Is "inspiration" just a semantic game?

[O'Darby III]

I'm not talking about the process - not about how you think inspiration "worked" in the case of the OT authors or someone like Paul.

I'm talking more about what the term even means, most specifically in the NT context.

As I've become more deeply interested in early Christianity, it's just staggering how many different understandings there were of who Jesus was, what His message was, and how He related to the God of the OT. It wasn't "orthodoxy" versus "heresy." It was "my understanding" versus "your understanding." We see this clearly in Paul's epistles, where he warns against those teaching a different gospel from his (and yet the apocryphal Gospel of Peter portrays Paul himself as a badly misguided enemy of Peter!).

The whole concept of "heresy" was really the handiwork of Irenaeus, circa 180. Much of his work, tracing his "orthodoxy" to the Bishops of Rome and the supposed "heresies" to Simon Magus, is recognized by scholars to be bogus. Before Irenaeus, the Valentinians had claimed direct apostolic succession from Paul to a disciple named Theudas. The fact is, some of the "heresies" were very influential and a genuine threat to what Irenaeus saw as orthodoxy. Some of the "heresies" remained influential into the third and fourth centuries.

Orthodoxy and the NT canon and creeds were hashed out in Ecumenical Councils spanning centuries. In many instances, the process was highly political, full of intrigue and even violence. It's difficult to read about it and have any feeling of "godly inspiration."

Many Christians today seem to think something like modern Christianity (whatever THAT is!) was always the norm and the first few centuries were simply a matter of ironing out the kinks and stamping out lunatic fringe heresies. This is far from the truth.

Some of the "heretical" understandings have always made as much or more sense to me than some of the orthodox ones. When I read the NT as neutrally as I can, I come away with something more like Arianism than Trinitarianism - just as one example.

Do others really think that what took place over the first four centuries of Christianity was guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit, ugly as it may have looked? Are inspiration and orthodoxy something real, or are they just a semantic game? Can we really say that denominations like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are basically Arians, are "wrong" or "aren't Christians"? There have to be outer boundaries or "Christianity" loses all meaning, but it seems to me those boundaries are much wider and more flexible than most people are willing to acknowledge.

 

[Mr E]

I think that Christianity has been entirely diluted with the passing of centuries and the passing of men. It's men, who over time-- come up with doctrines and beliefs that they themselves develop. Let's be honest and call balls and strikes. These "doctrines" and "beliefs" are beliefs.

They are theories.

Similarly, our understanding of "inspiration" has been whitewashed away. Folks think that to be inspired is to be enthusiastic or passionate. They think it means- to be motivated, mentally stimulated, or creative. That's not what it originally meant.

It really means-- to have God's spirit breathed into you. If that doesn't bring Genesis to mind, it should have.

Inspirare, inspiratio.... the principle is that you become under the influence of a god, who exhales spirit into you. You inhale the spirit of a god into you and you become under the influence of that spirit. They used to say- strong drink were spirits, because they were like door openers for this to happen, removing barriers and inhibitions and to this day, we speak of someone who is intoxicated as being under the influence. People lose control of themselves and do all kinds of things that are out of character.

In a more positive light-- artists speak about being creatively influenced, or inspired-- by a kind of force--- such as a muse- who offers guidance and support- even ideas to spark and fuel projects to completion. This idea too, is very much spiritual in nature at the genesis-- and in scripture it is the elohim who provide the spiritual motivation in creation.

Today, we rather flippantly talk about scripture as having been inspired-- God breathed, we say, without much consideration as to what that truly means. It's very easy for Johnny-come-lately critics to pick up a microphone and a ring light on a stand for their YouTube channel where they insist that two-thousand-year-old scriptures don't count for much. The pick and choose what they will approve and pick apart everything else.

No-- inspiration is more that it appears to be. It's what's inside that counts. And everybody has something inside.

 

[Adrift]

Inspiration can also promote evil activities. How do we know when or if our sense of inspiration is God exhaling into us (true inspiration) or maybe Satan? To me, both sides in a war may be inspired by something or someone, but it doesn't mean that either one of their inspirations have any basis in reality. Oxford says that inspiration is the the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something, especially to do something creative. Ted Bundy was inspired by his lust to kill. Inspiration can also be a product of desperation. One may be inspired to do something that they know is wrong because it results in some positive outcome for them. To me, heretical and orthodox positions are both subject to the influence of inspiration that could be subjective as Hell. We tend to believe that the early scriptures were inspired by the Holy Ghost because, in our minds, that provides validation to something we want to be true. Maybe there was and it is. I like to think that.

 

[O'Darby III]

I just noticed this morning that Dr. Brakke, who teaches some of The Great Courses programs on early Christianity, refers to what became mainstream Christianity in the fourth century as "proto-orthodoxy." I think this is a good way of viewing the process. It wasn't "orthodoxy" fending off attacks from "heresies" in the first four centuries after Jesus. It was "proto-orthodoxy" fighting for supremacy against "other understandings of Jesus and His message" that would themselves have become "orthodoxy" if they had won the battle.

