The Bible is not "The Word of God"

[Kurieuo]

I don't think there's anyone I know of either who with clarity attempts to teach that the Bible is itself an entity independent of God. What concerns me is the loss of focus upon Christ, the elevating of the Bible to roles filled only by Christ, and the lack of realization of the implications of what it being done when that happens.

I understand. Scripture should not be elevated to the detriment of Christ, however this should likewise not disregard the importance of Scripture in helping us to understand Christ.

What we know of Christ is because of Scripture and ultimately Christian Tradition. To lose focus upon Scripture, is to lose focus upon Christ since such is where we come to understand Christ, His purpose and how He is relevant to us. If we lose focus on the importance of Scripture, then we could be left in a state of "Christ agnosticism" or a "Christ of our own making". So something important to consider is how it is possible to begin focusing on Christ without the knowledge gained via Scripture?

Clearly, Scripture plays an important role in our knowing who Christ is and being able to focus upon Him, and yet, such should not usurp Christ Himself.

Perhaps it's semantics and I'm over-reacting. I don't think though however. I think there's something here worthy of further explanation. You folks here however know me better and for longer than most so, while this is open for anyone to comment upon, I was hoping (as you have) to have some feedback and then to take some time to reassess.

I intend to re-read what you have posted more carefully, and break it down a bit more. There is much theological insight. For example, I had not given a second thought to Hebrews 4:12 as referring to the Bible. If this passage was read to me yesterday, I would have assumed Scripture was in reference. Clearly, I have accepted such verses without much thought. So the one thing that can't be said, and you are making a fuss about nothing. I think you have raised important and valid points.

There is definitely a trend within Evangelical circles to trade on one for the other, and vice-versa, even perhaps use either interchangeably. As previously mentioned, I certainly believe the two (Scripture and Christ) cannot be entirely conflated to mean the same "word of God". Yet, to know whether any overlap is to be fully rejected, would for me require some extensive research into the theology and possible reasonings behind doing so.

Without doing some proper research, I only have my thinking to go off with little substance. However, I don't see it as nonsensical to believe there could be ontological ties between the "word of God" and Christ. For example, what I say of myself infact resembles something of me. It is not me, but the meaning of words themselves could be said to contain some essense of "me-ness". Likewise, Scripture may not be Christ Himself, but this is not to say they are devoid of any essense of Christ.

Given this, it may not be unreasonable to say of Heb 4:12 ("the Word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow."), while Christ is being referenced that the Bible also is too in virtue of its "Christ-ness".

I am thinking and just offering up thoughts as I go... however it is certainly a good, important and thought-provoking theological topic that you have surfaced.

[Canuckster1127]

I appreciate it. I've gotten enough push-back on this from some people whom I know and respect that I want to be wary of going too far.

In terms of what you're saying, I think the obvious common denominator is the Holy Spirits role in both inspiration and interpretation of the written word. For me, that's part and parcel of the pointing toward Christ. I don't believe Christ shares the essence of His being with the written word to the extent that appears to be assumed in many of the evangelical circles that I've run in.

Thanks for the feedback and I look forward to what you have to say (and others too).

bart

[Sudsy]

Thanks Bart. I think I now understand what you mean by looking at things through the 'lens of Christ'.

Is it fair to say that our understandings of God can be revealed to us by the Holy Spirit through what the scriptures say about who Christ was and what He said but also in other ways, God reveals Himself/Christ to us by the Holy Spirit. These other ways however will not contradict what is revealed by the Holy Spirit through scripture. To me, it can't be 'Sola Scriptura' if that means God only reveals Himself through the scriptures. Perhaps trying to separate traditions that had suspect support in scripture from those traditions that did, has lead to making the scriptures become the one and only means that God reveals Himself to us. And perhaps an intellectual approach to interpreting scriptures has resulted in the various diverse understandings because the Holy Spirit was not a part of all of these understandings.

