicating the result of the will = "a thing willed") generallyspeaks ofthe
result of what one has decided. One sees this root word in the feminine name
"Thelma." In its most basic form, thelema refers to a wish, a strong desire,
and the willing of some event. (Note: See also the discussionofthe preceding
word boule for comments relating to thelema).
Zodhiates says that thelema is the…
Will, not to be conceivedas a demand, but as an expressionor inclination of
pleasure towards that which is liked, that which pleases and creates joy. When
it denotes God's will, it signifies His gracious dispositiontoward something.
Used to designate what God Himself does of His own goodpleasure.
(Zodhiates, S. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. AMG)
Thelema has both an objective meaning (“whatone wishes to happen” or
what is willed) and a subjective connotation(“the act of willing or desiring”).
The word conveys the idea of desire, even a heart’s desire, for the word
primarily expresses emotioninstead of volition. Thus God’s will is not so
much God’s intention, as it is His heart’s desire.
Thelema - 62x in 58v -
Mt 6:10; 7:21; 12:50; 18:14; 21:31;26:42; Mark 3:35; Luke 12:47; 22:42;
23:25;Jn 1:13; 4:34; 5:30; 6:38, 39, 40;7:17; 9:31; Acts 13:22;21:14;22:14;
Ro 1:10-note; Ro 2:18-note;Ro 12:2-note;Ro 15:32-note;1Cor1:1; 7:37;
16:12;2Cor 1:1; 8:5; Gal 1:4; Ep 1:1-note, Ep 1:5-note, Ep 1:9-note, Ep 1:11-
note; Ep 2:3-note; Ep 5:17-note; Ep 6:6-note; Col1:1-note, Col 1:9-note; Col
4:12-note; 1Th4:3-note; 1Th 5:18-note;2Ti 1:1-note; 2Ti 2:26-note;He 10:7-

25. note, He 10:9-note, He 10:10-note, He 10:36-note;He 13:21-note;1Pe 2:15-
note; 1Pe 3:17-note;1Pe 4:2-note, 1Pe 4:19-note;2Pe 1:21-note;1Jn 2:17;
5:14; Rev 4:11-note. NAS = desire(1), desires(1), will(57).
Note that Peterdoes not say"was never interpreted", reiterating the teaching
in v20 that the speaking forth of God's word did not originate with the
speaker.
Click for an in depth study on Inspiration and Inerrancy.
The verbs "made… moved" are both the same phero and both in the passive
voice (action exerted on the men from without). In other words it was not
man's that originated the Scriptures. And yet Peterexplains that men were
involved in the process forthe Holy Spirit bore them along as they wrote,
guarding them from writing error and guiding them to write God's Word to
us.
Prophecyis of divine origin, not of one’s private origination. As Scripture is
not of human origin, neither is it the result of human will. The emphasis in the
phrase is that no part of Scripture was ever at any time produced because
men wanted it to be produced. The Bible is not the product of human effort.
To the contrary, even the human writers of Scripture wrote that sometimes
they wrote things (under divine inspiration) that even they could not fully
understand.
"As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would
come to you made, careful, searches & inquiries seeking to know what person
or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the
sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow" (1 Pet 1:10,11-note).
Even though they had incomplete understanding of what they wrote, the
human authors were still faithful to write what God had revealedto them
"in many portions and in many ways". (see notes of Hebrews 1:1-2)
Words derived from the will of man not only deceive the perpetrator's own
heart but they also poisonthe hearer. And this is exactlythe scenario Peteris
building up to in Chapter 2, one of the clearestexposesoffalse teachers in the

26. entire Word of God. This same type of deceptive teaching was found in the
OT, for example in Jeremiahwhere God comparedtheir false, deceptive
teaching to straw (God's word like a hammer, fire Jer23:29) which offered no
spiritual benefit to the hearers and in fact led them astray(see Jer 23:25-
26,27,28-29,32).
BUT MEN MOVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT SPOKE FROM GOD:alli hupi
(by, under) pneumatos hagioupheromenoi (PPPMPN)elalesan(3PAAI) api
theou anthropoi:
Lk 1:70; 2Ti3:16; 1Pe 1:10,11, Jos 14:6;1Ki 17:18,24;Nu 16:28;2Sa 23:2;
Micah3:7; Rev 19:10 Mk 12:36;Acts 1:16; 3:18; 28:25;Heb 3:7; 9:8; 10:15)
Torrey's Topic Inspiration of the Holy Spirit
2 Peter1 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries
2 Peter1:19-21 The Solid Foundation - StevenCole
2 Peter1:19-21 The Sure Word, Part 2 - John MacArthur
2 Pe 1:16-21 The Only Sure Word - John Sherwood
But (alla) (term of contrast) means "on the contrary" which presents a strong
antithesis to the idea that prophecy originated from the mind & will of men.
Petersupports Paul's doctrine that Scripture is not a man-made creationbut
represents the words breathed by God (see notes on inspiration of Scripture in
2Ti 3:16,17-note.The Holy Spirit and not the will of men was the Source of
Holy Scripture. In the OT alone, the human writers refer to their writings as
the words of God over 3800 times.
These "Men" (the human instruments who "transcribed" as it were the the
Words of God) were continually carried or borne along by the Spirit of God.
Moved (5342)(phero) means to bear or carry of a ship carried along by the
wind. Phero is in the present tense meaning that they were continually carried
or borne along. The passive voice conveys the sense that they were not borne
along by their own powerbut by an external source, in this case by the Holy
Spirit.

27. Luke describes the ship taking Paul to Rome being caught in the dangerous
wind known as Euraquilo recording that…
And after they had hoistedit up, they used supporting cables in undergirding
the ship; and fearing that they might run aground on the shallows ofSyrtis,
they let down the sea anchor, and so let themselves be driven (phero) along.
(Acts 27:17)
This is a beautiful figurative use of the phero picturing these men being
moved along like ships by the RuachHaKodesh (OT Hebrew words for the
"Holy Spirit") are a picture of the PROPHETS who were "vessels"raising
their sails so to speak (they were not inanimate ships but were receptive and
obedient "vessels" nevertheless)and the Holy Spirit filling them and carrying
their craft along in the direction HE wished. Men spoke but what they spoke
was from God. So these prophets were continually being moved along by the
Spirit, much as the Spirit moved over the waters atCreation: [Ge 1:2]
"and the Spirit of God was moving over (LXX uses the related verb epiphero)
the surface of the waters."
"To assure verbal precisionGod, in communicating His revelation, must be
verbally precise, and inspiration must extend to the very words. This does not
mean that God dictated every word. Rather His Spirit so pervaded the mind
of the human writer that he chose out of his own vocabularyand experience
preciselythose words, thoughts and expressions that conveyed God's message
with precision. In this sense the words of the human authors of Scripture can
be viewed as the word of God." (LaSor, Hubbard and Bush, Old Testament
Survey, p. 15)
Spoke from God(2980)(laleo [word study] originally referred to sounds like
chatter of birds, prattling of children and then came to be used of the highest
form of speech.
Though the human writers of Scripture were active (spoke is in the "active
voice" indicating the subjectcarries out the action) rather than passive in the
process ofwriting Scripture, God the Holy Spirit superintended their writing
so that, through their own personalities, thought processes, andvocabulary,

28. the words they composedand recordedwere without error and were the exact
words God wanted written. The original copies of Scripture are therefore
inspired, i.e., God-breathed (cf. 2 Ti 3:16) and inerrant, i.e., without error.
Peterdefined the process ofinspiration which createdan inerrant original
text (cf Pr 30:5 Ps 12:6, 18:30, 19:7)
John Piper comments
"Yes, men spoke. Theyspoke with their own language and style. But Peter
mentions two other dimensions of their speaking. First, they spoke from God.
What they have to say is not merely from their ownlimited perspective. They
are not the origin of the truth they speak;they are the channel. The truth is
God's truth. Their meaning is God's meaning. Second, not only is what they
spoke from God, but how they spoke it is controlled by the Holy Spirit. "Men,
moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God." God did not simply revealtruth
to the writers of Scripture and then depart in hopes that they might
communicate it accurately. Petersays that in the very communicating of it
they were carried by the Holy Spirit. The making of the Bible was not left to
merely human skills of communication; the Holy Spirit Himself carried the
process to completion… But what about the New Testament? Did the apostles
and their close associates (Mark, Luke, James, Jude and the writer to the
Hebrews)experience divine inspiration as they wrote? Were they "carried"
by the Holy Spirit to speak from God? The Christian church has always
answeredyes. Jesus saidto his apostles in John 16:12, 13,
"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot * bear them now. 13
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth;
for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whateverHe hears, He will
speak;and He will disclose to you what is to come."
Then the apostle Paulconfirms this when he says of his ownapostolic teaching
in 1Cor2:12,13, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the
Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by
God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom,
but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual
words." In 2Co 13:3 he said that Christ speaks in him. And in Gal1:12 he

29. said, "ForI neither receivedit from man, nor was I taught it, but I receivedit
through a revelation of Jesus Christ." If we take Paul as our model for what it
meant to be an apostle of Christ, then it would be fair to say that the New
Testamentas well as the Old is not merely from man but also from God. The
writers of the Old Testamentand New Testamentspoke as they were moved
by the Holy Spirit." (Read the entire sermonThe Holy Spirit: Author of
Scripture) (Bolding and links added)
RelatedResources:
What does it mean that the Bible is inspired?
Is the Bible truly God's Word?
What does it mean that the Bible is God-breathed?
Who wrote the Bible?
Are the writings of the Apostle Paul inspired (see 1 Corinthians 7:12)?
What is Verbal Plenary Preservation?
Is there proof for the inspiration of the Bible?
What are the different theories of biblical inspiration?
Did the writers of the New Testamentregardtheir writings as Scripture?
How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God, and not the Apocrypha,
the Qur'an, the Book ofMormon, etc.?
What is tota scriptura?
What is Bibliology?
How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?
How do we decide which books belong in the Bible since the Bible does not say
which books belong in the Bible?
What is the rhema word?

30. Is the original Bible still in existence?
Always Right - A weathermanboasted, "I'm 90 percent right—10 percentof
the time." That's a ridiculous statement, but some people resortto that type of
doubletalk to coverup a poor record.
The Bible's prophetic record, though, truly is accurate. Let's look at a few
examples.
The Lord Jesus was born in the city of Bethlehem(Micah 5:2) of a virgin
(Isaiah 7:14) at the time specified(Da 9:25-note). Infants in Bethlehemwere
massacredas prophesied(Jeremiah31:15). Jesus wentdown into Egypt and
returned (Hosea 11:1). Isaiahforetold Christ's ministry in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1,
2). Zechariah predicted His triumphal entry into Jerusalemon a colt
(Zechariah 9:9) and His betrayal for 30 pieces of silver (Zech 11:12, 13). David
had never seena Roman crucifixion, yet in Psalm22, under divine inspiration,
he penned a graphic portrayal of Jesus'death. Isaiah53 gives a detailed
picture of our Lord's rejection, mistreatment, death, and burial. These few
prophecies (and there are many more) should impress us with the reliability
of the Bible.
Since these predictions have all been fulfilled, let us also acceptwith
confidence what the Bible says about the future. Remember, we have a book
of prophecy that is right—all of the time!—Richard De Haan (Copyright RBC
Ministries, Grand Rapids, MI. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved)
I'll trust in God's unchanging Word
Till soul and body sever;
For though all things shall pass away,

31. His Word shall stand forever! —Luther
You can trust the Bible—Godalways keeps His word.
Windtalkers - Their contribution to victory in World War II was enormous,
but few people even knew about them. In 1942, the US Army recruited and
trained 29 young Navajo Indians and sent them to a base surrounded in
secrecy. Thesepeople, who were called"windtalkers," hadbeen askedto
devise a specialcode in their native language that the enemy couldn't break.
They succeeded, andthe code was never broken. It securedand greatly
speededup war communications. For 23 years after the war, that secretcode
remained classifiedin case it might be neededagain.
By contrast, the Bible was not sent down to us in some unbreakable code
impossible to understand. Although it contains rich imagery, vivid metaphors,
and the record of magnificent visions, it was written by human authors to give
people the messageofGod's love and salvation.
That messageis clearand unmistakable. The biblical writers were moved by
God's Spirit to recordexactly what He wanted us to know. For centuries
people have been freed from their sin and guilt by believing His message.
We owe a great debt to the windtalkers. We owe an even greaterdebt to the
writers of Scripture, who receivedGod's Word and wrote it down. So let's
read it often. —David C. Egner(Copyright RBC Ministries, Grand Rapids,
MI. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved)
When reading God's Word, take specialcare
To find the rich treasures hidden there;

32. Give thought to eachline, eachpreceptclear,
Then practice it well with godly fear. —Anon.
Many who have been blind to the truth have found that reading the Bible is a
real eye-opener.
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
Pulpit Commentary Homiletics
God's Voice In The Bible
2 Peter1:21
J.R. Thomson
The reference here is, of course, to Old TestamentScripture; but there is no
reasonfor confining this assertionto any portion of Holy Writ. The Bible, as a
whole, is a Divine utterance - Divine in its purpose, and Divine in its authority.
A spiritual impulse moved the writers, and their speechaccordinglywas in
reality the voice of God. This Divinity of meaning is discernible in the aim of
the Scriptures.
I. THE BIBLE TEACHES MAN WHAT HE IS.
1. Everywhere in Scripture man is representedas a moral, spiritual, and
accountable being. Other literature, properly enough, deals with man under
other aspects ofhis nature - represents him as susceptible of emotions
incidental to human relationships, as grief and joy, fear and hope; as capable
of exertion, of self-denial, with a view to obtaining earthly objects. But every
careful and discerning reader of Scripture feels that in every book of the
volume human nature is depicted as moral, as affected, on the one hand, by
temptation to a lowerlife, and, on the other hand, by stimulus and
encouragementto a higher life; as capable of obedience and holiness, or of

33. transgressionand ungodliness. Neveris man representedby the inspired
writers as a mere animal, as a sentient nature moved, like the brutes, only by
instinct and appetite. On the contrary, he is representedas akin to God, as
dependent upon God, as responsible to God.
2. Everywhere in Scripture man is convictedof being sinful and guilty in
characterand habit. Such a state is, indeed, a violation of his original and
proper nature; but the factof human sinfulness cannotbe concealedor
palliated without injustice and flattery. It is this fact which accounts forvery
much of the contents of the sacredvolume. This is the explanation of the Law,
which is not for the righteous, but for sinners; and of the ceremonies and
sacrifices ofthe old covenant, which symbolically set forth the impurity and
depravity of man's heart and life. In this light we must read the history of the
Hebrew nation, which occupies so large a part of the Old Testament. It is a
record of Israel's faults, defections, and apostasy;and it is a recordalso of
God's displeasure with sin, embodied in acts of chastisement, and especiallyin
the afflictions which repeatedly befell the nation as a whole. Here, too, is the
explanation of the fact that Scripture contains so many biographies of bad
men, and of goodmen who have been tempted and have fallen into sin. The
intention is to exhibit human frail, ties and errors, and to impress upon the
mind of every readerthe undeniable powerand curse of sin. It would appear
that the same purpose is subservedby the descriptions of the diseasedand the
demoniacs, which abound in the narratives of the evangelists.
II. THE BIBLE TEACHES MAN WHO GOD IS. The profound need and the
pressing urgency and importance of such knowledge must be admitted by all,
and are felt by those whose spiritual instincts are arousedto activity. And in
nothing is the Bible more manifestly its own witness and evidence than in its
incomparable and sublime revelation of God.
1. In Scripture the Personalityof the living God pervades every book. Not
only is there no pantheism and no polytheism; there is a pure and impressive
theism throughout the sacredvolume. Even those who deny to the Bible the
characterof a supernatural revelation, acknowledgethe debt of humanity to
the representationof monotheism given by the Hebrew prophets and apostles.

34. 2. The righteous government and the holy characterof the Eternal are set
forth in the Bible, not only by means of statements, but by means of lessons
conveyedin the form of history. His hatred of sin, in both private and public
life, is effectively declaredin his righteous judgments. His moral government
is a greatreality. In the Scriptures, the Divine Ruler is never exhibited as
either indifferent to moral distinctions or capricious in his treatment of moral
agents. None who acknowledgesthe authority of the Bible canexpect to escape
the eye or to evade the judgment of the righteous Governor.
3. God's interest in man, and his design for man's welfare, are portrayed in
the Bible, as in no other professedlysacredand inspired book, and indeed as
nowhere else in literature. From the opening pages ofGenesis, where Godis
representedas walking and as speaking with men in the garden, down to the
epochof redemption, when "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,"
the Scriptures are full of evidence of the Divine interest in man's welfare.
Whilst exhibiting the majestic dignity of the Eternal, in such a way as to call
forth our reverence, the sacredvolume beyond anything else makes Godnear
to us, and leads us to feelthat he is round about us in all our ways.
4. Especiallydoes the Bible impress upon the mind of the readerthe
redemptive purposes of the Supreme; it shows him to be man's Saviour. His
characteris setforth as compassionate andmerciful, and he is representedas
using the means to give effect to his gracious intentions towards sinful man.
(1) In the Old Testamenthistory we have proofs of this, especiallyin the
deliverance of Israelfrom the bondage in Egypt, and in the restorationof
Israelfrom the captivity in the East. These greatevents were both
manifestations of God's mercy towards a nation, and prophetic anticipations
of the greaterdeliverance in the future.
(2) For the New Testamentis undoubtedly the fulfillment of the Old. What
was done politically for a people was in Christ done morally and actually for
the race. The Gospels and Epistles setforth before us Jesus as the Son of God
and as the Saviour of mankind. "He that hath seenme," said Christ, "hath
seenthe Father;" and this has respect, not simply to his peerless character,

35. but also to the mighty powerand to the gracious purposes to which the world
is indebted for the temporal deliverance and for the eternal hope. - J.R.T.
No prophecy... is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter1:20, 21
On the indiscreet application of Scriptural prophecy
G. D'Oyly, D. D.
As the term "prophecy "is here used without any limitation, it seems clearly
designedto comprehend all those prophetical enunciations which have been
vouchsafedby the Holy Spirit of God. All such prophecy is a light vouchsafed
to man from the greatSource of all light and all knowledge. But it is a light
purposely shadedat first with some obscurity; it shines only as in a dark place
until the day of its fulfilment shall dawn. The epithet here applied to prophecy
is rendered in our translation "more sure," but it would be more correctly
rendered "more firm, more constant, more enduring." Prophecyaffords a
more firm and enduring evidence than miracles, inasmuch as it has a slow and
gradual development, unfolding its proofs more clearly and completely as ages
roll on; its light shines forth to the eyes of men with a fuller and brighter
lustre in proportion as the veil is withdrawn from futurity. When miracles are
no longer vouchsafedfor the confirmation of the truth, prophecy becomes, by
the lapse of time, a more powerful and convincing head of evidence as it is
proved, by the course of events, to be really prophecy. And thus may it be said
that in the more clearand full development of one species ofevidence we have
a growing compensationfor whatever may be conceivedto be lostby the lapse
of time to the strength, or clearness,orfulness of the other. To this "wordof
prophecy," he says, "ye do well that ye take heed," that ye pay the serious
attention which it deserves;but he cautions them first, before they do so, to
know, to recollect, to bear in mind that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any
private interpretation." The apostle intends to caution his disciples againstthe
hasty, fanciful, and inconsiderate interpretation of all Scriptural prophecy.

36. Our attention then becomes directedby these words to a subject of great
importance — the indiscreetapplication of the prophetical parts of Scripture.
Now undoubtedly we may trace one fruitful source of this practice to the
propensity which prevails with all of us to magnify and exaggerateeverything
that passes within the narrow sphere of our immediate observation. As in the
objects presentedto our bodily senses, thatwhich stands immediately before
us absorbs the greatestportion of our attention and precludes the sight of
others that are more distant. Misled by these false and prejudiced views,
individuals have been easilycarried awaywith the notion that the occurrences
of their own little day and contractedsphere of observationare of sufficient
distinction to be made the specific subject of Scriptural prophecy. But
operating in unison with this undue appreciation of the importance of events
which are present have been an over-forward disposition to display superior
penetration and ingenuity amongstthose who interpret prophecy, and
credulous superstition and prying curiosity amongstthose who believe their
interpretations. Now in the case of the prophecies containedin Scripture a
peculiarly tempting field is opened for those persons who are given to these
adventurous speculations. But it is of far less importance to inquire into the
causes whichhave led to the indiscreet application of Scriptural prophecies,
or to detail what has takenplace in times past, than to endeavour to repress
the practice by pointing out the injury which it must ever cause to the general
interests of religion and to the authority of the Christian records. Now the
principal evil which must with too greatcertainty be derived from this
practice is that of exciting a generalprejudice againstthe truth of all
Scriptural prophecies. Whendifferent persons are found, many of sufficient
credit for learning and acuteness, eagerlyand confidently applying the
prophecies to events widely different, what impression must be made on the
public at large, on those who form their judgment of these matters at a
distance and without paying close and accurate attention to them? The
inference will too obviously be that the prophecies of Scripture may be turned
to any sense atthe will of the interpreter. Nor, if such an imputation be cast
on the prophetical parts of Scripture, will the cause ofrevelation in general
wholly escape. Or, if the credit of Scripture be saved, it will be savedonly at
the expense of the veracity and goodfaith of those who attempt these
interpretations. While so much positive evil results from the licence, which has

37. been too often assumed, of hazarding, on light grounds and hasty views, novel
interpretations of Scriptural prophecy, the most powerful of all arguments is
afforded by this considerationto induce all persons who feelthe reverence due
to the inspired Word of God to abstainmost carefully from this indiscreet
practice. Prophecywas not given to gratify the prying curiosity of men ever
anxious to dive into the recesses offuturity, nor to exercise their forward
ingenuity in searching out new interpretations which might arrest the
attention of the public. It was designedfor a more availing, a greater, and a
nobler purpose — for the purpose of affording to the truth of Christianity its
growing testimony, which might be unfolded by degrees and open fresh
conviction on the mind as the revolutions of time should produce its gradual
accomplishment. Consistentlywith this purpose, a certaindegree of obscurity
was unavoidable. Under these views of the real characterand true intent of
Scriptural prophecy, let it be hoped that the interpretation of it will never be
attempted carelesslyand lightly from any private motive of exhibiting
penetration and ingenuity, but only from the deliberate considerationofwhat
may conduce to the right understanding and elucidationof it.
(G. D'Oyly, D. D.)
Holy men of God spake as they were moved
The inspiration, conscription, and exposition of Scripture
Thos. Adams.
The apostle had formerly commended reading of the prophets by the benefit
of them; now in reading them he gives warning from the difficulty of
understanding them. There often lies a deep and hidden sense under a
familiar and easysentence. Letnot men rush into their exposition, like hasty
soldiers into a thicket, without seeking directionfrom the captain. When we
come to read them we must subject ourselves to the government of the Spirit.
I. THE INSPIRATION FROM GOD. It was not a vision of their own heads,
but they "spake as theywere moved by the Holy Ghost."

38. 1. Considerthe infallible completion of things long before prophesied in their
due seasons (1 Kings 13:2).
2. Considerthat their being hath continued from Moses unto this day. This is
miraculous — that in so greathurly-burlies and alterations they should not be
lost!
3. That the scope of it should be to build up no worldly thing, but only the
kingdom of heaven, and to direct us to Jesus Christ.
4. That it should pass with credit through the whole world, and find
approbation of all languages,nations, and places, and where it meets with
oppositions should make way through them as thunder through the clouds.
5. That the Hebrew tongue, wherein the Old Testamentwas written, doth so
excelall tongues, in antiquity, sanctity, majesty.
6. The majesty of the style, which yet is not only powerful in words, but
effectualin working (Hebrews 4:12).
7. From the very baseness offalsehood, we learn to admire the lustre of truth.
To disgrace and weakenthe credit of the Scriptures Satan had his poets and
fabulists, whose mythologies were obtruded for true reports.
8. This is an argument of the finger of God and supernatural power in Holy
Writ, that the penners of it renounced all affectationand delivered the true
messageevenagainstthen" own reputations.
II. THE CONSCRIPTION. Although not by the will of man, yet was it done
by the hand of man.
1. "Men." Why did not God choose some othernature of greaterauthority
and credit?(1)That no glory might be ascribedto the means (2 Corinthians
4:7).(2) In commiserationof man's weakness(Exodus 20:19).(3)Forthe
security of our souls. If our preacher were an angel, Satancould transform
himself into that shape.(4)In fit respondence to the work of our redemption
(Acts 3:22).

39. 2. "Menof God." This is an ancientattribute (1 Kings 17:18; 1 Timothy 6:11;
2 Timothy 3:17). But especiallythey are calledmen of God because their
dispensationcomes from God (1 Corinthians 2:13).
3. "Holy men." The Lord who sent them qualified them.
III. THE EXPOSITION, whichis by no private spirit, but by the Holy Spirit's
illumination of man's mind and directing the Church. He that expounds the
Scripture upon the warrant of his own spirit only doth lay the brands of the
fire togetherwithout the tongs, and is sure at leastto burn his own fingers.
(Thos. Adams.)
The Bible
A. K. H. Boyd, D. D.
That is the Scriptural way of stating the greatdoctrine that the Bible is
inspired, that the Bible is the Word of God. And you remark the grand
simplicity and directness of the statement. The Holy Spirit speaks to us in
Holy Scripture: we can understand that; let us hold by that. How He does so is
not revealed, and so we cannottell. We are all well assuredthat the
supernatural influences of that Divine Spirit do still, in every Christian man
and woman, weave in with the natural workings of soul and mind, of heart
and head. When the BlessedSpirit helps us to pray He avails Himself of our
natural faculties — of our memory, of our perceptionof things which may
befall us, of our capacityof feeling, trusting, and loving. The prayer is the
prayer of the Holy Spirit; but it is also the individual and characteristic
prayer of this man, of that woman, of that little child. It is exactlyso with that
rarer gift which we callinspiration, as with the sanctifying, comforting,
prayer-prompting communications for which ordinary Christians ask and
look day by day. You know how the inspired writers of the Bible retain their
individuality. St. Paul does not write like St. John; St. Luke writes quite
differently from either, and St. Peter from all three. And yet do you not feel
that there is a something which belongs to all of the many men that wrote the
Bible 9 One Breath has breathed upon them, one Hand has touched them all!