My point in the OP is that the battle was ugly - rife with falsehoods, political intrigue and even violence. Just in case you don't know, the "orthodox" position flipped from Trinitarianism back to Arianism at one point in the process. ("We all became Arians overnight!" one bishop famously wrote.) My concern is not with what inspiration is or how it works but whether we really believe the ugly process by which "proto-orthodoxy" became "orthodoxy" was inspired? If it wasn't, then this really raises questions about what it means to be a Christian and whether we can declare someone "not a Christian" because he or she holds to non-orthodox positions.

 

[SteVen]

Wow, great topic, thanks!

As I've become more deeply interested in early Christianity, it's just staggering how many different understandings there were of who Jesus was, what His message was, and how He related to the God of the OT. It wasn't "orthodoxy" versus "heresy." It was "my understanding" versus "your understanding." We see this clearly in Paul's epistles, where he warns against those teaching a different gospel from his (and yet the apocryphal Gospel of Peter portrays Paul himself as a badly misguided enemy of Peter!).

Yes! Heresy is WAY under-rated. IMHO

https://www.christianityboard.com/threads/was-jesus-heretical-why-did-they-crucify-him.57292/

The whole concept of "heresy" was really the handiwork of Irenaeus, circa 180. Much of his work, tracing his "orthodoxy" to the Bishops of Rome and the supposed "heresies" to Simon Magus, is recognized by scholars to be bogus. Before Irenaeus, the Valentinians had claimed direct apostolic succession from Paul to a disciple named Theudas. The fact is, some of the "heresies" were very influential and a genuine threat to what Irenaeus saw as orthodoxy. Some of the "heresies" remained influential into the third and fourth centuries.

I wonder if the opposite of heterodoxy is homodoxy? - LOL

I like what you are saying about...
"Before Irenaeus, the Valentinians had claimed direct apostolic succession from Paul to a disciple named Theudas."

Wow. The Catholics laid claim to the Apostolic Succession from Peter.
But he wasn't the only Apostle. And then there is James and the Apostle Paul.
I don't Peter was the rock the church was built on.
The church was built on the Spirit that revealed to Peter who Jesus really was. IMHO

Orthodoxy and the NT canon and creeds were hashed out in Ecumenical Councils spanning centuries. In many instances, the process was highly political, full of intrigue and even violence. It's difficult to read about it and have any feeling of "godly inspiration."

Add to that time frame the Gospels accounts being not written down for decades after the events.
And the copies of copies of copies of manuscripts. (no originals have survived)

Many Christians today seem to think something like modern Christianity (whatever THAT is!) was always the norm and the first few centuries were simply a matter of ironing out the kinks and stamping out lunatic fringe heresies. This is far from the truth.

Exactly. That is basically what evangelicalism teaches.
It is clear to me in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles that they had no clue what they were doing.
No reason to put these folks on a pedestal.

Do others really think that what took place over the first four centuries of Christianity was guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit, ugly as it may have looked?

No one talked about any of that in the church I grew up in.
The Bible was the ONLY official source of information.

Are inspiration and orthodoxy something real, or are they just a semantic game?

I agree. Semantics.

Can we really say that denominations like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are basically Arians, are "wrong" or "aren't Christians"?

Agree.

There have to be outer boundaries or "Christianity" loses all meaning, but it seems to me those boundaries are much wider and more flexible than most people are willing to acknowledge.

Of course. I agree.

/

 

[SteVen]

Inspiration can also promote evil activities. How do we know when or if our sense of inspiration is God exhaling into us (true inspiration) or maybe Satan?

Reminds me of a quote for which I cannot cite a source:

"The worst evil is to do well what should not be done at all."

/

 

[SteVen]

... one bishop famously wrote.) My concern is not with what inspiration is or how it works but whether we really believe the ugly process by which "proto-orthodoxy" became "orthodoxy" was inspired? If it wasn't, then this really raises questions about what it means to be a Christian and whether we can declare someone "not a Christian" because he or she holds to non-orthodox positions.

Wow. Yes...
There is too much emphasis on by-the-book Christianity and not enough, according to my personal relationship Christianity.

The problem there being: What are the standards?

/

 

[Adrift]

To me, it's easy to say that a winner was inspired, especially if we were rooting for the winner. Or are we just rooting for the winner because they won? The statement "We all became Arians overnight" makes me wonder about divine inspiration. Was that position not inspired by the same entity as the orthodox position? Who's to say? My limited mental capacity can only wonder about the "God accepted" breadth of Christian doctrine. Arianism makes some sense to me, yet, for me, pales when comparing with the scriptural probability of Jesus being part of the essence or substance of God — God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I have been playing doctrinal whack-a-mole for several decades and have decided that, considering my limited knowledge, to let my heart lead me. I tend to believe what makes the most sense to me, considering my perceived logic of the options. That's all we have.