I put this up on my blog recently and it's created a firestorm of sorts on my facebook account. I was even declared a heretic by one, unfriended, blocked and informed I was going to hell.
I've had several hundred views in a 24 hour period and about 100 responses (some from the same people.)
I'm going to post some of the follow-up as well.
Please at least read the whole original post, before responding.
__________________________________________________________________________
I’m bracing as I write this for an expected slew of shock, dismay, rebuke and unfriending the likes of which I’ve never seen before. All I ask is that you read this entire post so you understand what I am saying and what I am not saying.
But yes …. you haven’t misread me. I’m saying the Bible is not the “Word of God.” Further the Bible itself doesn’t claim to the be the “Word of God.” There is one and only one “Word of God” and that is Jesus Christ, period.
Why is this important? I firmly believe that the Bible is inspired, given to us by God. It’s an important part of knowing and following Jesus. However, it is not the equal of Christ, it is not Christ in written form, and it most certainly is not to be elevated above Christ. Sadly, it’s my belief that many practising Christians have done just that, and in so doing have fallen into a form of modern gnosticism, which reduces Christian living to mere intellectual understanding, which is then seen somehow as elevating them in position above others who do not share their knowledge (see also “Pharisaism” in part, with an extra measure of self-righteous legalism to boot.)
The “Word of God” is a very specific and carefully used term in Scripture. In the New Testament it especially is used in conjunction with the greek word “logos.” It is this word and this phrase that is used in the prologue of John and many scholars and historians of the early church believe that this opening in John was written specifically to address what was seen by John and the early apostles as the heretical challenge of Gnosticism. That may be true of that time, but I believe it is equally relevant and valid today to help us see that the heart and soul of a relationship with God, is through the person of Jesus Christ, as manifested in our life by the indwelling Holy Spirit.
The purpose of the Bible is to point us to Jesus Christ. It is never to replace Him. In fact, I’ll make a radical statement (for some anyway) that I believe it is intentional on God’s part that we do not have any of the original manuscripts of the Bible so that we would not fall into the temptation to make them an idol and worship or elevate them as equal or even above Jesus Christ in any way whatsoever. What we have in Scripture is overall reliable, demonstrably tie-able in most every situation to an agreed upon majority text (and I won’t get into the arguments that occur here in terms of the Byzantine or Alexandrian test traditions). There is alway room however, for a measure of humility and care when we approach Scripture to allow that neither the texts we have, themselves are “perfect” nor is our understanding and interpretation of them in every case necessarily “perfect.” There is only one “perfect” in the revelation of God to mankind and that is Jesus Christ (again) period.
The original languages use a very specific word for “Word of God” as I’m addressing it here, and that is the greek word “logos.” There is another greek word used in the Bible about 70 times that is also often translated into English as “word” in the sense of a “spoken word” and that is the word “Rhema.” They are not the same words and where “word of God” is rendered in scripture in any form, it’s important if you want to have any depth of understanding of the core meaning of the phrase to determine if the word is “logos”, “rhema” or some other form of phrase that is being translated in that manner. That’s beyond the scope of a blog post, so I challenge you if you want to do a little digging on your own, go ahead and do a study on the phrase “Word of God” and find out, (there are many tools even on-line to do it) whether the phrase is rooted in “logos” or “rhema.” When the phrase is logos, to understand that as anything other than Jesus Christ, the “logos” Word of God will lead to confusion and possibly a usurping of position and importance of the Bible to the diminishing of Jesus Christ. That is inconsistent with what Christianity really is. Anything short of Jesus Christ at the center and as the foundation of a relationship with God, misses the point of God’s plan entirely.
Here’s some of the scriptures that are important in moving forward in this understanding, but it’s by no means exhaustive.
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” (Gen. 1:1-3)
This passage to the understanding of many opens the Bible from the very onset of creation to show the role of each member of the Trinity in Creating (Christ), Moving with creation itself (Holy Spirit) and speaking things into being (God the Father).
It’s no mistake that John’s gospel opens with a similar formula and seeks, with no ambiguity to demonstrate the role of Christ in creation as God.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (Jn. 1:1- 3)
“He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of men, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (Jn. 1:10- 14)
Here is the heart of the “logos”. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. This word was present at the creation of the world and an active agent, described of God and it was this God who incarnated and came to dwell among us as the highest and greatest revelation of God.
What does Jesus say about the Scriptures? First of all, he doesn’t use the term “word of God” in any sense that equates it with Himself. He usually refers to scriptures (which for Him at that time were only the Old Testament scriptures as the NT didn’t exist yet) with the introductory phrase “as it is written” (Mt. 4:1-11; 11:10; 21:13; 26:31; Mk. 7:6; 11:17; 14:27; et al) or he’ll say something like “spoken of by the prophet” (Mt. 24:15; Mk. 13:14), or “all that the prophets have spoken” (Lk. 24:25). Sometimes he’ll just say “scriptures” (writings) (Mt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:56; Mk. 12:10, 24; etc.)
When Jesus uses the phrase translated into English “Word of God” he is referring to the spoken word of God (in the context of Rhema, either using that word or appealing to that concept) and in most cases a specific instance where that speaking took place. It’s not referring to the entire collection of scriptures let alone equating them as somehow the equal to Himself. Examples of this are Mk. 7:13 where Jesus is referring to a specific commandment (Honor your Father and Mother) which some Pharisees had just quoted. In Mt. 22:31-32 Jesus is referring to Ex 3:6. Again, not exhaustive, but an example of what to look for. When you see that phrase, look at what happened earlier and after and find the context of the specific passage he’s speaking of. Don’t fall prey to “proof-texters” who wrench things out of context and try to make the comments by Christ apply to the entire body of Scriptures in some manner that then elevates them above Himself. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, just to clear up any misunderstanding, Jesus clearly taught that the scriptures by themselves are not sufficient to contain the “Word of God” (logos).
“And The Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.” (Jn. 5:37-40)
The Scriptures point to Jesus. Jesus is the Life, not the Scriptures themselves.
And to close this very brief and by no means exhaustive it’s necessary to address the coup d’ grace often pulled out by those who wish to to make the Scriptures some sort of active force (independent of Jesus and the Holy Spirit).
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Heb. 4:12)
Seems pretty clearly to mean the Bible right? Especially if you’ve been conditioned from a young child for this passage to mean this (as well as the armor of God in Ephesians) for this to mean the Bible. (Maybe you remember as I do as I child being told to “Draw swords!”) There’s only one problem with all this. IT”S PATENTLY NOT TRUE. Read on to the next verse.
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13)
It’s referring to something that is not manifest in “his” sight, and all things being naked and opened unto the eyes of “him” with whom we have to do. Again, this is Jesus, not the Bible. The Bible doesn’t work upon us (not in this context) from the outside. It is Jesus who works inside of us by His Spirit. May he use the Bible as we read and study it? Of course, but he’s not limited to that and it’s Him that is doing it, not the scriptures themselves.
This seems to be such a basic teaching and yet I have to tell you, both as a believer for 35 years at the time of this writing and with 20 years of varied roles within several different churches, this is not commonly or clearly taught. We’ve traded in Christianity with Christ at the center for a form of philosophy, and teaching that elevates the Bible to the equivalent of 4th member of the Trinity, and the really alarming part of it is that in doing it, Jesus is effectively emasculated (strong word I know, and I’m using it deliberately) and turned into a distant, symbolic figure who is not actively involved. Further, it allows men (even well meaning men) to take the Scripture and cut it up into little pieces where they can manipulate and juxtapose it in proof-texts to say pretty much whatever they want and in doing so take upon themselves the authority that the only Jesus holds.
This is a radical thing to understand and it’s not easy to begin to break free from many elements of this indoctrination. It takes consistent practice of examining many texts that are commonly quoted (there are others besides some of the mainstays quoted above.) Stop reading and listening to the Scriptures in these haphazard ways. Begin reminding yourself before you read that these Scriptures are present first and foremost to point to Christ. HE IS THE WORD. Can there be other purposes and lessons to learn? Of course. But these will always be subordinate to Christ and His Holy Spirit. They do not rise above Him and they are not the equal of Him.
Start with the book of Colossians. Read the whole thing (it’s a short book.) You’ll be amazed when you see how Christ is central to everything we are and how we are to walk.
The Bible is not the “Word of God.” God help us for how much of what passes today as the Body of Christ that apparently has lost sight of that fact and turned Christianity into “people of the book.” Thank God for the book, the Bible, but Thank God the most for Jesus Christ. HE, is the core of Christianity, and if anything but Christ is at the center, then we’ve missed everything.