40. In a certain loose waywe may speak of the inspiration of the poet, the orator,
the painter; and it would be mere pedantry to quarrel with s phrase so well
understood in the main. But never forgetthat differing not in degree but in
kind — differing essentially, vitally, altogether — is the true, holy, Divine
inspiration of the men who wrote the Bible. And we are to distinguish likewise
betweenthe supreme inspiration thus described and the ordinary and still-
continuing gifts of the Holy Spirit. There is a wide difference betweenthat
guidance which you and I may get for the asking and the true inspiration of
those few among our race concerning whom St. Petertells us that "holy men
of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." And now, having said
so much as to the nature of the inspiration of the Bible, let me suggestsome
thoughts upon God's Word generally. The Bible, remember, is the Word of
God. It not merely contains the Word of God, as in some sense all things do,
for "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showethHis
handiwork";it is the Word of God. It is the flower and crown of all God's
revelation to man: everything that we can read, or fancy we read, on the pages
of Nature or Providence we find far more plainly statedin the Bible. And we
find a vast deal more. We find there things most needful to salvation, about
which earth and sea and stars are dumb. Even the lessercharacteristics ofthe
Bible are noteworthy. The very language of this blessedbook is such as
wonderfully suits its claim to be God's messageto all races and tongues. The
Bible bears translation into other languages as no other book does. It is at
home, and at its ease, in all languages. Youhear it saidthat there is no more
remarkable miracle of skill than the language ofour English Bible, which is
indeed the standard of perfectionin our tongue. But there is something more
in this than the industry, tact, scholarshipof the translators. Surely it is that
when the Holy Ghostused holy men of old to write God's messageto all
human beings, He moved them so to write it in such tongues and in such
words as would bear, as human words never did, to be rendered into the
mother tongue of every being who has speechand reason. And then how this
wonderful volume suits all men in matters more vital than its language!There
are extraordinary national differences in ways of thinking and feeling, and
extraordinary differences in such things betweenthe people of different times
and ages. And yet this wonderful book, dealing as it does throughout just with
religious faith and feeling, suits man whereveryou find him, comes home alike

41. to Easternand Westernnations, never gets out of date, never is outgrown by
the increasing intelligence ofeducated men, and expresses no feeling in which
all Christian people cannot sympathise. How it suits all our moods, all our
circumstances!In every state of thought and feeling we find what we want in
the Bible. And just remember, too, what is the secretof the Bible's so coming
home to all. It is not a question, here, of those intuitions of moral truth which,
when we read or hear them, make us say, "Now that is true," or even say,
"We have often thought that ourselves, though we never heard it expressed
before." The Bible comes home to all, because it treats of greatfacts which we
never could have found out, yet which, when told, commend themselves, not to
sensibility, not to taste, not even to intellectmerely, but to our conscienceand
heart, to our deepestand most solemn convictions of what is Divine and right
and true! Therefore it is that the little volume is the first prized possessionof
childhood, and old people have it in their hands to the last; therefore it goes
into the soldier's knapsack;therefore the agedstatesmanand judge would
read it like a little child; therefore you find it under the pillow of the dying,
wet with tears.
(A. K. H. Boyd, D. D.)
The plenary inspiration of the Scriptures
N. Emmons, D. D.
That the book which we emphatically call the Bible was written by the
inspiration of suggestion.
I. Let us INQUIRE WHAT IS TO BE UNDERSTOODBY THE
INSPIRATION OF SUGGESTION. Some suppose there are three kinds of
inspiration, which they distinguish from eachother by calling the first the
inspiration of superintendency, the secondthe inspiration of elevation, and the
third the inspiration of suggestion.
1. It was necessarythat the sacredpenman should be conscious ofDivine
inspiration all the while they were writing. It was not sufficient for them
barely to know that they beganto write under the influence of the Spirit. For

42. nothing short of a constantrealising sense ofHis motion and direction, could
give them full assurancethat what they wrote was the infallible Word of God,
which they might honestly present to the world under the sanctionof Divine
authority.
2. The Supreme Being was as able to afford them the highest as the lowest
kind of inspiration.
3. That the sacredpenmen were utterly incapable of writing such a book as
the Bible without the constantguidance of the Holy Ghost.
4. To suppose that they sometimes wrote without the inspiration of suggestion,
is the same as to suppose that they sometimes wrote without any inspiration at
all. The distinguishing of inspiration into three kinds is a mere human
invention, which has no foundation in Scripture or reason. And those who
make this distinction appearto amuse themselves and others with words
without ideas.
5. That the sacredpenmen profess to have written the Scriptures under the
immediate and constant guidance of the Holy Ghost.
II. It may be proper to take particular notice of THE MOST WEIGHTY
OBJECTIONSWHICH MAY BE MADE AGAINST THE PLENARY
INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
1. It may be said there appears a greatdiversity in the manner and style of the
sacredpenmen, which cannotbe easilyreconciledwith the supposition of their
being equally and constantlyguided by the inspiration of suggestion. It is true,
indeed, we plainly discoversome variety in the manner and style of the sacred
writers. But this is easyto accountfor, by only supposing that God dictated to
eachsacredpenman a manner and style corresponding to his own peculiar
genius, education, and manner of living. But on the other hand, we find a
much greatersimilarity in their manner and style than could be reasonably
expectedon supposition of their writing agreeablyto their own genius and
taste, without the suggesting influences of the Spirit.
2. It may be said that the mistakes and contradictions to be found in the
Scriptures plainly refute the notion of their being written under the

43. inspiration of suggestion. To this it may be replied in general, that most of the
supposedmistakes and contradictions to be found in the Scriptures may be
only apparent, and so might be fully removed, if we were better acquainted
with the originallanguages in which the sacredbooks were written, and with
the customs and manners of the different ages and places in which the sacred
penmen lived. But the direct and decisive answerto this objectionis that it
operates with equal force againstevery kind of inspiration.
3. It may be said, since God originally intended that the Bible should be
transcribed by different hands and translatedinto different languages, there
was no occasionfor His suggesting everythought and word to the sacred
penmen; because, afterall, their writings must be subject to human defects
and imperfections. It is sufficient to observe here that every transcription and
translation is commonly more or less perfect, in proportion to the greateror
less perfectionof the original. And since the Scriptures were designedto be
often transcribed and translated, this made it more necessary, insteadof less,
that they should be written, at first, with peculiar accuracyand precision.
4. It may be said that the Apostle Paul seems to acknowledge, in 1 Corinthians
7., that he wrote some things in that chapter according to his ownprivate
opinion, without the aid or authority of a plenary inspiration. In one verse he
says, "I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." And in another
verse he says, "To the rest speak I, not the Lord." If we understand these
expressions literally, then we must suppose that the apostle and all the other
sacredpenmen always wrote under a plenary inspiration, only when they gave
intimations to the contrary. But we find no such notice given, except in the
chapter under consideration;and therefore we may justly conclude that all
the other parts of Scripture were written by the immediate inspiration of God.
But if, in the secondplace, we understand the apostle as speaking ironicallyin
the verses before us, then his expressions will carry no idea of his writing
without Divine aid and authority. And there is some ground to understand his
words in this sense. There is, how ever, a third answerto this objection, which
appears to be the most satisfactory;and that is this: the apostle is here
speaking upon the subject of marriage;and he intimates that he has more to
say upon this subjectthan either the prophets or Christ had said upon it.
Accordingly he says, "Ispeak this by permission, and not of commandment.

44. To the rest speak I, not the Lord." By these expressions he means to
distinguish what he said from what other inspired teachers hadsaid upon the
same subject. On the whole there appears no solid objectionagainstthe
plenary inspiration of any part of the SacredScriptures; but, on the other
hand, every argument which proves them to be partly, equally proves them to
be altogether, given by the immediate inspiration of God. Improvement:
1. If the Bible contains the very ideas and sentiments which were immediately
suggestedto the sacredpen men by the Divine Spirit, then greatcaution and
circumspectionought to be used in explaining Scripture. The words of
Scripture may not be lightly altered, nor expunged, nor supplied, nor wrested
from their plain and obvious meaning according to the connectionin which
they stand.
2. If the Divine Spirit suggestedeveryword and thought to the holy pemnen,
then it is not strange that they did not understand their ownwritings. These
the apostle tells us, in our context, they did not under stand. They might, by
the aid of the Spirit, write precepts, predictions, promises, and theatenings, of
whose import they were ignorant, that would be very intelligible and very
useful in future ages. Theywrote not for themselves, but for others; not for
present, but future times. And this affords an additional evidence of the
plenary inspiration of all the sacredwritings.
3. If the Bible was written under the inspiration of suggestion, thenit is an
infallible rule of faith, and the only standard by which to try our religious
sentiments.
4. If holy men of old wrote as they were moved by God, then it is reasonable to
expectthat the Bible should bear clearand strong marks of its Divine author.
Accordingly, when we look into the Bible, we find the image and
superscription of the Deity on every page. It displays all the perfections of
God.
5. If the Bible be the immediate revelation of God's mind and will to men, then
it is a most precious book.

45. 6. If the Bible contains the mind and will of God, then all who enjoy it may
know in this world what will be their state in the next. It clearly describes
both heaven and hell, and the terms upon which we may obtain the one and
escape the other.
7. If the Bible be indeed the Word of God, then it is not strange that it has had
such a greatinfluence over the minds of men.
(N. Emmons, D. D.)
An inspired definition of inspiration
DeanVaughan.
— "Men spake — from God" (R.V.). It is a definition of inspiration. A
definition simple, precise, exhaustive. "Menspoke" — spoke, without ceasing
to be men; spoke with all those characteristics ofphrase and style, of thought
and mind, of position and history which mark and make the man; yet "spoke
from God," with a messageand mission, under an influence and an impulse, a
control and a suggestion, whichgave to the word spokena force and a fire, a
touch and a contact, a sight and an insight, unlike other utterances because of
a breath of God in it, the God of the spirits of all flesh. "Menspake." "Human
beings," St. Petersays — the "men" is emphatic. Shall we blame those who,
first of all, would ask, Who? would busy themselves in the endeavour, by
examination and comparison, to learn what can be learnt of the authorship of
particular books;and would then go on to ask, What? in other words, to bring
every appliance, of manuscript and version and ancient quotation, to bear
upon the text of Scripture. Inquiries like these are only for the learned. But let
us, who can but look on or listen, at leastrefrain from denunciations of a
process forwhich we ought to have the deepestrespect. Menspake. And does
not St. Peteras goodas say, And remained men in the speaking? Where is the
authority for supposing that the inspiring Spirit levelledthe intellects,
obliterated the characteristics,overwhelmedthe peculiarities, of the several
writers? Men spake. And one of them has told us how. By a careful
investigationof various writings going before, and an earnestendeavourto

46. arrange in their true order the facts of the history which he was to chronicle.
Men spake — and men wrote — and they were men still. Matters which toil
and pains could ascertain — matters which lay in the province of intellect,
whether in the way of researchorin the way of discovery — matters for
which God had provided the instrument of knowledge in the human being as
by Him created, even though ages and generations might come and go before
the actualknowledge was made his own — on these things inspiration was
silent. Men spake, and in speaking were men still. Even their message, even
the thing they were sent to tell, must be expressedin terms of human speech,
through a medium therefore of adaptationand accommodation, Menspake —
from God. "Movedby the Holy Ghost." The two halves of the text are
dependent upon eachother. Notangels — or they had no sympathetic, no
audible voice for man. Not machines — or speech(which is, by definition,
intelligence in communication) had been a contradiction in terms. These
human beings spake from God; for He had something to say, and to sayto
man. There is something which God only can say. There is something which
reasoncannotsay, nor experience, nor discovery, nor the deepestinsight, nor
the happiest guessing, northe most sagacious foresight. There is a world of
heaven, which flesh and blood cannot penetrate. There is a world of spirit,
impervious even to mind. There is a world beyond death, betweenwhich and
the living there is an impassable gulf fixed. More than this — there is a world
of cause and consequence, whichno moralist can connector piece together.
There is a world of providence, which gives no accountof itself to the
observer. More yet than this. There is a fact of sin, inherited and handed on,
working everywhere in hearts and lives, spoiling God's work and ruining
man's welfare. Who can tell, concerning this, whether indeed there is any
recoveryfrom this deep, this terrible, this fatal fall? And yet man needs to
hear of these things. And confess now, you who have gone with us thus far,
how utterly beside the mark of such a work as this would have been an
inspiration of science, oran inspiration of geography, or an inspiration of
history, or an inspiration of geology, astronomy, botany, or chemistry. Men
spake, and they spake from God. He had that to tell which men by searching
could not find out. He set this human being to tell it to his fellows. But oh,
trust God to do the right thing! Do not mistrust Him, and summon Him to the
bar of your poor intellect every time that you cannotquite see what He was

47. about. How can you accountfor a slaughterof twenty thousand men in one
tiny battlefield in Beth-horon or on Mount Ephraim? how can you explain the
dumb ass speaking with man's voice, and Samuel coming up againat the
bidding of the witch of Endor, etc. Say, if you are wise, with the three
Israelites to King Nebuchadnezzar, "I am not careful to answerthee in this
matter." Men spake — and, while they spake, they were men still. But they
spake from God — and what they said from Him was truth and nothing but
truth, and in it, thus spoken, is the very light of my life. Neverwill I part with
that light till I reacha world which no longerwants it, because the Lord God
Almighty and the Lamb are the light thereof.
(DeanVaughan.).
STUDYLIGHT.ORG RESOURCES
Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
2 Peter1:21
Adam Clarke Commentary
For the prophecy came not in old time - That is, in any former time, by the
will of man - by a man's ownsearching, conjecture, orcalculation;but holy
men of God - persons separatedfrom the world, and devoted to God's service,
spake, moved by the Holy Ghost. So far were they from inventing these
prophetic declarations concerning Christ, or any future event, that they were
φερομενοι, carriedaway, out of themselves and out of the whole region, as it
were, of human knowledge andconjecture, by the Holy Ghost, who, without
their knowing any thing of the matter, dictated to them what to speak, and
what to write; and so far above their knowledge were the words of the
prophecy, that they did not even know the intent of those words, but searched
what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did

48. signify, when it testifiedbeforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory
that should follow. See 1 Peter1:11, 1 Peter1:12, and the notes there.
As the writer of this epistle asserts thathe was on the holy mount with Christ
when he was transfigured, he must be either Peter, James, or John, for there
was no other person present on that occasionexceptMosesand Elijah, in their
glorious bodies. The epistle was never attributed to James nor John; but the
uninterrupted current, where its Divine inspiration was granted, gave it to
Peteralone. See the preface.
It is not unfrequent for the writers of the New Testamentto draw a
comparisonbetweenthe Mosaic andChristian dispensations;and the
comparisongenerallyshows that, glorious as the former was, it had no glory
in comparisonof the glory that excelleth. St. Peterseems to touch here on the
same point; the Mosaic dispensation, with all the light of prophecy by which it
was illustrated, was only as a lamp shining in a dark place. There is a
propriety and delicacyin this image that are not generallynoticed: a lamp in
the dark gives but a very small portion of light, and only to those who are very
near to it; yet it always gives light enough to make itself visible, even at a great
distance;though it enlightens not the space betweenit and the beholder, it is
still literally the lamp shining in a dark place. Such was the Mosaic
dispensation; it gave a little light to the Jews, but shone not to the Gentile
world, any farther than to make itself visible. This is compared with the
Gospelunder the emblem of daybreak, and the rising of the sun. When the
sun is even eighteendegrees below the horizon daybreak commences, as the
rays of light begin then to diffuse themselves in our atmosphere, by which
they are reflected upon the earth. By this means a whole hemisphere is
enlightened, though but in a partial degree;yet this increasing every moment,
as the sun approaches the horizon, prepares for the full manifestationof his
resplendent orb: so the ministry of John Baptist, and the initiatory ministry of
Christ himself, prepared the primitive believers for his full manifestation on
the day of pentecostand afterwards. Here the sun rose in his strength,
bringing light, heat, and life to all the inhabitants of the earth. So far, then, as
a lantern carried in a dark night differs from and is inferior to the beneficial
effects of daybreak, and the full light and heatof a meridian sun; so far was

49. the Mosaic dispensation, in its beneficialeffects, inferior to the Christian
dispensation.
Perhaps there is scarcelyany point of view in which we can considerprophecy
which is so satisfactoryand conclusive as that which is here stated;that is, far
from inventing the subject of their own predictions, the ancient prophets did
not even know the meaning of what themselves wrote. They were carried
beyond themselves by the influence of the Divine Spirit, and after ages were
alone to discoverthe object of the prophecy; and the fulfillment was to be the
absolute proof that the prediction was of God, and that it was of no private
invention - no discoverymade by human sagacityand wisdom, but by the
especialrevelationof the all-wise God. This is sufficiently evident in all the
prophecies which have been already fulfilled, and will be equally so in those
yet to be fulfilled; the events will point out the prophecy, and the prophecy
will be seento be fulfilled in that event.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliography
Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on 2 Peter1:21". "The Adam Clarke
Commentary". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/2-peter-
1.html. 1832.
return to 'Jump List'
Albert Barnes'Notes onthe Whole Bible
For the prophecy came not in old time - Margin, or, “atany.” The Greek
word ( ποτὲ pote) will bear either construction. It would be true in either
sense, but the reference is particularly to the recorded prophecies in the Old
Testament. What was true of them, however, is true of all prophecy, that it is
not by the will of man. The word “prophecy” here is without the article,

50. meaning prophecy in general - all that is prophetic in the Old Testament;or,
in a more generalsense still, all that the prophets taught, whether relating to
future events or not.
By the will of man - It was not of human origin; not discoveredby the human
mind. The word “will,” here seems to be used in the sense of“prompting” or
“suggestion;” men did not speak by their ownsuggestion, but as truth was
brought to them by God.
But holy men of God - Pious men commissionedby God, or employed by him
as his messengers to mankind.
Spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost - Compare 2 Timothy 3:16. The
Greek phrase here ( ὑπὸ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου φερόμενος hupo Pneumatos
Hagiou pheromenos)means “borne along, moved, influenced” by the Holy
Ghost. The idea is, that in what they spake they were “carriedalong” by an
influence from above. They moved in the case only as they were moved; they
spake only as the influence of the Holy Ghost was upon them. They were no
more self-moved than a vesselatsea is that is impelled by the wind; and as the
progress made by the vesselis to be measured by the impulse bearing upon it,
so the statements made by the prophets are to be traced to the impulse which
bore upon their minds. They were not, indeed, in all respects like sucha
vessel, but only in regardto the fact that all they said as prophets was to be
tracedto the foreign influence that bore upon their minds.
There could not be, therefore, a more decided declarationthan this in proof
that the prophets were inspired. If the authority of Peteris admitted, his
positive and explicit assertionsettles the question. if this be so, also, then the
point with reference to which he makes this observationis abundantly
confirmed, that the prophecies demand our earnestattention, and that we
should give all the heed to them which we would to a light or lamp when
traveling in a dangerous way, and in a dark night. In a still more general
sense, the remark here made may also be applied to the whole of the
Scriptures. We are in a dark world. We see few things clearly; and all around
us, on a thousand questions, there is the obscurity of midnight. By nature

51. there is nothing to castlight on those questions, and we are perplexed,
bewildered, embarrassed. The Bible is given to us to shed light on our way.
It is the only light which we have respecting the future, and though it does not
give all the information which we might desire in regardto what is to come,
yet it gives us sufficient light to guide us to heaven. It teaches us what it is
necessaryto know about God, about our duty, and about the way of salvation,
in order to conduct us safely; and no one who has committed himself to its
direction, has been suffered to wander finally awayfrom the paths of
salvation. It is, therefore, a duty to attend to the instructions which the Bible
imparts, and to commit ourselves to its holy guidance in our journey to a
better world: for soon, if we are faithful to its teachings, the light of eternity
will dawn upon us, and there, amidst its cloudless splendor, we shall see as we
are seen, and know as we are known;then we shall “needno candle, neither
light of the sun; for the Lord God shall give us light, and we shall reign
forever and ever.” Compare Revelation21:22-24;Revelation22:5.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliography
Barnes, Albert. "Commentaryon 2 Peter1:21". "Barnes'Notes onthe New
Testament". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/2-peter-
1.html. 1870.
return to 'Jump List'
Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible
For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God,
being moved by the Holy Spirit.
The impenetrable and eternal mystery of how God spoke through men is not
revealedin the word of God, but the fact of its having been done is indeed

52. revealed. People should not permit their inquisitiveness with regard to the
"how" to divert their attention from the "what" of that which is revealed.
"Scripture is viewed as objective and fixed in meaning, and the discovery of
that meaning is the duty of believers."[63]
The supreme value of the Scriptures is the burden of Peter's meaning
throughout this paragraph; and, as Paine said:
It is an amazing assessmentof the validity of the Holy Scriptures that Peter
declares it to be more dependable than a voice from heaven heard with the
natural ear.[64]
Moved by the Holy Spirit ... "This is the only reference to the Holy Spirit in
this epistle."[65]However, as Petercredited the Holy Spirit as being the
"mover" of all Scripture, no neglectof the blessedSpirit could be inferred.
It is a mistake to suppose that Peterby his reference to scripture intended to
restrict his meaning to the Old TestamentScriptures. The Lord had promised
Peterand all the apostles, thatthe Holy Spirit would speak through them
(Matthew 10:20). Peterwould make this very clear in 2 Peter 3:15,16.
By his marvelous words in this chapter, Peterlaid the basis for what he would
say of the false teachers in the next. All of his allegations were founded in the
word of the Lord that liveth and endureth forever.
[63] Albert E. Barnett, op. cit., p. 186.
[64] Stephen W. Paine, op. cit., p. 994.
[65] R. H. Strachan, op. cit., p. 132.
Copyright Statement

53. James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene
Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved.
Bibliography
Coffman, James Burton. "Commentary on 2 Peter1:21". "Coffman
Commentaries on the Old and New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/2-peter-1.html. Abilene
Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.
return to 'Jump List'
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible
For the prophecy,.... The whole Scripture, all the prophetic writings; so the
Jews callthe Scriptures ‫,האובנה‬ "the prophecy"F7, by way of eminence, and
from the subjectmatter of the sacredword:
came not in old time by the will of man; was not brought into the world at
first, or in any period of time, as and when man would, according to his
pleasure, and as he thought fit: neither Moses, norDavid, nor Isaiah, nor
Jeremiah, nor Ezekiel, nor Daniel, nor any other of the prophets, prophesied
when they pleased, but when it was the will of God they should; they were
stirred up to prophesy, not by any human impulse, but by a divine influence:
with this agreeswhatR. Sangarisays,
"that the speechof the prophets, when the Holy Spirit clothed them, in all
their words was directed by a divine influence, and the prophet could not
speak in the choice of his own words,'
or according to his will:
but holy men of God; such as he sanctified by his Spirit, and separatedfrom
the restof men to such peculiar service;and whom he employed as public
ministers of his word: for so this phrase "men", or "man of God", often
signifies, 1 Samuel2:27.
spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;who illuminated their minds,
gave them a knowledge ofdivine things, and a foresight of future ones;

54. dictated to them what they should say or write; and moved upon them
strongly, and by a secretand powerful impulse stirred them up to deliver
what they did, in the name and fear of God: which shows the authority of the
Scriptures, that they are the word of God, and not of men; and as such should
be attended to, and receivedwith all affectionand reverence;and that the
Spirit is the best interpreter of them, who first dictated them; and that they
are to be the rule of our faith and practice;nor are we to expect any other,
until the secondcoming of Christ.
Copyright Statement
The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Modernisedand adapted
for the computer by Larry Pierce of Online Bible. All Rightes Reserved,
Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario.
A printed copy of this work can be ordered from: The Baptist Standard
Bearer, 1 Iron Oaks Dr, Paris, AR, 72855
Bibliography
Gill, John. "Commentary on 2 Peter 1:21". "The New John Gill Expositionof
the Entire Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/2-
peter-1.html. 1999.
return to 'Jump List'
Geneva Study Bible
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but p holy men of
God spake [as they were]q moved by the Holy Ghost.
(p) The godly interpreters and messengers.
(q) Inspired by God: their actions were in very goodorder, and not as the
actions of the profane soothsayers,and foretellers of things to come.

55. Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Beza, Theodore. "Commentaryon 2 Peter1:21". "The 1599 Geneva Study
Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/gsb/2-peter-1.html.
1599-1645.
return to 'Jump List'
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
came not in old time — rather, “was neverat any time borne” (to us).
by the will of man — alone. Jeremiah23:26, “prophets of the deceitof their
own heart.” Compare 2 Peter 3:5, “willingly.”
holy — One oldestmanuscript has, “men FROM God”:the emissaries from
God. “Holy,” if read, will mean because theyhad the Holy Spirit.
moved — Greek, “borne” (along)as by a mighty wind: Acts 2:2, “rushing (the
same Greek)wind”: rapt out of themselves:still not in fanaticalexcitement (1
Corinthians 14:32). The Hebrew “{(nabi},” “prophet,” meant an announcer
or interpreter of God: he, as God‘s spokesman, interpreted not his own
“private” will or thought, but God‘s “Manof the Spirit” (Hosea 9:7, Margin).
“Thou testifiedstby Thy Spirit in Thy prophets.” “Seer,” onthe other hand,
refers to the mode of receiving the communications from God, rather than to
the utterance of them to others. “Spake”implies that, both in its original oral
announcement, and now even when in writing, it has been always, and is, the
living voice of God speaking to us through His inspired servants. Greek,
“borne (along)” forms a beautiful antithesis to “was borne.” They were
passive, rather than active instruments. The Old Testamentprophets
primarily, but including also all the inspired penmen, whether of the New or
Old Testament(2 Peter3:2).

56. Copyright Statement
These files are a derivative of an electronic edition prepared from text
scannedby Woodside Bible Fellowship.
This expanded edition of the Jameison-Faussett-BrownCommentary is in the
public domain and may be freely used and distributed.
Bibliography
Jamieson, Robert, D.D.;Fausset,A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on 2
Peter1:21". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfb/2-peter-1.html. 1871-8.
return to 'Jump List'
Robertson's WordPictures in the New Testament
For (γαρ — gar). The reasonfor the previous statement that no prophet starts
a prophecy himself. He is not a self-starter.
Came (ηνεχτη — ēnechthē). First aorist passive indicative of περω — pherō (2
Peter1:17.).
By the will of man (τεληματι αντρωπου — thelēmati anthrōpou).
Instrumental case of τελημα — thelēma Prophecyis of divine origin, not of
one‘s private origination (ιδιας επιλυσεως — idias epiluseōs).
Moved by the Holy Ghost(υπο πνευματος αγιου περομενοι — hupo
pneumatos hagioupheromenoi). Presentpassive participle of περω — pherō
moved from time to time. There they “spoke fromGod.” Peter is not here
warning againstpersonalinterpretation of prophecy as the Roman Catholics
say, but againstthe folly of upstart prophets with no impulse from God.

57. Copyright Statement
The Robertson's WordPictures of the New Testament. Copyright �
Broadman Press 1932,33,Renewal1960. All rights reserved. Used by
permission of Broadman Press (Southern BaptistSunday SchoolBoard)
Bibliography
Robertson, A.T. "Commentary on 2 Peter1:21". "Robertson'sWordPictures
of the New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rwp/2-peter-1.html.
Broadman Press 1932,33.Renewal1960.
return to 'Jump List'
Vincent's Word Studies
Came ( ἠνέχθη )
Lit., was borne or brought. See on 2 Peter1:17, 2 Peter1:18.
Holy men of God ( ἅγιοι θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι )
The best texts omit holy, and read ἀπὸ θεοῦ , from God. Render, as Rev., men
spake from God.
Moved ( φερόμενοι )
The same verb as came. Lit., being borne along. It seems to be a favorite word
with Peter, occurring six times in the two epistles.
Copyright Statement
The text of this work is public domain.
Bibliography

58. Vincent, Marvin R. DD. "Commentaryon 2 Peter1:21". "Vincent's Word
Studies in the New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/vnt/2-peter-1.html. Charles
Schribner's Sons. New York, USA. 1887.
return to 'Jump List'
Wesley's ExplanatoryNotes
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
For prophecy came not of old by the will of man — Of any mere man
whatever.
But the holy men of God — Devotedto him, and set apart by him for that
purpose, spake and wrote.
Being moved — Literally, carried. They were purely passive therein.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain and are a derivative of an electronic edition that
is available on the Christian ClassicsEtherealLibrary Website.
Bibliography
Wesley, John. "Commentary on 2 Peter 1:21". "JohnWesley's Explanatory
Notes on the Whole Bible".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/wen/2-peter-1.html. 1765.
return to 'Jump List'
Abbott's Illustrated New Testament
Spake as they were moved, &c. They delivered the messagewhich was
committed to them, though its full import, being known only to God, the event
must reveal.

59. Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliography
Abbott, John S. C. & Abbott, Jacob. "Commentaryon 2 Peter1:21".
"Abbott's Illustrated New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ain/2-peter-1.html. 1878.
return to 'Jump List'
Greek TestamentCriticalExegeticalCommentary
21.]Reasonofthe above position. For prophecy was never (at any time: ποτέ
belongs to the negative, and though pointing, as do likewise the aorr., to a
state of things passedaway, and therefore not to be referred to N. T.
prophecies, (see on ch. 2 Peter2:1,) must not be rendered as E. V. (after Beza,
as usual) “in old time”) sent (‘allata,’ vulg.: cf. above, 2 Peter1:17-18)after
the will (dat. of the cause;or rule, by or according to which: as in τίς
στρατεύεται ἰδίοις ὀψωνίοις ποτέ;1 Corinthians 9:7; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:5;
Hebrews 12:18) of man: but men spoke from God (spoke as with the voice of,
as emissaries from, God: the ἀπο of ἀποστέλλω and ἀπόστολος. Besides
critical considerations, probability seems againstthe reading ἅγιοι, in that, on
accountof the repetition, ἁγίου.… ἅγιοι, the stress, in the latter part of the
sentence, wouldbe laid on the fact of ἁγιότης, whichdoes not form any logical
contrastto ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως, instead of on the fact of the φορά and the λαλιά
coming from God, which does), [being] borne (borne along, carried onward,
as a ship by the wind, reff. Acts. “Impulsos fuisse dicit, non quod mente
alienati fuerint (qualem in suis prophetis ἐνθουσιασμόνfingunt Gentiles) sed
qui nihil a se ipsis ausi fuerint, tantum obedienter sequuti sint Spiritum
ducem.” Calv. See besides reff., Jos. Antt. iv. 6. 5, οὐκ ὢν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, τῷ δὲ
θείῳ πνεύματι κεκινημένος:Macrob. i. 23, speaking ofthe processions
carrying the image of the Sun at Heliopolis,—“ferunturque divino spiritu, non
suo arbitrio, sed quo deus ropellit vehentes”)by the Holy Spirit.

60. Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Alford, Henry. "Commentary on 2 Peter1:21". Greek TestamentCritical
ExegeticalCommentary.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/2-peter-1.html. 1863-
1878.
return to 'Jump List'
Calvin's Commentary on the Bible
But holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. They did
not of themselves, or according to their own will, foolishly deliver their own
inventions. The meaning is, that the beginning of right knowledge is to give
that credit to the holy prophets which is due to God. He calls them the holy
men of God, because they faithfully executedthe office committed to them,
having sustainedthe personof God in their ministrations. He says that they
were — not that they were bereavedof mind, (as the Gentiles imagined their
prophets to have been,) but because they dared not to announce anything of
their own, and obediently followedthe Spirit as their guide, who ruled in their
mouth as in his ownsanctuary. Understand by prophecy of Scripture that
which is containedin the holy Scriptures.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliography

61. Calvin, John. "Commentary on 2 Peter1:21". "Calvin's Commentary on the
Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cal/2-peter-1.html.
1840-57.
return to 'Jump List'
James Nisbet's Church Pulpit Commentary
HOW THE SCRIPTURES WERE WRITTEN
‘Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.’
2 Peter1:21
Here we have the apostolic definition of the work of inspiration, and by that
definition we are taught that there are two distinct elements to be considered,
the Divine and the human; the Divine, for the Holy Ghost moved the writers;
and the human, for the communication did not come as a direct voice from
heaven, but holy men spake as they were moved. In order therefore fully to
investigate the subject, it will be necessaryto examine: (1) the Divine element;
(2) the human element; and (3) the combination of the two.
I. The Divine element.—Ineed scarcelysaythat this Divine element is the
greatsubject of modern controversy. But I hope we may meet the points more
especiallyagitated, by considering four questions:—
(a) Does it extend over the whole book? We have no right to pick and choose
amongstthe various portions of the Word of God. The whole is arrangedas a
whole for the accomplishment of God’s great purpose, the whole is included in
‘the Scriptures,’and the parts are so interwoven one with another, and so
beautifully fitted into eachother by God’s Divine hand, that there will be
found ultimately to be no intermediate path betweenreceiving the whole as
the Word of God, or sweeping awaythe whole and launching forth on a sea of
scepticism, without a Bible, without a Saviour, and, as the last step, without a
God.
(b) Is it equal? So far as the authorship is concerned, we find no distinction
whatever. All alike is called‘Scripture’; all ‘the Word of God’; all is included
in the statement, ‘Whatsoeverthings were written aforetime, were written for

62. our learning, that we through patience and comfortof the Scripture might
have hope’; and all is stamped by Divine authority in the words, ‘All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God.’
(c) Is it verbal? It is our privilege to regardthe whole as one, to receive the
whole with equal reverence, andto acceptthe whole, prediction, psalm,
history, facts, thoughts, and words, as the inspired Word of the living God.
But the question of verbal inspiration is not the one really at issue. Forno one
believes that, if there be any accuracy, it took place in the words only. It must
have takenplace in the thoughts, in the matter, in the facts. If, e.g., there is a
variation betweenSt. Matthew and St. Luke, no one supposes that they meant
to convey the same thoughts, but made a mistake in accidentallyselecting
different words. The real point of the controversyis the infallible accuracyof
the matter.
(d) Is it infallible? The testimony of our Lord Himself is sufficient. Witness
two passages—the one referring to a nice point in a quotation from the Psalms
(John 10:35); the other to the whole Word in its sanctifying power(John
17:17). Now what is His language? In the one, ‘The Scripture cannot be
broken’; in the other, ‘Thy word is truth.’ With these statements ofour
BlessedLord, I am content to leave the subject. In the words of Scripture, I
believe that God Himself has spokento man, and therefore, in the midst of all
the world’s disappointments, and in all the failures of even the Church of
God, we have here that on which the soul may calmly, peacefully, and
fearlesslyrepose. And whether we look at history or prediction, at promises or
judgments, at prophecies understoodby those who uttered them, or language
veiled in mystery until the Divine purpose is developedin history, we receive
the whole as inviolable truth, for all has the stamp of the Spirit Himself, and
all is given by inspiration of God. We receive it, we honour it, we submit to it,
we acknowledgeits Divine authority, and welcome with heartfelt thanksgiving
its infallible promises. Yes, we receive it not merely with the deepest
conviction of our most deliberate judgment, but we welcome it to our soul
with all the deep feelings of a thankful heart, and saywith the inspired
Psalmist, ‘Thy word is very pure, therefore Thy servant loveth it.’

63. II. The human element.—But there is a human element in the book as well as
a Divine. ‘Holy men spake as they were moved.’ The human authorship is as
prominent and conspicuous as the Divine, and any theory of inspiration which
excludes it is, I cannot but think, opposedto the facts of Scripture.
(a) There is distinctive characterin the different writers. Compare St. Paul
and St. John, St. Peter and St. James, Jeremiahand Ezekiel, and you see the
most transparent variety, a variety which renders it impossible to suppose
that they were merely pens, machines, or copyists.
(b) There is the use of natural powers or gifts. St. Paul was a well-educated,
intellectual man, with great reasoning powers, so he supported truth by
argument. David was a poet, so he breathed out as the sweetpsalmist of Israel
the hallowedoutpourings of a sanctified heart.
(c) There is the use of feeling. All the emotions of the human heart may be
found in Scripture.
(d) There is the use of memory. Our Lord’s promise to His Apostles in John
14:26 applies clearly to this point, and shows that the gift of the Holy Ghost, so
far from superseding memory, would quicken it, and give it the powerof
recalling with accuracythe words entrusted to it. ‘He shall bring all things to
your remembrance, whatsoeverI have said unto you.’
(e) There was also the use of personalexperience, as, e.g., whenSt. John said,
‘The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory’
(John 1:14); and again, ‘That which we have seenand heard declare we unto
you’ (1 John 1:1; 1 John 1:3).
(f) There was the diligent use of collectedinformation. See St. Luke 1:1-3,
where St. Luke does not claim to write original matter, but to have receivedit
from those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses, andministers of the
Word.
III. The Divine and the human element.—How is the union to be explained?
(a) Not by supposing that the writers were mere pens, or machines. This is
sometimes termed the mechanicaltheory, but it is clearlyinconsistent with

64. facts. Pens never think, argue, remember, weep, or rejoice, and all these
things were done by the writers of Scripture.
(b) Not by supposing them to be mere copyists or amanuenses employed to
write down the words of the Spirit, as Baruch took down the words of
Jeremiah. This may have been the case when they receiveddirect
communication, as when Moses wrote out the ten commandments at the
dictation of God; but it will not apply to inspiration, as it gives no scope for
variety of character. The one dictating mind would be the only one to appear
on such a theory.
(c) We will not attempt to explain it by constructing any artificial theories as
to the actionof the Spirit on the mind of men. Some have endeavouredto
classifythe modes in which they considerthe Spirit may have acted, as, e.g.,
supervision, elevation, direction, and suggestion. All this may be right, and it
may be wrong; for we are taught (Hebrews 1:1) not merely that God spake in
divers times, but in divers manners unto the fathers by the prophets. But all
such distinctions are unsupported by Scripture, and therefore we may leave
them.
Remember that there are two channels through which God has manifested
His will, viz. the incarnate Word and the written Word; and surely we are
justified in expecting that there will be something of the same characterin the
two manifestations.
Rev. Canon Edward Hoare.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography

65. Nisbet, James. "Commentaryon 2 Peter 1:21". Church Pulpit Commentary.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cpc/2-peter-1.html. 1876.
return to 'Jump List'
John Trapp Complete Commentary
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Ver. 21. As they were moved] φερομενοι. Forciblymoved, acted, carried out of
themselves to say and do what God would have them.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Trapp, John. "Commentary on 2 Peter1:21". John Trapp Complete
Commentary. https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jtc/2-peter-
1.html. 1865-1868.
return to 'Jump List'
Sermon Bible Commentary
2 Peter1:21
An Inspired Definition of Inspiration.
It is a definition of inspiration, a definition simple, precise, exhaustive. "Men
spoke"—spokewithout ceasing (evenfor the moment of speaking)to be men;

66. spoke with all those characteristicsofphrase and style, of thought and mind,
of position and history, which mark and make the man; yet "spoke from
God," with a messageand mission, under an influence and an impulse, a
control and a suggestion, whichgave to the word spokena force and a fire, a
touch and a contact, a sight and an insight, unlike other utterances because of
a breath of God in it, the God of the spirits of all flesh.
I. No testimony could be more explicit to the inspiration of the Bible than this.
It is the testimony of the New Testamentto the Old. And it is the Old
Testamentwhich needs the testimony. Christians have no difficulty in
accepting the New Testament. Theyunderstand that the Saviour spoke the
words of God by an inspiration direct and self-evidencing. "We speak," He
said, "that we do know, and testify that we have seen." Theyunderstand, on
the strength of His ownpromise, that the Apostles were inspired by a direct
gift of insight into truth, whether of fact or faith. For the inspiration of the
Old Testamentthey can only look to the New. The treatment of it by our
Lord, His constant appealto it in controversy, His constantreference to it as
fulfilled in Himself, the express assertionof its inspiration by St. Paul and St.
Peter, are the grounds on which we, who were never under the Law, believe
the earlierand largerhalf of the Bible to be, in some true sense, anintegral
part of the inspired word of God. "Menspake" in it also "from God."
II. "Menspake." "Human beings," St. Petersays; the "men" is emphatic.
Men spake. And does not St. Peter as goodas say, And remained men in the
speaking? Where is the authority for supposing that the inspiring Spirit
levelled the intellects, obliterated the characteristics,overwhelmedthe
peculiarities, of the severalwriters, so that St. Paul, St. John, St. James, St.
Peter, might be mistakenone for the other in the finished work? These are the
glosses, the fancies, the inventions, with which prejudice and fanaticismhave
overlaid the subject, and given greatadvantage by doing so to the cavillerand
the sceptic. Menspake, and in speaking were men still. Even their message,
even the thing they were sentto tell, must be expressedin terms of human
speech, through a medium therefore of adaptation and accommodation. St.
Paul himself expressesthis thought when he says, "At presentwe see by a
mirror, in riddle"—see but the reflectionof the very thing that is, hear but in

67. enigma the absolute truth—"then"—in "that world"—thenat last"face to
face."
III. The two halves of the text are dependent upon eachother. Men spake, not
angels;that is one thought: not machines; that is another. Not angels, orthey
had no sympathetic, no audible, voice for man; not machines, or speech
(which is by definition intelligence in communication) had been a
contradiction in terms. These human beings spake from God. For He had
something to say, and to say to man. There is something which God only can
say. There is something which reasoncannotsay, nor experience, nor
discovery, nor the deepestinsight, nor the happiest guessing, northe most
sagacious foresight. There is a world of heaven, which flesh and blood cannot
penetrate. There is a world of spirit, impervious even to mind. There is a
world beyond death, betweenwhich and the living there is an impassable gulf
fixed. More than this, there is a world of cause and consequence, whichno
moralist can connector piece together. There is a world of providence, which
gives no accountof itself to the observer. There is a world of Divine dealing—
with lives, with souls, with nations, with ages—ofwhicheven the inspired man
must say, "Such knowledge is too wonderful and excellentfor me; it is high; I
cannot attain to it."
C. J. Vaughan, Restful Thoughts in RestlessTimes, p. 315.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Nicoll, William R. "Commentary on 2 Peter1:21". "SermonBible
Commentary". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/sbc/2-peter-
1.html.

68. return to 'Jump List'
Heinrich Meyer's Critical and ExegeticalCommentaryon the New Testament
2 Peter1:21. οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου]These words correspondwith the
preceding ἰδίας ἐπιλ. οὐ γίνεται; “notfrom or by the will of a man;” cf.
Jeremiah23:26, LXX.: ἕως ποτὲ ἔσται … ἐν τῷ προφητεύειναὐτοὺς τὰ
θελήματα τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν.
ἠνέχθη ποτὲ προφητεία]Vulg.: allata est; the verb as in 2 Peter1:17-18 (cf.
also 2 John 1:10). De Wette’s translation: “is delivered or uttered,” is inexact,
inasmuch as the idea of a set discourse is not directly containedin the verb.
Steinfass’s interpretationof προφ. is wrong from a linguistic point of view:
“gift of prophecy.”
ποτέ belongs closelyto the negative οὐ, equal to “never.” The sense of the
clause is: “the cause in which προφητεία has its origin is not the free will of
man, determining itself thereto.”
ἀλλʼ ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι κ. τ. λ.] The form of this, which does not
exactly correspondwith that of the preceding clause, serves to bring into
greaterprominence the passivity of the prophets.
φερόμενοι:“borne along” (as by the wind, e.g. the ship was driven, Acts
27:15;Acts 27:17). The impelling poweris the πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Joseph. Ant. iv.
6, 5, says of Balaam: τῷ θείῳ πνεύματι … κεκινημένος;cf. the expressions in
the classics:θεοφορεῖσθαι, θεοφόρητος. Macrob. i. 23:feruntur divino spiritu,
non suo arbitratu, sed quo Deus propellit. Calvin correctly remarks:impulsos
fuisse dicit, non quod menti alienati fuerint (qualem in suis prophetis
ἐνθουσιασμόνfingunt gentiles), sed quia nihil a se ipsis ausi fuerint, tantum
obedienter sequuti sunt Spiritum ducem.
ἐλάλησαν] Hornejus: intellige tam voce, quam scripto. “Menit was who
spoke;but their speaking had the active reasonof its origin, and its starting-
point in God” (Schott).
ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι]In this expression, consideredto be genuine, ἀπὸ θεοῦ
denotes the starting-point of the speaking:“men spoke from God.” The

69. prophets are thus significantly calledsimply ἄνθρωποι, in reference to the
ἀνθρώπου going before. They were but men; prophets they became only by
the πνεῦμα θεοῦ.(60)The Rec. ἅγιοι θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι is only a circumlocution
for prophets, who are calledἅγιοι ἄνθρ. because they were in the service of
God, inasmuch as they were the instruments of His πνεῦμα ἅγιον, cf. 1
Timothy 6:11.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on 2 Peter1:21". Heinrich Meyer's Critical
and ExegeticalCommentaryon the New Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hmc/2-peter-1.html. 1832.
return to 'Jump List'
Johann Albrecht Bengel's Gnomonof the New Testament
2 Peter1:21. θελήματι, by the will) the desire: Jeremiah23:26, Septuagint.
Man often feigns by fables, or conceals by error, that which he wishes. Comp.
willingly, ch. 2 Peter3:5.— ἀνθρώπου)of man, alone. There is an antithesis
betweenthis and holy men of God, the definition of the prophets.— ἠνέχθη,
was borne) Thus 2 Peter1:17-18. Heb. ‫אׂשא‬ from ‫,נׂשא‬ to bear.— ποτὲ) ever, at
a remote or nearer time: hence prophecy, without the article, is used
indefinitely.— ἀλλʼ ὑπὸ, but by) Comp. John 11:51.— φερόμενοι, carried)
This has reference to ἠνέχθη, was borne. A most beautiful antithesis:they did
not bear, but were borne: they were passive, not active instruments. That
which is borne, is borne by no force of its own; it does not move and advance
anything forward by its own labour. Comp. respecting the prophets, Psalms
45:2; Jeremiah36:18. Shortly afterwards, the word spake denotes also the
readiness with which they uttered prophecies.— ἐλάλησαν, spake)This has
also reference to the pen of the written word. They spake:the past tense shows

70. that Peteris speaking particularly of the prophets of the Old Testament.
Comp. ch. 2 Peter2:1, note, and ch. 2 Peter3:2.— ἅγιοι, holy) Becausethey
had the Holy Spirit.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Bengel, JohannAlbrecht. "Commentary on 2 Peter1:21". Johann Albrecht
Bengel's Gnomonof the New Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jab/2-peter-1.html. 1897.
return to 'Jump List'
Matthew Poole's EnglishAnnotations on the Holy Bible
The prophecy; the prophetical writings, or word of prophecy, 2 Peter 1:19.
Came not in old time by the will of man; the prophets spake not of themselves
what and when they pleased.
But holy men of God; prophets, calledmen of God, 1 Samuel 2:27 9:6 1 Kings
17:18, and elsewhere. Theyare here called holy, not only because oftheir
lives, wherein they were examples to others, but because they were the special
instruments of the Holy Ghost, who sanctifiedthem to the work of preaching,
and penning what he dictated to them.
Spake as they were moved; or, carried out, or acted, i.e. elevatedabove their
own natural abilities. This may imply the illumination of their minds with the
knowledge ofDivine mysteries, the gift of infallibility, that they might not err,
of prophecy, to foretell things to come, and a peculiar instinct of
the Holy Ghost, whereby they were moved to preachor write.

71. Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Poole, Matthew, "Commentaryon 2 Peter1:21". Matthew Poole's English
Annotations on the Holy Bible.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mpc/2-peter-1.html. 1685.
return to 'Jump List'
Justin Edwards' Family Bible New Testament
As the Holy Ghostis the author of scripture prophecies, they cannotbe made
to mean whatever men may choose, orany thing except what God intended,
and what in his providence has been or will be exactlyaccomplished.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Edwards, Justin. "Commentary on 2 Peter1:21". "Family Bible New
Testament". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/fam/2-peter-
1.html. American TractSociety. 1851.
return to 'Jump List'
Hawker's PoorMan's Commentary
REFLECTIONS

72. Blessedand Holy Lord God Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost! Praised
be our CovenantGod in Christ, for his unspeakable gift. What everlasting
love, adoration, and praise, do thy people owe thee, O Fatherof mercies, and
God of all grace, forhaving chose the Church in Christ, before the world!
And thee, no less, thou glorious Son of God, for having takenthy Church into
union with thyself, when the Lord possessedthee, in the beginning of his ways,
before his works of old; and for redeeming thy Church from the Adam-fall of
ruin, in which, in this time-state, she was involved. And thee, with equal love
and praise, O thou eternal Spirit, for thy gracious actof regeneration, in
quickening the Church, in every individual of her members, whereby alone
eachchild of God is brought into an apprehensionof the Father's love, the
Son's grace, and the Spirit's fellowship. Blessed, foreverblessedbe God.
And we specially praise thee, dearestJesus, for thy mercies to all thy Church,
in this grace ofthine to the Apostles, in the Mount of Transfiguration. It was
surely for thy Church, in all ages, as wellas for their personalcomfort, so
glorious a display of thy glory was vouchsafed. God, our Father, be praised,
for the precious testimony then given to thy Son-ship. And God the Holy
Ghost, in causing Peter, with his dying testimony, to bless the Church once
more in the relation. And now, O Lord, may thy Church, and especiallyin the
present awful day, be blessedof our God, with-grace to receive and treasure
up so sweeta recordof the glory of our risen and exalted Savior. Oh! Lord,
continually make known to all thy members in grace, thy power and coming.
Make knownto us, in the blessedprophecies of our God, and in all the
ordinances of his house of prayer, this power and coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ. Oh! to be heart-witnessesofChrist's majesty here on earth, till we
come to be eye-witnesses ofhis majesty in heaven. Amen!
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography

73. Hawker, Robert, D.D. "Commentary on 2 Peter1:21". "Hawker's Poor
Man's Commentary". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/pmc/2-
peter-1.html. 1828.
return to 'Jump List'
Whedon's Commentary on the Bible
21. Not… of man—The Scripture prophecy had no human author. It was not
borne to the prophet or to men by the will of himself or of any man. He was
simply the instrument in delivering it.
Holy men of God—Theywere called to a holy office and used in a holy work;
besides which, they were, as a rule, holy in characterand life. But holiness
does not constitute a prophet. They spake, being borne by the Holy Ghost. He
was sole author: their minds and speechwere takenpossessionof, and borne
along by his might, and made to utter, under his impulse, whatsoeverhe
pleased, whetherthey at the time understood it or not.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Whedon, Daniel. "Commentary on 2 Peter1:21". "Whedon's Commentary on
the Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/whe/2-peter-
1.html. 1874-1909.
return to 'Jump List'
Expository Notes ofDr. Thomas Constable
What we have in Scripture did not originate in the minds of men but in the
mind of God.

74. "False teaching flows from the minds of men and women; truth flows from
the heart and mind of the living God." [Note:Cedar, p218.]
The prophets did not simply give their views of how things were or would be (
2 Peter1:20). They spoke as God"s mouthpieces articulating His thoughts in
words that accuratelyrepresentedthose thoughts. The Holy Spirit "moved"
the prophets to do so as the wind moves a sailboat(cf. John 3:8). The same
Greek verb (phero) occurs in Acts 27:15;Acts 27:17 to describe that action.
"The Spirit, not human volition, is the originating powerin prophecy." [Note:
Hiebert, "The Prophetic . . .," p166.]
This passagedoes notexplain specificallyhow the Holy Spirit did this.
Howeverin view of what we find elsewhere in Scripture, we know He did it
without overriding the vocabulary and style of the prophet. In some casesthe
writers of Scripture used other resource materials (e.g, Joshua 10:13;1 Kings
14:19;Luke 1:3; et al.). Even though 2 Peter1:20-21 do not describe the
method of inspiration in detail, they clearly affirm the basic method and the
fact of inspiration. God is the Author of Scripture (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16). He
guided the writers of Scripture to recordHis words by His Holy Spirit.
"Peter"sstatementrecognizes boththe divine and the human element in the
production of Scripture. Any balanceddoctrine of the origin of Scripture
must recognize both." [Note:Ibid.]
"A prevailing view is that the reference is to the reader"s ownefforts to
understand written prophecy, that "one"s owninterpretation" must not be
imposed on a specific prophetic passage. Under this view the problem is the

75. method of interpreting prophecy. Yet Peterdoes not tell how believers are to
interpret prophecy.
"Varied views as to the meaning of "one"s owninterpretation" are offered.
(1) The believer as a private individual does not have the ability to interpret
prophecy but needs ecclesiasticaldirection. But many scriptural prophecies
have been rightly understood by the common readerapart from any
ecclesiasticalguidance;nor have the views of "authorized interpreters"
always been uniform. (2) A prophecy must not be interpreted in isolationbut
needs the light of the unfolding fulfillment thereof. While it is true that
Christians" understanding of prophecy now is often vague and uncertain, to
hold that it cannot be understood till it is fulfilled makes valueless the present
lamp of prophecy. (3) Prophetic predictions should not be interpreted in
isolationfrom other Scriptures. It is obvious that eachprophecy must be so
interpreted as to be consistentwith other prophecies;but this does not prove
that any individual prophecy in itself is obscure. Peterhas just declaredthat
Old Testamentprophecy was a shining lamp. And its light is clearernow that
Christ has come in His First Advent. (4) It is not the individual but the Holy
Spirit who must interpret, as well as inspire, prophecy. This is true, but it does
not invalidate or eliminate the human effort to understand. These views do
not arise out of the main thought of the context.
"More probable is the view that the statementconcerns the origin of prophecy
and relates to the prophet himself. This is the view of the New International
Version: "No prophecy of Scripture comes from the prophet"s own
interpretation." The meaning, then, is that no prophecy arose out of the
prophet"s ownsolution to the scenes he confronted or his own interpretation
of the visions presented to his mind. Calvin remarked that the prophets "did
not blab their inventions of their ownaccordor according to their own
judgments." [John Calvin, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews
and the First and SecondEpistles of St. Peter," in Calvin"s Commentaries,
p343.]The false prophets of Jeremiah"s day were chargedwith doing

76. preciselythis ( Jeremiah23:16-17;Jeremiah23:21-22;Jeremiah 23:25-26;
Ezekiel13:3).
"The view that prophecy did not arise "from one"s owninterpretation"
(ablative case)is supported by the natural meaning of the verb (ginetai ["was
made," "had its origin," or "came"]);it is in harmony with the scriptural
picture of prophecy; and it is in accordwith the following verse. It is
supported by Peter"s picture of the prophets in 1 Peter1:10-12. The prophetic
lamp "was neither fashionednor lighted by the prophet himself," and its
divine origin offers "a distinct and powerful motive for taking heed to the
prophetic word, and one well fitted to produce a patient and reverent and
docile spirit of investigation."" [Note:John Lillie, Lectures on the First and
SecondEpistles of Peter, p428. Cf. Bigg, p270.]
"Peteris not here warning againstpersonalinterpretation of prophecy as the
Roman Catholics say, but againstthe folly of upstart prophets with no
impulse from God." [Note:Robertson, 6:159. See also Hiebert, SecondPeter
..., pp81-82; and Buist M. Fanning, "A TheologyofPeter and Jude ," in A
Biblical Theologyofthe New Testament, pp462-65.]
In this section( 2 Peter1:12-21)Peterreminded his readers that they had
adequate resources fortheir own spiritual growth in the apostles"teachings
and in the Old Testament.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.

77. Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Constable, Thomas. DD. "Commentaryon 2 Peter 1:21". "ExpositoryNotes
of Dr. Thomas Constable".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/dcc/2-peter-1.html. 2012.
return to 'Jump List'
Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament
2 Peter1:21. Fornot by man’s will was prophecy borne at any time. The
statementis more absolute than it is made to appear in the A. V. The phrase
‘not of old time’ means ‘never,’ or ‘not at any time.’ The verb rendered
‘came’ is the one which was used already in 2 Peter1:17-18, and means sent
or communicated in the sense ofbeing borne on. It points here, therefore, not
to the utterance of prophecy, but to the prophetic afflatus, or to the prophecy
as a gift imparted by God, and in relation to which man himself was simply a
recipient.
but, being borne on by the Holy Ghost, men spake from God. Documentary
evidence is in favour of this reading, which is both shorter and more
expressive than that of the A. V. It drops the official title of the prophets as
‘holy men of God,’ and, in harmony with the emphatic denial of the agencyof
‘man’s will’ in the prophetic message, speaksofthe bearers of prophecy
simply as ‘men.’ it describes them further as men who became prophets only
by receiving an impulse from the Holy Spirit which bore them on, and as
speaking, therefore, ‘from God,’ that is to say, as commissioners from Him,
having the point of issue for their message notin their own will but in God’s
will. On the term ‘borne on’ compare Acts 17:15;Acts 17:17, where it is used
of the ship driving before the wind. The A. V. misses the point when it renders
‘as they were moved.’ The statementis, that they spake becausethey were so
moved.
Copyright Statement

78. These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Schaff, Philip. "Commentary on 2 Peter 1:21". "Schaff's Popular
Commentary on the New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/scn/2-peter-1.html. 1879-90.
return to 'Jump List'
The Expositor's Greek Testament
2 Peter1:21. οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου ἠνέχθη προφητεία ποτέ. With ἠνέχθη
cf. 2 Peter1:17-18. ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ πνεύμ … φερόμενοι, cf. Acts 2:2. ὥσπερ
φερομένης πνοῆς βιαίας. Here we have the only reference to the Holy Spirit in
the Epistle, and only in this connexion, viz. as the source of prophetic
inspiration. The spirit is an agencyrather than an agent. The men speak. The
spirit impels. It is of much significance for the interpretation of the whole
passagethat ἄνθρωποι occupies a position of emphasis at the end of the
sentence, thus bringing into prominence the human agent. The prophets were
not ignorant of the meaning of their prophecies, but they saw clearlyonly the
contemporary political or moral situation, and the principles involved and
illustrated therein.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Nicol, W. Robertson, M.A., L.L.D. "Commentary on 2 Peter1:21". The
Expositor's Greek Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/egt/2-peter-1.html. 1897-1910.
return to 'Jump List'

79. George Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary
For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time. This is to shew that
they are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment, because every
part of the holy Scriptures is delivered to us by the divine spirit of God,
wherewith the men were inspired who wrote them; therefore they are not to
be interpreted but by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his
Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Our adversaries may
perhaps tell us, that we also interpret prophecies and Scriptures; we do so;
but we do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, they
without it. (Witham)
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Haydock, George Leo. "Commentaryon 2 Peter 1:21". "GeorgeHaydock's
Catholic Bible Commentary".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hcc/2-peter-1.html. 1859.
return to 'Jump List'
Mark Dunagan Commentary on the Bible
2 Peter1:21 ‘for no prophecy was evermade by an act of human will, but men
moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.’
‘For’-Which defines ‘who’ is under considerationin the statement, ‘one’s own
interpretation’. The readers of Scripture are not under consideration, rather,
the prophets themselves.
‘no prophecy’-Contrary to the claims of such groups as the Jesus Seminar, we
cannot take the Bible and divide it up into what is God’s word and what is

80. human speculationor human addition. Whatever is found in the Scriptures
has been recordedaccurately!
‘was ever made by an actof human will’-‘will, choice’(Thayer p. 285);
‘subjective, will, the act of willing or desiring, by an actof human will’ (Arndt
p. 354)‘The prophets did not make up what they wrote…Itis interesting that
in this, perhaps the fullest and most explicit biblical reference to the
inspiration of its authors, no interest should be displayed in the psychologyof
inspiration. The author is not concernedwith what they felt like, or how much
they understood, but simply with the fact that they were the bearers of God’s
message.’(Greenp. 91 ‘Clark puts it, “Isaiahdid not getout of bed one
morning and say, ‘I have decided to write some prophecies today..’”’
(Lucas/Greenp. 83)
‘but men moved by the Holy Spirit’-‘Moved’-‘to be conveyedor borne’
(Thayer p. 650);‘to bear, carry, they were “borne along” or impelled by the
Holy Spirit’s power, not acting according to their own wills or simply
expressing their own thoughts, but expressing the mind of God in words
provided and ministered by Him.’ (Vine p. 89) ‘He says they were moved, not
because they were out of their minds (as the heathen imagine…in their
prophets), but because they dared nothing by themselves but only in
obedience to the guidance of the Spirit.’ (Greenp. 92)
‘spoke from God’-Godwas the source ofthe messageand not themselves. The
concepts and the words which revealedthose concepts were both given and
chosenby God (1 Corinthians 2:9-13; Haggai1:13; Jeremiah1:17; Exodus
4:12-16).
Points to Note:
We must rejectthe theory that God gave the concept, but allowedthe writers
to express that conceptin their own words: 1. If man could accuratelyexpress
a concept, then why did God have to reveal the conceptin the first place? 2.
Jesus believedthat everything in the text was the Word of God (Matthew
5:17-18). And even made an argument basedon the tense of a word in the
Scriptures (Matthew 22:29-32). In like manner, Paul basedan argument upon
whether a word in the Old Testamenttext was singular, insteadof plural

81. (Galatians 3:16). 3. Another proof of verbal inspiration is that the prophets
didn’t fully understand or comprehend everything they were recording (1
Peter1:10-12).
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Dunagan, Mark. "Commentary on 2 Peter1:21". "Mark Dunagan
Commentaries on the Bible".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/dun/2-peter-1.html. 1999-
2014.
return to 'Jump List'
E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes
in old time = at any time. Greek. pote.
by. No preposition. Dative case.
will. App-102.
man. App-123.
holy. Omit.
of. The texts read apo, from.
spake. App-121.
moved = borne along. Greek. phero, as in 2 Peter1:17.
the Holy Ghost = Divine power. No art. App-101.

82. Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Bullinger, Ethelbert William. "Commentary on 2 Peter 1:21". "E.W.
Bullinger's Companion bible Notes".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/2-peter-1.html. 1909-1922.
return to 'Jump List'
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Came not in old time , [ ou (Greek #3756)... eenecthee(Greek #5342)pote
(Greek #4218)] - 'was never at any time borne' (to us).
By the will of man - alone (Jeremiah 23:26 : cf. 2 Peter3:5, "willingly"). Holy
men of God. 'Aleph (') A, Vulgate; but B C, 'men FROM God;' emissaries
from God. "Holy," because they had the Holy Spirit.
Moved , [ feromenoi(Greek #5342)] - 'borne' (along), as by a mighty wind:
Acts 2:2, 'rushing [ feromenees (Greek #5342)]wind:' rapt out of themselves;
still not in fanaticalexcitement(1 Corinthians 14:32). [Hebrew, nabiy'
(Hebrew #5030), 'prophet,'meant an interpreter of God. He, as God's
spokesman, interpretednot his own"private" will or thought, but God's.]
'Man of the Spirit,' (margin, Hosea 9:7; Neb. 9:30, margin). 'Seer,'on the
other hand, refers to the mode of receiving the communications from God,
rather than to the utterance of them to others. "Spake" implies that, both in
its original oral announcement and now even in writing, it has been always the
living voice of God speaking to us through His inspired servants. 'Borne
along'forms a beautiful antithesis to 'was borne.' They were passive, yet not
mere mechanicalinstruments. The Old Testamentprophets primarily;

83. including also all the inspired penmen, whether of the New or Old Testament
(2 Peter3:2).
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Jamieson, Robert, D.D.;Fausset,A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on 2
Peter1:21". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible -
Unabridged". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfu/2-peter-
1.html. 1871-8.
return to 'Jump List'
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(21) Forthe prophecy came not in old time.—Rather, For prophecy was never
sent, or brought. Wiclif and Rheims alone have “brought”; all the rest
“came.” The verb is the same as that used of the voice from heaven (2 Peter
1:17-18), and also in this verse for “moved,” so that there is a telling
antithesis, difficult to preserve in English. Prophecy was not brought in by
men; but men were brought to utter it by the Spirit. (Comp. 2 John 1:10.)The
rendering in the margin is right—“not at any time” rather than “not in old
time.” “Notat any time”—“never,” whichboth Tyndale and Cranmer have;
Wiclif has “not ony time.” The erroneous “in old time” comes from Geneva.
But holy men of God . . .—The Greek is uncertain. A reading of very high
authority would give us, But men spoke from God moved by the Holy Ghost.
This is probably to be preferred. Men spoke not out of their own hearts, but
as commissionedby God; not “by the will of man,” but under the influence of
the Holy Spirit. (Comp. St. Peter’s speechatthe electionof Matthias, and
againin Solomon’s Porch, Acts 1:16; Acts 3:18.) The word for “moved” is a
strong one, meaning “borne along,” as a ship before the wind (Acts 27:16-17).

84. Theophilus of Antioch (Autolycus, II. ix.) writes “men of God, moved (or,
filled) by the Holy Ghost, and becoming prophets, inspired and made wise by
God Himself, became taught of God.” Here, again, the parallel is too slight to
be relied on as evidence that Theophilus was acquainted with this Epistle. (See
above, third Note on 2 Peter1:19.) The same may be said of a passagein
Hippolytus (Antichrist, 2), “These fathers were furnished with the Spirit and
largely honoured by the Word Himself. . . . and when moved by Him the
Prophets announced what God willed. For they spake not of their own power,
neither did they declare what pleasedthemselves, &c. &c.”
Some have fancied that these last three verses (2 Peter 1:19-21)savourof
Montanism, and are evidence of the late origin of the Epistle. But what is said
here of the gift of prophecy is not more than we find elsewhere in the New
Testament(Matthew 1:22; Matthew 2:15; Acts 1:16; Acts 3:18); and in the
Old Testament(Numbers 11:17;Numbers 11:25;Numbers 11:29;1 Samuel
10:6; 1 Samuel 10:10;1 Samuel 19:20; 1 Samuel 19:23;Jeremiah1:5-7).
Montanists used much strongerlanguage, as readers of Tertullian know. With
them prophecy was ecstasyand frenzy; prophets ceasedto be men—their
reasonleft them, and they became mere instruments on which the Spirit
played. The wording of these verses points to an age previous to Montanism.
A Montanist would have said more; an opponent of Montanismwould have
guarded himself againstMontanistmisconstruction.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography

85. Ellicott, Charles John. "Commentary on 2 Peter 1:21". "Ellicott's
Commentary for English Readers".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ebc/2-peter-1.html. 1905.
return to 'Jump List'
Treasuryof Scripture Knowledge
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
the prophecy
Luke 1:70; 2 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter1:11
in old time
or, at any time holy.
Deuteronomy 33:1; Joshua 14:6; 1 Kings 13:1; 17:18,24;2 Kings 4:7,9,22;
6:10,15;1 Chronicles 23:14; 2 Chronicles 8:14
spake
Numbers 16:28; 2 Samuel 23:2; Micah3:7; Luke 1:70; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1
Peter1:11; Revelation19:10
by the Holy
Mark 12:36; Acts 1:16; 3:18; 28:25;Hebrews 3:7; 9:8; 10:15
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography

86. Torrey, R. A. "Commentary on 2 Peter1:21". "The Treasury of Scripture
Knowledge". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tsk/2-peter-
1.html.
return to 'Jump List'
The Bible Study New Testament
For no prophetic message. MacKnightsays:"Fornever, either anciently or
lately, was prophecy uttered by the will of the prophet, but the holy prophets
of God spoke their prophecies, being inspired by the Holy Spirit: So that the
prophecies recordedin the scriptures are not the words of men, but of God,"
He also says:"Not, however, like the heathen priestesses, by the agencyof evil
spirits, who deprived them of the exercise oftheir faculties (senses), but by the
inspiration of the Spirit of God, during which they had the entire use of their
rational powers (1 Corinthians 14:32)."
The Divinely Inspired Book
September 22, 2018
Bookmark
ReadLater

87. Share
Saturday
22
2 Peter1:12-21
How important is your Bible to you? If you’re like most Christians in the
Westernworld, you probably have severalcopies of Scripture in your home.
But the number of Bibles we own is no measure of their value to us. It’s what
we do with God’s Word and what it does in our heart that reveals how much
we treasure it.
The Bible is the most important book in the world because it’s the only one
that is the inspired Word of God. Nothing else everwritten can match the
wisdom and revelationof the Scriptures.
How then did God give us this sacredtext? 2 Peter1:21 says that the writings
did not result from “anact of human will” but came to be through “men
moved by the Holy Spirit.” While retaining their own personalities, intellect,
and vocabularies, these human authors were borne along by the Spirit of God,
writing only what He willed them to say.
Amazingly, the same God who createdthe universe divinely inspired the
writing of Scripture. He did so to revealHimself to us and to explain how
sinful mankind canbe made right with a holy God. Everything we need for
life and godliness is found within its pages (2 Peter1:3).
And He hasn’t left us on our own to interpret what He has written (2 Peter
1:20). The truth is that in ourselves, we can’t understand it. But God has given
us His Holy Spirit so we can know His mind through the Bible (1 Corinthians
2:10-16). However, if we rarely open it, we won’t know His thoughts and as a
result will forfeit His blessings and wisdom. Copyright © 2019 In Touch
Ministries

88. Commentary on 2 Peter1:16-21
James Boyce | 1 Comment
4
4
0
0
Though the words belong to an ancient letter, they seemso contemporary and
modern.
In part that is because ofthe issue that drives them -- it’s about authority,
credibility, and trust. “We were not following cleverly reasonedmyths…” (2
Peter1:16).
The words provide clues to a situation of conflict in which both the message
and the witness are subjectto challenge. We may expect such differences to
drive concerns in the public sectorand in political debate, but we may not be

89. so ready to expector acknowledgetheir presence in faith communities or in
the congregations we know and love.
Still it is no kept secretthat our religious communities seemto have become
more and more used to create conflictand divisions and the fears and
discomforts which accompanythem. It may be small comfort, but it may be a
helpful contribution toward a more hopeful outlook to be reminded that such
divisions and conflict were also presentin the early church -- such as the
Christian community to which the secondletterof Peterwas addressed. When
authority is in question, the confidence and hope of a community are in
question -- then and now. To what resources canone turn? The writer of 2
Peteroffers some clues.
Worthy of note is that claims to credibility and authority are not founded first
of all by reference to the name of Jesus, thoughsuch a claim would not have
been unimportant. Attention is directed rather to the name that stands over
this whole epistle, the name of a respectedand revered apostolic leader,
namely Peter.
Though this letter purports to have been written by Peter, that can hardly be
the case.As 2 Peter3:15-16 makes clear, by the time this letter is written, the
letters of Paul have already been collectedandare circulating in the Christian
community as of equal standing with the “other scriptures.”
So, following a practice familiar in other ancient religious writings, an
authoritative appeal is made to the name of one who was “there” at the
beginning. This Peterhad heard the words of Jesus and, where this day of
Transfigurationis concerned, was there on the mountain when Jesus was
revealedas Messiahand confirmed by the direct address of God. Whoeverthe
writer, the words exhibit confidence that appeal to a revered and trusted

90. leaderfrom the earliestdays of Jesus and his disciple community will be of
sufficient weight and importance to swaya community at risk.
At the same time the author recognizes that no name, not even that of Peter,
will ultimately be enough. Trust ultimately is fosteredby and relies upon the
word and promise of God. That promise resides in the “powerand presence”
of the Lord Jesus Christ that witness to the Transfigurationmaintains
continues to dwell with the faith community (verse 16).
Though most translations construe the word parousia here as “coming” and
hence to suggesta reference to the secondcoming or return of Jesus, the
normal root sense ofthis word is “presence.”Giventhe contextand the clear
allusions to the event of the Transfiguration, the word here must rather refer
to the authority and powerthat resides in the affirmation of the “presence” of
the Lord Jesus Christwith his disciple community.
In the Transfigurationwe celebrate, thenand now, the confidence that the
authority of God’s word and our hope for the future rest finally not in any
intermediary authority, but in the promise of Jesus’abiding presence with his
faithful followers.
That presence ofJesus with eachfaithful community is continually confirmed
by the presence and effectivenessofthe “prophetic word.” When Paul
includes the gift of “prophecy” among the diverse gifts of the Spirit, he is
certainly not referring to the writings or witness of the prophets, but rather to
the gift that resides in the ability to “interpret” with clarity and power the
authoritative scriptures for a contemporary community (1 Corinthians 12.10).

91. It is that same gift of faithful interpretation of the scriptures to which the
author now points. Now that neither Jesus nor the original apostles are
present, either for that early Christian community or for us, it remains all the
more important to have confidence that we can trust those who interpret and
mediate the scriptures to us for this present day. That was true for the early
church, and so it is true for us.
As the matter stands and as the writer’s argument acknowledges,
interpretation always places us at risk. Can we trust the one who interprets?
Will we get it right? Will we agree? The divisions and conflicts in our
churches are not conducive to greatconfidence or assurance onthis score. But
the writer offers some direction in the concluding verses of today’s reading
(1:20-21).
First, it is important to note that the comments here are not about the
“writing” or “writers” ofscripture, as frequently they are so taken. The term
epilysis at the end of verse 20 is a technicalterm that refers not to the writing
but rather to the task of “unlocking,” “deciphering,” or“explaining “ of a
written text, as the translation of “interpretation” has accuratelycaptured.
Hence this means that once again(as in verse 19)the reference to “prophecy
of scripture” is not to the “writing” but rather to the gift of clearlyand
accurately“unlocking” and witnessing to the messageofscripture.
Experience has taught us to be appropriately on guard, to expect that there
will always be problems of understanding which some may “twist” or
“pervert” to their own ends. There will be disagreements aboutinterpretation
as there apparently are in the community to which this letter is addressed(see
2 Peter3:16). There needs to be some further course of appeal.

92. That course of appeallies ultimately for them and for us in the presence,
testimony, and powerof the Spirit. As for the Johannine community, who
heard the promise of the Spirit as the confirmation of the abiding presence of
the resurrectedJesus (see John14-16), so here this community is reminded
that the power for hope and confidence in a living witness resides in
recognizing that interpretation is not just a matter of individual whim or
competency.
We are invited to trust, and indeed that is the promise, that the powerand the
authority ultimately rests in God. The Spirit continues to move among us. In
the Spirit’s presence, the glorified Jesus onthe mountain is made present
among us, the gift of prophecy for faithful interpreting of the scriptures is
continually given, and the appeal of faithful witness is granted a hearing
within faithful Christian communities who bear fruit in hopeful endurance
and godly affectionand love.
The preacherwho attends to this lessonmay wish to reflect on this risky
business of interpretation in which we are constantlyengagedas the people of
God. There is reasonto be confident in the power of God’s word to make
present the resurrectedand living Lord Jesus.
At the same time, the author’s assertionthat “no prophecy of scriptures is a
matter of one’s own interpretation” is not an occasionfor despair, but an
invitation once again to be reminded of the Spirit’s power and presence at
work in the faithful witness of the believing community. Martin Luther
captures a similar sentiment in his Small Catechismremarks on the Spirit: “I
believe that by my own understanding or strength I cannotbelieve in Jesus
Christ my Lord or come to him, but the Holy Spirit has calledme through the
gospel…”

93. 'Men Moved By the Holy Spirit Spoke From God' (2 Peter1.21):A Middle
Knowledge Perspective onBiblical Inspiration
Dr. William Lane Craig
William Lane Craig is ResearchProfessorofPhilosophy at TalbotSchoolof
Theologyin La Mirada, California. He lives in Atlanta, Georgia, with his wife
Jan and their two teenage children Charity and John. At the age ofsixteen as
a junior in high school, he first heard the messageofthe Christian gospeland
yielded his life to Christ. Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at
WheatonCollege (B.A. 1971)and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School(M.A. 1974;M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham
(England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol.
1984). From1980-86he taught Philosophy of Religionat Trinity, during
which time he and Jan started their family. In 1987 they moved to Brussels,
Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued researchatthe University of Louvain until
1994.
Scriptural inspiration has traditionally been understood by Christian
theologians to be plenary, verbal, and confluent. But how is the plenary,
verbal inspiration of Scripture compatible with Scripture's being a truly
divine-human product? How can one hold to the verbal inspiration of the
whole of Scripture without lapsing into a dictation theory of inspiration
which, in effect, extinguishes the human author? A theory of divine
inspiration basedupon God's middle knowledge is proposed, according to

94. which God knew what the authors of Scripture would freely write when
placed in certaincircumstances. Byarranging for the authors of Scripture to
be in the appropriate circumstances, Godcanachieve a Scripture which is a
product of human authors and also is His Word. Such a theory is compared
and contrastedwith similar views expressedby Lessius and Wolterstorff.
"'Men MovedBy The Holy Spirit Spoke From God' (2 Peter1.21):A Middle
Knowledge Perspective onBiblical Inspiration." Philosophia Christi NS 1
(1999):45-82.
The Church has traditionally affirmed that the Bible is inspired by God and is
therefore God’s Word to mankind, authoritative in all that it teaches. The
deeper appreciationof the role of the human authors in the compositionof the
books of the Bible, which dawned during the Enlightenment, put a question
mark behind the claim that the Bible is God’s Word. How could the
Scriptures be at once the Word of God and the word of man? In this paper I
shall argue that the doctrine of divine "middle knowledge"(media scientia)
provides the keyto the resolution of this conundrum. I shall first show that it
has, indeed, been the historic position of the Church that Scripture is
characterizedby plenary, verbal inspiration. This demonstration is important
because post–Enlightenmentscepticismconcerning Scripture’s inspiration
runs so deep that some have attempted to deny that the Church ever
embracedso faulty a doctrine. I shall then explain the challenge posedto the
traditional doctrine by incipient biblical criticism which won a new
appreciationof the human side of Scripture. Finally, in conversationwith
contemporary philosophers of religion, I shall defend the coherence ofthe
traditional doctrine of inspiration by means of the doctrine of middle
knowledge.
The Divinity of Scripture
On the basis of biblical texts like 2 Pet. 1.21 and 2 Tim. 3.16 ("All Scripture is
inspired by God"), Church Fathers from the earliesttime on unanimously

95. regardedthe Scriptures as "holy," "sacred,"and "divine" and therefore as
absolutely authoritative, being the very words of God Himself. Thus Clement
of Rome advisedthe Corinthian church, "Look carefully into the Scriptures,
which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit." The SacredScriptures are
"the oracles ofGod." Clement can thus introduce his quotations from
Scripture with the simple formula, "The Holy Spirit says. . . ." Even Paul’s
recentCorinthian correspondence is regardedas written "under the
inspiration of the Spirit."
The fact that it is GodWho speaksin Scripture is especiallyevident in the
case ofprophetic utterances. According to Justin Martyr, "the prophets are
inspired by the divine Word." Thus, "whenyou hear the utterances ofthe
prophets spokenas it were personally, you must not suppose that they are
spokenby the inspired themselves, but by the Divine Word who moves them."
So Justin, commenting on Deut. 10.16–17, remarks,"GodHimself proclaimed
by Moses" andon Is. 7.14, "Godpredicted by the Spirit of prophecy" what
should come to pass. But even when people speak in answerto God in
Scripture, it is the Divine Word which speaks. No doubt this conviction lies at
the base of Justin’s confidence that "no Scripture contradicts another."
Clement of Alexandria emphasizes both the breadth and the depth of
Scripture’s inspiration. With respectto the former he asserts, "Icould adduce
ten thousand Scriptures of which not ‘one tittle shall pass away’without being
fulfilled; for the mouth of the Lord the Holy Spirit hath spokenthese things."
And of the latter, he declares, "Fortruly holy are those letters that sanctify
and deify; and the writings or volumes that consistofthose holy letters and
syllables, the same apostle consequently calls ‘inspired of God . . . .’"
The greatChurch FatherIrenaeus puts this same conviction into practice
when he indicts the Gnostics foraccepting part of the Gospelof Luke without
accepting all of it and when, in refutation of the Gnostic distinction between
Jesus (the Son born of Mary) and Christ (the Fatherwho descendedupon
Jesus), he bases his argument on the Holy Spirit’s use of a single word:
Matthew might certainly have said, ‘Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise;’
but the Holy Ghost, foreseeing the corrupters [of the truth], and guarding by

96. anticipation againsttheir deceit, says by Matthew, ‘But the birth of Christ
was on this wise;’ and that He is Emmanuel, lest perchance we might consider
Him as a mere man . . . .
Irenaeus is so bold as to declare that "the writings of Moses are the words of
Christ" and "so also, beyond a doubt, the words of the other prepuce are
His." In sum, "the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spokenby
the Word of God and His Spirit . . . ."
The Fathers did not engage in an extensive analysis of the means by which
Scripture was inspired, but contentedthemselves with similes and analogies.
Athenagoras seems to think of a sort of Spirit–possessionakinto the
Hellenistic model of the Sibylline oracles, the human spokesmenbeing mere
instruments of the Spirit:
I think that you . . . cannotbe ignorant of the writings either of Moses orof
Isaiahand Jeremiah, and the other prophets, who, lifted in ecstasyabove the
natural operations of their minds by the impulses of the Divine Spirit, uttered
the things with which they were inspired, the Spirit making use of them as a
flute–player breathes into a flute . . . .
Athenagoras is willing to grant that pagan poets and philosophers have "an
affinity with the afflatus from God," but whereas they are moved by their
own souls, "we have for witnesses ofthe things we apprehend and believe,
prophets, men who have pronounced concerning God and the things of God,
guided by the Spirit of God." Similarly, Athenagoras’s contemporary
Theophilus states that the Spirit of God "came down upon the prophets and
through them spoke of the creationof the world and of all other things."
Thus, "Moses. . ., or, rather, the Word of God by Him as by an instrument,
says, ‘In the beginning God createdthe heavens and the earth’." Like
Athenagoras, Theophilus considers this sufficient to setthe "divine writing"
apart from the works of the philosophers, writers, and poets, for while they all
have "a mixture of error" in them, the prophets, possessedby the Holy Spirit
of God, wrote what is accurate, harmonious, and "reallytrue."
The author of the pseudo–Justiniantractate Cohortatio ad Graecosalso
employed the simile of musicalinstruments to characterize the sacredwriters:

97. For neither by nature nor by human conceptionis it possible for men to know
things so greatand divine, but by the gift which then descendedfrom above
upon the holy men, who had no need of rhetoricalart, nor of uttering
anything in a contentious or quarrelsome manner, but to presentthemselves
pure to the energyof the Divine Spirit, in order that the divine plectrum itself,
descending from heaven, and using righteous men as an instrument like a
harp or lyre, might reveal to us the knowledge ofthings divine and heavenly.
The analogyof musical instruments is an interesting one. It might appear to
depreciate the human role in the production of Scripture. However, it does, in
fact, succeedin emphasizing both the divine and human aspects ofScripture,
since the type of instrument selectedby the musician will determine the
characterof the musical sounds produced by his playing. But there is no
denying that the analogydoes reduce the role of the human spokesmenas free
agents.
For example, although Pseudo–Justinemphasizes the simple and artless
diction of the prophets, still their role as human instruments is subsumed
under the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit; they "use with simplicity
the words and expressions whichoffer themselves and declare to you
whateverthe Holy Ghost, who descendedupon them, choose to teachthrough
them . . . ." In a similar fashion, Irenaeus, in trying to correctthe inference
that 2 Cor. 4.4 teaches that there is a second"Godof this world," explains
that "according to Paul’s custom . . . he uses transpositionof words," thereby
seemingly emphasizing the role of the human author in the production of
Scripture. But then the left hand takes back whatthe right hand has given:
"the apostle frequently uses a transposedorder in his sentences,due to the
rapidity of his discourses,and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him."
Hippolytus continues to employ the simile of the divine plectrum playing the
human instruments, but there is no trace of the Athenagoranidea that the
prophets’ natural faculties have been transcended. Rather the indwelling
Spirit is conceivedto enlighten and empower their faculties to speak the
truths revealed to them by God:

98. For these fathers were furnished with the Spirit, and largely honored by the
Word Himself; and just as it is with instruments of music, so had they the
Word always, like the plectrum, in union with them, and when moved by Him
the prophets announced what God willed. Forthey spake not of their own
power(let there be no mistake as to that), neither did they declare what
pleasedthemselves. But first of all they were endowed with wisdomby the
Word, and then againwere rightly instructed in the future by means of
visions. And then, when thus themselves fully convinced, they spake those
things which were revealedby God to them alone, and concealedfrom all
others.
Although the spokesmenare here compared to instruments, Hippolytus’s
conceptionof God’s working through them is more personalistic than what
such a comparisonmight at first seem to suggest.
Jerome also employed a more personalistic model, styling inspiration along
the lines of dictation. The Epistle to the Romans, he says, was dictatedby the
Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul. Since God is the author of Scripture,
"every word, syllable, accent, and point is packedwith meaning." Augustine
had a similar conceptionof the compositionof Scripture. Christ, he explains,
stands in relation to his disciples as does the head to the body.
Therefore, whenthose disciples have written matters which He declaredand
spake to them, it ought not by any means to be saidthat He has written
nothing Himself; since the truth is, that His members have accomplishedonly
what they became acquainted with by the repeatedstatements of the Head.
For all that He was minded to give for our perusal on the subject of His own
doings and sayings, He commanded to be written by those disciples, whom He
thus used as if they were His own hands. Whoeverapprehends this
correspondence ofunity and this concordantservice of the members, all in
harmony of the discharge of diverse offices under the Head, will receive the
accountwhich he gets in the Gospelthrough the narratives constructedby the
disciples, in the same kind of spirit in which he might look upon the actual
hand of the Lord Himself, . . . were he to see it engagedin the act of writing.