Although I do think there is much value in reading and meditating on scripture, I know Christ followers that are very dedicated followers with a close relationship with God who seldom sit and read scripture. Some folk are just not readers. And yet they really know the voice of God and are guided by Him. Perhaps their willingness to be obedient allows them to hear from God more than some who diligently study scripture but do so without relying on the illumination of the Spirit.

Sorry, I'm rambling on and may have holes in my observations but I would appreciate any assistance you can give to help my understandings and whatever else you can give to explain how we go about seeing things through the 'lens of Christ'. (that is, if I understood this is what you were getting at).

[Canuckster1127]

I'm not trying to diminish Scripture at all. I am trying to put it in perspective and keep Christ central.

Sola Scriptura can be a somewhat misleading. The fact of the matter is that what we recognize as scripture in the first place is rooted in church tradition even so far as the books that are canonical often don't testify of themselves but have been identified by the early church both in practice and then later by council in that role.

This is at the heart of what I mean when I talk about looking at scripture throught the lens of Christ. Scripture absolutely is part of what reveals Christ to us, but it is not the only means and we need to realize that the early Church spread under persecution without much of the NT in existence based in large part on the spoken word of testimony of Jesus Christ as "the Word". It's tempting for us, who have the written word readily accessible to us (something that's really only been a part of Christian experience for 500 years or the last 25% of christian history) to look back on that Bible and read it as if early Christians and the early Church had that same experience. They did not. They had Jesus Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit, their fellowship with one another and also a tradition of the spoken word shared by preaching on occassion, but more often just by communing over a meal and reminding themselves of that which had been taught to them earlier by apostles who traveled or those who had been connected to them.

I'm glad that we have the Bible and I'm not at all seeking to diminish it. I just think, on our end today, to narrow it, we see the term "Word of God" even in the Bible and we think we know what it means, and assume it's the Bible itself. More often than we realize, I'm trying to show that it was Jesus Christ Himself who was intended here and we lose that emphasis at a cost if we don't hold onto that truth and replace it with something that is good (like the Bible) but which cannot replace Christ.

[August]

Bart, interesting topic.

Let me start by saying that I agree with you that nothing should be elevated above the Triune God, and that Jesus alone is how we can ever be saved, and be with God. I also agree that making the Bible an object of worship is wrong, and makes me think of how the Muslims are about the Koran.

I'm not sure I agree with your statement "The Bible is not "The Word of God"". I can see at one level what you mean, that Christ is the Logos of John 1, and that the Bible isn't, and in that respect, we should worship Christ and not the paper and ink. That much is obvious, and to place the Bible in a position where it replaces or supercedes God would be blatantly sinful. But I think to reason that every mention of "logos" necessarily refers to Christ is a stretch (I don't know for sure if that is what you are expressly arguing, so forgive me if I am wrong).

The translation of "rhema", "logos" and even some other terms like "epos" can cause confusion, as you mentioned, as the English "word" may not quite describe the underlying meaning. "Logos", strictly speaking in Greek, is the expression of thought (I'm sure you know this, I state it for the benefit of other readers). Can we argue, therefore, that the whole Bible is "logos", as the expressed thoughts of God captured in a volume of paper and ink? I know that you, or one of your commenters, argued that only that which can be directly attributed to God should be seen as that. However, that seems to be an arbitrary distinction to me, and not something that can be adequately quantified. The larger consideration is that we as Christians should think God's thoughts after Him, and that happens in two ways: 1. By inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and 2. by reading, studying, meditating and believing the thoughts of God as written down in the Bible. Given 2., I would be hesitant to disregard any portion of the Bible as "not-logos". There are some instances where "logos" describes all of the revelation from God, Rev 1:2, for example, so I don't think it is an unreasonable assumption.