The Bible is not "The Word of God"
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
The Bible is not "The Word of God"
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
Re: The Bible is not "The Word of God"
Response from a friend who agreed. (I'm not including names as I haven't asked permission, but as they posted this viewable by others on my page, I don't think it's wrong to include)
_________________________________
Good post Bart. Matt 11:27 was a very important Scripture in the thinking of the early church. When the writer has Jesus saying that "no one knows the Father except the son and those to whom He reveals Him" that means "no one." No one inclu...des Abraham, Moses, David, the Prophets, etc. Whatever they thought they knew about the Father's character was only partial and a perception but not the "exact representation" that Jesus was.
It follows that the OT is an accurate representation of their understanding and perception of God but whatever is attributed to his character that seems to conflict with whom Jesus says he is, must be at least considered suspicious. The culture of Israel and the Middle Eastern tribes was not focused on accuracy to validate the truthfulness of the stories so numbers of people are often exaggerated to make the point it was a big deal but not in the sense of someone lying.
@Bart, much of my church culture have attempted to make Scripture into the fourth member of the Trinity on at least equal with the Son. We"ve mistaken the finger pointing to the Son for the Son and that's always a mistake.
It is quite an interesting study to look at how Paul interprets the OT as allegory and feels free to turn its literal meaning on its head. When he equates Jesus as the Rock in the Exodus desert or when he turns the Sarah/Hagar story around 180 degrees it's obvious he did not take the literal words as the only meaning. is quotes appear to come from the Septuagint and not the Hebrew but he never points out "Now the Greek says X, the but the original Hebrew literally says Y."
(same author different comment)
"Inerrancy" is an Evangelical shell-game. That term means so many different things so no one really knows. "Inerrant" original manuscripts is a safe definition since no one has them to check
Here is a great article to check by Roger E Olsen "Why Inerrancy Doesn't Matter?" http://www.rogereolson.com/2010/08/19/w ... nt-matter/
_________________________________
Good post Bart. Matt 11:27 was a very important Scripture in the thinking of the early church. When the writer has Jesus saying that "no one knows the Father except the son and those to whom He reveals Him" that means "no one." No one inclu...des Abraham, Moses, David, the Prophets, etc. Whatever they thought they knew about the Father's character was only partial and a perception but not the "exact representation" that Jesus was.
It follows that the OT is an accurate representation of their understanding and perception of God but whatever is attributed to his character that seems to conflict with whom Jesus says he is, must be at least considered suspicious. The culture of Israel and the Middle Eastern tribes was not focused on accuracy to validate the truthfulness of the stories so numbers of people are often exaggerated to make the point it was a big deal but not in the sense of someone lying.
@Bart, much of my church culture have attempted to make Scripture into the fourth member of the Trinity on at least equal with the Son. We"ve mistaken the finger pointing to the Son for the Son and that's always a mistake.
It is quite an interesting study to look at how Paul interprets the OT as allegory and feels free to turn its literal meaning on its head. When he equates Jesus as the Rock in the Exodus desert or when he turns the Sarah/Hagar story around 180 degrees it's obvious he did not take the literal words as the only meaning. is quotes appear to come from the Septuagint and not the Hebrew but he never points out "Now the Greek says X, the but the original Hebrew literally says Y."
(same author different comment)
"Inerrancy" is an Evangelical shell-game. That term means so many different things so no one really knows. "Inerrant" original manuscripts is a safe definition since no one has them to check
Here is a great article to check by Roger E Olsen "Why Inerrancy Doesn't Matter?" http://www.rogereolson.com/2010/08/19/w ... nt-matter/Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
Re: The Bible is not "The Word of God"
Response of a friend questioning some elements of the post.
___________________________________________________
I feel that you are asking us to make a choice that doesnt need to be made. You are right in saying that Christ is the Word of God, but must i reject the belief that the Bible is also the Word of God?
Isaiah begins with "For the Lord has sp...oken..." (Is. 1:2). Jeremiah claims that "the word of the Lord came to me...I have put my words in your mouth," (Jer. 1:1-9). Similar things are said of the other prophets, but i think you get my drift.
Is the Psalmist wrong when he talks of Gods "way," "law," "testimonies," "precepts," "statutes," "commandments," "judgments," etc as "Your word?" (Ps. 119), or Moses, (Duet. 4).
Jesus questioned the folks of his day by saying of the Scriptures, "...have you not read what was spoken to you by God..." (Matt. 22:29ff). What does God speak with, if not with words? If those words are then written down & called the Scriptures, why is it wrong to then call them the "Word of God?" The book of Revelation begins by saying "The Revelation of Jesus Christ... which are written..." and ends with the warning not to take away from "the words of this book of this prophecy." All of this has led me to the conclusion that all of Gods Revelation can called the Word of God, whether that Revelation is created (Ps.19. 1ff), spoken, written, or begotten, it is all the Word of God without fear of contradiction.
I understand & I am in complete sympathy with your desire to elevate Christ, (although I'm not convinced the Logos is an eternal person in the Trinitarian sense, but i digress), but are we throwing out the baby with the bath water, or am i missing something?
PS. I'm not shocked or dismayed, nor am i trying to rebuke you, just seeking understanding. Neither will i unfriend you. I hope you wont unfriend me either.
Shalom from one pilgrim to another.
___________________________________________________
I feel that you are asking us to make a choice that doesnt need to be made. You are right in saying that Christ is the Word of God, but must i reject the belief that the Bible is also the Word of God?
Isaiah begins with "For the Lord has sp...oken..." (Is. 1:2). Jeremiah claims that "the word of the Lord came to me...I have put my words in your mouth," (Jer. 1:1-9). Similar things are said of the other prophets, but i think you get my drift.
Is the Psalmist wrong when he talks of Gods "way," "law," "testimonies," "precepts," "statutes," "commandments," "judgments," etc as "Your word?" (Ps. 119), or Moses, (Duet. 4).
Jesus questioned the folks of his day by saying of the Scriptures, "...have you not read what was spoken to you by God..." (Matt. 22:29ff). What does God speak with, if not with words? If those words are then written down & called the Scriptures, why is it wrong to then call them the "Word of God?" The book of Revelation begins by saying "The Revelation of Jesus Christ... which are written..." and ends with the warning not to take away from "the words of this book of this prophecy." All of this has led me to the conclusion that all of Gods Revelation can called the Word of God, whether that Revelation is created (Ps.19. 1ff), spoken, written, or begotten, it is all the Word of God without fear of contradiction.
I understand & I am in complete sympathy with your desire to elevate Christ, (although I'm not convinced the Logos is an eternal person in the Trinitarian sense, but i digress), but are we throwing out the baby with the bath water, or am i missing something?
PS. I'm not shocked or dismayed, nor am i trying to rebuke you, just seeking understanding. Neither will i unfriend you. I hope you wont unfriend me either.
Shalom from one pilgrim to another.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
Re: The Bible is not "The Word of God"
From another friend (and former pastor and colleague in ministry.)
__________________________________________________________
Bart - You certainly know how to grab our attention! While you make many good points that I would agree with, especially re: the centrality of Jesus Christ, I cannot fully embrace what you write. The Bible is the word of God in this sense -... He is its author. I believe that is what is claimed by passages like 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16 - didn't check the rhema or logos of the 1 Thess. 2:13 and the other 2 don't use either one. Divine authorship certainly doesn't elevate the Bible to be the 4th member of the Trinity. It does however mean that the Bible reflects Divine character - such as it never changes and it is completely true as originally given. Divine authorship raises the Bible to a level achieved by no other book. That is why we preach it, read it often, seek to live by it, use it in sharing our faith in Christ, etc. As Paul says to Timothy, the Bible is useful to a level that no other book is. I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation of Hebrews 4:12. I don't see that the next verse precludes us from seeing the Bible is a living Book that has abilities unique to it as a written document. Have some people settled for using the Bible for academic or fact-knowing purposes - yes. Have some people abused the Bible by picking and choosing verses to use a weaponry to prove their point or win their fight - yes. In one sense I would say that they have too low of a view of Scripture, not too high of a view. Things I encounter in my setting where someone uses some verse in the Bible to try to prove their legalistic point seem to me to say they need to understand more of the Bible not less of it. I'd hard-pressed to say that having too high a view of Scripture is a major problem in the church today. Just the opposite - many have to low a view of Scripture. They don't let it point them to Jesus and they don't allow the Holy Spirit to use it to change, direct, and empower their lives. That's my take...