99. Here Scripture is understood to be the product of a concordanceofhuman
and divine agents, the human authors writing what Christ commanded them
to, so that He is ultimately the author of what they wrote. Little wonder that
Augustine should therefore insist that Scripture is uniquely authoritative and
"completelyfree from error"!
The view that God is the author of Scripture in all its breadth and depth and
that it is therefore authoritative and errorless was the common prepossession
of the Church Fathers. Howeverthe inspiration of Scripture was conceivedto
be brought about, the human authors of Scripture were regardedas
instrumental causes only, doing what the Spirit moved them to do. Origen
thus spoke for all the Fathers when he asserted, "the sacredbooks are not the
compositions of men, but . . . they were composedby the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit, agreeablyto the will of the Fatherof all things through Jesus
Christ."
Preciselybecauseofthis unanimity, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture
did not achieve creedalexpression. As Cadoux points out, "The fact that
Biblical inerrancy was not incorporatedin any formal creedwas due, not to
any doubt as to its being an essentialitem of belief, but to the fact that no one
challengedit." Medievaltheologians continued in the conviction of the
Church Fathers. In his review of this period Sasse remarks, "during all these
centuries no one doubted that the Bible in its entirety was God’s Word, that
God was the principal author of the Scriptures, as their human authors had
written under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, and that, therefore, these
books were free from errors and contradictions, even when this did not seem
to be the case."Thus, for example, Thomas Aquinas affirms, "The Spirit is
the principal author of sacredScripture; and inspired man is the instrument."
The Holy Spirit never utters what is false;therefore, nothing false can
underlie even the literal sense ofScripture. Augustine, says Thomas, was right
in affirming that the authors of Scripture have not erred.
The ProtestantReformationbrought a renewedemphasis on Scripture’s
authority. Committed as they were to the principle of sola scriptura, the
ProtestantReformers were champions of the doctrine of biblical inspiration
and authority. Luther dared to stand againstthe authority of the Catholic

100. church because he believed that the Bible, which he took to support his
teachings, is the true Word of God. The Holy Scriptures, he declared, are "the
Holy Spirit’s book." Thus, in his comment on Ps. 90 Luther states that "we
must, therefore, believe that the Holy Spirit Himself composedthis psalm."
Quoting David’s words in 2 Sam. 23. 2 "The Spirit of the Lord has spokenby
me, and His word is upon my tongue," Luther marvels,
What a glorious and arrogantarrogance it is for anyone to dare to boastthat
the Spirit of the Lord speaks throughhim and that his tongue is voicing the
Word of the Holy Spirit! He must obviously be sure of his ground. David, the
son of Jesse, born in sin, is not such a man, but it is he who has been called to
be a prophet by the promise of God.
Though David was a sinner, he spoke the very words of God because he was a
prophet through whom the Holy Spirit spoke. Luther remarks, "Neitherwe
nor anyone else who is not a prophet may lay claim to such honor." Luther
thus portrays David as in effectsaying, "‘My speechis not really mine, but he
who hears me hears God.’" The entirety of the canonicalScriptures are God’s
inspired Word: "Thus, we attribute to the Holy Spirit all of Holy Scripture."
Even the trivialities in Scripture (the levicula) are inspired. Commenting on
an incident in Gen. 30.14–16, Luther remarks,
this is ridiculous and puerile beyond measure, so much so that nothing more
inconsequentialcan be mentioned or recorded. Why, then is it recorded? I
reply: One must always keepin view what I emphasize so often, namely, that
the Holy Spirit is the Author of this book. He Himself takes suchdelight in
playing and trifling when describing things that are unimportant, puerile, and
worthless;and He hands this down to be taught in the church as though it
redounded to the greatesteducation.
Luther affirms that the very words of Scripture are divinely inspired. Thus, in
defending the interpretation of Is. 7.14 as a prophecy of the Virgin Birth,
Luther asserts,"Eventhough an angelfrom heaven were to saythat almah
does not mean virgin, we should not believe it. For God the Holy Spirit speaks
through St. Matthew and St. Luke; we canbe sure that He understands
Hebrew speechand expressions perfectlywell." Because the Holy Scriptures

101. are God’s Word, inspired by the Holy Spirit, Luther, citing Augustine’s letter
to Jerome, could therefore affirm, "The Scriptures. . . have never erred."
In the era of Protestantscholasticismfollowing the Reformation, the Lutheran
theologians insistedforcefully on the inspiration of the very words of
Scripture. Abraham Calov, commenting on 2 Pet. 1.21 wrote,
The f o r a ¢ embraces both an inner enlightenment of the mind and
communication of what was to be said and written, and an external urge of
such a nature that the tongue and pen no less than the intellect and mind
actedby that impulse. The result was that not only the forma, or content was
suggested, but the words also, which are placed in their mouth and dictated to
their pen by the Holy Spirit, were committed to the original amanuenses, or
men of God.
Or again, in the words of J. A. Quenstedt:
The Holy Spirit not only inspired in the prophets and apostles the content and
the sense containedin Scripture, or the meaning of the words, so that they
might of their own pleasure clothe and furnish these thoughts with their own
style and their own words;but the Holy Spirit actually supplied, inspired, and
dictated the very words and eachand every term individually.
As for Aquinas, so for these Protestantscholastics, Godis the causa efficiens
principalis of Scripture; human authors are the causae instrumentales. They
are comparedto quills used by the Holy Spirit, who dictates eachand every
word they write. Inspiration involves not only an impulsus ad scribendum and
a suggestio rerum from the Holy Spirit, but also a suggestio verborum as well.
Now of course these divines were aware ofthe stylistic differences and
peculiarities of the authors of Scripture, but these were explained as a sortof
condescensiononGod’s part whereby He accommodatesHimself to speak in
the vocabularyand style appropriate to eachrespective author.
The ReformedProtestanttradition took an equally strong stand on the
doctrine of inspiration. Calvin’s favorite characterizationofthe means by
which Scripture was inspired is dictation. Thus, he affirms, "Whoeverthen
wishes to profit in the Scriptures, let him, first of all, lay down this as a settled

102. point, that the Law and the Prophets are not a doctrine delivered according to
the will and pleasure of men, but dictated by the Holy Spirit." He calls the
human authors "amanuenses" ofthe Holy Spirit; they are His "organs" and
"instruments." Calvin goes so far as to assertthat the prophet brings "forth
nothing from his own brain," but merely delivers what the Lord commands.
Thus, commenting on Jeremiah’s prophecies, Calvin states that while "the
words were his," Jeremiah"was not the author of them," since "he only
executedwhat God had commanded."
Paradoxically, Calvin combined with the dictation theory of inspiration the
affirmation that the biblical authors wrote freely in their own styles:
The Spirit of God, who had appointed the Evangelists to be his clerks, appears
purposely to have regulatedtheir style in such a manner, that they all wrote
one and the same history, with the most perfect agreement, but in different
ways. It was intended, that the truth of God should more clearly and
strikingly appear, when it was manifest that his witnesses did not speak by a
preconcertedplan, but that eachof them separately, without paying any
attention to another, wrote freely and honestly what the Holy Spirit dictated.
Despite the affirmation of the authors’ freedom, the weight of the passagefalls
on the divine sovereigntywhich determined that four differing accounts
should be dictated.
Like their Lutheran counterparts, the Reformed scholastictheologians
emphasized the inspiration and authority of Scripture. According to T. R.
Phillips, "ThatGod is the author of all Scripture; and thus inspired not only
the substance but even the words, was unquestioned within seventeenth–
century Reformedscholasticism."Three emphases characterizedReformed
thought on Scripture. First, "Everything within Scripture was regardedas
being free from the ‘peril of error’ and thus absolutely certain." On this basis
the statements of Scripture could serve as the authoritative premises for the
deduction of theologicalconclusions. Second, inspirationof the Scriptures by
God was conceivedas the basis of the Bible’s authority. Third, "because
inspiration . . . has become the ground for Scripture’s authority, the nature of
this authority assumes more externalistic and legalistic qualities. Scripture is

103. viewed as a book of authoritative sentences:what Scripture says, Godsays."
Reformed theologians,while continuing to employ terms like "dictation" and
"amanuenses"whenexplicating the means of inspiration, did not, according
to Phillips, intend such terms to be takenliterally, since they conceivedof
inspiration as a habitus or charism, a specialdivine gift of knowledge and
volition which inwardly supplies the human author with the capacities for
carrying out God’s mandate to write. Nevertheless, some Reformed
theologians like Voetius could speak straightforwardlyof a suggestio
verborum in the process ofinspiration:
The Holy Spirit has spokenimmediately and extraordinarily all that was to be
written and has been written, either the things or the words . . . The Holy
Spirit has provokedthem, and has suggestedto them so that they were writing
this rather than that . . . the Holy Spirit ordered, arrangedand constructedall
of their concepts and sentences namelyso that they deployed this sentence at
the first, that at the second, and another at the third place, and so on in
successionandas a result they are being sealedand authenticated by having
been written down: in the strict sense to produce and to compose a book
entails this.
Other Reformed thinkers like Rivet, Thysius, and Ames denied that the
process ofinspiration involved a suggestio verborum, but all were one in the
belief that the extent of inspiration in the final product included the very
words of Scripture.
For their part, Catholic theologians of the Counter–Reformationalso insisted
on the inspiration and authority of Scripture. In the fourth sessionof the
Council of Trent, the Catholic Church declaredthat the Old and New
Testaments have God as their author, having been dictated by the Holy Spirit
(a Spiritu Sancto dictatas). Protestants andCatholics alike were thus united in
seeing Godas the author of Scripture who employed human scribes to write
down what He by His Spirit dictated. In so doing, they were reaffirming what
the Christian Church had always believedand taught.
The Humanity of Scripture

104. Although Christian theologians had always recognizedthe idiosyncrasies of
the human authors of Scripture, the role of human agents in the writing of
Scripture was undeniably minimalized. In the latter half of the sixteenth
century, rumblings of discontent with the classicaldoctrine of inspiration
beganto be heard among Catholic theologians. Butthese misgivings broke
into public view with Benedictde Spinoza’s publication of his Tractatus
theologico–politicus in 1670. In addition to denying Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch, Spinoza attackedthe traditional doctrine of inspiration. The
prophets, he observes, were only inspired when speaking directly the words of
God; when they spoke in ordinary conversationas private individuals, their
words were not inspired. Although the apostles were prophets, it is evident
when we read their writings that they were not speaking as inspired prophets
in those writings. For their style of writing and their use of argumentation is
incompatible with direct revelatoryutterances:
Now if we examine the style of the Epistles, we shall find it to be entirely
different from that of prophecy. It was the constantpractice of the prophets to
declare at all points that they were speaking at God’s command, as in the
phrases, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ ‘The Lord of hosts saith,’ ‘The commandment
of the lord,’ and so on . . ., But in the Epistles of the Apostles we find nothing
like this; on the contrary, in I h. 7 v. 40 Paul speaks according to his own
opinion. Indeed, there are numerous instances of expressions farremoved
from the authoritativeness ofprophecy . . . .
Furthermore, if we examine the manner in which the Apostles expound the
Gospelin their Epistles, we see that this, too, is markedly different from that
of the prophets. Forthe Apostles everywhere employ argument, so that they
seemto be conducting a discussionrather than prophesying . . . .
Therefore the modes of expressionand discussionemployed by the Apostles in
the Epistles clearlyshow that these originated not from revelationand God’s
command but from their own natural faculty of judgment . . . .
By associating inspiration only with revelatory, prophetic utterances, Spinoza
undercuts the inspiration of the non–prophetic portions of Scripture,
including the bulk of the New Testament. Farfrom being dictated by the Holy

105. Spirit, "the Epistles of the Apostles were dictated solelyby the nature light . . .
." The Gospels fare no better:
There are four Evangelists in the New Testament;and who can believe that
God willed to tell the story of Christ and impart it in writing to mankind four
times over? . . . . EachEvangelistpreachedhis message in a different place,
and eachwrote down in simple style what he had preached with view to telling
clearly the story of Christ, and not with view to explaining the other
Evangelists. If a comparisonof their different versions sometimes produces a
readier and clearerunderstanding, this is a matter of chance, and it occurs
only in a few passages. . . .
Scripture is calledthe "Word of God" only in virtue of its prophetic passages,
and God is understood to be the author of the Bible only because "true
religion" is taught therein.
Spinoza’s Tractatus sparkedan eruption of controversythroughout Europe.
In effect Spinoza was insisting that one must take seriouslythe humanity of
Scripture and argued that doing so is incompatible with the traditional
doctrine of inspiration. There was no denying the human elementin Scripture
to which Spinoza had drawn attention; the question was whether his inference
followedthat inspiration must therefore be circumscribedto direct prophecy.
The Dutch theologianJeanLe Clerc, shakenby Spinoza’s critique, advocated
abandonment of the classicaldoctrine of inspiration, while insisting on the
generalreliability of the non–inspired portions of the Bible. Le Clerc
distinguishes prophecies, histories, and doctrines within Scripture. The
doctrines taught by Christ and the apostles he takes to be divinely inspired.
But he claimed that even prophecies need not be inspired. For example, a
prophet may report visions or voices from God by giving back in his own
words the sense ofwhat he heard or saw. The factthat the various prophets
differ in their style of writing disproves the dictation theory of inspiration. In
the same way with respectto histories: since the Evangelists differ in precise
wording of Jesus’s teaching, they are merely giving back the sense ofwhat
Jesus said, for which task they needed only goodmemory and honesty, not
divine inspiration. Citing Lk. 1.1–4 Le Clerc comments, "You may observe in
these words a Confirmation of what I have been saying, and a full Proofthat

106. St. Luke learn’d not that which he told us by Inspiration, but by Information
from those who knew it exactly." Le Clerc maintains that his position does not
undermine Scripture’s authority because we are rationally obligedon the
basis of the evidence to believe that the historical narratives of the New
Testamentare substantially true. Thus, in response to Spinoza he grants "that
the SacredPen–Menwere notinspired, neither as to the Stile, nor as to those
things which they might know otherwise than by revelation," but insists "that
the Authority of the Scriptures ought not for all that to be esteemedless
considerable."
Richard Simon, an early Frenchbiblical critic, attackedLe Clerc’s
concessionsto Spinoza in Réponse au Livre intitulé Sentimens de quelques
Theologiensde Hollande and in his epochalHistoire Critique du Texte du
NouveauTestament. The central presupposition of Spinoza and Le Clerc
attackedby Simon is their assumption that biblical inspiration is to be
understood woodenlyin terms of dictation. "Il n’est pas necessaire qu’un
Livre pour être inspiré ait été dicté de Dieu mot pour mot." Instead Simon
proposes to understand inspiration in terms of God’s direction of the authors
of Scripture. Elsewhere he explains,
Immediate revelationtakes place when the Holy Spirit reveals to a sacred
author what he writes in such a way that this author does nothing but receive
and give us what the Holy Spirit has dictated to him. It is thus that the
prophets were inspired concerning things of the future, which they learned
directly from God. This inspiration can also extend to words, should it happen
that the Holy Spirit suggeststo a writer the words he uses.
One speaks ofspecialdirection when the Holy spirit does not reveal directly to
an author what he puts into writing, but when he stirs him to write simply
what he already knew, having learned it before, or understood it through his
own perception. The Spirit assists and directs him in such a way that he will
choose nothing that will not conform to the truth and the purpose for which
the SacredBookswere composed, to know how to edify us in faith and
charity. It is for that reasonthat Luke wrote in the Acts severalincidents
which he heard from the Apostles, and from those who were witnesses to
them, as the preaching and miracles of St. Peter; or those he saw himself, as

107. the arrival of St. Paul at Malta. It was not absolutely necessarythat the facts
he knew by himself be revealedto him.
Spinoza and Le Clerc’s objections are predicated entirely on a false
understanding of the nature of inspiration, which they took to exclude human
reasoning. But if inspiration is understood in terms of direction, not dictation,
then there is no incompatibility betweeninspiration and the human
phenomena noted by Spinoza. The Evangelists, forexample, were not divested
of memory and reasonwhen composing the Gospels, but they were assistedby
God in such a way as to prevent them from falling into error. Simon writes,
God has guided their pen in such a way that they do not fall into error. It is
men who write; and the Spirit who directs them has not robbed them of their
reasonor their memory in order to inspire in them facts which they know
perfectly well. But He haws in generaldetermined them to write insteadof
certain facts rather than others which they know equally well.
Simon thus denies that "the Evangelists were sheerinstruments of the Holy
Spirit, who dictated to them word for word what they wrote."
Le Clerc respondedto Simon’s critique by falling back to a more modest
position: "My argument proves not directly that there was no Inspiration on
these occasions,but only that there was nothing in the thing itself to induce us
to believe that there was any . . . ." As for Simon’s idea of inspiration as
direction or guidance, this is unobjectionable so long as the direction extends
no further than the selectionofthe subjectmatter. With respectto Simon’s
contention that divine inspiration and human reasoning are not mutually
exclusive, Le Clerc maintains that either the Holy Spirit gave the apostles fully
framed arguments or only generalprinciples. If He gave complete arguments,
then there was no need for the author’s reasoning. But if He gave only general
principles, then the apostles were stilldependent on fallible reasoning to make
their deductions, and nothing has been gained.
In his counter–responseto Le Clerc Simon defended the inspiration of all
Scripture on the basis of 2 Tim. 3. 16. But he agrees that inspiration does not
extend to the words of Scripture: "it is not at all necessaryto extend it to the
words or to the style of eachsacredauthor; it is enough that the substance be

108. inspired." There is no need to fear that the apostle’s use of fallible reasoning
renders their writings errant, for God’s direction will prevent this. "The Holy
Spirit guided them in such a way that they never made a mistake in what they
have written; but one need not therefore believe that there is nothing in their
expressions otherthan the divine and supernatural." As we shall later see,
whether Simon meant to deny verbal inspiration will depend upon some very
subtle issues arising out of the tradition of Jesuit theologyin which Simon
operated.
These seventeenthcentury debates over the nature of biblical inspiration
awakenedthe Church to the human side of Scripture. It now seemed
altogetherimplausible to suppose that the means of biblical inspiration was
divine dictation to human authors. The authors’ variety of styles, their
divergence in narrating identical events, their evident effort in gathering
information, their trivial remarks and grammaticalmistakes all seemedto
point to a more important role for them to play than that of mere scribes.
Thus, free human agencyhad to be an essentialelementof any adequate
doctrine of biblical inspiration. Togetherwith the Church’s historic
commitment to the full breadth and depth of biblical inspiration, the element
of human agencyimplies, in Pinnock’s words, that "Divine inspiration is
plenary, verbal, and confluent." By plenary inspiration it is meant that all of
Scripture, not just portions of it, is inspired. Along with the greatdoctrines,
even the levicula are God’s Word. This does not imply that all parts of
Scripture are equally important or equally relevant at various times and
places, but all of it is God–breathed. By verbal inspiration it is meant that the
very words of Scripture are inspired. The Bible, as a linguistic deposit, is
God’s Word. Hence, not merely the thoughts expressed, but the very language
of Scripture is God–breathed. Finally, by confluent inspiration it is meant that
Scripture is the product of dual authorship, human and divine. The human
authors wrote freely and spontaneously, and yet God somehow was also at
work through them to produce His Word. Hence, the writers of Scripture
were not mere stenographers,but real authors, whose individuality shines
through their works. At the same time, God is the author of Scripture, so that
it can truly be affirmed, "The Holy Spirit saidby David . . .," thereby
guaranteeing Scripture’s authority and inerrancy.

109. The Apparent Incoherence of Plenary, Verbal, Confluent Inspiration
But the obvious difficulty is that the above properties of inspiration seemto
constitute an inconsistenttriad. John Cardinal Newmanwrestledaloud with
the tensionthey present:
In what way inspiration is compatible with that personalagencyon the part of
its instruments, which the compositionof the Bible evidences, we know not;
but if any thing is certain, it is this,–that, though the Bible is inspired, and
therefore, in one sense, writtenby God, yet very large portions of it, if not far
the greaterpart of it, are written in as free and unconstraineda manner, and
(apparently) with as little consciousnessofa supernatural dictation or
restraint, on the part of His earthly instruments, as if He had had no share in
the work. As God rules the will, yet the will is free,–asHe rules the course of
the world, yet men conduct it,–so He has inspired the Bible, yet men have
written it. Whatever else is true about it, this is true,–that we may speak of the
history, or mode of its composition, as truly as of that of other books;we may
speak of its writers having an objectin view, being influenced by
circumstances, being anxious, taking pains, purposely omitting or introducing
things, supplying what others had left, or leaving things incomplete. Though
the bible be inspired, it has all such characteristicsas might attach to a book
uninspired,–the characteristicsofdialectand style, the distinct effects of times
and places, youth and age, or moral and intellectual character;and I insist on
this, lest in what I am going to say, I seemto forget(what I do not forget), that
in spite of its human form, it has in it the spirit and the mind of God.
One will look in vain among the classicaldefenders of plenary, verbal
inspiration for a resolution of this difficulty. Of the Lutheran dogmaticians,
Robert Preus confesses frankly,
The Lutheran doctrine of inspiration presents a paradox. On the one hand it
was taught that God is the auctorprimaries of Scripture, that He determined
and provided the thoughts and actualwords of Scripture and that no human
cooperationconcurredefficienterin producing Scripture. On the other hand
it was maintained that the temperaments (ingenia), the researchand feelings
(studia), and the differences in background(Nationes)of the inspired writers

110. are all clearly reflectedin the Scriptures; that there is nothing docetic about
Scripture; that God’s spokesmenwrote willingly, consciously, spontaneously,
and from the deepestpersonalspiritual conviction and experience;that
psychologicallyand subjectively (materialiter et subjective) they were totally
involved in the writing of Scripture. These two salient features of the doctrine
of inspiration must be held in tension....
Now it may seemutterly inconsistentthat the Spirit of God could in one and
the same actionprovide the very words of Scripture and accommodate
Himself to the linguistic peculiarities and total personality of the individual
writer so that these men wrote freely and spontaneously. But this is precisely
what took place according to the Biblicalevidence and data. And if Scripture
does not inform us how both of these facts canbe true, we must not do
violence to either or try to probe the mystery of inspiration beyond what has
been revealed. The Lutheran teachers are wellaware that there is a lacuna in
their theologyat this point ...; and they are content to retain this logicalgap
and acceptthe paradox.
We should not sellthe doctrine of accommodationshort. After all, in choosing
to inspire the biblical books at all, God has alreadyaccommodatedHimself to
speaking in the languages ofHebrew and Greek and has thus limited His
expressionto what the grammar and vocabulary of those languages permit.
Having stoopedso low, is it incredible that He should also take accountof the
further limitations and idiosyncrasies ofeachindividual author, so that
through one He speaks in the language ofa shepherd, through another in the
language ofa civil servant, and so on? To achieve truly idiomatic speech,
perhaps God even deigns to speak ungrammatically on occasion. Perhaps, as
Aquinas believed, God’s instruction might be so subtle and mysterious that
the human mind could be subjectedto it without a person’s knowing it, so that
one is unable to discernwhether his thoughts are produced by the divine
instinct or by one’s own spirit. Whether accommodationplausibly explains
the levicula in Scripture is more doubtful. But the salient point is that
accommodationstill falls short of confluence:if the author’s thoughts and
sentences are the product of either the divine instinct or his own spirit, rather
than both, then Scripture is not the product of dual authorship. There is then
one author of Scripture, God, and one stenographer, man, to whom God

111. dictates Scripture in a vernacularthat makes it indistinguishable from the
writer’s own expression. Inspiration is not confluent. How inspiration canbe
confluent as wellverbal and plenary is admitted to be a paradox.
Nor will we find much help chez the Reformed divines. B. B. Warfield of the
old Princetonschoolmaintains that the classicaldoctrine of inspiration
"purposely declares nothing as to the mode of inspiration. The Reformed
Churches admit that this is inscrutable. They content themselves with defining
carefully and holding fast the effects of the divine influence, leaving the mode
of divine actionby which it is brought about draped in mystery." But what
about Calvin’s heavy use of the notion of dictation with respectto Scripture’s
inspiration? Warfield admits that Calvin "is somewhataddicted to the use of
language which, strictly taken, would imply that the mode of their [i.e., the
Scriptures’] was ‘dictation’." But he contends that "dictation" refers to the
result or the effectof inspiration, not to its mode. The Scriptures have, in
virtue of their inspiration, the quality of a dictation from God; but they were
not dictated by God. "It is by no means to be imagined," declares Warfield,
that the classicaldoctrine of inspiration "is meant to proclaim a mechanical
theory of inspiration. The Reformed Churches have never held such a theory:
though dishonest, careless, ignorantor overeagercontroverters ofits doctrine
have often brought the charge." The assertionthat Calvin’s notion of
dictation is not "mechanical" is frequently made by Reformed thinkers.
Takenliterally, mechanicaldictation would be dictation involving only one
agent, the speaker, suchas would take place when one utilizes a machine like
a dictaphone or tape–recorderto registerone’s words. Non–mechanical
dictation would then involve two agents, not only a speakerbut also a
secretary, who freely writes down the speaker’s words and perhaps concurs
with what the speakeris saying. Unfortunately, this sort of non–mechanical
dictation is still insufficient for true confluence because while the secretary
exercises freedomin agreeing to write or not, he exercisesno freedom at all
with respectto content or style: the words are not truly his. As Warfield
rightly emphasized, "the gift of Scripture through its human authors took
place by a process much more intimate than can be expressedby the term
‘dictation’ . . . ." Kenneth Kantzer believes that such an intimate process may
be found in Calvin’s own conceptionof inspiration:

112. In ordinary dictation . . . the secretaryis active only to recognize and to copy
words originating outside the mind of the secretary. This sortof dictation is
by no means consistentwith Calvin’s view of the method of inspiration. As he
interprets the facts, the sacredauthors are active with their minds and whole
personalities in the selectionboth of ideas and words. Scripture really
originates in the mind of God, who is its ultimate author in the sense that He
controls the mind and personalityof the men He has chosento write
Scripture. By this means, God inspires the writers of Scripture (better
breathes out through them as instruments) to speak to man exactly His chosen
words as He wills. When, in Calvin’s thought, the prophet is referred to as an
instrument, he is by no means an instrument which simply passesonwords
mechanicallygiven to him. Rather, because ofGod’s sovereigncontrolof his
being, he is an instrument whose whole personalityexpresses itselfnaturally
to write exactly the words God wishes to speak. Only in this large and
comprehensive sense are the words of Scripture dictated by God.
The difficulty of Kantzer’s accountis that while it seems to express the
desideratum of confluence, it does not explain how this is achieved. How is it
that God "sovereignlycontrols the mind and personality" of a biblical author
so that his "whole personalityexpresses itselfnaturally to write exactly the
words God wishes to speak"? GivenCalvin’s strong views on divine
providence, the answerwould seemto be that a very rigid determinism is in
place whereby God, through the use of all causes under His control, shapes
the biblical author like clay in such a way that he writes what God has pre–
determined. But this is worse than secretarialdictation; it is, in fact, strict
mechanicaldictation, for man has been reduced to the level of a machine.
God’s causallydetermining Paul to write his Epistle to the Romans is
incompatible with Paul’s freely writing that epistle, on any plausible account
of freedom. Absent human freedom, we are not only back to mechanical
dictation, but also to mere accommodationas the ultimate accountof the
humanity of Scripture, since God is the only agent who determines what an
author shall write. Genuine confluence, then, requires human freedom, such
that there are at leasttwo authors of any book of Scripture. That inspiration
is plenary prevents confluence’s being understood as the divine and human
authors eachwriting different portions of Scripture; that inspiration is verbal

113. precludes confluence’s being interpreted to mean that God is the author of the
ideas and a man the author of the words. The whole of Scripture, down to its
very words, is the freely written word of both God and man. How can this be?
The tension in the classicaldoctrine of inspiration has in our own day been
more preciselyformulated by Randall and David Basinger. Theyare
concernedto show that the traditional affirmation of biblical authority and
inerrancy is inseparably wedded to the dictation theory of inspiration. If God
alone were the author of Scripture, its inerrancy would be unproblematic; but
given that the human authors write freely, how can God guarantee that they
write what He desires? The defender of the classicaldoctrine of inspiration
must argue along the following lines:
1. The words of the Bible are the product of free human activity.
2. Human activities (such as penning a book) canbe totally controlled by God
without violating human freedom.
3. God totally controlled what human authors did in fact write.
4. Therefore, the words of the Bible are God’s utterances.
5. WhateverGod utters is errorless.
6. Therefore, the words of the Bible are errorless.
This argument is as much an argument for the verbal, plenary inspiration of
Scripture on the assumption of confluence as it is an argument for inerrancy.
The keypremiss is (2). Detractors ofplenary, verbal inspiration will regard
(2) as self–contradictory. The only way God could have totally controlled(an
expressionBasingerand Basingertake to be synonymous with "infallibly
guaranteed")what the human authors wrote would have been to take away
their freedom. The defender of classicalinspiration, on the other hand, must
affirm (2) if he is not to fall into a dictation theory of inspiration. Although
Basingerand Basingergo on to argue that the defender of classicalinspiration
cannot, in view of his endorsement of (2), utilize the Free Will Defense with
respectto the problem of evil, I think that the price of "placing direct
responsibility on God for eachinstance of moral evil in the world" is so great

114. that their appealto the problem of evil is more perspicuouslyunderstood in
terms of evil’s constituting evidence against(2). Given the reality of human
evil and the fact that God cannotbe the author of evil, (2) must be false.
Accordingly, one canthen argue:
1. The words of the Bible are the product of free human activity.
2’. Human activities (and their products) cannot be totally controlledby God
without violating human freedom.
7. The doctrine of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible entails God’s
total control of the words of the Bible.
8. Therefore, the doctrine of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible is
false.
If one persists in affirming the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration, then,
since (7) is true virtually by definition, one must deny (1); that is to say,
verbal, plenary inspiration implies dictation. The bottom line is that the
doctrine of the plenary, verbal, confluent inspiration of Scripture is
incoherent.
The response to Basingerand Basingeron the part of defenders of classical
inspiration has not been encouraging. New TestamentscholarD. A. Carson
agrees thattheir argument that "is valid," by which he evidently means
"sound," since he does not dispute the truth of their premisses. Carsonagrees
that the classicaldoctrine of inspiration is incompatible with the Free Will
Defense. Buthe does not see this as in any way problematic. On the one hand,
the notion of divine/human confluent activity lies at the very heart of the
Christian faith, since the major redemptive acts of history were wrought by
both God and man:
. . . the conspirators did what GodHimself decided beforehand should
happen. Yet the conspirators are not thereby excused:they are still regarded
as guilty. Any other view will either depreciate the heinousness ofthe sin or
render the Cross a last minute arrangementby which God cleverly snatched
victory out of the jaws of defeat, rather than the heart of His redemptive
purposes.

