EP Jargon?

Status
Not open for further replies.

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Hi, all.

I was recently involved in a discussion with an EP'er who brought up the idea of "mediate inspiration," and seemed genuinely surprised that I had never heard of it. I suspect that it is an idea developed by some in the EP camp to battle the criticism that they do NOT sing "inspired hymns." Rather, they sing paraphrases of translations of copies of the inspired text. I asked him if he had a confessional basis for the concept, but he has not answered.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Thanks!
 
And as was noted in that FB thread if EP'ers are singing "paraphrases of translations of copies of the inspired text" then the Bibles we use are also "paraphrases of translations of copies of the inspired text".
 
Hi, all.

I was recently involved in a discussion with an EP'er who brought up the idea of "mediate inspiration," and seemed genuinely surprised that I had never heard of it. I suspect that it is an idea developed by some in the EP camp to battle the criticism that they do NOT sing "inspired hymns." Rather, they sing paraphrases of translations of copies of the inspired text. I asked him if he had a confessional basis for the concept, but he has not answered.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Thanks!

What?! You don't know their fringe insider jargon? Obviously you're clueless and ill-informed.
 
Well, maybe not all translations are paraphrases, but yes, we are reading translations of copies of the inspired text. And I think you are referring to a different thread.
 
Hi, all.

I was recently involved in a discussion with an EP'er who brought up the idea of "mediate inspiration," and seemed genuinely surprised that I had never heard of it. I suspect that it is an idea developed by some in the EP camp to battle the criticism that they do NOT sing "inspired hymns." Rather, they sing paraphrases of translations of copies of the inspired text. I asked him if he had a confessional basis for the concept, but he has not answered.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Thanks!

What?! You don't know their fringe insider jargon? Obviously you're clueless and ill-informed.

Is this good or bad? ;)
 
"Mediate inspiration" is just theological shorthand for saying that the Holy Scriptures as they are "translated out of the original into vulgar languages" (WLC 156) are "to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very Word of God" (WLC 157).
 
If you do not believe in mediate inspiration, then, unless you always read Hebrew and Greek, you cannot claim to be reading the inspired word of God (albeit mediately through a translation).

This concept is hardly an oddity that belongs to a fringe of crazy people. :duh:
 
What?! You don't know their fringe insider jargon? Obviously you're clueless and ill-informed.

It would probably be more helpful to discussions like this if we could refrain from unhelpful ad hominem rhetoric like "fringe," unless we want to brand most or all of Presbyterianism prior to the early 1800s as "fringe." Like it or not, the Presbyterian tradition was, at least for the most part, EP. It is we who have departed, not they. That does not mean they are right, but simply calling a group "fringe" is not helpful in such discussions.
 
Last edited:
"Mediate inspiration" is just theological shorthand for saying that the Holy Scriptures as they are "translated out of the original into vulgar languages" (WLC 156) are "to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very Word of God" (WLC 157).

That's a very helpful remark. Using the word "inspiration," though, muddies the water, I think.
 
I am wondering if we aren't using the word "inspired" in two different ways. I am thinking of the process that led to the writing of the Scriptures. He seems to be using it to refer to the end product. To me, the problem with using it to describe a translation is that it raises difficulties like:

1. Is the New World Translation inspired?
2. Am I inspired when I prepare my own translation?
3. If all translations are inspired, what does this do to the idea of inerrancy, since errors HAVE crept into the text, translations differ, and I can make a mistake in my own translation?

Not trying to argue but to understand the position.
 
kevin.carroll said:
To me, the problem with using it to describe a translation is that it raises difficulties like:
In a variety of churches I've attended, including an OPC congregation I used to attend, the reading of the Scriptures is prefaced with something like, "Hear the holy, authoritative, infallible, and inspired Word of God." Having gotten into a minor scuffle with a philosophy professor of mine on this very issue, I saw the importance of attributing the qualities of inspiration to a translation. But also wondering about your questions, I started a thread here. The basic answer I received was that of distinguishing between doctrine and detail within a translation (which I found easier to understand than Turretin's distinction).