__________________________________________________________
Bart - You certainly know how to grab our attention! While you make many good points that I would agree with, especially re: the centrality of Jesus Christ, I cannot fully embrace what you write. The Bible is the word of God in this sense -... He is its author. I believe that is what is claimed by passages like 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16 - didn't check the rhema or logos of the 1 Thess. 2:13 and the other 2 don't use either one. Divine authorship certainly doesn't elevate the Bible to be the 4th member of the Trinity. It does however mean that the Bible reflects Divine character - such as it never changes and it is completely true as originally given. Divine authorship raises the Bible to a level achieved by no other book. That is why we preach it, read it often, seek to live by it, use it in sharing our faith in Christ, etc. As Paul says to Timothy, the Bible is useful to a level that no other book is. I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation of Hebrews 4:12. I don't see that the next verse precludes us from seeing the Bible is a living Book that has abilities unique to it as a written document. Have some people settled for using the Bible for academic or fact-knowing purposes - yes. Have some people abused the Bible by picking and choosing verses to use a weaponry to prove their point or win their fight - yes. In one sense I would say that they have too low of a view of Scripture, not too high of a view. Things I encounter in my setting where someone uses some verse in the Bible to try to prove their legalistic point seem to me to say they need to understand more of the Bible not less of it. I'd hard-pressed to say that having too high a view of Scripture is a major problem in the church today. Just the opposite - many have to low a view of Scripture. They don't let it point them to Jesus and they don't allow the Holy Spirit to use it to change, direct, and empower their lives. That's my take...
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
Re: The Bible is not "The Word of God"
My reponse, to one questioner
________________________________
OK, I appreciate the feedback received thus far and in particular I'm going to try and respond here to the responses from John and from Terry. I'm happy for the feedback and it gives me an opportunity to further clarify and intereact with ...the Scriptures themselves, because as I tried to do in the main post, I'm actually seeking to make this point from the Scriptures and not just from personal opinion or philosophy.
At the outset, I'll clarify that I think part of the issue here ties into the phrase "Word of God" and how we use it in english. I don't think in the greek language in particular, that the Bible was written in, that the differentiation between the title "Word of God" or logos theou, (the actual greek term) that there was any confusion between that and what the scriptures were viewed as at the time.
Secondly I think there's a tremendous amount of tradition at play here as well. "Word of God" as we use it in general, and I'm applealing here to my experience within the Institutional Church culture, is pretty much used interchangably to mean "Living Word of God" or "Spoken Word of God." That's the point that is primary in my post. It's often blurred and confused and it creates the impresssion that they are one and the same thing and co-equal.
I'm sensing with the responses here that are questioning or adding additional considerations (from scripture too) that there's no disagreement with the primary point. What there may be is some disagreement with what this might mean in terms of our view of scripture and I understand that. I've made some strong statements in that regard, and I'm very familiar with the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy and what it means.
We've addressed some of that above and just to reiterate, in theory, I agree with inerrancy of the original manuscripts, but then I have to recognize as well, that, as Paul noted, it can become something of a shell game, because the reality is, we don't have those originals any longer and so regardless of what we want to say about those original manuscripts we have to recognize we work with what we have, and further we have to recognize as a fact, that God, for whatever reason, did not choose to direct things is such a way that we have them so that we can look back to Scriptures and call them "perfect." I've been trained and conditioned to accept inerrancy and inspiration and I hold to them too.
(I also recognize though, that much of the thinking that builds this case isn't necessarily found with the scriptures themselves in this manner. Much of what builds the case and the need to assert inerrancy in the original manuscripts isn't difficult to see as coming from Greek Philosophy and particularly that of Plato and Aristotle. Plato in particular asserted that there had to be a perfect prototype of anything we could perceive and we just see "shadows" that derive from that perfect prototype. (Look up Plato's cave on the internet if you want to see more of how that works.))
My take in part on that, as I shared is that I believe that was intentional on God's part because His ultimate revelation to us is Christ not the Bible. That's a hard statement for many to receive because there is a strong tradition in evangelicalism that focuses upon scripture as the foundation of much of our faith. In fact, the rallying cry through much of the Reformation was "Sola Scriptura" which sought to elevate the foundation of our fatih and understanding away from the traditions of the then Catholic Church which saw other things in addition to the Scripture as that which reveals God to us and lays a foundation of our fatih.
I don't know that I can address everything that includes in a blog post or response, so I'm going to simply state a few things realizing that they are not exhaustive and there's much more that can be said.
As several have noted, I think it's important to recognize a few things:
1. The history of protestantism stretches back about 500 years while Christianity stretches back about 2,000 (at least from the time of Christ here on earth)
2. Scripture available to all Christians is primarily tied to the length of protestantism. Some have mentioned literacy as a factor. Literacy was actually relatively high back in the time of Christ within the Roman Empire. Jesus came in the midst of what is known as the Pax Romanae, or Roman Peace. In addition to local languages and dialects most Roman holdings had its citizens and resident able to speak Koine Greek, the language of trade, and the more educated growingly speaking Latin.
Literacy was relatively high. Jesus himself is an example, he was a carpenter (at least his father was) and yet in synagogue meetings, He could read from the scrolls present. Indeed it appears that at least among males, most were able to read at least at a level that would allow for trade and communications. The issue however was availability of written materials. Scrolls, parchments, vellums, manuscripts etc. had to be made by hand by scribes and the time and effort involved was such that the value of those scrolls were very high and expensive. Personal copies were next to unheard of. Ownership of these scrolls in the judaism was limited to the temple early on and synagogues.
Later as Christianity grew, and local churches had letters written to them by Paul or other apostles, it was common for those letters to be passed from group to group and copied and something similar took places with these being owned and kept in homes for the benefit of the entire community.
Then came the dark ages. Literacy decreased tremendously. The church became even more, the source of access to these scriptures and they were given orally in the context of mass and services by trained priests who were among the very few who were literate. Only a very few could access scripture.
3. Then came the Reformation in the midst of the Renaissance and the Chuirch played a major role in this time as the keeper of much of the old knowledge that was rediscovered and then the printing press. Individuals could now own scriptu...res and read for themselves and further the monopoly of the primary institutional church at that time in terms of hierarchy.
4. At the time of the writing of scriptures in the NT any reference to Scripture would not have been in the minds of those writing as including their own writing, but rather back to the Old Testament and depending upon the context of the writing it could focus primarily just upon the Pentateuch or 5 books of Moses, or it could apply to a greater scope including the recognized prophets and their writings as well.
5. The NT canon wasn't finalized and recognized until the early 4th century. That doesn't mean that many of the writing weren't seen as important before then. The canonization is not when many of these started to be recognized as important or inspired. It was simply a time when the early church, now organized and recognized by the Roman state had the "freedom" to operate like this more formally. What was particularly at work in recognizing these writings as "inspired" was either the direct contact of the author with Christ (Matthew, John, Paul (remember the road to Damascus), James, Peter) or the direct contact and influence of an apostle on the writer (Mark - Paul, Barnabus and Peter), Luke (Paul and likely several others as Luke was educated and used sources written and oral), the author of Hebrews is a mystery for most so we don't know there.
Reading many of the 2nd century Church Fathers it's pretty clear that what carried authority within the underground church of that time was how well connected the writings and teaching were to an apostle who had been with Christ. (A powerful statement in and of itself and focused not ultimately upon the apostles but rather upon the centrality of Christ which is the primary point here anyway.)
So, that's some background, (off the top of my head) I'll follow-up now in a separate post, so this doesn't get too overwhelming, with some of the specific passages referenced earlier.
_______________________________
new post
Specifically to John's question, and also alluded to by Terry, am I suggesting you must make a choice then between Christ and the Bible?
Yes and no. The two are not mutually exclusive. Far from it. The Bible however, points toward Christ.... Christ is pre-eminant and Christ points us, He tells us, to God. He who has seen the Christ has seen the Father. Can the same be said that whoever has seen (or read) the Bible has seen God? No. God's revelation is not ultimately complete in Scripture. If it were, Christ would not have needed to come. Christ came to accomplish specific things, in redeeming us. But Christ, Himself is the fullness of God, not the scriptures. We see elements of God in Scripture. We can hear from God in Scripture, but Scripture is not the fullest revelation of God, Christ is.
So yes, I am saying if you're going to look at the Scriptures versus Christ, you have to recognize Christ as the ultimate, revelation of God, period. However, the scriptures themselves point to Christ and are God's inspired written word, so that is in alignment.
You don't have to make a choice then. That would be the ultimate false dilemma. You do however, need to prioritize the two and keep Christ, pre-eminent.
Christ saves us. The Bible points to Christ and supports that, but it doesn't and cannot independently save us apart from Christ.