115. If we permit divine human concursus in redemptive history, Carsonasks, why
not also in biblical inspiration? This line of response seemsto indicate that
Carsonwould accept(2) and rejectthe Free Will Defense. In fact, he does go
on to dismiss that defense;but he does so in such a way as to call into question
his commitment to (2). For he says, "human responsibility can be grounded in
something other than ‘free will,’ where free will is understood to entail
absolute power to the contrary" and footnotes JonathanEdwards and other
defenders of a compatibilist view of freedom. But if one is a compatibilist
about human freedom, then (wholly apart from the difficulties this occasions
for theodicy) the sort of freedom envisioned in (1) seems inadequate to secure
confluence. One has advancedno further than a deterministic doctrine of
providence which turns the authors of Scripture into robots. One has not lived
up to the charge of Carson’s co–editorJohnWoodbridge that "We must spell
out unequivocally our full commitment to the human authorship and full
freedom of the biblcial writers as human authors" nor have we stayedtrue to
what Carsonhimself calls "the centralline of evangelicalthought . . . : God in
His sovereignty. . . super–intended the freely composedhuman writings we
call the Scriptures." Rather we have simply watereddown the conceptof
freedom so as to be able to affirm determinism and, hence, God’s total
control.
Norman Geisler, on the other hand, argues that the Basingers’argument is
not sound. Unfortunately, his critique is not as clearas it could be, and the
Basingers are able to point out a number of misunderstandings in their reply
to Geisler. These misunderstandings not withstanding, there are, I think, a
couple of points in Geisler’s critique to which Basingerand Basingerhave not
given due attention. First, Geisler, in effect, challenges (3). He observes that a
purely human utterance may be inerrant; if, then, a true statement is made by
both God and man, God need not totally control the human author in order
for the statement to be without error. By extension all the statements of
Scripture could be errorless and have both God and human beings as their
authors, yet without God’s exercising total control over what the human
authors wrote. If (3) is false, then the defender of biblical inerrancy does not
assume (2) in defense of his doctrine; rather he defends his positionon the
basis of (4–6)alone. Now Geisleris obviously correctthat total divine control

116. of human authors is not a necessaryconditionof the inerrancy of their
writings. Nonethelessthe denial of (3) is so outrageouslyimprobable that (3) is
doubtlessly true. Otherwise we should be forced to say that the biblical
authors of their own free will just happened to write exactly the sentences
which God wanted as His own utterances. In any case, if I am correctthat
what is at stake here is not so much inerrancy as plenary, verbal inspiration,
then (7) tells us that the truth of that doctrine entails (3). For God and man
did not merely concur in tokening separatelythe same Scriptural sentence–
types; rather the doctrine of inspiration holds that the human author’s
sentence–tokens are identicalwith God’s sentence–tokens;God tokens the
sentences throughthe human author; his words are God’s words. Thus, God
must in some way so controlthe author as to speak through him. The control
is "total" in that it extends to the very words of Scripture. Hence, Geisler’s
first objectionfails to show why the defender of inspiration is not committed
to (3) and, if he wishes to avoid dictation, therefore (2).
But Geislerhas a secondline of attack. He exposes a hidden assumption in
Basingerand Basinger’s reasoning, towit,
9. If God caninfallibly guarantee whatsome men will do, then He cando the
same
for all,
an assumption which Geislerrejects as false. Geisleris quite correctthat the
Basingers make this assumption, for (2) may be taken in the sense of
2*. Some human activities (such as penning a book)can be totally contolledby
God without violating human freedom, i.e., (∃x) (Hx · Cx · ~Vx)
or
2**. All human activities (such as penning a book) canbe totally controlled by
God without violating human freedom, i.e., (∀x) (Hx ⊃ [Cx · ~Vx]).
The Basingers require (2**)for their argument to be sound. But one could
maintain that while it is within God’s power to control the writing of
Scripture without violating human freedom, that does not imply that God can

117. so control human activity in generalthat no one ever freely does evil. In order
for the classicaldoctrine of inspiration to be incompatible with the Free Will
Defense, (2)must be taken as universally quantified rather than as
existentially quantified. But now a familiar move in the Free Will defense may
be turned againstBasingerand Basinger:(2), so understood, is neither
necessarynor essentialto Christian theism nor a logicalconsequenceof
propositions that are; nor is the person who fails to see that (2) has these
qualities intellectually deficient in some way. Therefore, no incompatibility
has been demonstratedbetweenthe classicaldoctrine of inspiration and the
Free Will defense. BasingerandBasinger’s reply at this point is faltering:
Geisler. . . denies that people who believe that God infallibly guaranteedthat
the writers of Scripture freely produced an inerrant work must also believe
that God caninfallibly guarantee that all individuals will always freely do
what he wants ....
But is this true? Can God infallibly guarantee that any single human action
will freely occurif he cannot totally control all free human action ...? We
believe not .... if ([2]) is false, then God can never guarantee that any human
will freely do what he wants.
But this amounts to nothing but a personal confessionofbelief on the
Basinger’s part. It needs to be remembered that Basingerand Basingerare
making the very strong claim that "Any person wanting to both use the free
will defence in his theodicy and, at the same time, defend inerrancy against
dictation is attempting the impossible . . . . One cannot have it both ways" But
in order to show these doctrines to be broadly logicallyincompatible, they
must come up with a proposition whose conjunctionwith the propositions
formulating eachdoctrine is logicallyinconsistentand which meets the above
stipulated conditions, and (2) is definitely not it.
A Middle Knowledge Perspective
But where does this leave us? I suggestedthat Basingerand Basinger’s
argument might be more perspicaciouslyunderstoodas claiming that human
evil constitutes evidence against(2). That is to say, given (2*) , (2**) is highly
probable. For if God cancontrol human activities in such exquisite detail as to

118. produce through free agents a Scripture which is verbally and plenarily
inspired, then there seems no reasonwhy He could not control human
activities such that people always freelyrefrain from sin. Given, then, the evil
in the word, (2’) is probably true. But if (2’) is probably true, then, as argued,
the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration is probably false.
To defeat this argument what is needed is some plausible, positive accountof
how God cancontrol free human activities in such a way as to yield inspired
Scripture wihout being able simultaneously to control free human activities in
such a way as to prevent evil. Here Geisleris less helpful. He suggests,
The way God ‘can’ guarantee that some do not perform evil (or err) is by
knowing infallibly that they will freely do good. It does not follow that God
can do this for those who freely choose to do evil. For in this case Godwould
have to force them to do contrary to their free choice.
On Geisler’s view, "since Godknows (and so determines) which men will
utter truth and when, then God canalso affirm these truths as his infallibly
true Word." There are two problems with this suggestion:(1) It appears to
endorse an untenable theologicalfatalismspringing from the factof divine
foreknowledge. The suggestionseems to be that future acts, whether goodor
bad, are somehow fixed in virtue of God’s infallible foreknowledgeofthem.
But as numerous thinkers have shown, such an inference is simply logically
fallacious. Since God’s foreknowledgeis counterfactuallydependent upon
future contingents, they can fail to happen until they do happen; were they to
fail to happen, then God would have foreknowndifferently than He does. (2)
Divine foreknowledge is insufficient for providential control of the authors of
Scripture. Foreknowledgeonly informs God of what the authors of Scripture
will freely write; but such knowledge comes too late in the order of
explanation for God to do anything about it. The problem is not that God
would have to "force them to do contrary to their free choice." Ratherit is
logicallyimpossible to change the future. Geislerin effect misplaces the divine
creative decree laterin the order of explanation than divine foreknowledge,
rather than before. Thus on his view God must considerHimself
extraordinarily lucky that He finds Himself in a world in which the writers of
Scripture just happen to freely respond to their circumstances (including the

119. promptings of His Spirit) in just the right ways as to produce the Bible. This is
incompatible with a robust view of divine providence.
Geislerdoes, however, hint at the accountwe are looking for. In asking why
some men were providentially preservedfrom error while others were not
kept from error (or evil) at every time, he suggests,
It may have been because only some men freely chose to co–operate withthe
Spirit so that he could guide them in an errorless way. Or it may have been
that the Holy Spirit simply chose to use those men and occasions whichhe
infallibly knew would not produce error.
Here we are speaking not of simple foreknowledge, but of God’s
counterfactualknowledge. Itinvolves His knowledge ofwhat some creature
would freely do, were he to be placedin a specific setof circumstances. If God
has such knowledge explanatorilyprior to His creative decree then such
knowledge is what theologians have calledmiddle knowledge (media scientia).
Largely the product of the creative genius of the Spanish Jesuit of the
Counter–ReformationLuis Molina (1535–1600), the doctrine of middle
knowledge proposesto furnish an analysis of divine knowledge in terms of
three logicalmoments. Although whateverGod knows, He has knownfrom
eternity, so that there is no temporal successionin God’s knowledge,
nonetheless there does exist a sort of logicalsuccessionin God’s knowledge in
that His knowledge ofcertain propositions is conditionally or explanatorily
prior to His knowledge ofcertain other propositions. That is to say, God’s
knowledge ofa particular setof propositions depends asymmetrically on His
knowledge ofa certain other setof propositions and is in this sense posterior
to it. In the first, unconditioned moment God knows all possibilia, not only all
individual essences, but also all possible worlds. Molina calls such knowledge
"natural knowledge" because the content of such knowledge is essentialto
God and in no way depends on the free decisions ofHis will. By means of His
natural knowledge, then, God has knowledge ofevery contingentstate of
affairs which could possibly obtain and of what the exemplification of the
individual essence ofany free creature could freely choose to do in any such
state of affairs that should be actual.

120. In the secondmoment, God possesses knowledge ofall true counterfactual
propositions, including counterfactuals of creaturelyfreedom. That is to say,
He knows what contingent states ofaffairs would obtain if certain antecedent
states ofaffairs were to obtain; whereas by His natural knowledge Godknew
what any free creature could do in any set of circumstances, now in this
secondmoment God knows whatany free creature would do in any setof
circumstances. This is not because the circumstances causallydetermine the
creature’s choice, but simply because this is how the creature would freely
choose. Godthus knows that were He to actualize certain states of affairs,
then certain other contingent states ofaffairs would obtain. Molina calls this
counterfactualknowledge "middle knowledge"becauseit stands in between
the first and third moment in divine knowledge. Middle knowledge is like
natural knowledge in that such knowledge does notdepend on any decisionof
the divine will; God does not determine which counterfactuals of creaturely
freedom are true or false. Thus, if it is true that
If some agent S were placedin circumstances C, then he would freely perform
actiona,
then even God in His omnipotence cannot bring it about that S would refrain
from a if he were placedin C. On the other hand, middle knowledge is unlike
natural knowledge in that the content of His middle knowledge is not essential
to God. True counterfactuals offreedom are contingently true; S could freely
decide to refrain from a in C, so that different counterfactuals couldbe true
and be known by God than those that are. Hence, although it is essentialto
God that He have middle knowledge, itis not essentialto Him to have middle
knowledge ofthose particular propositions which He does in fact know.
Intervening betweenthe secondand third moments of divine knowledge
stands God’s free decree to actualize a world known by Him to be realizable
on the basis of His middle knowledge.By His natural knowledge, Godknows
what is the entire range of logicallypossible worlds; by His middle knowledge
He knows, in effect, what is the proper subset of those worlds which it is
feasible for Him to actualize. By a free decision, Goddecrees to actualize one
of those worlds known to Him through His middle knowledge. According to
Molina, this decisionis the result of a complete and unlimited deliberation by

121. means of which God considers and weighs every possible circumstance and its
ramifications and decides to settle on the particular world He desires. Hence,
logicallyprior, if not chronologicallyprior, to God’s creationof the world is
the divine deliberation concerning which world to actualize.
Given God’s free decisionto actualize a world, in the third and final moment
God possesses knowledgeofall remaining propositions that are in fact true in
the actualworld. Such knowledge is denominated "free knowledge"by
Molina because it is logicallyposteriorto the decisionof the divine will to
actualize a world. The content of such knowledge is clearly not essentialto
God, since He could have decreedto actualize a different world. Had He done
so, the contentof His free knowledge wouldbe different.
Molina’s doctrine has profound implications for divine providence. For it
enables God to exercise providential control of free creatures without
abridging the free exercise oftheir wills. In virtue of His knowledge of
counterfactuals ofcreaturely freedom and His freedom to decree that certain
circumstances existand certain free creatures be placedin those
circumstances, Godis able to bring about indirectly that events occurwhich
He knew would happen as a direct result of the particular decisions which
those creatures would freely make in those circumstances. Plantinga has
provided an analysis of such providential control in terms of what he calls
strong and weak actualization. Godis saidto strongly actualize a state of
affairs S if and only if He causes S to be actualand also causes to be actual
every contingent state of affairs S* included in S (where S includes S* if and
only if it is impossible that S be actual and S* not be actual). God is said to
weaklyactualize a state of affairs S if and only if He strongly actualizes a state
of affairs S* that counterfactuallyimplies S (that is, were S* to obtain, then S
would obtain). Then God can weaklyactualize any state of affairs S if and
only if there is a state of affairs S* such that (i) it is within God’s powerto
strongly actualize S*, and (ii) if God were to strongly actualize S*, then S
would be actual. Weak actualizationis clearlycompatible with human
freedom, since the actualized state of affairs S obtains in virtue of the
counterfactualof creaturely freedom which connects S to S*. Thus, God
knew, for example, that were He to create the Apostle Paul in just the
circumstances he was in around AD 55, he would freely write to the

122. Corinthian church, saying just what he did in fact say. It needs to be
emphasized that those circumstances included not only Paul’s background,
personality, environment, and so forth, but also any promptings or gifts of the
Holy Spirit to which God knew Paul would freely respond.
The theologicalapplicationto the doctrine of inspiration is obvious. By weakly
actualizing the composition of the books of the Bible, God can bring it about
that biblical inspiration is in the fullest sense confluent. The Epistle to the
Romans, for example, is truly the work of Paul, who freely wrote it and whose
personality and idiosyncrasies are reflectedtherein. The style is his because he
is the author. The words are his, for he freely chose them. The argument and
reasoning are the reflectionof his own mind, for no one dictated the premisses
to him. Neither did God dictate levicula like the greetings ("GreetAsyncritus,
Phlegon, Hermes," etc.);these are spontaneous salutations whichGod knew
Paul would deliver under such circumstances;so also the interjection of his
amanuensis Tertius (Rom. 16.22). Paul’s full range of emotions, his memory
lapses (I Cor. 1.14–16), his personalasides (Gal. 6.11)are all authentic
products of human consciousness. Godknew what Paul would freely write in
the various circumstances in which he found himself and weaklyactualized
the writing of the Pauline corpus. Perhaps some features of Paul’s letters are a
matter of indifference to God: maybe it would not have mattered to God
whether Paul greetedPhlegonor not; perhaps God would have been just as
pleasedhad Paul wordedsome things differently; perhaps the Scripture need
not have been just as it is to accomplishGod’s purposes. We cannot know. But
we can confess that Scripture as it does stand is God–breathedand therefore
authoritative. The Bible says what God wanted to say and communicates His
messageofsalvation to mankind.
Some of the statements of the defenders of the classic doctrine of verbal,
plenary, confluent inspiration fairly cry out for such a middle knowledge
perspective. Here is what Warfield, for example, has to say about the
inspiration of Paul’s letters:
So soon, however, as we seriouslyendeavorto form for ourselves a clear
conceptionof the precise nature of the Divine action in this "breathing out" of
the Scriptures–this "bearing" ofthe writers of the Scriptures to their

123. appointed goalof the production of a book of Divine trustworthiness and
indefectible authority–we become acutely aware of a more deeply lying and
much wider problem, apart from which this one of inspiration, technically so
called, cannot be profitably considered. This is the generalproblem of the
origin of the Scriptures and the part of God in all that complex of processes by
the interactionof which these books, which we call the sacredScriptures, with
all their peculiarities, and all their qualities of whateversort, have been
brought into being. For, of course, these books were not produced suddenly,
by some miraculous act–handeddown complete out of heaven, as the phrase
goes;but, like all other products of time, are the ultimate effectof many
processes cooperating throughlong periods. There is to be considered, for
instance, the preparation of the material which forms the subject–matterof
these books:in a sacredhistory, say, for example, to be narrated; or in a
religious experience which may serve as a norm for record; or in a logical
elaborationof the contents of revelation which may be placed at the service of
God’s people; or in the progressive revelationof Divine truth itself, supplying
their culminating contents. And there is the preparation of the men to write
these books to be considered, a preparation physical, intellectual, spiritual,
which must have attended them throughout their whole lives, and, indeed,
must have had its beginning in their remote ancestors, and the effectof which
was to bring the right men to the right places atthe right times, with the right
endowments, impulses, acquirements, to write just the books which were
designedfor them. When "inspiration," technically so called, is superinduced
on lines of preparation like these, it takes on quite a different aspectfrom that
which it bears when it is thought of as an isolatedactionof the Divine Spirit
operating out of all relation to historicalprocesses. Representations are
sometimes made as if, when God wished to produce sacredbooks whichwould
incorporate His will–a series of letters like those of Paul, for example–He was
reduced to the necessityofgoing down to earth and painfully scrutinizing the
men He found there, seeking anxiouslyfor the one who, on the whole,
promised best for His purpose; and then violently forcing the material He
wished expressedthrough him, againsthis natural bent, and with as little loss
from his recalcitrantcharacteristics as possible. Ofcourse, nothing of the sort
took place. If God wished to give His people a series ofletters like Paul’s He

124. prepared a Paul to write them, and the Paul He brought to the task was a Paul
who spontaneouslywould write just such letters.
Divine middle knowledge illumines such an interpretation, since God knew
what Paul would write if placedin such circumstances andknew how to bring
about such circumstances without extinguishing human freedom along the
way. Warfield comments that when we give due weight in our thinking to the
universality of providence, to the minuteness and completeness ofits sway, to
its invariable efficacy, then we may wonder that anything "is needed beyond
this mere providential government to secure the production of sacredbooks,
which should be in every detail absolutely accordantwith the Divine will."
Revelationwill be neededin some casesfortruths not accessible through
natural reason. Moreover, we must never forgetthat the circumstances
known to God include, not exclude, all those movements of the Holy Spirit in
an author’s heart to which God knew the writer would respond in
appropriate ways.
Given the doctrine of middle knowledge, then, we see how plenary, verbal,
confluent inspiration can, pace Spinoza, Le Clerc, and Simon, be coherently
affirmed. The distinction betweenstrong and weak actualizationreveals how
the controldescribed in (2) by Basingerand Basingeris possible. We can
understand has the divine/human confluence in the events of redemptive
history as insisted on by Carsonis possible without falling into determinism.
Finally, we can see why Geislerwas right to maintain that God’s ability to
control the free compositionof Scripture does not imply His ability to so
control the free actions of all persons that a world containing as much goodas
the actualworld but with less evil would be actualized. God might wellhave
requisite control of the authors of Scripture to ensure that Scripture would be
freely written without having requisite controlof all human beings to ensure
that less evil, but the same amount of good, would be freely wrought. In fact,
God’s placing a prenmium on actualizing a world in which the requisite
counterfactuals ofcreaturely freedom are true for the free compositionof
Scripture are true might require Him to forego worlds in which
counterfactuals requisite for an otherwise better balance of goodand evil are
true. Indeed, the existence of Scripture in the world might actually serve to
increase the amount of evil in the world by exacerbating sinful desires (Rom.

125. 7.7–8)!It all depends on which counterfactuals ofcreaturelyfreedom are true,
a contingencyover which God has no control. A world in which Scripture is
freely composedand in which the balance betweengoodand evil is more
optimal than it is in the actualworld may not be feasible for God. Basinger
and Basingerare in effectclaiming that
10. A world in which an inspired, inerrant Scripture is freely written is
feasible for God
and
11. A world containing as much goodas the actualworld without as much evil
is not feasible for God
are broadly logicallyincompatible or, at least, improbable eachwith respect
to the other. But such claims are pure speculation; we are simply not in an
epistemic position to make responsibility such pronouncements. Thus, in the
area of biblical inspiration, as in so many other areas oftheology, the doctrine
of divine middle knowledge proves to be a fruitful resource in shedding light
on seemingly irresolvable old conundrums. The doctrine is, of course,
controversialand has many detractors, but the objections lodgedagainstthat
doctrine are far from compelling.
Historical Precedents
When one hits upon what one takes to be an original idea, it is somewhat
deflating (but nonetheless encouraging)to discoverthat one is retracing
largely forgottenpaths explored previous thinkers. When I conceivedthe idea
of enunciating a middle knowledge perspective onbiblical inspiration, I was
unaware that it, or something rather like it, had been done before. Indeed, I
was chagrinedto learn from Burtchaellthat it was, in fact, "the most
venerable" of those "discreditedviews from which practically every writer [in
the nineteenth century] took comfort in disassociating himself in his
footnotes."
In 1588, the same year that saw the publication of Molina’s Concordia, a
papal brief was issued declaring a moratorium on a controversyinvolving a
young Jesuit theologianof the University of Louvain Leonard Leys (Lessius)

126. concerning a long list of theologicalcharges whichhad been brought against
him. The previous year, the theologicalfaculty had extractedfrom his
students’ notes 34 propositions which they publicly condemned. Three of these
dealt with the subjectof biblical inspiration. They read:
i. Foranything to be Holy Scripture, its individual words need not be inspired
by the Holy Spirit.
ii. The individual truths and statements need not be immediately inspired in
the writer by the Holy Spirit.
iii. If any book . . . were to be written through purely human endeavorwithout
the assistanceof the Holy Spirit, and He should then certify that there was
nothing false therein, the book would become Holy Scripture.
The theologicalfacultyof the University of Louvain censuredLessius for these
propositions, stating that SacredScripture is not the word of man, but the
Word of God, dictated by the Holy Spirit. The University of Douayjoined in
the censure, explaining that dictation is not just a suggestionin general, but of
the words themselves:there is not a syllable or accentin Scripture which is
trifling or superfluous.
Now among the other propositions condemned were statements concerning
grace and free will which indicated that Lessius was groping for the doctrine
of middle knowledge whichMolina first succeededin formulating clearlyand
accurately. According to Burtchaell,
The crux of the Louvain–Jesuitdispute was this issue of grace and free–will.
The three censuredpropositions on inspiration formed but a small part of a
total of thirty–two which bore on this larger problem. The faculty rightly saw
that Lessius’s inspiration hypotheses were the logicalapplication of the
generalJesuitidea of grace:they provided for both divine authorship and
human literary freedom by making divine intervention only indirect.
Whether we regardLessius as, in Woodbridge’s epithet, a "slippery"
theologianor a subtle dialecticianwill probably depend on our openness to
the Molinist point of view. Claiming that he had been misunderstood, Lessius
wrote an Apologia in which he explained how he interpreted the disputed

127. propositions. By (i) and (ii) he meant that the authors of Scripture did not
need a new and positive inspiration or new illumination from God to write
down eachword of Scripture. As he later explained,
We are teaching that, for anything to be Holy Scripture, its every word and
statementneed not be positively and absolutelyinspired in the author, with
the Holy Spirit supplying and forming in his mind the individual words and
statements. It is enoughthat the sacredwriter be divinely drawn to write
down what he sees,hears, orknows otherwise, that he enjoy the infallible
assistanceofthe Holy Spirit to prevent him from mistakes evenin matters he
knows on the word of others, or from his own experience, orby his own
natural reasoning. It is this assistanceofthe Holy Spirit that gives Scripture
its infallible truth.
He gave two reasons in support of his position: (1) The Evangelists did not
need a new revelationto recordthe life of Jesus, since theyeither were
witnesses themselvesorhad historical tradition of it. (2) The Holy Spirit chose
competent instruments, gifted with the ability to express themselves, whom He
then stirred to write of what they knew and whom He assistedto keep[them]
from error.
Mangenotobserves that takenliterally Lessius’s propositions (i) and (ii)
would be incompatible with the inspiration of Scripture; but it is evident from
the above that what he was really exercisedto do was to deny the dictation
theory of inspiration. Lessius insisted that the impulse and assistanceofthe
Holy Spirit were compatible with the human author’s recalling things from
memory, organizing his material, utilizing his peculiar style of expression, and
so on. He affirmed that the entire Scripture is the Word of God and was even,
in a certain sense, dictatedby the Holy Spirit. We have seenthat even so
redoubtable a champion of verbal inspiration as Warfield affirmed that
dictation has reference to the result, not the mode, of inspiration, and Lessius
seems to affirm the same.
According to Burtchaell, Lessius’s three propositions reduce God’s role in the
production of Scripture to (i) the supplying of ideas, but not words, (ii) the
protection from error, and (iii) the postfactum guarantee of inerrancy.

