Paul, I’d agree with your argument if we were discussing Gal 5:12, but in this case, Paul points out that he is living the life he advocates.

Rayner (30): “So the issue for this discussion is whether Paul’s wish is inspired and authoritative, or is just wishful thinking.”

Given what we know of Paul’s intellect, I’ve always regarded that statement as hyperbole. He has a passion for the spread of the gospel; sees that a maximum impact can be made by people who are not distracted by family life; and then says he wishes [for the sake of the gospel] that everyone could be that focused.

So the question the becomes one concerning the inspiration of the parts of the Bible where wordplay or hyperbole are used. Personally, I just find “error” to be too strong a description.

Lisa, thank you, that is a clear answer to my question.

For now, I’ll stick with dynamic inspiration, as I still see no difference between VPI and dictation. And I’m getting tired of thinking about it, so I think I’ll move on for now.

We did accomplish this – it’s possible that Paul may be expressing his own opinion, but (and I don’t really know what this means)that expression is still inspired.

I do agree with Lisa that it’s important that we teach the concept of inspiration (whichever flavor we favor). It is what sets the Bible above any other religious writings.

Most people are gong to be ‘distracted’ by the opposite sex whether they are married or single. That’s the way God made nature and His original command in Genesis verbalizes nature. Paul’s wishing that all men remain unmarried is clearly contrary to God’s wish, and I’d bet that not one of us here would share Paul’s wish for everyone in the whole wide world. Paul is an unusual individual who is projecting his individual wish onto all. So the issue for this discussion is whether Paul’s wish is inspired and authoritative, or is just wishful thinking. It seems to be the latter, and I see that as a definite benefit for us. It shows that Paul is capable of error, as everyone else is, even though he thought he had ‘the mind of the Lord.’ What kind of inspiration is involved in the passage is irrelevant. Other Bible writers held erroneous beliefs too. No one is right about everything.

Is it just me or is it becoming painfully obvious that the reason that evangelicals don’t teach the process of inspiration is that we don’t have a coherent doctrine to communicate? Their seems to be a consensus that verbal plenary inspiration does not mean dictation but no clear idea of what it does mean. Like wise the distinction between an inspired text and an inspired author seem arbitrary to me. This conversation has me pulling my hair out!

Peace
Steve in Toronto

Dave, I will restate what I have said to you previously in that other thread. I really think you are not understanding the difference between mechanical and verbal plenary. Mechanical is a word for word dictation. That would contradict the fact that Scripture is God breathed and that non-truths are recorded in the Bible. Verbal plenary is the act by which the Spirit moves to influence the what is said that allows for the author’s personality, writing style and in the case of 1 Cor 7, opinions to shine forth. But in a way so that every word is inspired. That is different than a word for word dictation and I also believe that holds a bit of mystery to fully comprehend it. Kind of like the incarnation.

In terms of Paul’s statements in vs 1-7, The whole of Paul’s argument is undistracted devotion to the Lord (vs. 35). He is not indicating that singleness is better but that a single-minded focus is better. Married folks have split attention but that is not the case with single folks, unless of course they don’t have the gift to remain that way and burn with passion. Then, they should get married. So he is saying, if you can handle it, don’t have your attention divided. If you can’t, then marry.

I don’t see what he is saying at all contridictory to God’s statements. If that’s the case, you could say that about James in relation to Paul’s writing. They are coming at faith from a different angle but in the end talking about the same thing.

Lisa, two points.

If we say that every word has to be of the Lord, then that ascribes to a mechanical dictation theory.

And that is EXACTLY what verbal plenary inspiration demands. God determines each and every word – verbal. Then VPI advocates say it is not dictation. I don’t buy it. You can’t have it both ways. Choose one or the other.

BTW, I have no problem with inspiration. I believe the Bible is inspired, but I hold to what some call dynamic inspiration, where the writers write as God fills them, but it is the human writer who writes, choosing the words that express, to the best of his ability, the concepts God imparts, as God oversees to ensure accuracy. That is the only way to be true to a combined divine/human perspective on scripture.

I know Geisler/Nix, Grudem, Erickson and many other respected theologians disagree, but I cannot see the difference between VPI and dictation. If you insist on verbal – God determines the actual words, then that is dictation.

OK that’s one point. Here’s the other. You have still not addressed the verses I keep bringing up. I’m referring to the first seven verses of 1 Cor 7. You keep mentioning Paul quoting Jesus. Fine, but that doesn’t happen until verse 10 where Paul starts addressing divorce. Your arguments do not apply to the verses prior to that.

So, again… is Paul expressing his own opinion that singleness is better than marriage?

His opinion, however, was inspired.” (Nix and Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible, pg 97)

What exactly does that mean? As I see it, Paul’s opinion directly contradicts God’s statement in Genesis that it is NOT good for the man to be alone.

So is it Paul’s opinion that singleness is better than marriage, and if so, is that opinion authoritative, and if so, what are the implications for us? And if it is not authoritative, what are the implications of that?

Rayner, I specifically indicated in my footnote, that I believe it is the text that is inspired and not the agent. But that does not negate that fact the agent is utilized to transmit the text. Apparently, as Dr. Pache indicates, there was latitude given in the inspiration process to allow for a recording of opinions and even, lies. But it does not make the text uninspired.

Additionally, Paul is giving his opinion as contrasted with direct commands of Jesus concerning marriage. When he says, not of the Lord, it does mean that he is suddenly unmoved by the Spirit, so he can express himself. His words are all under the purview of the Spirit’s guidance.

Nix and Geisler also support this,

“It is argued that Paul is giving his own opinion and not an authoritative pronouncement. However, it should be observed that Paul probably meant merely to say that Jesus said nothing explicitly about the subject at hand during His earthly ministry. Hence, Paul had to say ‘I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion (7:25). His opinion, however, was inspired.” (Nix and Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible, pg 97)

Lisa: ‘I think you are confusing the inspiration of Scripture with the inspiration of the agent. It is Scripture that is inspired because God breathed it out but did so allowing a freedom of expression of the agent.’

You’re saying that God breathed scripture out. What does it mean for God to ‘breathe out’ Paul’s opinion? It seems to me either it’s Paul’s opinion or it isn’t. Do you mean simply that the Spirit gives Paul permission to state his opinion? If so, Paul doesn’t realize this because he says it is not a command of the Lord. We are making the text say something.

Dave, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I really do think we need to start with divine communication and how that is conveyed, which 2 Peter 1:21 indicates is through the holy men authorized to carry out this transmission. If we say that every word has to be of the Lord, then that ascribes to a mechanical dictation theory. But as Jugulum pointed out in comment #20, the text is inspired because the agents were moved by the Spirit so that every word is considered Scripture. That means, regardless of whether it is an opinion or not, it is still divinely sourced.

The reason that we have red letters in our Bibles is because those of the liberal branch of theology made this unnecessary and false distinction that some words are inspired, namely those of Jesus, and some are not. (Too lazy right now to look up specific advocates, but will get back to you on that for further research). But inspiration extends equally to all Scripture, otherwise it is not Scripture.

Here is what Rene Pache says about the objections concerning citing Paul’s opinion as uninspired texts:

“There is no doubt but that he [Paul] knew himself to be fully inspired when he dared to say that he knew that some things were the commandment of the Lord. However, he shows here that, although some rules are absolute, in other cases God lets man decide according to his conscience, his circumstances and his particular gift (vs. 6-9,36,39). Paul, out of his great experience and special calling, felt free to offer faithful advice, given also by the Spirit of the Lord (vs. 40). There is nothing false in that which he says, nothing to mar the inerrancy of the text” (Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, pg 133.)