Christ sanctifies us. The Bible points to Christ and aligns with Christ's work by becoming a tool that is used in His hands in our lives, but apart from that work of the Spirit, the Bible doesn't independently accomplish righteousness in our lives. We're saved by Grace and we're sustained by grace.
Christ in the end is the one who will return (however that occurs) and finalize the work he began. The Bible will not do that.
The Bible testifies about and points us toward Christ. That's powerful and important and even implemented in the plans of God, but the Bible is not God and more specifically, the Bible is not Christ.
Now to the verses quoted:
As has been mentioned but others and I'll repeat, the OT is not sufficient by itself to point to Christ in terms of the salvation of men. It was (and still is) sufficient for the task it was intended for, which is to point to Christ and prepare the nation of Israel for the coming of the Messiah. It in itself could however, only prepare for Christ, it didn't accomplish what Christ came to do as Messiah.
The Scripture is the messenger. Jesus is the message.
So in terms of the passages you cite, John, there's no conflict that I can see with seeing scriptures (in part anyway) as the spoken word of God. Scriptures contain the words of God, the words of men and even the words of Satan and of Demons. On a high level we can say by inspiration that it's all the spoken words of God in that even the words of men or satan or demons, serve God's purpose in revealing what he intends. I have no problem with that. But that's a far cry from attributing equality to Christ with them.
The introductory passages you cite from the OT, in terms of Prophets bringing a spoken word from God are just that; a spoken word of God given through the Prophet for the intended audience in the time it was given. Many times too, and this supports I think what I'm trying to say, there's a greater context and much of the events addressed by God through prophets for that specific time, often carry a larger context that serves as a picture of what God was preparing to do through the coming of Christ. So in one sense, you have the spoken word of God, setting the scene and serving to prepare the nation of Israel for the coming of Christ, at least for those who would listen.
Looking at the passages you note in Psalms and Proverbs "Is the Psalmist wrong when he talks ofGods "way," "law," "testimonies," "precepts," "statutes," "commandments," "judgments," etc as "Your word?" (Ps. 119), or Moses, (Duet. 4).
Again, there's a difference between the "Rhema" or spoken word of God versus the "Word of God" Logos Theou, which is Jesus Christ. The purpose of the law we're told in Romans is not redemption in and of itself. The purpose of the law, established in Romans in the NT, is not to save us, not primarily. It's to show us we're lost and in need of Christ. So are these the words of God spoken to us (or in the OT mostly spoken to the nation of Israel), yes they're words of God, but again, they are not Christ.
You ask what is wrong with using the title "Word of God" with regards to the Bible. Maybe notning. I know some people try to differentiate between the two of them by using a capital on the Word of God meaning Jesus, and the word of God meaning the Bible. That's possibly a good solution in writing assuming all reading recognize the nuance. You can't make that distinction so well in speaking however. It's just become such a common term in English to where it's my concern that the distinction is being lost.
It's subtle but when we separate the Bible from pointing to and being reliant upon Christ and the Holy Spirit, we run the very real risk of making it in "magic words" with their own power that somehow give us power or special insight into God and the world.
That's pretty much the definition of gnosticism. It's a hard thing to say, but when the focus turns upon the Bible without Christ's centrality, then there is a huge danger of this type of gnosticism (and other types of errors as well) blooming.
Hope that makese sense and addressed your points John. If you think I'm missing something or trying to speak around what you're saying, then call me on it. I'm perfectly open and willing to be corrected. In fact, I'd love that. We're to sharpen one another and grow in this way I believe. I'm sad that Paul earlier chose to take his marbles and go home. I can only guess at what he might have had to say before anger and isolation took over. In any event, I'm glad you've engaged and I'll be interested in what you have to say further.
________________________________
OK, I appreciate the feedback received thus far and in particular I'm going to try and respond here to the responses from John and from Terry. I'm happy for the feedback and it gives me an opportunity to further clarify and intereact with ...the Scriptures themselves, because as I tried to do in the main post, I'm actually seeking to make this point from the Scriptures and not just from personal opinion or philosophy.
At the outset, I'll clarify that I think part of the issue here ties into the phrase "Word of God" and how we use it in english. I don't think in the greek language in particular, that the Bible was written in, that the differentiation between the title "Word of God" or logos theou, (the actual greek term) that there was any confusion between that and what the scriptures were viewed as at the time.
Secondly I think there's a tremendous amount of tradition at play here as well. "Word of God" as we use it in general, and I'm applealing here to my experience within the Institutional Church culture, is pretty much used interchangably to mean "Living Word of God" or "Spoken Word of God." That's the point that is primary in my post. It's often blurred and confused and it creates the impresssion that they are one and the same thing and co-equal.
I'm sensing with the responses here that are questioning or adding additional considerations (from scripture too) that there's no disagreement with the primary point. What there may be is some disagreement with what this might mean in terms of our view of scripture and I understand that. I've made some strong statements in that regard, and I'm very familiar with the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy and what it means.
We've addressed some of that above and just to reiterate, in theory, I agree with inerrancy of the original manuscripts, but then I have to recognize as well, that, as Paul noted, it can become something of a shell game, because the reality is, we don't have those originals any longer and so regardless of what we want to say about those original manuscripts we have to recognize we work with what we have, and further we have to recognize as a fact, that God, for whatever reason, did not choose to direct things is such a way that we have them so that we can look back to Scriptures and call them "perfect." I've been trained and conditioned to accept inerrancy and inspiration and I hold to them too.
(I also recognize though, that much of the thinking that builds this case isn't necessarily found with the scriptures themselves in this manner. Much of what builds the case and the need to assert inerrancy in the original manuscripts isn't difficult to see as coming from Greek Philosophy and particularly that of Plato and Aristotle. Plato in particular asserted that there had to be a perfect prototype of anything we could perceive and we just see "shadows" that derive from that perfect prototype. (Look up Plato's cave on the internet if you want to see more of how that works.))
My take in part on that, as I shared is that I believe that was intentional on God's part because His ultimate revelation to us is Christ not the Bible. That's a hard statement for many to receive because there is a strong tradition in evangelicalism that focuses upon scripture as the foundation of much of our faith. In fact, the rallying cry through much of the Reformation was "Sola Scriptura" which sought to elevate the foundation of our fatih and understanding away from the traditions of the then Catholic Church which saw other things in addition to the Scripture as that which reveals God to us and lays a foundation of our fatih.
I don't know that I can address everything that includes in a blog post or response, so I'm going to simply state a few things realizing that they are not exhaustive and there's much more that can be said.
As several have noted, I think it's important to recognize a few things:
1. The history of protestantism stretches back about 500 years while Christianity stretches back about 2,000 (at least from the time of Christ here on earth)
2. Scripture available to all Christians is primarily tied to the length of protestantism. Some have mentioned literacy as a factor. Literacy was actually relatively high back in the time of Christ within the Roman Empire. Jesus came in the midst of what is known as the Pax Romanae, or Roman Peace. In addition to local languages and dialects most Roman holdings had its citizens and resident able to speak Koine Greek, the language of trade, and the more educated growingly speaking Latin.
Literacy was relatively high. Jesus himself is an example, he was a carpenter (at least his father was) and yet in synagogue meetings, He could read from the scrolls present. Indeed it appears that at least among males, most were able to read at least at a level that would allow for trade and communications. The issue however was availability of written materials. Scrolls, parchments, vellums, manuscripts etc. had to be made by hand by scribes and the time and effort involved was such that the value of those scrolls were very high and expensive. Personal copies were next to unheard of. Ownership of these scrolls in the judaism was limited to the temple early on and synagogues.
Later as Christianity grew, and local churches had letters written to them by Paul or other apostles, it was common for those letters to be passed from group to group and copied and something similar took places with these being owned and kept in homes for the benefit of the entire community.
Then came the dark ages. Literacy decreased tremendously. The church became even more, the source of access to these scriptures and they were given orally in the context of mass and services by trained priests who were among the very few who were literate. Only a very few could access scripture.
3. Then came the Reformation in the midst of the Renaissance and the Chuirch played a major role in this time as the keeper of much of the old knowledge that was rediscovered and then the printing press. Individuals could now own scriptu...res and read for themselves and further the monopoly of the primary institutional church at that time in terms of hierarchy.
4. At the time of the writing of scriptures in the NT any reference to Scripture would not have been in the minds of those writing as including their own writing, but rather back to the Old Testament and depending upon the context of the writing it could focus primarily just upon the Pentateuch or 5 books of Moses, or it could apply to a greater scope including the recognized prophets and their writings as well.