We should also remember that without the special revelation that we have in Scripture, we would not know the will of God. We would not know of Jesus, nor what He said and had done for us. We would not have known the prophesies of a Messiah, and nor would those who expected and received Him. God deemed it important enough to reveal that to us, and that forms our entire Christian knowledge base, outside of personal inspiration and experience. It is the objective, revealed, true will of God. What we read and know in there is because He willed it.

God has revealed Himself to us in three ways: 1. Through creation (natural revelation), 2. through Scripture (special revelation), and 3. Jesus, who is the ultimate revelation. We cannot be saved without Christ, but can we know of Christ, and know Christ without 1. and 2.? Is Christ (in His human manifestation) alone the "logos", the expression of God's thought? I would argue that as He is the "Logos", the personal Word of God, He is all of revelation in the sense of being God, but is not, in the sense of having a human nature, and we therefore need the Scriptures. Christ is the most personal and divine expression of God's thought, as He is God. This ultimate revelation is what gives life, as you say. We cannot be saved by anything but this personal expression of God, but we also cannot know of it without the rest of God's revelation.

I therefore conclude that you are technically correct ("Logos" with a capital "L" does not refer to the Bible), but that your dilemma is false. If we do not consider the Bible as the expression of God's thought, we are bound to be spiritually ignorant. To try and partition the Bible into parts that may be "logos" and parts that may not be, seems arbitrary and unnecessary. The Bible is a vital part of understanding God's thoughts, and I always remind myself that the wisdom to understand it comes from being on my knees.

(PS: I was typing this as you were, so maybe you already answered some of this)

[Sudsy]

We cannot be saved without Christ, but can we know of Christ, and know Christ without 1. and 2.?

I would say, yes. God is not limited to any means of revealing Himself. For instance, some Muslims have come to know Christ through a vision. I believe His preferred way is through preaching the good news but I don't see anything limiting how God can reveal Christ to anyone through any means.

[Katabole]

I believe the Bible is the Word of God. A revelation in writing must necessarily be given in words. The seperate words which make up that revelation, must therefore be just as important as the revelation as a whole. If we as Christians accept the Bible as a revelation from God and receive it as inspired by God, we cannot seperate the words of which that inspired revelation is made up or admit the assertion that the Bible contains the 'words of God' but it is not the "Word of God". The position conveyed by such an expression is both illogical and impossible.

According to Luke 4:16 it was our Lord's custom to go into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and read scripture. I have 3 questions. If it is not the "Word of God" then why does Jesus quote from so many different books of the Old Testament? Why does Jesus repeat the phrase "It is Written" 25 times through the Gospels? Why does Jesus ask, "Haven't you read?" six times and claims that in John 10:35 the scripture cannot be broken and your word is truth in John 17:17?

[Canuckster1127]

1. Jesus never uses the term "Word of God" speaking of scripture.
2. Scripture uses the term "Word of God" using the word Logos to speak of Jesus.
3. Jesus references scripture to point to Himself to validate his person, or his message, not to validate scripture itself (he assumes that.)

Affirming the inspiration and importance of Scripture doesn't equate to it being the equivilent of Christ. Christ is the perfect revelation of God. Scripture points to Christ. English confuses "Word" with "word". We need to be careful not to lose what so clearly defined the early church and what the scripture itself affirms and not worship the written word when the written word exists to point to the living Word.

Reasoning backwards to conform to aristotilean or platonic logic is not exegesis, it is eisogesis.

My take anyway.

[B. W.]

1. Jesus never uses the term "Word of God" speaking of scripture.
2. Scripture uses the term "Word of God" using the word Logos to speak of Jesus.
3. Jesus references scripture to point to Himself to validate his person, or his message, not to validate scripture itself (he assumes that.)

Affirming the inspiration and importance of Scripture doesn't equate to it being the equivilent of Christ. Christ is the perfect revelation of God. Scripture points to Christ. English confuses "Word" with "word". We need to be careful not to lose what so clearly defined the early church and what the scripture itself affirms and not worship the written word when the written word exists to point to the living Word.

