Quote:
Originally Posted by cityonahill
I really like the discussion on this thread...In taking a closer look at Paul's influence on church practices...By assuming that Paul was in error regarding something written in the New Testament, the very doctrine of "inspiration" is at stake! I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. But what does that mean? Does that mean everything the NT authors wrote must be perfect and without error? I don't think so...
My two cents:
Paul was like us...Paul was a man of God. Like us, he walked the line between divine revelation, ecclesiastical experience, tradition, and so forth.
|
I wouldn't go so far as to ascribe "error" to the writers. I would merely say that what they said and did is still open to interpretation.
I will give 3 reasons. First, they obviously didn't know what was going on at the start. Look at Peter, look at the 12, look at the two disciples walking on the road to Emmaus at the end of Luke (...but we thought..."), look at Apollos and others, who had some revelation but clearly not the complete revelation. At which point did they get clear, if at all? When they sat down to write? This smacks of the OT, where the Spirit would fall on an otherwise dumb vessel (see Saul when he prophesied, etc), and then depart. In the NT Paul could say, "I say this, not Jehovah; yet I have the Spirit of God". My point is that there was a progressive revelation going on even as the testimony was being laid to paper.
Second, the writers of the Bible obviously had interpretational differences with each other. Peter, James, Paul, and John all had different views which were aired in discussions and via comments made in the record ("Because not even His brothers believed into Him" in John chapter 7 is a rather pointed remark, if you ask me, and is inserted not without purpose). Paul versus Peter over the Jamesians arriving in Galatians chapter 2 is another classic example. Then Peter saying "Paul is sometimes hard to understand" is another example. Peter recommended Paul, but didn't get where he was coming from, at least in part. Yet they both share the divine testimony.
Lastly, we have Jesus. "Whose Son is the Christ's?" "David's son." "Okay, then why does David in spirit call Him Lord, saying..."
Jesus was pointing out a seeming contradiction, a contradistinction, a contrast in the scriptures. Was this an error? No, it was merely different aspects of one reality being manifested in different viewpoints in the divine record. See Paul's explanation in Romans chapter 1 for these 2 aspects ("concerning His Son...out of David acc. to flesh...designated Son of God in powere in the resurrection...etc").
My point is that there are lots of places where stuff doesn't seem to fit. We can and I think should question it. This includes the experiences of the NT believers, including Paul. I think we do these people's labor a great disservice if we put it on some untouchable, unquestionable pedestal. The Lord has not yet manifested Himself fully to us. Let us therefore go on. Questioning and challenging scriptures is not impious. Jesus did it, and so can we.