5. The NT canon wasn't finalized and recognized until the early 4th century. That doesn't mean that many of the writing weren't seen as important before then. The canonization is not when many of these started to be recognized as important or inspired. It was simply a time when the early church, now organized and recognized by the Roman state had the "freedom" to operate like this more formally. What was particularly at work in recognizing these writings as "inspired" was either the direct contact of the author with Christ (Matthew, John, Paul (remember the road to Damascus), James, Peter) or the direct contact and influence of an apostle on the writer (Mark - Paul, Barnabus and Peter), Luke (Paul and likely several others as Luke was educated and used sources written and oral), the author of Hebrews is a mystery for most so we don't know there.
Reading many of the 2nd century Church Fathers it's pretty clear that what carried authority within the underground church of that time was how well connected the writings and teaching were to an apostle who had been with Christ. (A powerful statement in and of itself and focused not ultimately upon the apostles but rather upon the centrality of Christ which is the primary point here anyway.)
So, that's some background, (off the top of my head) I'll follow-up now in a separate post, so this doesn't get too overwhelming, with some of the specific passages referenced earlier.
_______________________________
new post
Specifically to John's question, and also alluded to by Terry, am I suggesting you must make a choice then between Christ and the Bible?
Yes and no. The two are not mutually exclusive. Far from it. The Bible however, points toward Christ.... Christ is pre-eminant and Christ points us, He tells us, to God. He who has seen the Christ has seen the Father. Can the same be said that whoever has seen (or read) the Bible has seen God? No. God's revelation is not ultimately complete in Scripture. If it were, Christ would not have needed to come. Christ came to accomplish specific things, in redeeming us. But Christ, Himself is the fullness of God, not the scriptures. We see elements of God in Scripture. We can hear from God in Scripture, but Scripture is not the fullest revelation of God, Christ is.
So yes, I am saying if you're going to look at the Scriptures versus Christ, you have to recognize Christ as the ultimate, revelation of God, period. However, the scriptures themselves point to Christ and are God's inspired written word, so that is in alignment.
You don't have to make a choice then. That would be the ultimate false dilemma. You do however, need to prioritize the two and keep Christ, pre-eminent.
Christ saves us. The Bible points to Christ and supports that, but it doesn't and cannot independently save us apart from Christ.
Christ sanctifies us. The Bible points to Christ and aligns with Christ's work by becoming a tool that is used in His hands in our lives, but apart from that work of the Spirit, the Bible doesn't independently accomplish righteousness in our lives. We're saved by Grace and we're sustained by grace.
Christ in the end is the one who will return (however that occurs) and finalize the work he began. The Bible will not do that.
The Bible testifies about and points us toward Christ. That's powerful and important and even implemented in the plans of God, but the Bible is not God and more specifically, the Bible is not Christ.
Now to the verses quoted:
As has been mentioned but others and I'll repeat, the OT is not sufficient by itself to point to Christ in terms of the salvation of men. It was (and still is) sufficient for the task it was intended for, which is to point to Christ and prepare the nation of Israel for the coming of the Messiah. It in itself could however, only prepare for Christ, it didn't accomplish what Christ came to do as Messiah.
The Scripture is the messenger. Jesus is the message.
So in terms of the passages you cite, John, there's no conflict that I can see with seeing scriptures (in part anyway) as the spoken word of God. Scriptures contain the words of God, the words of men and even the words of Satan and of Demons. On a high level we can say by inspiration that it's all the spoken words of God in that even the words of men or satan or demons, serve God's purpose in revealing what he intends. I have no problem with that. But that's a far cry from attributing equality to Christ with them.
The introductory passages you cite from the OT, in terms of Prophets bringing a spoken word from God are just that; a spoken word of God given through the Prophet for the intended audience in the time it was given. Many times too, and this supports I think what I'm trying to say, there's a greater context and much of the events addressed by God through prophets for that specific time, often carry a larger context that serves as a picture of what God was preparing to do through the coming of Christ. So in one sense, you have the spoken word of God, setting the scene and serving to prepare the nation of Israel for the coming of Christ, at least for those who would listen.
Looking at the passages you note in Psalms and Proverbs "Is the Psalmist wrong when he talks ofGods "way," "law," "testimonies," "precepts," "statutes," "commandments," "judgments," etc as "Your word?" (Ps. 119), or Moses, (Duet. 4).
Again, there's a difference between the "Rhema" or spoken word of God versus the "Word of God" Logos Theou, which is Jesus Christ. The purpose of the law we're told in Romans is not redemption in and of itself. The purpose of the law, established in Romans in the NT, is not to save us, not primarily. It's to show us we're lost and in need of Christ. So are these the words of God spoken to us (or in the OT mostly spoken to the nation of Israel), yes they're words of God, but again, they are not Christ.
You ask what is wrong with using the title "Word of God" with regards to the Bible. Maybe notning. I know some people try to differentiate between the two of them by using a capital on the Word of God meaning Jesus, and the word of God meaning the Bible. That's possibly a good solution in writing assuming all reading recognize the nuance. You can't make that distinction so well in speaking however. It's just become such a common term in English to where it's my concern that the distinction is being lost.
It's subtle but when we separate the Bible from pointing to and being reliant upon Christ and the Holy Spirit, we run the very real risk of making it in "magic words" with their own power that somehow give us power or special insight into God and the world.
That's pretty much the definition of gnosticism. It's a hard thing to say, but when the focus turns upon the Bible without Christ's centrality, then there is a huge danger of this type of gnosticism (and other types of errors as well) blooming.
Hope that makese sense and addressed your points John. If you think I'm missing something or trying to speak around what you're saying, then call me on it. I'm perfectly open and willing to be corrected. In fact, I'd love that. We're to sharpen one another and grow in this way I believe. I'm sad that Paul earlier chose to take his marbles and go home. I can only guess at what he might have had to say before anger and isolation took over. In any event, I'm glad you've engaged and I'll be interested in what you have to say further.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
Re: The Bible is not "The Word of God"
SOme Early Church Father Quotes demonstrating the term Word of God referring to Jesus.
Some early church father quotes, and what they meant by "Word of God"
The divine prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. They were persecuted on this account as well, since they were inspired by his grace to fully convince the unbelieving ...that there is one God who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word. (Letter to the Magnesians
Ignatius circa 110 AD
If we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a unique way, different from ordinary birth, let this … be no extraordinary thing to you who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. (First Apology 22) Justin Martyr
We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that he is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably [Gr. meta logou, after or according to reason/word] are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists. (First Apology 46) Justin Martyr
The Jews and Samaritans, [though] they had the Word of God delivered to them by the prophets and always expected the Christ, did not recognize him when he came, except some few, of whom the Spirit of Prophecy, by Isaiah, had predicted that they would be saved. (First Apology 53) Justin Martyr
Now the Word of God is his Son, as we have said before. And he is called Angel and Apostle, for he declares whatever we ought to know and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed. As our Lord himself says, "He that hears me hears him that sent me" [Luke 10:16]. (First Apology 59) Justin Martyr
Those who affirm that the Son is the Father are proven neither to be acquainted with the Father nor to know that the Father has a Son. The Son, being the first-begotten Word of God, is God. (First Apology 63). Justin Martyr
You will say ... to me: "You said that God cannot to be contained in one place; how do you now say that he walked in Paradise?" ...
Hear what I say: The God and Father of all truly cannot be contained, and is not found, in a place ... but his Word, through whom he made all things, being his power and his wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God and conversed with Adam.
For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. What else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also his Son? [He is] not [a son] in the way the poets and writers of myths speak of sons of gods begotten from intercourse, but as truth expounds, the Word, who always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being [God] had him as a counselor, being his own mind and thought.
But when God wished to make all that he determined, he begot this Word, uttered, the firstborn of all creation, not himself being emptied of the Word [or Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with his Reason.
And this is what the holy writings teach us, as well as all the Spirit-bearing men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God" [Jn. 1:1], showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not one thing came into existence."
The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, then whenever the Father of the universe wills, he sends him anywhere, and he is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place. (To Autolycus II:22) Theophilus of Antioch
For the Maker of all things, the Word of God, who from the beginning formed man, performed all kinds of healing on his handiwork when he found it impaired by wickedness. (Against Heresies V:12:6) Iraeneus
That the Word of God forms us in the womb, he says to Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you came out of the belly, I sanctified you and appointed you a prophet among the nations" [Jer. 1:5]. … We are formed by the Word in the womb. This very same Word formed the visual power in him who had been blind from birth [Jn. 9:1ff], showing openly who it is that forms us in secret. (Against Heresies V:15:3) Iraeneus
Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, flesh, food, bread, blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. … In his own Spirit he says he will deck the body of the Word; as c...ertainly by his own Spirit he will nourish those who hunger for the Word.