I don't think I'm qualified to answer your specific questions, so I'll leave them for others. I'll just say in addition, that whatever possible disadvantages, there are also seem to me to be disadvantages to avoiding the use of "inspired" (with the implicit qualification, "as a product") with regards to translations. I mentioned one already (apologetics with unbelievers). Also, unless the translation has the qualities of "inspiration," no layman can know with any certainty what God is teaching or has spoken; no appeals to a translation can be made in defending or teaching a doctrine as coming from the Word of God. Neither can the layman meditate on the Word of God nor be assured of the mode of salvation on the basis of God's Word and Promise nor test sermons and false doctrines nor receive the public reading of the Scriptures as the "inspired" Word of God.
 
Here is a quote from Matthew Winzer where he uses the term:

“You seem to be leaving out of view the fact that the original autographs are described as being immediately inspired by God. When the sense of the original is accurately translated into another language it retains its quality as the inspired Word of God, or what may be called mediate inspiration. Hence, in Heb. 3:7ff, we read that the Holy Ghost says the words of Ps 95 in Greek (or English in our version), which was originally written in Hebrew. The fact has not been altered that this is the inspired word of God even though it has been translated into another language.”
 
I think the confusion is terminological. To say mediated, one is simply stating "conveyed or transferred." Thus, mediated inspiration is the idea that the quality of inspiration in the original manuscript (and verbal communication) is retained in the translation. As to specific translations, the issue is whether the integrity of the inspired word is preserved in the copy.

Respecting EP, it is my experience that most adherents are more concerned with the translation of the inspired composition than its meter or construction. EP or not, the argument that we don't sing the Word of God is untenable and ought to be eliminated from arguments against its practice. Non-EPers should rejoice that while disagreement exists, EPers are at least singing God's Word, redounding to the praise of His glorious grace.
 
Concerning the Holy Bible Mr Carroll says:
No translation is inspired in the sense that that the autographs were. NEVERTHELESS, due to the preservation of the Word by God's providence, we can be assured that we possess the Word of God."
*emphasis mine*
And, we can be assured that in the 1650 Scottish Metrical Version of the Psalms we possess the Word of God (not a paraphrase thereof). I cannot and will not say the same for hymns "based on" Psalms [that, unlike the SMV, are not "accurate translations" from the original Hebrew text].

In private worship, family worship and corporate worship I use the Authorized Version of God's Word. I'm not willing to use and/or argue for the use of any versions of God's Word that are not "accurately translated" [like the New World Translation that Mr Carroll keeps bringing up].

I agree with Pastor Winzer:
When the sense of the original is accurately translated into another language it retains its quality as the inspired Word of God, or what MAY be called mediate inspiration.
I could be wrong, but seem to me that what the Divines were referring to as providential preservation is virtually synonymous with mediate inspiration (not inspiration proper). But, what do I know?
 
I am wondering if we aren't using the word "inspired" in two different ways. I am thinking of the process that led to the writing of the Scriptures. He seems to be using it to refer to the end product. To me, the problem with using it to describe a translation is that it raises difficulties like:

1. Is the New World Translation inspired?
2. Am I inspired when I prepare my own translation?
3. If all translations are inspired, what does this do to the idea of inerrancy, since errors HAVE crept into the text, translations differ, and I can make a mistake in my own translation?

Not trying to argue but to understand the position.

Are there portions of the NWT, i.e. the gospel message, that can save men in the JW realm?
 
Since this thread appears to be an augment on definitions the following quote seems applicable...

