The word of God

[Protoevangel]

So, is the Bible the word of God or not?

[SPALATIN]

I voted the first choice. John 1 says that "In the Beginning was the word" We understand this word to be Jesus. We also know from 2 Timothy 3:16 that All scripture (written word) is God-Breathed or inspired by God so both are true statements.

[KEPLER]

OK, I got just a tiny-bit nitpicky. ;)

I like the first option, except that I would prefer the order reversed:

Jesus is the Word of God; Scripture is the Word of God.

Jesus precedes Scripture. The Gospel precedes the Bible. Which is why Confessional Lutherans are NOT fundamentalists.

Fundamentalists believe the Gospel is true because of the Bible.

Lutherans believe the Bible is true because of the Gospel.

Kepler

[FreezBee]

I voted "Other" :)

For me the relationship between the Bible and Jesus is more complicated. Jesus is of course the Word of God. We accept the Biblical texts ("Scriptura") as inspired, and as Lutherans we say "sola scriptura".

The way I see it, the Bible is our sole authority for discussing matters eternal, but not for matters temporal. But the Biblical texts are also products of a human author, that was inspired by God - otherwise there would be no reason to make a distinction between who wrote what, if it's all simply the words of God.

As humans, when reading the Bible, we therefore must interpret another the mind of another human being, inspired by God. Therefore to read the Bible we need that same inspiration, which comes from Jesus.

Well, that's the way I look at it :)


- FreezBee

[Protoevangel]

OK, I got just a tiny-bit nitpicky. ;)

I like the first option, except that I would prefer the order reversed:

Jesus is the Word of God; Scripture is the Word of God.

Jesus precedes Scripture. The Gospel precedes the Bible. Which is why Confessional Lutherans are NOT fundamentalists.

Fundamentalists believe the Gospel is true because of the Bible.

Lutherans believe the Bible is true because of the Gospel.

Kepler

The poll was not about the order of which preceeds or is more important than which. Is it one or the other or is it one and the other... I thought that the question was simple and straightforward, I apologize that I was not more careful in my wording. :sigh:

[Protoevangel]

I voted "Other" :)

For me the relationship between the Bible and Jesus is more complicated. Jesus is of course the Word of God. We accept the Biblical texts ("Scriptura") as inspired, and as Lutherans we say "sola scriptura".

The way I see it, the Bible is our sole authority for discussing matters eternal, but not for matters temporal. But the Biblical texts are also products of a human author, that was inspired by God - otherwise there would be no reason to make a distinction between who wrote what, if it's all simply the words of God.

As humans, when reading the Bible, we therefore must interpret another the mind of another human being, inspired by God. Therefore to read the Bible we need that same inspiration, which comes from Jesus.

Well, that's the way I look at it :)


- FreezBee
Hi FreezBee,

I have liked many of your posts, and enjoy reading what you have to say. I would like to see if you could pin this down for me, though. Could you answer this question please? It is a simple question, and you don't need to read more into it than is presented plainly: Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God?

[SPALATIN]

The poll was not about the order of which preceeds or is more important than which. Is it one or the other or is it one and the other... I thought that the question was simple and straightforward, I apologize that I was not more careful in my wording. :sigh:

Dan,

I think it is more about his last two sentences than anything.


Fundamentalists believe the Gospel is true because of the Bible.

Lutherans believe the Bible is true because of the Gospel.



If we take what Kepler says here we understand why Jesus precedes Scripture but that both are God's word. I wouldn't take it personally though as I believe it was just his opinion and not that he was saying you were wrong.

[Protoevangel]

Dan,

I think it is more about his last two sentences than anything.



If we take what Kepler says here we understand why Jesus precedes Scripture but that both are God's word. I wouldn't take it personally though as I believe it was just his opinion and not that he was saying you were wrong.
Thanks Spalatin,

I understand where Kepler was coming from, and given the context he provided, I fully agree with him. It's just that the context was not part of the question... An order of importance was not implied, even so, if I could go back and change the question, I would do so.

I think Kepler and I have a pretty good relationship here on CF. I'm not upset with him or anything like that. If I came off as angry or anything... Kepler, I do apologize.

[KEPLER]

Thanks Spalatin,

I understand where Kepler was coming from, and given the context he provided, I fully agree with him. It's just that the context was not part of the question... An order of importance was not implied, even so, if I could go back and change the question, I would do so.

I think Kepler and I have a pretty good relationship here on CF. I'm not upset with him or anything like that. If I came off as angry or anything... Kepler, I do apologize.

