On the topic of the relation in which Scripture stands to revelation, we find the following from Herman Bavinck (under the header “Incarnation, Language, and the Bible”):
The earlier theology almost completely
allowed revelation to coincide with divine inspiration (θεοπνευστια), the gift of Scripture. It only
incidentally referred to revelation and conceived of it much too narrowly. It
seemed as if there was nothing behind Scripture. As a result Scripture came to
stand in complete detachment and isolation and made it seem as if it had suddenly
dropped out of heaven. The mighty conception of revelation as a history that
began at the fall and ends only in the parousia was—at least to scientific
theology—almost totally foreign. This view is untenable. After all, in by the
majority of cases, revelation is antecedent to divine inspiration (θεοπνευστια) and often separated from it for
a long time. The revelation of God to the patriarchs, in the history of Israel,
in the person of Christ was sometimes not described till centuries and years
later, and also the prophets and apostles frequently recorded their revelations
only after their reception (e.g., Jer. 25:13; 30:1; 36:2ff.). In this
connection not everything was recorded that, when it came, did in fact belong
to the circle of revelation (John 20:30; 21:25). In addition there were many
persons, such as Elijah, Elisha, Thomas, and Nathanel, etc., organs of
revelation, who nevertheless never wrote a book that was included in the canon;
others, by contrast, received no revelations and performed no miracles but did
record them in writing, as for example the writers of many historical books. Revelation
further took place in different forms (dream, vision, etc.) and was intended to
make known something that was hidden; θεοπνευστια was
always an interior working of God’s Spirit in and upon the [human]
consciousness and several to guarantee the content of Scripture.
Modern theology therefore rightly made a distinction
between divine revelation and Scripture. (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics,
4 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003], 1:381, emphasis added)
Elsewhere, Bavinck notes that:
All the historical books of the OT
were written by prophetic spirit (1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29; 20:34; etc.).
. . . The historical books are commentary on the facts of God’s covenant with
Israel. They are not history in our sense of the word but prophecy
. . . (Ibid., 393, emphasis added)
The above is significant as if one reads those passages, one finds
a listing of books, said to be “prophecy” that are not in the canon of
the Old Testament, such as "the book of Nathan the prophet (נביא)";
"the book of Gad the seer (חזה)"; "the prophecy (נבואה)
of Ahijah the Shilonite"; "the visions (חזות) of Iddo the seer
(חזה)."
New Testament examples would include, for instance, true
(God-inspired) prophecy, such as the four unmarried daughters of Philip who
"prophesied" in Acts 21:9 (prophecy that was not inscripturated).
I bring this up as it refutes many who take an all-or-nothing approach to “inspiration,” including this cretin (trying to be nice) who thinks that Latter-day Saints are in error for thinking people/texts (e.g., the U.S. Constitution) can be “inspired” but not in the same sense as inscripturated revelation:
He will have to then admit that “inspired” works
such as those of Gad et al., were en par with the 66 books of the Protestant
canon and, as
Robert Bowman is forced to admit, there are missing inspired books in the
Bible and/or (adding ‘and’ as, unlike Matthew Eklund, I have read some
books on logic, so do not want to create a ‘false dichotomy’) admit that there
are different levels of inspiration.
Further Reading
On the meaning of θεοπνευστος
in 2 Tim 3:16, see the book-length study John C. Poirier, The Invention of
the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture
(Library of New Testament Studies 640; London: T&T Clark, 2021). For a sampling of the evidence Poirier produces in his work, see my
blog post Notes
from John C. Poirier, The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows
on the Theopneustia of Scripture.
On Calvinism, see:
An
Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed
Theology
On Sola Scriptura, see:
Not
by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