And that the blood is the Word is testified by the blood of Abel, the righteous interceding with God. For the blood would never have uttered a voice, had it not been regarded as the Word. … The blood of old that interceded, intercedes in the place of the new blood. And the blood that is the Word cries to God, since it intimated that the Word was to suffer. (Instructor I:6) Clement of Alexandria
For the Word blended with love at once cures our passions and cleanses our sins. The saying, "Sweeter than honey flowed the stream of speech" [Iliad I:248], seems to me to have been spoken of the Word, who is honey. And prophecy often extol...s him as "above honey and the honeycomb" [Ps. 19:10]. …
Further, many also use the fat of milk, called butter, for the lamp, plainly indicating by this enigma the abundant anointing of the Word, since it is he alone who nourishes the infants, makes them grow, and enlightens them. (The Instructor I:6) Clement of Alexandria
This was a sign to [the Jews leaving entering Canaan], when wandering had trained them, and they entered their rest. It represents the great cluster, the Word, bruised for us. For the blood of the grape—that is, the Word—desired to be mixed with water, as his blood is mingled with salvation. (The Instructor II:2) Clement of Alexandria
So the point is, many verses that today evangelicals read as Word of God and think it means the Bible, the early Church heard and immediately thought of it as Jesus.
Some early church father quotes, and what they meant by "Word of God"
The divine prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. They were persecuted on this account as well, since they were inspired by his grace to fully convince the unbelieving ...that there is one God who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word. (Letter to the Magnesians
Ignatius circa 110 ADIf we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a unique way, different from ordinary birth, let this … be no extraordinary thing to you who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. (First Apology 22) Justin Martyr
We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that he is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably [Gr. meta logou, after or according to reason/word] are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists. (First Apology 46) Justin Martyr
The Jews and Samaritans, [though] they had the Word of God delivered to them by the prophets and always expected the Christ, did not recognize him when he came, except some few, of whom the Spirit of Prophecy, by Isaiah, had predicted that they would be saved. (First Apology 53) Justin Martyr
Now the Word of God is his Son, as we have said before. And he is called Angel and Apostle, for he declares whatever we ought to know and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed. As our Lord himself says, "He that hears me hears him that sent me" [Luke 10:16]. (First Apology 59) Justin Martyr
Those who affirm that the Son is the Father are proven neither to be acquainted with the Father nor to know that the Father has a Son. The Son, being the first-begotten Word of God, is God. (First Apology 63). Justin Martyr
You will say ... to me: "You said that God cannot to be contained in one place; how do you now say that he walked in Paradise?" ...
Hear what I say: The God and Father of all truly cannot be contained, and is not found, in a place ... but his Word, through whom he made all things, being his power and his wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God and conversed with Adam.
For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. What else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also his Son? [He is] not [a son] in the way the poets and writers of myths speak of sons of gods begotten from intercourse, but as truth expounds, the Word, who always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being [God] had him as a counselor, being his own mind and thought.
But when God wished to make all that he determined, he begot this Word, uttered, the firstborn of all creation, not himself being emptied of the Word [or Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with his Reason.
And this is what the holy writings teach us, as well as all the Spirit-bearing men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God" [Jn. 1:1], showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not one thing came into existence."
The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, then whenever the Father of the universe wills, he sends him anywhere, and he is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place. (To Autolycus II:22) Theophilus of Antioch
For the Maker of all things, the Word of God, who from the beginning formed man, performed all kinds of healing on his handiwork when he found it impaired by wickedness. (Against Heresies V:12:6) Iraeneus
That the Word of God forms us in the womb, he says to Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you came out of the belly, I sanctified you and appointed you a prophet among the nations" [Jer. 1:5]. … We are formed by the Word in the womb. This very same Word formed the visual power in him who had been blind from birth [Jn. 9:1ff], showing openly who it is that forms us in secret. (Against Heresies V:15:3) Iraeneus
Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, flesh, food, bread, blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. … In his own Spirit he says he will deck the body of the Word; as c...ertainly by his own Spirit he will nourish those who hunger for the Word.
And that the blood is the Word is testified by the blood of Abel, the righteous interceding with God. For the blood would never have uttered a voice, had it not been regarded as the Word. … The blood of old that interceded, intercedes in the place of the new blood. And the blood that is the Word cries to God, since it intimated that the Word was to suffer. (Instructor I:6) Clement of Alexandria
For the Word blended with love at once cures our passions and cleanses our sins. The saying, "Sweeter than honey flowed the stream of speech" [Iliad I:248], seems to me to have been spoken of the Word, who is honey. And prophecy often extol...s him as "above honey and the honeycomb" [Ps. 19:10]. …
Further, many also use the fat of milk, called butter, for the lamp, plainly indicating by this enigma the abundant anointing of the Word, since it is he alone who nourishes the infants, makes them grow, and enlightens them. (The Instructor I:6) Clement of Alexandria
This was a sign to [the Jews leaving entering Canaan], when wandering had trained them, and they entered their rest. It represents the great cluster, the Word, bruised for us. For the blood of the grape—that is, the Word—desired to be mixed with water, as his blood is mingled with salvation. (The Instructor II:2) Clement of Alexandria
So the point is, many verses that today evangelicals read as Word of God and think it means the Bible, the early Church heard and immediately thought of it as Jesus.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
Re: The Bible is not "The Word of God"
Looking at the verses you have these are my thoughts on the specific verses.
I Thes 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, ...but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.
The word here is logos. This is one of the passages that I would respectfully submit to you that is heard by many today to mean the Bible but which was written originally by Paul and heard by the Thessalonians to mean Jesus Christ. As I'm sure you're probably aware, Thessalonians was one of the first epistles written. So when it speaks of the Word of God they received it's speaking of the "message" of Christ and salvation in Him. It's speaking of words spoken even before the epistle iteself and most of the New Testament was written. I don't think Paul is speaking of the OT because Christ was only known in part and shown in part there. Paul is speaking of the message preached to them of Jesus Christ, himself, and it is the Spirit of Christ now indwelling them, not written words on the page. Jesus here is the word and the message.
In fact, Gospel (good news or evangelium, in the greek) ties back to the person of Jesus Christ as the Word. It's not just words about Jesus. Jesus himself is the "Word of God" and as such the good news. When he is received (not just the concept, but him personally) then He goes to work within us, through the Holy Spirit (aka the Spirit of Christ).
So, this is a pretty example of what I'm trying to say, and is not speaking about the written scriptures.
To keep these managable, I'll just deal with each verse you cite one at a time.
21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
...
This doesn't as you note, use the words "Word of God" and so, as far as I'm concerned it isn't a direct issue in terms of the difference between the two.
Read the entire passage however, without just picking out a specific phrase. Here it is.
16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[a] which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[c] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
The context here again starts with Jesus Christ and appeals (Peter we know was there with Jesus) with an appeal to his (Peter's) personal viewing of Christ and His glory and also an eyewitness account of the voice from Heaven that came when Jesus was baptized. Peter is saying that his eyewitness account of this event, Jesus and Jesus' glory is what stands as confirmation of prophetics words which again, were looking forward to Christ. That certainly includes the OT, which is what these were speaking of and I see no reason why it shouldn't include the NT in the same sense, but even here, without the specific term "Word of God" used, Christ is clearly at the core of what Peter is saying and he's not making a general statement about written scriptures.
Looking now at:
II Timothy 3:16 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
...
Again, here's a larger portion of the passage. Not surprisingly, Jesus immediately precedes it as well.
II Timothy 3:14-17 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Now again, realizing that I'm not arguing against the inspiration of Scripture, isn't it revealing that the context of Scripture here, which again is focused I believe on the OT, (again not to say that the NT can't be included as well, but that's a generalization that exceded what this text is saying) and these made him (Timothy) wise for salvation through faith in whom? Christ Jesus. Scripture here is certainly valuable for all the things mentioned here, as a tool, for use by the man of God, (Timothy is included in this context apparently as a protege of Paul) but they most importantly pointed toward Jesus Christ who is the object and the active agent of salvation, through faith.
This passage doesn't portry Scripture as equal with Christ. It points to Scripture as first and foremost pointing us to Christ, and then following that as tools equipping the "man of god" for good work.
Again, I don't see the problem. If anything, it confirms what I'm trying to say.