No problems here. :) I just know that lurkers come in and look around, and wanted to use the opportunity to explain why Lutherans are not fundamentalists, and yet we nevertheless take the Scriptures VERY seriously.

I'll tell you from personal experience, when people are introduced to the idea of a "formal" and "Material" principle, it can really rock their world...:thumbsup:

K

[AngelusSax]

Jesus is the Word.

The Bible is a bunch of words. The Bible is a revealer of the Word.

Or maybe I'm nitpicking too much.

[KagomeShuko]

Jesus is THE WORD. The Bible is God's word (okay, yes, words that were God-breathed/inspired by God), but that still makes it God's word.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[FreezBee]

I have liked many of your posts, and enjoy reading what you have to say. I would like to see if you could pin this down for me, though. Could you answer this question please? It is a simple question, and you don't need to read more into it than is presented plainly: Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God?

Ok, thanks for the nice words, and excuse me for overdoing my explanation :wave:

But unfortunately I cannot give a simple answer to a question that I do not consider simple. But I do recognize the authority of the Bible in matters eternal, if that helps you.


- FreezBee

[LutherNut]

Jesus is the Word.

The Bible is a bunch of words. The Bible is a revealer of the Word.

Or maybe I'm nitpicking too much.

So much for inspiration, heh?

How convenient.


Jay;)

[Edial]

So, is the Bible the word of God or not?
The fact that it is personally inspired by God makes it his word - the word of God.

Now, would God personally state things in different ways?

Prophecies - no, since he told the prophets to say this and that.

Epistles - yes, since God used the terminologies of the writers to relay exactly what he wanted us to see. These were not his terminologies, but theirs.

But are the Epistles the word of God? Of course.
A point of any conversation is to relay a message with an intended clarity.

God's personal inspiration makes it his, since without it, it would not be his.

Also, by attributing his inspiration to the Scriptures, he is placing a "seal of approval" on it and claiming that the author is the Holy Spirit and the 40 or so writers are just the ones that penned it.

Inspiration is authorship.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

To Kepler ...

...
Jesus precedes Scripture. The Gospel precedes the Bible. Which is why Confessional Lutherans are NOT fundamentalists.

Fundamentalists believe the Gospel is true because of the Bible.

Lutherans believe the Bible is true because of the Gospel.
...

Interesting definition. Never heard this before.

I would say that the Fundamentalists believe the Gospel because they see it in the Bible. I would say it is primarily true.

I do not understand the 2nd part.
How would anyone know that the Gospel exists without being told about it?

Thanks,
Ed

[AngelusSax]

So much for inspiration, heh?

How convenient.

Then allow me to clarify.

The Bible is an inspired revealer of the Word. More specifically, it is the Holy Spirit that reveals the Word to us through the Bible (as well as other ways, if we listen to our lives closely enough).

[Athanasian Creed]

Luke 5:1 And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret,

Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

Luke 8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

Jesus spoke the Word of God.

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

The Apostles preached the Word of God.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

We are saved by grace THROUGH faith, which the Bible says comes by hearing the Word of God.

Hence, the Bible is the written Word of God.

YET, Jesus is also the living Word of God -

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

:bow::bow:


Ray :wave:

[Protoevangel]

Great post bro!

[SPALATIN]

Then allow me to clarify.

The Bible is an inspired revealer of the Word. More specifically, it is the Holy Spirit that reveals the Word to us through the Bible (as well as other ways, if we listen to our lives closely enough).

So what you are saying then is that the BIBLE contains the word of God but is not in and of itself the word of God? Is that a correct assessment of your summary?

[AngelusSax]

So what you are saying then is that the BIBLE contains the word of God but is not in and of itself the word of God? Is that a correct assessment of your summary?

Yes, but it's incomplete.

The Bible in and of itself cannot be the Word. The Bible being read is, though, since the Word is living, and moving, and active, and a Bible sitting on a table collecting dust isn't moving and living and active in at least one person.

It ain't the Word until you read it, or it is read to you, or even revealed to you through experience (Which the Holy Spirit can and does do, I see it every day in my life when I take the time to look for it).

[KagomeShuko]

Angelus,

It seems you are confusing the BIBLE being the word of God with the PAPER AND INK being the word of God.

Certainly, my study Bible is sitting on the coffee table rigtht now and that "book" and the ink that prints the words are are not THE Word of God.

However, "the Bible" as those words somehow revealed to me - reading what the ink has printed, listening to somebody else read it, is THE WORD of God. . .

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Edial]

Yes, but it's incomplete.