Reasoning backwards to conform to aristotilean or platonic logic is not exegesis, it is eisogesis.

My take anyway.

I personally have not met anyone who worships the Bible since becoming a Christian summer 1980 -and as a committed follower 1981 Baptised. So I am not sure I see the real point you are trying to make as though people put the bible on a stand and bow down and worship it. Is there a sect that does this I don't know about? When I hear people talk and the word of God I think of the bible as a whole revealing haElohim (Godhead) thru Christ, etc.. Not worshiping the book as that would be akin to Idolatry. I do not know anyone who makes the bible such an Idol by saying - the word of God says this in Isaiah or that in Jonah...

Who in their right mind makes the bible equivalent of Christ and worships it? Can you give an example?
-
-
-

[Canuckster1127]

Overtly, none that I'm aware of B.W. Implicitly I think there's a form of that going on in sects that elevate particularly translations like KJV-Only. I also believe there is an equivilency when scripture or the Bible is afforded attributes that immutably belong to God, Christ and the HS alone. When Scripture becomes a force or entity apart from it's tie to inspiration by and utilization by the Holy Spirit, I see strong parallels with Gnosticism, which was at the core, as I understand it, in much of John's writings to address in the very early Church. When there is confusion between the title of Word (Logos) that Christ exclusively holds and passages that clearly refer to Christ and clearly were understood by the human authors and early Church to refer to Christ are then attributed to the Bible then a de facto form of idoloatry is taking place, idolatry meaning anything that takes a place which exclusively and rightly can only be held by God.

Why is that hard to see B.W.? Don't we speak of materialism as a form of idolatry in the culture you and I live in? People don't physically bow down and worship their posessions, but we're still correct in identifying it as a form of idolatry when possessions become the focus and center of our lives.

I think there are elements of evangelicalism that are flirting with (and some that have in effect gone over) to walk with a focus upon Scripture without Christ being central to where Scripture itself is elevated to an equal position with Christ and no longer pointing toward Him. I think that's true in some forms of legalism, which diminish Christ's grace and focus upon performance and adherance to how they interpret the Scriptures.

I love scripture. I affirm their inspiration. I also believe in the inerrancy of the orginals (which is somewhat moot since we don't have them.) Scripture reveals in part many things which are only revealed in full in Jesus Christ alone and unfortunately many of our words and practices within evangelicalism in particular (but not exclusively) have blurred that line and whenever we attribute an immutable, non-transferrable characteristic of God and Christ, to anything else, even something good and important such as Scripture and make it a focus instead of Christ, then we've in effect placed the Bible into a role that only Christ can fill.

That's what I'm trying to say and probably failing at several levels.

[B. W.]

Overtly, none that I'm aware of B.W. Implicitly I think there's a form of that going on in sects that elevate particularly translations like KJV-Only. I also believe there is an equivilency when scripture or the Bible is afforded attributes that immutably belong to God, Christ and the HS alone. When Scripture becomes a force or entity apart from it's tie to inspiration by and utilization by the Holy Spirit, I see strong parallels with Gnosticism, which was at the core, as I understand it, in much of John's writings to address in the very early Church. When there is confusion between the title of Word (Logos) that Christ exclusively holds and passages that clearly refer to Christ and clearly were understood by the human authors and early Church to refer to Christ are then attributed to the Bible then a de facto form of idoloatry is taking place, idolatry meaning anything that takes a place which exclusively and rightly can only be held by God.

Why is that hard to see B.W.? Don't we speak of materialism as a form of idolatry in the culture you and I live in? People don't physically bow down and worship their posessions, but we're still correct in identifying it as a form of idolatry when possessions become the focus and center of our lives.

I think there are elements of evangelicalism that are flirting with (and some that have in effect gone over) to walk with a focus upon Scripture without Christ being central to where Scripture itself is elevated to an equal position with Christ and no longer pointing toward Him. I think that's true in some forms of legalism, which diminish Christ's grace and focus upon performance and adherance to how they interpret the Scriptures.