128. Eventually these became the official party line of the Jesuits. But it seems to
me that these inferences arise from misunderstandings of the nature of
inspiration which are no part of a middle knowledge perspective. Lessius
seems to be guilty of two confusions:(1) He conflates the notions of inspiration
and revelation, and (2) he thinks of inspiration as a property of the authors,
rather than of the text, of Scripture. Both of these are common mistakes
which were gestating since the time of the Church Fathers and would finally
find their ugly issue in Spinoza’s Tractatus. With respectto (1) the mistake
arises by treating all Scripture on the model of prophecy. As a direct
revelation from God, prophecy communicates information which transcends
natural knowledge;things naturally knownby the human authors of
Scripture have not, therefore, been directly revealedto them by God. Thus, if
inspiration is co–extensive withrevelation, then when the authors of Scripture
write of matters which they alreadyknow, it follows that they are not
inspired. But since "allScripture is inspired by God" (2 Tim. 3.16)this
conflation is clearlya mistake, for not all Scripture is of the genre of
prophecy. Even Scripture which does not involve the direct revelation of
supernatural knowledge by God is inspired. Thus, Lessius’s point that the
Evangelists did not need a new revelation to recordJesus’s life is no proof that
the gospels are not inspired. With respectto (2), the Scripture states that it is
the text , not the authors, of Scripture which is inspired (2 Tim. 3.16). True,
the prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak (1 Pet. 1.21), but it is a
mistake to equate inspiration with this movement, so as to imply that because
Scripture is verbally inspired therefore the authors were moved immediately
by the Holy Spirit to write that or this particular word. It is the Scripture
which is God–breathed, not the authors. Thus, it is wholly erroneous to think
that use of memory, research, effort, borrowing, and so forth, on the part of
the author is incompatible with the final result of his labors, the text, being
inspired. Thus, to speak, as Lessius does, ofthe authors’ having no need of
new and positive inspiration for writing what they did is to misconstrue
inspiration as a sort of illumination of the author’s mind–which, he rightly
observes, seemsunnecessaryfor much of Scripture–rather than as a quality of
the final text, the quality of being God’s Word. When Lessius denies that the
Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write, "Luke alone is with me; Trophimus I left ill
at Miletus" (2 Tim. 4.20), he is tilting at windmills.

129. Once we understand that inspiration is a property of the text, not the authors,
then we shall not be tempted to embrace the view, popular among Lessius’s
successors until its condemnation at Vatican I, that inspiration consists merely
in a sort of watchdog role for the Holy Spirit of preventing the biblical
authors from falling into error. Such a role is compatible with human freedom
and no doubt is part of the Spirit’s superintendence of the composition of
Scripture along with the providential preparation of the authors; but it is not
what inspiration is. Nor shall we be tempted to embrace another vestige of
Lessius, what is knownin German theologyas Realinspiration, the theory that
God inspired the propositionalcontent of Scripture and the human authors
supplied its linguistic expression. Under the influence of the Jesuit tradition,
this seems to have been the position adopted by Simon. This theory again
misconstrues inspiration as a work of God in the authors’ minds, providing
them with propositional contentwhich they clothe with words. A little
reflectionreveals that such a theory, besides misconstruing the nature of
inspiration, actuallyconstricts the authors’ freedom, since they are not free to
express whateverpropositions they wish but only those God gives them.
Moreover, the propositionalcontent of Scripture may be so specific as to
require certainwords and expressions in a given language, so that we again
approachdictation. The theory does nothing to explain the levicula. And it
remains mysterious how God could communicate His propositional truth to
someone wholly without linguistic formulation. Thus, once we distinguish
inspiration from revelationand understand inspiration to be a property
belonging to the text, we see that a middle knowledge perspective in no wise
denies that the very words of Scripture are inspired nor does it limit the
Spirit’s role to the merely negative role of protection from error.
Lessius’s third proposition and the inference drawn from it raise the issue of
what distinguishes Scripture as God’s Word, if it is not dictated by the Holy
Spirit. The proposition presents a clearnon sequitur in implying that a book
would become Scripture merely in virtue of the Spirit’s certifying it to be
inerrant. Inerrancy is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of being
God’s Word. Lessius qualified his position by saying that a statementlater
certified to be true by the Holy Spirit would be as authoritative as if the Spirit
had uttered it through a prophet. I see no reasonto object; but againthere is

130. no reasonto think that such a true statement should then be incorporated into
the canonof Scripture. The real question raisedby Lessius’s third proposition
is whether some book of Scripture might not have been written without any
specialassistanceby the Holy Spirit and yet still be inspired in virtue of the
Spirit’s ratification of it as His Word. Lessius gives the very intriguing
illustration of a King who by approving and signing a document his secretary
has drawn up makes it his own royal decree. Now from a middle knowledge
perspective, there is no question of God’s later ratifying a document which He
did not foreknow or did not providentially bring about. Rather the question is
whether God could be confrontedwith counterfactuals of creaturelyfreedom
which are such as to permit Him to produce a book of Scripture by means of
His providence alone without His acting as a primary cause influencing the
act of writing itself. I see no reasonto think that this is impossible. But then
what, we may ask, would distinguish such a book as Scripture as opposedto
any other product of human effort equally under the generalprovidence of
God? Presumably the answerwould lie in God’s intent to bring about a book
designedto make us wise unto salvationand ultimately by His ratificationof
that book as His Word to us.
Now if such a middle knowledge perspective onbiblical inspiration found
expression, howeverinchoately, in the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies,
why was it abandoned? Burtchaell mentions three reasons:(1) If the minimal
requirement for biblical writing were divine preservationfrom error, then the
Scripture are not distinguished from official Church proclamations which also
enjoy this protection. Part of the answerto this objection, from a Protestant
viewpoint, is that Scripture alone has this specialprotectionand hence alone is
authoritative (sola Scriptura). More fundamentally, what distinguishes a
writing as Scripture is God’s intent that that writing be His gracious Wordto
mankind. (2) Infallibility is insufficient to make a human utterance into the
Word of God. I readily agree. Evenif some book of Scripture were written
without any specialpromptings or assistanceofthe Holy Spirit, it is Scripture,
not in virtue of its inerrancy, but because Godin His providence prepared
such a book to be His Word to us. (3) The theory is too conservative and so
was eclipsed. But it is not a middle knowledge theoryof inspiration which is
too conservative;rather what is deemed too conservative is the theory of

131. verbal, plenary, confluent inspiration, since it implies the inerrancy of
Scripture. That issue is not under discussionhere; rather the question we have
been exploring is whether the doctrine of the verbal, plenary, confluent
inspiration of Scripture is coherent. Given a middle knowledge perspective,
the coherenceofthe classicaldoctrine becomes perspicuous.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it seems to me that the traditional doctrine of the plenary,
verbal, confluent inspiration of Scripture is a coherentdoctrine, given divine
middle knowledge.BecauseGodknew the relevant counterfactuals of
creaturely freedom, He was able to decree a world containing just those
circumstances and persons suchthat the authors of Scripture would freely
compose their respective writings, which God intended to be His gracious
Word to us. In the providence of God, the Bible is thus both the Word of God
and the word of man.
Copyright (C) William Lane Craig. All Rights Reserved.
‘2 Peter1:21’
How to DevelopYour Spi
Have you ever askedyourselfwhy it is that after you are saved it still appears
that there is no change to your behavior? Have you ever wonderedwhat you
are doing wrong or what steps you need to take to get to the place in God you
want to be? Are your struggles in life controlling and overwhelming you?
Have you ever askedyourselfor said to yourself – “Show me Lord what I
need to do to walk more intimately with you?”
You are not alone. In my quest to have a closerwalk with God, I found that
my flesh was so in control of my actions and thoughts that I couldn’t hear the
voice of God, much less recognize evenif He was talking to me. Are you there?

132. Would you like to know the voice of God? Do you seek a change that will
move you into a new realm spiritually? Well, take a trip with me in this study
and I unfold all I have learned. As you read, you will see the “HOW TO” steps
before you. Then it is just a matter of putting the steps into action and
watching the process ofchange unfold before you.
Millions have been spent worldwide to develop the physical body and
intellectual (soul) processesofman. Have you noticed though little has been to
develop the spirit of man? Just as one’s body and mind canbe educated,
developed and improved, a man’s spirit can be educatedand improved. How
you might wonder? Through the study of God’s Word.
Without the Spirit of God’s Word within us, we cannot understand spiritual
things with our natural minds. Our minds have to be changed, that is,
renewedthrough God’s power, in order that we might fully understand the
Word of God. The Apostle Paul said, “But the natural man receivethnot [does
not understand] the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto
him: neither canhe know them, because they are spiritually discerned
[understood]” (1 Corinthians 2:14).
We are blessedfor the Word of God was given by the Spirit of God because
“…holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter
1:21). This is the main reasonwhy the natural mind cannotunderstand God’s
Word. It is only with the heart, the place where our spirit residedthat the
Bible can be understood. It is there that we must receive revelation. Keep in
mind, once a man is born againand becomes a child of God, he can
understand the Bible and canlearn spiritual things. As Paul said, he has
become a new creature in Christ Jesus:“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he
is a new creature:old things are passedaway;behold, all things are become
new” (2 Corinthians 5:17).
The process oftraining and transformation is not an overnight or
instantaneous thing. It is a process thatis a daily task:“…though our outward
man perish, yet the inward man is renewedday by day” (2 Corinthians 4:16).
The “inward man” is the real man, the real you for when the body dies, the
inward man still lives. Paul, writing to the Philippians said, “Forto me to live

133. is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21). This does awaywith the
theory that when a man is dead that is the end of him. There certainly
wouldn’t be any gain to dying if man perishes and death is the end of
everything.
Why did Paul saythat to die is gain? It surely is no gain to those of us who
have lost loved ones, but it is gain for them. Paul went on to say, “ForI am in
a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is
far better; Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you”
(Philippians 1:23-24). The reasonPaulsaid it was gain to die was because he
would be with Christ.
It is interesting to listen to the people around us. Have you ever just sat
somewhere as people passedby and just listened to them talk? Do you believe
that some people actually think that eternallife comes whenthey go to
heaven? There are so many blinded to this falsity, for eternal life is something
we have right now! It is a God kind of life. It is the nature of God within us
which comes into our spirit to recreate us and make us a new creature;
changing our very nature. When we have been born againand have the
nature of God abiding within us, we candevelop our spirit to higher levels of
worship and service to God.
Man’s threefold nature is (1) spirit – the part of man that deals with the
spiritual realm; (2) soul – the part of man which deals with the mental realm:
his reasoning and intellectual powers;(3) body – the part of man which deals
with the physical realm.
In order to understand the process ofdevelopment, we must differentiate
betweenthese three parts. What better place to look then in the very Word of
God. Turning to the Book of Thessalonians, we find that Paul makes a
distinction betweenthem. 1 Thessalonians 5:23, “…Ipray God your whole
SPIRIT and SOUL and BODY be preservedblameless unto the coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ.” There is no mistake, man’s spirit and soul are not the
same thing for the Bible says, “Forthe Word of God is quick, and powerful,
and sharper than any two-edgedsword, piercing even to the dividing asunder
of SOUL and SPIRIT…” (Hebrews 4:12). If the spirit and the soul were the

134. same, they could not be divided. Man is a spirit. He possesses a souland he
lives in a body. Deathis not the end for man because he is an eternalspirit.
logos1560
Senior Member
Join Date:May 2011
Posts:15183
#1
Does 2 Peter1:21 relate to the process ofthe inspiration of the Scriptures?
11-05-17, 10:16 AM
Originally postedby JDS View Post
Searchthe scriptures (something that you don't seemto do much of) and you
will find that God does not inspire men.
JDS, do you in effectignore or dismiss 2 Peter1:21 in your view of the
inspiration of the Scriptures? Would you suggestthat God did not move on
the prophets and apostles whichwere given the words of God? Does what2
Peter1:21 states relate to the process ofthe giving of the Scriptures by
inspiration to the prophets and apostles?

135. David Cloud indicated that inspiration concerned“the divinely-guided
writing of the originalmanuscripts (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21) (Way of Life
Encyclopedia, p. 45). William Byers assertedthat “the process ofinspiration is
spokenof in 2 Timothy 3:16” and that “in 2 Peter1:21, you see the personnel
of inspiration” (History of the KJB, p. 7). Concerning 2 Timothy 3:14-17,
David Cloud wrote:“The term ‘given by inspiration’ applies directly only to
the originalprocess of the giving of Scripture. The same process is described
in 2 Peter1:19-21” (Faith, p. 54). Cloud added: “No translationcan lay claim
to this process. No translationis ‘given by inspiration’” (pp. 55, 593).
EvangelistHarold Boyd, a KJV-only advocate, asserted:“If you want a good
definition for inspiration, I believe you will find this in 2 Peter 1:21” (Flaming
Torch, August, 1981, p. 3). D. A. Waite wrote:“By the term ‘inspiration’ we
must understand primarily the process by which God causedHis original
words to be penned down by the ‘Holy Men of God’ (2 Peter1:20-21)whom
He assignedto that task” (DeanBurgonNews, June, 1980, p. 3). H. D.
Williams wrote: “Otherverses refer to inspiration without using the word,
inspiration, but teachthat men were ‘moved by the Holy Spirit’ to recordthe
Words in the autographs, the original manuscripts” (Hearing the Voice of
God, p. 194). Concerning 2 Peter1:21, Tim Fellure asserted:“Though the
apostle Peterdid not use the word, he did define the process ofinspiration”
(Neither jot nor tittle, p. 23). Homer Masseywrote:“The primary Scripture
passagedescribing how inspiration was accomplishedis found in 2 Peter 1:21”
(Fundamental Baptist Crusader, Oct., 1980, p. 2). R. B. Ouellette wrote:
“There is a secondpassage usedas a parallel to 2 Timothy 3:16--2 Peter1:21”
(More Sure Word, p. 30). R. B. Ouellette then cited 2 Peter1:21 for “the
method of inspiration” (p. 32). R. B. Ouellette also acknowledgedthat
“inspiration was completed in the past” (p. 34). Referring to 2 Timothy 3:16
and 2 Peter1:21, GailRiplinger wrote:“The two verses most often used in a
discussionof the Bible’s inspiration are parallel” (Hazardous Materials, p.
1184).
The goodtranslators of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a
revision did not agree with this new idea of some KJV-only advocates.
Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops'Bibles rendered

136. Mark 12:36 as follows:"for David himself inspired with the Holy Ghost." To
refer to the inspiring of men or to "inspired men" is consistentwith early
English Bible terminology from the very good Bibles in the line of goodBibles
promoted by KJV-only advocates. Is this understanding or interpretation of
the early translators an accurate descriptionof the process ofGod in giving
His Word to men? At John 20:19, the Geneva Bible and an edition of the KJV
printed in 1672 have the following marginal note: “Christ in that he presented
himself before his disciples suddenly through his divine power, when the gates
were shut, doth fully assure them both of his resurrection, and also of their
Apostleship, inspiring them with the holy Ghost, who is the director of the
ministry of the Gospel.” The Geneva Bible and a KJV edition printed in 1672
have the following note at 1 Corinthians 14:32: “The doctrine which the
prophets bring, which are inspired with God’s Spirit.” At 1 Corinthians 14:2,
the same two Bibles has a note that begins as follows:“By that inspiration
which he has receivedof the Spirit.”
John Wycliffe is cited and translated as writing that “the apostles were
inspired by the Holy Spirit” (Levy, John Wyclif, p. 211). StephenWestcott’s
modern-spelling edition of the 1388 Wycliffe New Testamenthas the following
rendering of 2 Peter1:21: “for prophecy was not brought at any time by
man’s will, but the holy men of God, inspired with the Holy Ghost, spoke it.“
Miles Coverdale’s rendering of the Latin Vulgate in his 1538 EnglishNew
Testamentat 2 Peter1:21 is the following:“Forthe prophecy was never
brought by the will of man, but the holy men of God spake as they were
inspired by the holy Ghost.”
In the preface of the 1568 Bishops’Bible, Matthew Parkermaintained that
the apostle Paulwas “inspired from God above” and that “he did inspire
Moses”(Richmond, Fathers, VIII, pp. 146, 151). LancelotAndrewes, KJV
translator, used this early English Bible terminology when he preachedthat
Christ "inspireth them [the apostles]with the Holy Ghost" (Ninety-Six
Sermons, Library, V, p. 83). Andrewes statedthat “the Prophet did nothing

137. but as inspired by the Holy Ghost” (Ninety-Six, III, p. 317). Concerning 2
Peter1:19, LancelotAndrewes commented: “the apostle teachethus that we
have the Law from God immediately, and all other scripture by the ministry
of men, but yet as they spake nothing but that which the Spirit of God
commanded them and inspired into them, and therefore that which they
delivered we must hold for a most sure and infallible truth” (Pattern of
CatechisticalDoctrine, p. 46). KJV translator John Overall wrote:“Forwe
hold it resolutely, that whatsoeverthe Apostles did either write, teach, or
command, they wrote, taught, and commanded it as they were inspired and
directed by the Holy Ghost” (ConvocationBook,p. 120). Thomas Bilson, co-
editor of the KJV, wrote:“The prophets were inspired from above”
(Perpetual Government, p. 136).
Tags:None
JDS
Member

138. Join Date:Mar 2010
Posts:8101
#2
11-09-17, 12:31 PM
Originally postedby logos1560View Post
JDS, do you in effectignore or dismiss 2 Peter1:21 in your view of the
inspiration of the Scriptures? Would you suggestthat God did not move on
the prophets and apostles whichwere given the words of God? Does what2
Peter1:21 states relate to the process ofthe giving of the Scriptures by
inspiration to the prophets and apostles?
.
2 Peter1:21 does not teachthat prophets were inspired but that they were
"holy" men. In all cross referenceswhere the subjectis addressedthe
scriptures confirms that the words they spake were the words of God. The
idea of "holy" is that these men were setapart or separatedfor the task of
communicating the words of God and the prophecies of God. Surely we can
comprehend this when we read that God once spoke through a jackass.Does
anyone want to say the jackasswas inspired? We cansay the jackasswas holy.

139. He was the only jackassthatwas ever setapart for the purpose of rebuking a
false prophet.
2 Pet 1:21 For the prophecy ( the powerand coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
V 16) came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The holy men of God spake the words of God to their originalaudiences and
then they wrote them down. Now we have the prophecies and canstudy them
and order our lives according to what has been revealedto us.
Luke 1:68 Blessedbe the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and
redeemedhis people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvationfor us in the
house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets,
which have been since the world began:
Who did the speaking here?
Men are not inspired according to a careful reading of the scriptures. Do not
fall for proving a presupposition by quoting the men who agree with you.
That only makes you as wrong as they are.
The words of Peter in 2 Peter1 was in the contextof the vision of the future
kingdom of Jesus Christ at his secondcoming, the transfiguration See Mark 9.
The people he was addressing primarily were the strangers of Israel. The
strangers are the northern ten tribes of Israel. The basis of this prophecy for
these strangers was the prophecies of Hosea.

140. The context of all scripture must be consideredfirst. Jesus Christ is glorified
at his resurrectionfrom the dead. He is coming againin glory to establish his
kingdom on earth. When he does, it will be establishedaccording to the
pattern that Peterwas referencing. All the prophets wrote about it and almost
all new bible proponents denies it.
The primary focus of 1 Peteris not to address the doctrine of inspiration but
we can sure learn about inspiration from this chapter.
Last edited by JDS;11-09-17, 12:41 PM.
I once askedthis of a Calvinist evangelist;
Is it possible for an electperson ever to die lost and is it possible for a non
electperson ever to be savedand he answered"no" to both questions.
praise_yeshua
Senior Member

141. Join Date:Apr 2017
Posts:4931
#3
11-09-17, 03:43 PM
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
JDS......
Could you explain the difference between"inspiration to speak forGod" and
the "inspiration of the Scriptures"?
Neither are any less the divine "Words of God".
Does anyone want to say the jackasswas inspired?
Sure. I don't have a problem with it. The "words" the jackassspake were not
its own. God canand does use anything He wants for His Glory. After all....
He is fully Sovereign".

142. logos1560
Senior Member
Join Date:May 2011
Posts:15183
#4
11-09-17, 04:38 PM

143. Originally postedby JDS View Post
Men are not inspired according to a careful reading of the scriptures.
That is your opinion. You are not an infallible, perfect readerand interpreter.
Perhaps your own reading of the Scriptures is not that careful, not that
objective, not that consistent, and not that convincing since you read one
English translation [the KJV] with your preconceived, unproven, subjective
KJV-only opinions in view. Perhaps you have fallen for preconceivedKJV-
only presuppositions or assumptions that cause you to interpret the Scriptures
in light of your own human, subjective, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning.
You ignore the understanding of those who have read carefully the original
language Scriptures and translatedthem into English before 1611. Youdo not
carefully read the Scriptures in English in the pre-1611 EnglishBibles. The
English translators of the Scriptures into English before 1611 did not come to
your KJV-only opinions or assertions.
Your KJV-only reasoning in effect trusts the understanding of the Scriptures
of the KJV translators completelywhen it comes to their translating while
inconsistently you attempt to ignore their understanding of the Scriptures
when it conflicts with your KJV-only assumptions and opinions. Evidently you
assume that you know more than KJV translatorLancelotAndrewes
concerning the Scriptures including concerning 2 Peter 1:19-21.
LancelotAndrewes, a leading KJV translator, used pre-1611 English Bible
terminology when he preachedthat Christ "inspireth them [the apostles]with
the Holy Ghost" (Ninety-Six Sermons, Library, V, p. 83). Andrewes stated

144. that “the Prophet did nothing but as inspired by the Holy Ghost” (Ninety-Six,
III, p. 317).
Concerning 2 Peter1:19, LancelotAndrewes commented: “the apostle
teachethus that we have the Law from God immediately, and all other
scripture by the ministry of men, but yet as they spake nothing but that which
the Spirit of God commanded them and inspired into them, and therefore that
which they delivered we must hold for a most sure and infallible truth”
(Pattern of CatechisticalDoctrine, p. 46).
KJV translator John Overall wrote:“Forwe hold it resolutely, that
whatsoeverthe Apostles did either write, teach, or command, they wrote,
taught, and commanded it as they were inspired and directed by the Holy
Ghost” (ConvocationBook,p. 120).
Thomas Bilson, co-editorof the KJV, wrote:“The prophets were inspired
from above” (PerpetualGovernment, p. 136).
Miles Coverdale’s rendering of the Latin Vulgate in his 1538 EnglishNew
Testamentat 2 Peter1:21 is the following:“Forthe prophecy was never
brought by the will of man, but the holy men of God spake as they were
inspired by the holy Ghost.”
Miles Coverdale, who translated the 1535 Coverdale'sBible, this 1538 English
New Testament, and the 1539 GreatBible and who perhaps assistedin the
making of the 1560 Geneva Bible, could be properly consideredmore of an
authority on Bible translating than you [JDS]are.

145. JDS
Member
Join Date:Mar 2010
Posts:8101
#5
11-10-17, 12:21 PM

146. Originally postedby logos1560View Post
<irelevance snipped>
You ignore the understanding of those who have read carefully the original
language Scriptures and translatedthem into English before 1611. Youdo not
carefully read the Scriptures in English in the pre-1611 EnglishBibles. The
English translators of the Scriptures into English before 1611 did not come to
your KJV-only opinions or assertions.
You seemto be operating under the assumption that someone who can
translate words canbetter understand the mysteries of the word of God.
Where did you getthat idea? That surely is not what the scriptures teach.
What the scriptures teach is that the world by wisdom knew not God.
Understanding God is not relegatedto text books and study of what other men
say. Translationof words does not require a salvation testimony. Translation
ability does not equate to spirituality. This philosophy is one of your errors.
Your KJV-only reasoning in effect trusts the understanding of the Scriptures
of the KJV translators completelywhen it comes to their translating while
inconsistently you attempt to ignore their understanding of the Scriptures
when it conflicts with your KJV-only assumptions and opinions.
This is just rhetoric. It makes no sense. Youclaim these men who translated
the KJV were Calvinists and Anglicans. I am neither. They did not write a
commentary on the scriptures, they translated the scriptures from one
language to another. It is obvious that they did not understand the great
truths of the scriptures or they would be neither Calvinists nor

147. Anglicans..Understanding the deep things of God does not come by education
or translation abilities.
Evidently you assume that you know more than KJV translator Lancelot
Andrewes concerning the Scriptures including concerning 2 Peter1:19-21.
LancelotAndrewes, a leading KJV translator, used pre-1611 English Bible
terminology when he preachedthat Christ "inspireth them [the apostles]with
the Holy Ghost" (Ninety-Six Sermons, Library, V, p. 83). Andrewes stated
that “the Prophet did nothing but as inspired by the Holy Ghost” (Ninety-Six,
III, p. 317).
Was LancelotAndrewes a Calvinist or an Anglican, or both? If yes, are you a
Calvinist and an Anglican? If your answeris no, my next question is, why not.
Maybe your answercanbe that Andrewes is wrong about severalthings.
Concerning 2 Peter1:19, LancelotAndrewes commented: “the apostle
teachethus that we have the Law from God immediately, and all other
scripture by the ministry of men, but yet as they spake nothing but that which
the Spirit of God commanded them and inspired into them, and therefore that
which they delivered we must hold for a most sure and infallible truth”
(Pattern of CatechisticalDoctrine, p. 46).
Do you have any doctrinal conclusions or convictions that you can claim for
your own that have been developedfrom a personal study of the scriptures?

148. KJV translator John Overall wrote:“Forwe hold it resolutely, that
whatsoeverthe Apostles did either write, teach, or command, they wrote,
taught, and commanded it as they were inspired and directed by the Holy
Ghost” (ConvocationBook,p. 120).
Anglicans and Calvinists generallydo not believe the scriptures when they are
rightly divided. Anglicans have a priesthood. I doubt you would try to defend
that. Why would he be an expert on inspiration and totally wrong about a
priesthood for the church? Calvinists are confusedabout every major
doctrine in the scriptures. I know the Holy Ghostdoes not teachwhat these
men say the scriptures teach, don't you? Why are they right about
inspiration? Let's just use a little reasonhere.
Thomas Bilson, co-editorof the KJV, wrote:“The prophets were inspired
from above” (PerpetualGovernment, p. 136).
So what?
Miles Coverdale’s rendering of the Latin Vulgate in his 1538 EnglishNew
Testamentat 2 Peter1:21 is the following:“Forthe prophecy was never
brought by the will of man, but the holy men of God spake as they were
inspired by the holy Ghost.”
He is the only translator who has. Does that make him right and everyone else
wrong?