The Bible in and of itself cannot be the Word. The Bible being read is, though, since the Word is living, and moving, and active, and a Bible sitting on a table collecting dust isn't moving and living and active in at least one person.

It ain't the Word until you read it, or it is read to you, or even revealed to you through experience (Which the Holy Spirit can and does do, I see it every day in my life when I take the time to look for it).As KagomeShuko mentioned, you might be seeing the ink and paper as a false representation of a word of God.
That "ink and paper" represent terminologies used by the writers.
These terminologies were inspired by God.
Word of God can be in human language.
It does not need be in "God's language", if there is such a concept.

If God chooses, he can say things to animals in the anumals' language. The fact that it is God who is speaking - it makes it God's word.
Or, you might say "God's word spoken in human language".

Thanks,
Ed

[AngelusSax]

My point is that usage of the word "the" implies that it is that thing only which is the Word of God. The implies only.

The Bible, of course, makes it clear that THE Word of God is Jesus Christ. I suppose we could say then that the Bible and Jesus are the same, and as such it would be just as effective to pray to the Father in the name of the Bible as it is to pray in Jesus' name.

But then, I am one who gets nitpicky on grammatical elements from time to time. It's like when people say Jesus prayed to God, that God and Jesus are two different persons of the Trinity. This isn't accurate, as Jesus IS God, and the Father IS God, and the Holy Spirit IS God, so Jesus prayed to the Father, to be fully accurate.

[SPALATIN]

Ok, So lets agree to disagree on this one then.

How do we interpret scripture such as

"All Scripture is God-breathed" and is useful in teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

Does that mean that not all the Bibile is scripture?

[Edial]

AngelusSax and all.
My point is that usage of the word "the" implies that it is that thing only which is the Word of God. The implies only.

The Bible, of course, makes it clear that THE Word of God is Jesus Christ. I suppose we could say then that the Bible and Jesus are the same, and as such it would be just as effective to pray to the Father in the name of the Bible as it is to pray in Jesus' name.

But then, I am one who gets nitpicky on grammatical elements from time to time. It's like when people say Jesus prayed to God, that God and Jesus are two different persons of the Trinity. This isn't accurate, as Jesus IS God, and the Father IS God, and the Holy Spirit IS God, so Jesus prayed to the Father, to be fully accurate.
Clearly, "the" Word of God and "a" word of God are not the same if one means that THE Word of God is the Logos, the Christ.
(I have not seen this question (topic) in a while). :)
So, I decided to look exhaustively at the OT with some interesting results.
I searched for a combination "the word".
There were about 230 hits.
Most of them (maybe 99%) referred to the word of the Lord, and were typically phrased "the word of the Lord".
Then I looked at the Hebrew text and the word "the" was not there. It was added as an aid to the English.
OK.
Then I looked at the NT with the same search criteria(about 60 hits) - "the" was there.

Now, I began thinking, is there a grammatical difference in that area between the Hebrew and Greek? I do not think so. Both Hebrew and Greek have definite articles.
So what is going on here?

Then, I noticed an interesting exception in the NT (Greek) where there was no "the". The example below has no "the" in Greek although we see it in English.
The text -
LK 3:2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.

(No "the" in Greek).

And that only exception is a refence to the OT times. Although it is in NT it was before Christ was even baptized by John the Baptist.

What is going on?


It appears that the OT states "word of God" (in Hebrew AND Greek).
And it appears that the NT states "the word of God".

But isn't the word of God the Christ?


There is also this text in the NT that presents the word not only alive -
HEB 4:12 For the word of God is living and active.

but also living IN us -
1JN 2:14 I write to you, fathers,
because you have known him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men,
because you are strong,
and the word of God lives in you,
and you have overcome the evil one.

So, the NT (after Christ) definitely presents that the word of God in itself is alive.
Now Christ further confirmed it by stating this! -
JN 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

The words are spirit - that means they are alive!
Now, it is getting fascinating.


So, in the OT - no definite article "the" (although we see it in English)

In the NT - no definite articles before Christ's baptism, and definite article after it.

And there are at least 2 clear verses stating that when "the" is used it means the word of God is indeed alive.

It certainly appears that when the word of God is proceeding from Christ - it "becomes" "alive".
(I do not yet know what that means myself).


Now, is the Bible alive?


Since it contains the words of Christ I think it should be "alive" (am I saying that?!!), but not functional, since function is not a "proof" or a "dis-proof" of life.


Where am I off-line in this path?

I am DEFINITELY open for correction here.

Thanks,
Ed