I love scripture. I affirm their inspiration. I also believe in the inerrancy of the orginals (which is somewhat moot since we don't have them.) Scripture reveals in part many things which are only revealed in full in Jesus Christ alone and unfortunately many of our words and practices within evangelicalism in particular (but not exclusively) have blurred that line and whenever we attribute an immutable, non-transferrable characteristic of God and Christ, to anything else, even something good and important such as Scripture and make it a focus instead of Christ, then we've in effect placed the Bible into a role that only Christ can fill.

That's what I'm trying to say and probably failing at several levels.

Okaty- understand now what you are saying - before it wasn't too clear - maybe on FB people do not grasp clearly what you are trying to say. To me it sounded like people were going to Church and worshiping the bible - sing'n new praises song like: "Oh Holy Bible we worship thee, you're all I want to know,,I lift my voice to yo-ou oh Hol-y Bible..."
-
-
-

[Canuckster1127]

I think that's part of what happened. I have a tendency (which will no doubt come as a shock to you all ) to be too verbose and that can lead to confusion rather than clarity. I think those that stuck around got the clarification. For some, all they had to see was the suggestions that the Bible is not the "Word of God" and immediately they went beyond what I was saying to conclude I was challenging inspiraration. Not the case, but at the same time, still a strong challenge to the use of the term as it's viewed in the church today.

[Katabole]

As I stated I believe the Bible is the Word of God however, I do not worship the Bible as God. I worship God the Father through the Son by the power of the Spirit. I do use the KJV but I like the Green's Interlinear much more because it allows me to see the words that were initially written and how they were translated/transliterated.

The church of Philadelphia in Rev 3 kept the word (the logos). Because they did this Christ rewarded them Rev 3:10.

By not keeping the word, Christianity has broken into many denominations over time. I don't believe this would have happened if Christians kept the word. It seems that Paul the Apostle specifically wanted Christians to be united as stated in 1Cor 1:10. The danger of not believing it is the Word imo, is that it has led to this fracturing into denominations and as stated by Jesus in Matt 7:22,23 many (not a few) who profess themselves to be believers will be turned away.

Rich put up a good article on the Word on this site. I think he was trying to claim that the Bible is the Word unless he can explain otherwise.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html

Thank you for answering my questions. I do also believe that the Christian God is a God of literacy, hence the stress of why Jesus claimed it is written and should be read.

[Sudsy]

Regarding idolatry - could it be said that settling on and promoting a certain interpretation of scripture can be a form of idolatry ? I think many times certain understandings are worshipped and given more allegiance than Christ Himself. Yes/No ?

[Kurieuo]

By not keeping the word, Christianity has broken into many denominations over time. I don't believe this would have happened if Christians kept the word. It seems that Paul the Apostle specifically wanted Christians to be united as stated in 1Cor 1:10. The danger of not believing it is the Word imo, is that it has led to this fracturing into denominations and as stated by Jesus in Matt 7:22,23 many (not a few) who profess themselves to be believers will be turned away.

I think it is more a difference of opinion and interpretation that breaks Christianity into varying denominations, not failing to keep the word.

I personally do not see it as a negative that there exists different Christian denominations. This shows we take our beliefs passionately and seriously, especially when it comes to our Christianity. It shows we are not robots or borg-like, that we are human, have individual personalities, have our own mind and beliefs. It also enables those who would be rejected in one denomination because of who they are and what they believe, to still be a part of a Christian community somewhere else.

Interestingly, all Christian denominations are in general agreement. It is when one digs deepr that one begins to see and understand the differences, even important differences. Yet, I can affirm some Catholics are saved, some Anglican, some Uniting, Reformed, Baptists, AOG or some other denomination. While there are sharp differences of opinion, and different levels of liberalism, there is the same underlying affirmation in all orthodox Christian denominations surrounding the nature of God, Christ, humanity, sin and forgiveness.