G. I. Williamson on 'Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual songs:
"The proper interpretation of scripture terms requires that we discover, not what we mean by these terms when we use them today, but what the inspired writer meant when he used them. And it is one of the oddities of biblical interpretation that this rule is commonly observed with reference to the term 'psalms', and commonly disregarded with respect to the terms 'hymns' and 'songs'. For the fact is that all three of these terms are used in the Bible to designate various selections contained in the Old Testament Psalter. In the Greek version of the Old Testament familiar to the Ephesians and Colossians the entire Psalter is entitled 'Psalms'. In sixty-seven of the titles within the book the word 'psalm' is used. However, in six titles the word 'hymn' is used, rather than 'psalm', and in thirty-five the word 'song' appears. Even more important twelve titles use both 'psalm' and 'song', and two have 'psalm' and 'hymn'. Psalm seventy-six is designated 'psalm, hymn and song'. And at the end of the first seventy two psalms we read that 'the hymns of David the son of Jesse are ended'. (Ps. 72:20.) In other words, there is no more reason to think that the Apostle referred to psalms when he said 'psalms', than when he said 'hymns' and 'songs', for the simple reason that all three were biblical terms for psalms in the book of psalms itself. We are in the habit of using the terms 'hymns' and 'songs' for those compositions that are not psalms. But Paul and the Christians at Ephesus and Colossae used these terms as the Bible itself uses them, namely, as titles for the various psalms in the Old Testament Psalter. To us it may seem strange, or even unnecessary, that the Holy Spirit would use a variety of titles to describe His inspired compositions. But the fact is that He did so. Just as the Holy Spirit speaks of His 'commandments and his statutes and his judgmentss' (Deut.. 30:16, etc.), and of 'miracles and wonders and signs' (Acts 2:22), so He speaks of His 'psalms, hymns and songs'. As commandments, statutes and judgmentss are all divine laws in the language of scripture; as miracles and wonders and signs are all supernatural works of God in the language of scripture; so psalms, hymns and songs are the inspired compositions of the Psalter, in the language of scripture itself... The New Testament evidence sustains this conclusion. On the night of the Last Supper Jesus and His disciples sang 'an hymn' (Matt. 26:30). Bible expositors admit that this was 'the second part of the Hallel Psalms (115-118)" which was always sung at the Passover. (New Bible Commentary, p. 835.) Matthew called this psalm a 'hymn' because a psalm is a hymn in the terminology of the Bible. To the same effect is the Old Testament quotation in Hebrews 2:12, in which the Greek word 'hymn' is quoted from Psalm 22:22. In this quotation from an Old Testament psalm, the word 'hymn' is used to denote the singing of psalms because the Old Testament makes no distinction between the two. But if Scripture itself says that psalms are hymns, and that hymns are psalms, why should we make any distinction between them? If we grant that the Apostle used biblical language in a biblical sense there is no more reason to think that he spoke of uninspired hymns in these texts (Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19) than to think that he spoke of uninspired psalms, because hymns are inspired psalms in the holy scriptures."
 
People seem to have standards that they apply to Bible translation that would never be applied to any other item of literature. For instance, if I read a credible translation of Augustine's City of God, is it fair to say that I am reading Augustine? Yes, of course it is; there may be some minor translation errors, but, on the whole, it is fair to say that I am reading the words of Augustine. Why, then, do we not apply the same principle to reading translations of the Bible? A translation of the word of God is the word of God, just as a translation of the writing of Augustine is the word of Augustine.
 
Concerning the Holy Bible Mr Carroll says:

First of all, if you insist on being all formal, it's Rev. Carroll and not Mr. Second, the reason I "keep bringing up" the NWT is it seems to be a fatal flaw in the position. If inspiration only applies to the verses that are translated correctly, then we are left with a version that is inspired, by this definition, in some places and not in others. Again, I am not trying to argue, but to UNDERSTAND a term that in all of my theological studies and 24 years of pastoral ministry I have never heard once before this week.

I could be wrong, but seem to me that what the Divines were referring to as providential preservation is virtually synonymous with mediate inspiration (not inspiration proper).

That may very well be the case but I find the use of the word "inspired" in place of the confessional language needlessly confusing.
 
Are there portions of the NWT, i.e. the gospel message, that can save men in the JW realm?

Scott, I have repeatedly and patiently asked you questions tying to understand your position and you have ignored every one of them. I have no intention of answering any of yours further without a little quid pro quo.
 
That may very well be the case but I find the use of the word "inspired" in place of the confessional language needlessly confusing.