Following the points you then raise in terms of the Scriptures, I would say the following:
I agree, the bible does reflect Divine Character; in part and not the whole. The whole of Divine Character is shown directly and solely in Chri...st Jesus. Scripture certainly supports this and isn't in disagreement with anything revealed through Christ Jesus. But Scripture, through the preservation of Christ's words in the Gospels in particular, tells us that Christ reserved the full revelation of God as being within Him. Phil 3 too is pretty clear about this.
Divine authorship raises the Bible to a level unmatched by any other book. No argument with that at all. That doesn't raise it to the level of Christ Himself, and I think we're in agreement on that.
I'll follow with more on Hebrews 4:12 since you question my interpretation on that, which is fine. It's a practically in our DNA in terms of a verse that is used to ascibe attributes that I think are solely the Domain of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Here's the whole passage again:
Hebrews 4:12-13
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. It is a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Nor is there any creature that is hidden from his eyes, for things are naked and open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Terry, does the Bible have eyes? Is it not the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Christ that has eyes in terms of working in our lives and hearts? Dan the Spirit of God and does the Spirit of God use Scriptures in that work. Absolutely, but not exclusively. God can and does use any number of things as well (and by saying this I'm not equating them all as the same) but God can use nature, the spoken word of others, other writings besides the Bible and I'm sure we could come up with more.
The Title here as well, Word of God, is referring to Jesus, not the Bible primarily.
You assert that many have too low a view of the Bible. I don't necessarily disagree, but I have to observe that we can have people who have a very high view of the Bible and still don't know Christ. What would be the benefit of that in the end? A high view of the Bible doesn't replace faith in Christ and intellectuallya high view of the Bible doesn't immediately lead to salvation. I hope I don't have to go and quote the many things Christ had to say to the Pharisees in terms of their high view of the scriptures and yet the danger they were in in terms of the manner in which they used it.
You seem to accede much the same in your conclusion and I know you well enough to know that's not the case.
So, I hope that address the passages and points you've made. I hope I'm clearer now on what I'm saying.
I'm really becoming quite jealous in a sense for the Title "Word of God" and what it means in the scriptures, what it meant to the early Church and sadly how we've settled for the term being co-opted to something that is good, but is not the person of Jesus Christ.
Anything that replaces Jesus Christ as the means God has ultimately and fully revealed himself, even the Bible (and the key word is replaced, not aligned with pointing to Christ) cannot ultimately be equal to that task.
I Thes 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, ...but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.
The word here is logos. This is one of the passages that I would respectfully submit to you that is heard by many today to mean the Bible but which was written originally by Paul and heard by the Thessalonians to mean Jesus Christ. As I'm sure you're probably aware, Thessalonians was one of the first epistles written. So when it speaks of the Word of God they received it's speaking of the "message" of Christ and salvation in Him. It's speaking of words spoken even before the epistle iteself and most of the New Testament was written. I don't think Paul is speaking of the OT because Christ was only known in part and shown in part there. Paul is speaking of the message preached to them of Jesus Christ, himself, and it is the Spirit of Christ now indwelling them, not written words on the page. Jesus here is the word and the message.
In fact, Gospel (good news or evangelium, in the greek) ties back to the person of Jesus Christ as the Word. It's not just words about Jesus. Jesus himself is the "Word of God" and as such the good news. When he is received (not just the concept, but him personally) then He goes to work within us, through the Holy Spirit (aka the Spirit of Christ).
So, this is a pretty example of what I'm trying to say, and is not speaking about the written scriptures.
To keep these managable, I'll just deal with each verse you cite one at a time.
21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
...
This doesn't as you note, use the words "Word of God" and so, as far as I'm concerned it isn't a direct issue in terms of the difference between the two.
Read the entire passage however, without just picking out a specific phrase. Here it is.
16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[a] which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[c] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
The context here again starts with Jesus Christ and appeals (Peter we know was there with Jesus) with an appeal to his (Peter's) personal viewing of Christ and His glory and also an eyewitness account of the voice from Heaven that came when Jesus was baptized. Peter is saying that his eyewitness account of this event, Jesus and Jesus' glory is what stands as confirmation of prophetics words which again, were looking forward to Christ. That certainly includes the OT, which is what these were speaking of and I see no reason why it shouldn't include the NT in the same sense, but even here, without the specific term "Word of God" used, Christ is clearly at the core of what Peter is saying and he's not making a general statement about written scriptures.
Looking now at:
II Timothy 3:16 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
...
Again, here's a larger portion of the passage. Not surprisingly, Jesus immediately precedes it as well.
II Timothy 3:14-17 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Now again, realizing that I'm not arguing against the inspiration of Scripture, isn't it revealing that the context of Scripture here, which again is focused I believe on the OT, (again not to say that the NT can't be included as well, but that's a generalization that exceded what this text is saying) and these made him (Timothy) wise for salvation through faith in whom? Christ Jesus. Scripture here is certainly valuable for all the things mentioned here, as a tool, for use by the man of God, (Timothy is included in this context apparently as a protege of Paul) but they most importantly pointed toward Jesus Christ who is the object and the active agent of salvation, through faith.
This passage doesn't portry Scripture as equal with Christ. It points to Scripture as first and foremost pointing us to Christ, and then following that as tools equipping the "man of god" for good work.
Again, I don't see the problem. If anything, it confirms what I'm trying to say.
Following the points you then raise in terms of the Scriptures, I would say the following:
I agree, the bible does reflect Divine Character; in part and not the whole. The whole of Divine Character is shown directly and solely in Chri...st Jesus. Scripture certainly supports this and isn't in disagreement with anything revealed through Christ Jesus. But Scripture, through the preservation of Christ's words in the Gospels in particular, tells us that Christ reserved the full revelation of God as being within Him. Phil 3 too is pretty clear about this.
Divine authorship raises the Bible to a level unmatched by any other book. No argument with that at all. That doesn't raise it to the level of Christ Himself, and I think we're in agreement on that.
I'll follow with more on Hebrews 4:12 since you question my interpretation on that, which is fine. It's a practically in our DNA in terms of a verse that is used to ascibe attributes that I think are solely the Domain of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Here's the whole passage again:
Hebrews 4:12-13
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. It is a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Nor is there any creature that is hidden from his eyes, for things are naked and open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Terry, does the Bible have eyes? Is it not the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Christ that has eyes in terms of working in our lives and hearts? Dan the Spirit of God and does the Spirit of God use Scriptures in that work. Absolutely, but not exclusively. God can and does use any number of things as well (and by saying this I'm not equating them all as the same) but God can use nature, the spoken word of others, other writings besides the Bible and I'm sure we could come up with more.
The Title here as well, Word of God, is referring to Jesus, not the Bible primarily.
You assert that many have too low a view of the Bible. I don't necessarily disagree, but I have to observe that we can have people who have a very high view of the Bible and still don't know Christ. What would be the benefit of that in the end? A high view of the Bible doesn't replace faith in Christ and intellectuallya high view of the Bible doesn't immediately lead to salvation. I hope I don't have to go and quote the many things Christ had to say to the Pharisees in terms of their high view of the scriptures and yet the danger they were in in terms of the manner in which they used it.
You seem to accede much the same in your conclusion and I know you well enough to know that's not the case.
So, I hope that address the passages and points you've made. I hope I'm clearer now on what I'm saying.
I'm really becoming quite jealous in a sense for the Title "Word of God" and what it means in the scriptures, what it meant to the early Church and sadly how we've settled for the term being co-opted to something that is good, but is not the person of Jesus Christ.
Anything that replaces Jesus Christ as the means God has ultimately and fully revealed himself, even the Bible (and the key word is replaced, not aligned with pointing to Christ) cannot ultimately be equal to that task.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
Re: The Bible is not "The Word of God"
So that's the meat of the conversation, with follow-up.
What do you think? Am I overstating my concern with the loss of the term "Word of God" referring primarily to Christ, or is there something to the Bible beginning to be seen as an active force in and of itself apart from Christ and the Holy Spirit?
What do you think? Am I overstating my concern with the loss of the term "Word of God" referring primarily to Christ, or is there something to the Bible beginning to be seen as an active force in and of itself apart from Christ and the Holy Spirit?
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
CeT-To
- Senior Member
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:57 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
Re: The Bible is not "The Word of God"
I totally agree with everything you have said... the "Word of God' is Jesus Christ and the inspired "word of God" is what was written and spoken by the Prophets of God. If they put the Bible above the Word then that is blasphemy.
But joy and happiness in you to all who seek you! Let them ceaselessly cry,"Great is Yahweh" who love your saving power. Psalm 40:16
I Praise you Yahweh, my Lord, my God!!!!!