149. Miles Coverdale, who translated the 1535 Coverdale'sBible, this 1538 English
New Testament, and the 1539 GreatBible and who perhaps assistedin the
making of the 1560 Geneva Bible, could be properly consideredmore of an
authority on Bible translating than you [JDS]are.
It is true that he knows more about translating than I do. I speak no other
language than English. However, the subject is not translating but inspiration
and what the scriptures teaches aboutit.
Last edited by JDS;11-10-17, 12:35 PM.
I once askedthis of a Calvinist evangelist;
Is it possible for an electperson ever to die lost and is it possible for a non
electperson everto be savedand he answered"no" to both questions.
Trucker
Super Member

150. Join Date:Dec 2009
Posts:22710
#6
11-10-17, 02:19 PM
Originally postedby JDS View Post
You seemto be operating under the assumption that someone who can
translate words canbetter understand the mysteries of the word of God.
Where did you getthat idea? That surely is not what the scriptures teach.
What the scriptures teach is that the world by wisdom knew not God.
That philosophy would disqualify Paul since he was one of the wisestand most
highly educated man of his time!
It's amazing the mental gymnastics the KJVOs will exhibit in order to keep
from facing up to one of the most obvious facts known. I.e. the King James
Bible is simply not the standard to which all other translations are to be

151. compared and judged by. The KJVO has worshiped the created[the King
James Bible] rather than the creator.
Joh 8:36 So if the Sonsets you free, you will be free indeed. [NIV]
logos1560
Senior Member
Join Date:May 2011
Posts:15183

152. #7
11-10-17, 10:51 PM
Originally postedby JDS View Post
You seemto be operating under the assumption that someone who can
translate words canbetter understand the mysteries of the word of God.
Where did you getthat idea? That surely is not what the scriptures teach.
What the scriptures teach is that the world by wisdom knew not God.
Understanding God is not relegatedto text books and study of what other men
say. Translationof words does not require a salvation testimony. Translation
ability does not equate to spirituality.
JDS, are you really and seriously suggesting that someone whomyou suggest
can understand correctly[or even perfectly] the meaning of the original-
language words of Scripture in order to translate them into another language
does not really understand what they mean? How can you suggestthatcorrect
understanding of the meaning of the Scriptures in order to translate them
does not mean that the translators really understanding their meaning? Do
your contradictory KJV-only opinions make sense?
Are you possibly suggesting that the Church of England translators of the
KJV did not have to know God and did not have to be saved in order
supposedly to translate the meaning of the original-language Scriptures
correctlyand perfectly?
JDS, you have failed to demonstrate that the Scriptures teachyour personal,
subjective KJV-only opinions. Your non-scriptural KJV-only opinions are not
taught in the Scriptures.

153. Steven Avery
Senior Member
Join Date:Mar 2010
Posts:9149
#8
11-11-17, 03:29 AM

154. Originally postedby logos1560 View Post
LancelotAndrewes, a leading KJV translator, used pre-1611 English Bible
terminology when he preachedthat Christ "inspireth them [the apostles]with
the Holy Ghost" (Ninety-Six Sermons, Library, V, p. 83).
The context was this verse:
John 20:22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them,
and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
The context is authorizing, enabling, inaugurating and inspiring them for the
ministry.
Ninety-Six Sermons,
LancelotAndrewes
https://books.google.com/books?id=OpFGAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA83
Which makes it pretty far removed from the question of whether the
inspiration of scripture is inspiration of the men who write, or of the words.
Quote-snipping, without contextand url, is a very deficient methodology,
especiallywhen used for an agenda rather than scholarship.

155. Steven
JDS
Member
Join Date:Mar 2010
Posts:8101
#9

156. 11-11-17, 08:45 AM
Originally postedby logos1560View Post
JDS, are you really and seriouslysuggesting that someone whomyou suggest
can understand correctly[or even perfectly] the meaning of the original-
language words of Scripture in order to translate them into another language
does not really understand what they mean?
Convolute much? You have problems with the words of the KJV. If you
believe Andrewes had a perfect understanding of the words, why don't you
acceptthe KJV as perfect? Why don't you stand doctrinally where Andrewes
stands? The doctrines of the scriptures are conveyedthrough a consistentuse
of words and must be studied over the whole bible. No doctrine is given in one
comprehensive whole in one place in the scriptures. So, it is possible to
understand the words and yet not understand sound doctrine.
But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon
precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they
might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Isa 28:13
(Qouted from a corrupted KJV on the internet - bible gateway)
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon
precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they
might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Isa 28:3
(Quoted from a true KJV bible on the internet)
Words are important. Do you see the difference betweenthe two quotes?
Andrewes knew the difference.

157. How can you suggestthat correctunderstanding of the meaning of the
Scriptures in order to translate them does not mean that the translators really
understanding their meaning?
I don't make that claim. I make just the opposite. The KJV translators do
understand the words. However, it did not lead them into sound doctrine.
Why? Because understanding individual words is not the means to knowing
the deep things of God. There is a Spiritual elementto the revelation of God.
This is explained in 1 Cor 1-3.
Do your contradictoryKJV-only opinions make sense?
Some of the things I say are opinion basedon my study but other things I say
are facts that I prove from the scriptures in context. This is something you
never do. You quote every scholaryou can find who supports your position,
some of them raving heretics.
Are you possibly suggesting that the Church of England translators of the
KJV did not have to know God and did not have to be saved in order
supposedly to translate the meaning of the original-language Scriptures
correctlyand perfectly?

158. Yes, that is what I am saying if what has been reported by people on this
forum about the theologyand perverted practice and life style of some of these
men is true. Sound doctrine aspresentedin the KJV does not provide for a
church priesthoodof Anglicans or an infused faith that is taught by Calvinists.
You know that because you have saidyou believe neither of those things.
JDS, you have failed to demonstrate that the Scriptures teachyour personal,
subjective KJV-only opinions. Your non-scriptural KJV-only opinions are not
taught in the Scriptures.
I have proven the scriptures cannotbe handled in the manner you handle
them.
I once askedthis of a Calvinist evangelist;
Is it possible for an electperson ever to die lost and is it possible for a non
electperson everto be savedand he answered"no" to both questions.
logos1560
Senior Member

159. Join Date:May 2011
Posts:15183
#10
11-11-17, 09:41 AM
Originally postedby StevenAvery View Post
Quote-snipping, without contextand url, is a very deficient methodology,
especiallywhen used for an agenda rather than scholarship.
KJV-only posters have their subjective KJV-only agenda with their deficient
KJV-only methodology, and both do not involve serious, sound scholarship.
There is no serious, sound, or in-context scriptural scholarshipthat backs a
modern, man-made KJV-only agenda.

160. JDS
Member
Join Date:Mar 2010
Posts:8101
#11

161. 11-11-17, 11:59 AM
Originally postedby TruckerView Post
That philosophy would disqualify Paul since he was one of the wisestand most
highly educated man of his time!
It's amazing the mental gymnastics the KJVOs will exhibit in order to keep
from facing up to one of the most obvious facts known. I.e. the King James
Bible is simply not the standard to which all other translations are to be
compared and judged by. The KJVO has worshiped the created[the King
James Bible] rather than the creator.
The apostle Pauldid not ever exalt his education but down played it.
1 Cor 2:2 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellencyof
speechor of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and
him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, andin fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speechand my preaching was not with enticing words of man's
wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

162. 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the powerof
God.
Phil 3:2 Beware ofdogs, beware of evil workers, beware ofthe concision.
3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in
Christ Jesus, andhave no confidence in the flesh.
4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh
that he hath whereofhe might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcisedthe eighth day, of the stock ofIsrael, of the tribe of Benjamin,
an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which
is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellencyof the
knowledge ofChrist Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all
things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
I don't think you are on the same page with Paul.

163. Paul had the NT church truths revealedto him. He did not learn them. Here is
proof.
Eph 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christfor you Gentiles,
2 If ye have heard of the dispensationof the grace ofGod which is given me to
you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote
afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of
Christ)
5 Which in other ages was notmade knownunto the sons of men, as it is now
revealedunto his holy apostles andprophets by the Spirit;
No one can learn these truths unless the Spirit teaches them. I know this to be
true for two reasons. 1)The scriptures plainly sayit, and 2) I discuss with
people every day who can read these things and draw opposite conclusions
from what they actually say. These are the same people who wants scoresof
copies of the bibles in different words and do not realize their confusionis
magnified by the factorof the number of their translations.

164. We must have the words to know the truth whether you like it or not. I hope
you will reevaluate your theology.
I once askedthis of a Calvinist evangelist;
Is it possible for an electperson ever to die lost and is it possible for a non
electperson everto be savedand he answered"no" to both questions.
Trucker
Super Member
Join Date:Dec 2009

165. Posts:22710
#12
11-11-17, 01:15 PM
Originally postedby JDS View Post
Originally postedby TruckerView Post
That philosophy would disqualify Paul since he was one of the wisestand most
highly educated man of his time!
It's amazing the mental gymnastics the KJVOs will exhibit in order to keep
from facing up to one of the most obvious facts known. I.e. the King James
Bible is simply not the standard to which all other translations are to be
compared and judged by. The KJVO has worshiped the created[the King
James Bible] rather than the creator.
The apostle Pauldid not ever exalt his education but down played it.
That doesn't change the fact that Paul was, in fact, one of the most educated
men in Jewishsociety. And it shows in his writings.
We would not have the KJV had it not been for well educatedmen. To rant
againsteducationis to revealignorance.
Joh 8:36 So if the Sonsets you free, you will be free indeed. [NIV]

166. logos1560
Senior Member
Join Date:May 2011
Posts:15183
#13
11-11-17, 05:39 PM

167. Originally postedby JDS View Post
. These are the same people who wants scores ofcopies ofthe bibles in
different words and do not realize their confusionis magnified by the factorof
the number of their translations.
Where are your direct quotations of posters here who assertwhatyou
suggest?Which posterasserts that he wants "scoresofthe Bibles in different
words"?
Perhaps those posters may merely want around the same number of varying
English translations that were available around the time of the making of the
KJV [around a dozen or less]. The makers of the KJV likely made use of over
a score ofvarying textual sources andtranslations in various languages.
Would you condemn the Church of England makers of the KJV because they
used and consulteda multiple of textually-varying and translationally-varying
sources ordoes your allegationdepend upon use of unscriptural, unjust
measures [double standards]?
JDS, according to a consistentapplication of your own inconsistentargument,
there would have been no need for the introduction of another English
translation in different words in 1611 since it only magnified the number of
differences in the EnglishBible in that day. The Bible had been translated into
English years before 1611.
Steven Avery
Senior Member
Originally postedby logos1560View Post

168. KJV-only posters have their subjective KJV-only agenda with their deficient
KJV-only methodology, and both do not involve serious, sound scholarship.
There is no serious, sound, or in-context scriptural scholarshipthat backs a
modern, man-made KJV-only agenda.
Meaningless blah-blah meant to simply evade and divert from the huge
problems of the quotes-snipping methodology.
1 like
logos1560
Senior Member
Join Date:May 2011
Posts:15183

169. #15
11-11-17, 10:30 PM
Readers ofthis forum can easilysee that it is KJV-only posters who evade and
divert from the huge problems with inconsistent, human, non-scriptural KJV-
only reasoning.
KJV-only posters throw out their bogus allegations likelyto avoid any attempt
to present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, or scriptural case for a
modern KJV-only view or to prove their own claims for the KJV.
Report this ad
The Epistle of James gives some more insight into this differentiation. Here,
James discussesthe soul of the believer.
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive
with meekness the engraftedword, which is able to save your souls. But be ye
doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. Forif any
be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his
natural face in a glass:For he beholdeth himself, and goethhis way, and
straightwayforgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso lookethinto
the perfectlaw of liberty, and continueth [therein], he being not a forgetful
hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessedin his deed. If any
man among you seemto be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but
deceivethhis own heart, this man’s religion [is] vain. Pure religion and
undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows
in their affliction, [and] to keephimself unspotted from the world.
In his discussion, he tells believers that if they want to gettheir soul (mind)
saved, they must be a doer of the Word, not just a hearer only. Paul, also
writing to believers said, “I beseechyou therefore, brethren, by the mercies of

170. God, that ye present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto
God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world:
but be ye transformed by the RENEWINGofyour MIND, that ye may prove
what is that good, and acceptable,and perfectwill of God” (Romans 12:1-2).
Both of these men said the same thing. Paul said to be “transformed by the
renewing of your mind,” and James saidto “receive with meekness the
engraftedword, which is able to save your souls.” Bothapostles were talking
about renewing, restoring, and saving the mind or soul.
But it doesn’t stopthere. Psalm 23:3 also says, “He restorethmy soul…”. It
doesn’t say, “He restores my spirit”. What is restoration? Restorationis
taking what we already have and redoing it. Now don’t getconfused.
Restoring and renewing mean the same. That’s right, the Hebrew word
translated “restore” means identically the same thing as the Greek wordfor
“renew”. As believers who have become new creatures in Christ Jesus, we are
spiritually saved, thereby receiving eternallife. As we receive the engrafted
Word, our spirits will renew, restore, and save our mind or soul. This is not
something God does for us, but something believers must do for themselves.
How? Through the Word.
Why is it so essentialthatthe mind be renewed? If our spirits are not
renewed, than it does not possessthe powerto transform the part of us that
does the thinking and ultimately the acting or bringing about of a think
because we have allowedthe mind to be educatedthrough the body and the
physical senses,insteadof through the influence of God’s Holy Spirit. By
doing so, our mind will side with the body againstthe spirit thereby keeping
us a baby Christian. What does it mean to be a baby Christian? Baby or
Immature Christians are carnalor body ruled. Paul told the Corinthians, “for
ye are yet carnal…” (1 Corinthians 3:3). Another word, their bodies through
their unrenewed minds were ruling their spirits, even though they were saved
and became new creatures in Christ. They never allowedthemselves to be
developed spiritually.
The worse part of this whole thing is many Christians live and die as spiritual
babies. The faith life is always obscure to them. They never understand faith
and therefore cannot fully walk in the promises and blessings ofGod. Have

171. you ever seena Christian who lives in the flesh? Have you watchedthem ride
the roller coasteroflife, living in unbelief and always engaging in warfare.
Everyday is a battle for them because theirminds never have been renewed
with the Word of God. Though they understand the Words they read, they
never truly experience the victory of Jesus, theynever fully understand to
know they have won the battle. They really don’t know the devil is a defeated
foe. They still are trying to fight him in their own power, fighting until they
are totally exhausted and depleted.
When your mind has been renewedwith the Word of God, the spirit through
the renewedmind can controlthe body. The soul (mind) will then take sides
with the spirit because it knows the Word. Through that knowledge, man’s
mind (soul) is renewed. Renewing our minds allows God’s Spirit to influence
our spirit, we are foreverchangedspiritually.
The Holy Spirit: Author of Scripture
Resource by John Piper
Scripture: 2 Peter1:20–21 Topic:Inspiration & Inerrancy of the Bible
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter
of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of
man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
On June 27, 1819, Adoniram Judson baptized his first convert in Burma. His
wife, Ann Hasseltine, describedhow Moung Nau had responded to the
Scripture: "A few days ago I was reading with him Christ's Sermon on the
Mount. He was deeply impressed and unusually solemn. 'These words,'said
he, 'take hold on my liver; they make me tremble.'" God spoke through Isaiah

172. the prophet 2,700 years agoand said, "This is the man to whom I will look, he
that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word . . . Hear the
word of the Lord, you who tremble at his word" (Isaiah 66:2, 5).
The Bible's Impact in History
For two thousand years the Bible has been taking hold of people's lives and
making them tremble—first with fearbecause it reveals our sin, then with
faith because it reveals God's grace. A single verse, Romans 13:13, convicted
and convertedthe immoral Augustine. For Martin Luther, a miserable monk,
the light broke in through Romans 1:17. He said,
Night and day I pondered until I saw the connectionbetweenthe justice of
God and the statement that "the just shall live by his faith." Then I grasped
that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer
mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and
to have gone through open doors into paradise. (Here I Stand, p. 49)
For JonathanEdwards it was 1 Timothy 1:17. He says,
The first instance, that I remember, of that sort of inward, sweetdelight in
God and divine things, that I have lived much in since, was on reading these
words, 1 Tim. 1:17, "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only
wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen." As I read the words,
there came into my soul. . . a sense ofthe glory of the Divine Being; a new
sense quite different from anything I ever experiencedbefore. Neverany
words of Scripture seemedto me as these words did. (Works, vol. 1, p. xii)
From century to century, from Egypt to Germany to New England, the Bible
has been drawing people to Christ and making them new.
The Bible as the Word of Man and the Word of God
Why? Why has the Bible had this abiding relevance and power? I believe the
answeris found in our text. 2 Peter1:20–21, "Firstofall you must understand

173. this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the
Holy Spirit spoke from God." This passageteaches thatwhen you read
Scripture, what you are reading does not merely come from a man but also
from God. The Bible is the writing of many different men. But it is also far
more than that. Yes, men spoke. Theyspoke with their own language and
style. But Peter mentions two other dimensions of their speaking.
Speaking from God, Moved by the Holy Spirit
First, they spoke from God. What they have to say is not merely from their
own limited perspective. Theyare not the origin of the truth they speak;they
are the channel. The truth is God's truth. Their meaning is God's meaning.
Second, not only is what they spoke from God, but how they spoke it is
controlled by the Holy Spirit. "Men, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from
God." God did not simply revealtruth to the writers of Scripture and then
depart in hopes that they might communicate it accurately. Petersays that in
the very communicating of it they were carried by the Holy Spirit. The
making of the Bible was not left to merely human skills of communication; the
Holy Spirit himself carried the process to completion.
One recentbook by three former teachers ofmine (LaSor, Hubbard, and
Bush, Old TestamentSurvey, p. 15) puts it like this,
To assure verbal precision God, in communicating his revelation, must be
verbally precise, and inspiration must extend to the very words. This does not
mean that God dictated every word. Rather his Spirit so pervaded the mind of
the human writer that he chose out of his own vocabulary and experience
preciselythose words, thoughts and expressions that conveyed God's message
with precision. In this sense the words of the human authors of Scripture can
be viewed as the word of God.
Not Just Prophecy, but All Scripture
Someone might saythat 2 Peter1:20–21 only has to do with prophecy not with
all Old TestamentScripture. But look carefully how he argues. In verse 19
Petersays that a prophetic word has been made more sure to him by his

174. experience with Jesus onthe mount of transfiguration. Then in verses 20–21
he undergirds the authority of this prophetic word by saying it is part of
Scripture. Verse 20: "No prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own
interpretation." Peteris not saying that only prophetic parts of Scripture are
inspired by God. He is saying, We know the prophetic word is inspired
preciselybecause it is a "prophecy of Scripture." Peter's assumptionis that
whateverstands in Scripture is from God, written by men who were carried
along by the Holy Spirit.
His teaching is the same as Paul's in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is inspired
by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for
training in righteousness."None ofthe Old TestamentScriptures came by the
impulse of man. All of it is truth from God as men moved by the Holy Spirit
spoke from God.
What About the New TestamentWritings?
But what about the New Testament? Didthe apostles and their close
associates(Mark, Luke, James, Jude, and the writer to the Hebrews)
experience divine inspiration as they wrote? Were they "carried" by the Holy
Spirit to speak from God? The Christian church has always answeredyes.
Jesus saidto his apostles in John 16:12–13,"Ihave yet many things to sayto
you but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will
guide you into all truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but
whateverhe hears he will speak, and he will declare to you things that are to
come."
Then the apostle Paulconfirms this when he says of his ownapostolic teaching
in 1 Corinthians 2:12–13, "We have receivednot the spirit of the world, but
the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowedon
us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but
taught by the Spirit." In 2 Corinthians 13:3 he saidthat Christ speaks in him.
And in Galatians 1:12 he said, "I did not receive [my gospel]from man nor
was I taught it, but it came through a revelationof Jesus Christ." If we take
Paul as our model for what it meant to be an apostle of Christ, then it would
be fair to say that the New Testamentas well as the Old is not merely from

175. man but also from God. The writers of the Old Testamentand New
Testamentspoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit Is the Divine Author of Scripture
The doctrine that emerges is this: The Holy Spirit is the divine author of all
Scripture. If this doctrine is true, then the implications are so profound and
far-reaching that every part of our lives should be affected. I want to talk
about those implications this morning. But for our own strengthening and for
those still wavering on the outskirts of commitment let me first sketchout the
basis of our persuasion.
Coming to a Reasonable Faithin Scripture
Mostpeople come to a reasonable trust in the Bible as God's word something
like this. It happens in three stages.
1. We Are Guilty Before God
First, the testimony of our own conscience,the reality of God behind nature,
and the message ofScripture come togetherin our hearts to give us the
inescapable convictionthat we are guilty before our Creator. This is a
reasonable convictionbecause the persuasionthat there is a Creatorabove
this world and the persuasionthat we are guilty for not honoring and
thanking him as we ought are not irrational leaps in the dark; they are forced
upon us by our experience and our honestthinking about the world.
2. Jesus Wins Our Confidence
The secondstepon the way to a reasonable persuasionthat the Bible is God's
word is that Jesus Christ is shown to us. Someone reads or tells us the story of
this incomparable man who talked and acted like so much more than a man.
We see the authority he claimed to forgive sin and command demons and
control nature, we see the purity of his moral teaching, his utter surrender to
the will of God, his brilliant calm under cross-examination, his righteous fury
againsthypocrites, his tenderness towardlittle children, his patience with the
humble seekers, his innocent submission to torture, and we hear from his lips

176. the sweetest, most-neededwords ever spoken:"I have come to give my life as
a ransom for many."
And so by the self-authenticating force of his incomparable characterand
powerJesus wins our confidence and our trust and we take him as Savior
from our sin and Lord of our life. And this is not an irrational persuasion. It's
the wayall of you go about making reasonable decisions aboutwhom you will
trust in life. Will you trust this babysitter with your children, or this lawyer to
give you goodcounsel, orthis friend to keepyour secret? Youlook, you listen,
and eventually you are persuaded(or not) that here in this person is solid
ground for your confidence.
3. We Follow the Teaching and Spirit of Jesus
Once the characterand powerof Jesus have captured our trust, then he
becomes the guide and authority for all our future decisions and persuasions.
So the third step on the way to a reasonable persuasionthat the Bible is God's
word is to let the teaching and the spirit of Jesus controlhow we assessthe
Bible. This happens in at leasttwo ways. One is that we acceptwhat Jesus
teaches aboutthe Old and New Testaments. Whenhe says that Scripture can't
be broken (John 10:35) and that not an iota or dot will pass from the law till
all is accomplished(Matthew 5:18), we agree with him and base our
confidence in the Old Testamenton his reliability. And when he chose twelve
apostles to found his church, gives them his authority to teach, and promises
to send his Spirit to guide them into truth, we agree with him and credit the
writings of these men with the authority of Christ.
The other way the teaching and spirit of Jesus controlour assessmentofthe
Bible is that we recognize in the teachings ofthe Bible the many-coloredrays
of light refractedout from the prism of Christ whom we have come to trust.
And just as Christ enabled us to make sense out of our relation to God and
bring harmony to it, so also the many rays of his truth in every part of the
Bible enable us to make sense outof hundreds of our experiences in life and
see the way to harmony. Our confidence in Scripture grows as we realize that
Jesus affirmed it and as we realize that its teachings are as incomparable as
Jesus himself. Time after time they help us make sense out of life's puzzles:

177. failing marriages, rebellious children, drug addiction, warring nations, the
return of leaves in spring, the insatiable longings of our hearts, the fear of
death, the coming into being of children, the universality of praise and blame,
the prevalence of pride, and the admiration of self-denial. The Bible confirms
its divine origin againand againas it makes sense outof our experience in the
real world and points the way to harmony.
I hope, therefore, that one of the doctrines which we cherish at Bethlehem
enough to die for it (and live for it!) is that the Holy Spirit is the divine author
of all Scripture. The Bible is God's word, not merely man's word.
Implications for All of Life
O, that we had all day to talk about the wonderful implications of this
doctrine! The Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture. Therefore, it is true
(Psalm 119:142)and altogetherreliable (Hebrews 6:18). It is powerful,
working its purpose in our hearts (1 Thessalonians 2:13)and not returning
empty to the One who sent it (Isaiah 55:10–11). It is pure, like silver refined in
a furnace seventimes (Psalm 12:6). It is sanctifying (John 17:17). It gives life
(Psalm 119:37, 50, 93, 107;John 6:63; Matthew 4:4). It makes wise (Psalm
19:7; 119:99–100). It gives joy (Psalm19:8; 119:16, 92, 111,143, 174)and
promises greatreward (Psalm 19:11). It gives strength to the weak (Psalm
119:28)and comfortto the distraught (Psalm 119:76)and guidance to the
perplexed (Psalm119:105)and salvationto the lost (Psalm119:155;2
Timothy 3:15). The wisdom of God in Scripture is inexhaustible.
How precious to me are thy thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
If I would count them, they are more than the sand.
Where does the belief the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit come from?

178. Ask Question
7
2
My pastormentioned the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit, through man.
Where does this conceptcome from (rather than just written by wise or
experiencedmen)?
Other than direct references to Jesus, how do we know the rest is not just
man's ideas and are indeed Godinspired or "written"?
Is there a chapter in the Bible that states this or is it tradition?
biblical-basis bible authorship inspiration
share
improve this question
edited Jul 19 '16 at 22:46
curiousdannii
10.4k73579
askedJul 15 '12 at 0:54
Greg McNulty
1,657103867

179. add a comment
1 Answer
active
oldest
votes
9
Greatquestion!
The short answeris that Paul made a generalstatementto this effect:
All Scripture is inspired by God -2 Timothy 3:16
The phrase "inspired by God" is literally translatedas "God-breathed". So
the Bible is not merely a collectionof wise men's writings, but is actually
authored by God, through men, by the Spirit.
Now, on to more specific examples.
Prophecy
no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no
prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy
Spirit spoke from God. -2 Peter1:20-21
Clearly prophecy is the work of the Holy Spirit. (Also see Jeremiah1:1-9, 2
Samuel 23:2, Acts 3:18, and Hebrews 10:15-17.)
However, many people teachthat "not all Scripture is prophecy", and they
use the division of "Law, Psalms, and Prophets" to signify the three chunks of
the Old Testament.

180. Psalms
“Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretoldby
the mouth of David..." -Acts 1:16
“Forit is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homesteadbe made desolate,
and let no one dwell in it’; and, ‘Let another man take his office.’ -Acts 1:20
The two passagesbeing quoted in verse 20 are Psalms 69:25 and Psalms 109:8.
Although these were "Psalms", clearlythey were prophetic utterances by the
Holy Spirit, which "had to be fulfilled."
The Psalms were the work of the Holy Spirit, and could also be considered
"prophecy." (See also Matthew 22:41-44.)
Law
We all know that the 10 Commandments were written by the very finger of
God, but what about the rest of the Law?
Acts 3:22 and Acts 7:37 show that Moses, the writer of the Law, was also a
Prophet!
We have a nice exposition of some "Law" stuff in Hebrews which shows
clearly that the things written in the Law also carriedthe intent of the Holy
Spirit:
Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually
entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship, but into the
second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood,
which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in
ignorance. The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place
has not yet been disclosedwhile the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is
a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are
offered which cannot make the worshiperperfect in conscience, since they
relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations forthe body
imposed until a time of reformation. -Hebrews 9:6-10
Gospels

181. All of Jesus words and His actions were authored by God, and Spirit-led. But
what about the records of them?
“These things I have spokento you while abiding with you. But the Helper,
the Holy Spirit, whom the Fatherwill send in My name, He will teachyou all
things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. -John 14:25-26
So yes, the Gospels are also Spirit-written.
Epistles
2 Peter3:14-16 shows that the epistles are also part of Scripture.
Clearly given the event of Acts 2, explanations of the Spirit's ministry through
us (1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12, Ephesians 4, etc.), and constantclaims such
as the following, it can be safelyassumedthat the New TestamentScriptures
were also Spirit-written.
If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things
which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. -1 Corinthians 14:37
Summary
All Scripture is authored by God via the Holy Spirit. A case canalso be made
that all Scripture is prophecy, which makes it even more clearthat the Spirit
was the instrument of God for authoring Scripture. Beyond the generic
statements, we have a number of specific examples which support this
doctrine. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/