The Confession uses the term "immediately inspired" when referring to that which was originally given by God (1.8). Samuel Rutherford explains this term in Due Right of Presbyteries: "Immediate inspiration maketh any saying Scripture, and not the Apostles historical relating of it out of the writings of the Prophets; though the sayings of the Prophets as they are registered in the books of Old Testament be formally Scripture, yet as cited by the Apostles they do not become Scripture, except these sayings be cited tali modo, that is, by the influence of the immediately inspiring Holy Ghost, which influence only maketh formally any saying to be Scripture."
 
That may very well be the case but I find the use of the word "inspired" in place of the confessional language needlessly confusing.

The Confession uses the term "immediately inspired" when referring to that which was originally given by God (1.8). Samuel Rutherford explains this term in Due Right of Presbyteries: "Immediate inspiration maketh any saying Scripture, and not the Apostles historical relating of it out of the writings of the Prophets; though the sayings of the Prophets as they are registered in the books of Old Testament be formally Scripture, yet as cited by the Apostles they do not become Scripture, except these sayings be cited tali modo, that is, by the influence of the immediately inspiring Holy Ghost, which influence only maketh formally any saying to be Scripture."

Understood. My problem is not with the confessional language, but the extra-confessional use of the term "mediate inspiration." That's why if I asked if it were EP jargon, since the only time I had ever heard it used was on an adherent of that view. It is, of course, not uncommon for groups to develop their own language which they often forget others don't speak.
 
Understood.

Are you sure? If "immediate" inspiration is defined in the terms used by the Confession and Rutherford, it seems obvious that an appeal to inspiration which has not come immediately through the influence of the Holy Spirit must be an appeal to "mediate" inspiration.
 
It is, of course, not uncommon for groups to develop their own language which they often forget others don't speak.

It's not a common term, granted, but when I do a google search for "mediate inspiration" I get lots of hits on Google Books from the 1800s that have nothing to do with EP, and instead define it in relation to immediate inspiration. Charles Hodge and A.A. Hodge both this terminology when speaking of God's revelation. It seems to be as much "EP jargon" as "regulative principle".
 
It is, of course, not uncommon for groups to develop their own language which they often forget others don't speak.

It's not a common term, granted, but when I do a google search for "mediate inspiration" I get lots of hits on Google Books from the 1800s that have nothing to do with EP, and instead define it in relation to immediate inspiration. Charles Hodge and A.A. Hodge both this terminology when speaking of God's revelation. It seems to be as much "EP jargon" as "regulative principle".

Are you sure? If "immediate" inspiration is defined in the terms used by the Confession and Rutherford, it seems obvious that an appeal to inspiration which has not come immediately through the influence of the Holy Spirit must be an appeal to "mediate" inspiration.

I attempted to draw this point out in the other thread mentioned on FB.

Kevin,
My asking you if there is any remnant of gospel truth in the NWT that can save a man is my answer. There is surely enough remnant there even in their illicit attempt to slander the truth. Hence, I will have to say that it has a level of inspiration present. Consider the other poor translations of God's word. The Lord preserves His truth. Again, would I ever suggest using the NWT or recommending it? Never, for it's obvious concerns, but neither would I suggest the NIV either. If a man were stuck on a island and found a copy of the NWT, could that man be saved in reading it?
 
Hello Kevin,

I had not heard the terms—as used in this thread—mediate and immediate till I came here on PB some years ago. Then while I was reading in Joel Beeke's, A Puritan Theology, I came across the terms used the same way with regard to prophecy in the Puritan era (quote from this post):

Mediate prophecy is not the revelation of new truth from God but the Spirit-enabled interpretation of biblical prophecies and application of those prophecies to unfolding history. Garnet Milne suggests, “It is a belief in mediate prophecy, in which Scripture plays the central role, which explains why the cessation of immediate prophecy was not seen to nullify the availability of insight into the future for those who lived by the written Word of God.”

I see from above you understand the concept involved. I think it a useful term for conveying the difference between direct inspiration and indirect. I know it's used in EP discussions (I'm not EP) but it has proper application elsewhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top