I Praise you Yahweh, my Lord, my God!!!!!
-
B. W.
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 8355
- Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
- Christian: Yes
- Location: Colorado
Re: The Bible is not "The Word of God"
There is more but it involves learning how to recognize how God reveals himself in the OT when speaking. All through it, you can actually indentify the Father, Son, Holy Spirit speaking. Some portions are not so clear. Jesus is the Word – Messenger – in the OT. He is Speaking in Jeremiah 17:9-20 Note verse 10 and Rev 22:12 and John 5:22Canuckster1127 wrote:So that's the meat of the conversation, with follow-up.
What do you think? Am I overstating my concern with the loss of the term "Word of God" referring primarily to Christ, or is there something to the Bible beginning to be seen as an active force in and of itself apart from Christ and the Holy Spirit?
Now Look at Isaiah 6:8-13 – now note Acts 28:25, 26, 27 helps identifies…who is speaking: the Holy Spirit... note the use of US - thrid preson speech used too..
Judges 13:17, 18 – Manoah is speaking to the Messenger Yahweh – not an angel – no angel of the Lord would allow himself to be worshiped. The Messenger Yahweh (word/task bearer messenger –doer) answer and stated his name is Wonderful – Isaiah 9:6 identifies this as Jesus the Son… who bore a word to the couple. Yes, Jesus delighted in the light of humanity (John1:4). This mysterious Messenger appeared to Moses, Abraham, Jacob...etc... John 1:1 use of word refers to the Word bearer - task doer we know now as Jesus.
You see the OT is so rich in revealing Christ and identifying Yahweh in his Majesty – amazing!
So much loss of grasping the deep richness of the bible comes from not learning from the OT who God is and read as it was intended. So much is lost in scholarship translations that Jesus the Word is rarely seen in the OT and much less indentified despite how much His words and actions are recorded within the OT. He is revealed as the Word in the OT – the task doer – word bearer – etc…
Note sure if this helps you Bart...but hope it does in some way...
You can rightly say: The Bible indeed contians the Words of God...
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)
Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
(by B. W. Melvin)
Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
-
Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
Re: The Bible is not "The Word of God"
I am not going to affirm too quickly you are right in everything you say Bart, although there is certainly much truth.
Your comments certainly help to clarify theological ambiguities surrounding parts of Scripture that refer to Christ as the Word (e.g., John 1). Certainly, there is a distinction to be made between the Word of God (Jesus), and "word of God" (Scripture). Verses speaking of Christ are often wrongly re-interpreted as speaking of the Bible, especially within Evangelical circles. Yet, I certainly never conflated the two into one, nor thought others did this?
If a Christian believes Scripture and Jesus are the one and the same Word of God, then they have a mighty hard time explaining a coherent ontology in my opinion. Yet, the word of God (Scripture) can still be said to be the word of God, only not in the same sense as Christ is the Word of God.
I strongly believe Scripture is God-breathed and inspired of God. Thus, it is substantially the word of God. However, we should be careful as you correctly point out not worship God's words, but rather the substance of them who is Christ.
I have heard several theologians say Evangelicals seem elevate the word of God to that of Christ Himself, just as Catholics do Mary. And yet, when pushed, I do not know one Christian who would say Scripture can replace or is more important than Christ Himself. But, then I have not performed such a poll either...
Perhaps we could put it this way. Scripture is important because it is God's special revelation to us in word, but Christ is more important because He is God's special revelation of which the word speaks?
Your comments certainly help to clarify theological ambiguities surrounding parts of Scripture that refer to Christ as the Word (e.g., John 1). Certainly, there is a distinction to be made between the Word of God (Jesus), and "word of God" (Scripture). Verses speaking of Christ are often wrongly re-interpreted as speaking of the Bible, especially within Evangelical circles. Yet, I certainly never conflated the two into one, nor thought others did this?
If a Christian believes Scripture and Jesus are the one and the same Word of God, then they have a mighty hard time explaining a coherent ontology in my opinion. Yet, the word of God (Scripture) can still be said to be the word of God, only not in the same sense as Christ is the Word of God.
I strongly believe Scripture is God-breathed and inspired of God. Thus, it is substantially the word of God. However, we should be careful as you correctly point out not worship God's words, but rather the substance of them who is Christ.
I have heard several theologians say Evangelicals seem elevate the word of God to that of Christ Himself, just as Catholics do Mary. And yet, when pushed, I do not know one Christian who would say Scripture can replace or is more important than Christ Himself. But, then I have not performed such a poll either...
Perhaps we could put it this way. Scripture is important because it is God's special revelation to us in word, but Christ is more important because He is God's special revelation of which the word speaks?
Re: The Bible is not "The Word of God"
Here's how I would prioritize them:Kurieuo wrote:I am not going to affirm too quickly you are right in everything you say Bart, although there is certainly much truth.
Your comments certainly help to clarify theological ambiguities surrounding parts of Scripture that refer to Christ as the Word (e.g., John 1). Certainly, there is a distinction to be made between the Word of God (Jesus), and "word of God" (Scripture). Verses speaking of Christ are often wrongly re-interpreted as speaking of the Bible, especially within Evangelical circles. Yet, I certainly never conflated the two into one, nor thought others did this?
If a Christian believes Scripture and Jesus are the one and the same Word of God, then they have a mighty hard time explaining a coherent ontology in my opinion. Yet, the word of God (Scripture) can still be said to be the word of God, only not in the same sense as Christ is the Word of God.
I strongly believe Scripture is God-breathed and inspired of God. Thus, it is substantially the word of God. However, we should be careful as you correctly point out not worship God's words, but rather the substance of them who is Christ.
I have heard several theologians say Evangelicals seem elevate the word of God to that of Christ Himself, just as Catholics do Mary. And yet, when pushed, I do not know one Christian who would say Scripture can replace or is more important than Christ Himself. But, then I have not performed such a poll either...
Perhaps we could put it this way. Scripture is important because it is God's special revelation to us in word, but Christ is more important because He is God's special revelation of which the word speaks?
God
Christ
Church
Scripture
(and Mary a very distant 5th
)Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
Re: The Bible is not "The Word of God"
I'm not looking for complete agreement. I have so much up here, I'd be amazed if anyone agreed with it all.
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.
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.
Thanks,
bart
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.
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.
Thanks,
bart
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
Re: The Bible is not "The Word of God"
Byblos wrote:Here's how I would prioritize them:Kurieuo wrote:I am not going to affirm too quickly you are right in everything you say Bart, although there is certainly much truth.
Your comments certainly help to clarify theological ambiguities surrounding parts of Scripture that refer to Christ as the Word (e.g., John 1). Certainly, there is a distinction to be made between the Word of God (Jesus), and "word of God" (Scripture). Verses speaking of Christ are often wrongly re-interpreted as speaking of the Bible, especially within Evangelical circles. Yet, I certainly never conflated the two into one, nor thought others did this?
If a Christian believes Scripture and Jesus are the one and the same Word of God, then they have a mighty hard time explaining a coherent ontology in my opinion. Yet, the word of God (Scripture) can still be said to be the word of God, only not in the same sense as Christ is the Word of God.
I strongly believe Scripture is God-breathed and inspired of God. Thus, it is substantially the word of God. However, we should be careful as you correctly point out not worship God's words, but rather the substance of them who is Christ.
I have heard several theologians say Evangelicals seem elevate the word of God to that of Christ Himself, just as Catholics do Mary. And yet, when pushed, I do not know one Christian who would say Scripture can replace or is more important than Christ Himself. But, then I have not performed such a poll either...
Perhaps we could put it this way. Scripture is important because it is God's special revelation to us in word, but Christ is more important because He is God's special revelation of which the word speaks?
God
Christ
Church
Scripture
(and Mary a very distant 5th
I just re-read my statement and noticed I could have been more careful with my choice of words.For the sake of clarity, I did not mean that Catholics do elevate Mary to that of Christ (while I believe some sadly do although this is not theologically supported within the RCC), but rather some see Catholics as elevating Mary to the same level as Christ in the same way Evangelicals might elevate Scripture as Bart points out.
-
zoegirl
- Old School
- Posts: 3927
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:59 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: east coast
Re: The Bible is not "The Word of God"
I would probably initially say this is where I am landing. First response only, so I haven't digested and assimilated everything. But at first glance I would say there are extremes that we are not supposed to espouse.
I feel that you are asking us to make a choice that doesnt need to be made. You are right in saying that Christ is the Word of God, but must i reject the belief that the Bible is also the Word of God?
"And we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Jesus Christ"