A persistent error soon becomes a serious heresy.

[The Liturgist]

Actually there is:

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

Kudos to you for remembering that at the same time I did. But I think that really proves the both/and point that I am arguing for, that the phrase has dual meanings.

If anyone is still in doubt, I can whip up a dynamic equivalence translation of each appearance of the phrase to show how it can be used either way, except where it can’t, like Revelation 19:13.

 

[The Liturgist]

But the argument here and elsewhere is that calling the Bible "the word of God" is a big no-no. The usual retort I've seen numerous times is "Jesus is the Word of God, not the Bible!", or words to that effect.

Well that retort can be warranted, where people use the phrase The Word of God in a manner that only refers to Scripture, which results in confusion, just like only referring to Jesus Christ as the Son of God and not as God or God the Son can lead to some people believing He is not God but is rather less than God, such as the Arians and the J/Ws (which is why the Eastern Orthodox worship services and hymns repeatedly refer to Him as “Christ our True God” or “Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ” and likewise with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Clare73]

Actually John 10:35 very clearly uses the term the Word of God to refer to our Lord, because He had delivered the Scriptures to Moses on Mount Sinai, and the verse is a warning to the Christian church to not ignore the commandments of Christ (that can be summarized as loving God above all, and loving our neighbor as ourselves) as the Pharisees had.
We can assert it is using the phrase Word of God to refer to Jesus Christ because otherwise using Logos (Word) and Scriptures (graphe) would have been redundant, and furthermore John clearly established a Christological meaning for the word Logos in John 1. So this is a use of the phrase “Word of God” that is more obviously Christological, particularly when we consider it in the context of chapter 10 as a whole, where Christ asserts his divinity directly by saying “I and the Father are One” and in a similar manner to 10:35 also suggests that He is the Son of God.

Now, to be clear, unlike my friend @Xeno.of.athens I believe the phrase “Word of God” can and does refer to Scripture, .

As it does Jn 10:35 ("to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken")?

but that it also in all cases refers to our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ; it is an example of a Scriptural term that has compound meanings, just like the Greek word Logos (which does not just mean Word, but also refers to Reason, Speech, Intellect, Logic, hence the word Logic, and so on) and the Aramaic word Memra, which had theological connotations in Judaism that corresponded neatly to pre-existing theological connotations in the Greek world due to the use of the word Logos by Platonic philosophers in relationship to God.

 

[ozso]

Kudos to you for remembering that at the same time I did. But I think that really proves the both/and point that I am arguing for, that the phrase has dual meanings.

If anyone is still in doubt, I can whip up a dynamic equivalence translation of each appearance of the phrase to show how it can be used either way, except where it can’t, like Revelation 19:13.

Perhaps one could say they are interchangeable.

But I'm afraid to because that might land me in the "the bible is God" heresy camp (joking).

 

[Clare73]

Actually there is:

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

I do not regard prophecy as teaching because it is subject to more than one interpretation.

 

[The Liturgist]

Perhaps one could say they are interchangeable.

But I'm afraid to because that might land me in the "the bible is God" heresy camp (joking).

Yes, interchangeable is a good way of putting it, I rather like that.

 

[ozso]

I do not regard prophecy as teaching because it is subject to more than one interpretation.

Fair enough.

 

[The Liturgist]

I do not regard prophecy as teaching because it is subject to more than one interpretation.

But we extract doctrine from a great deal of prophecy, including Isaiah and Daniel and Ezekiel and other books which also discuss eschatological events, as do the Gospels. The idea we cannot use the prophetic parts of Revelation as part of the Apostolic Kerygma and as sources of Doctrine would have a disastrous knock-on effect to every other book of the Bible.

 

[Clare73]

But we extract doctrine from a great deal of prophecy, including Isaiah and Daniel and Ezekiel and other books which also discuss eschatological events, as do the Gospels. The idea we cannot use the prophetic parts of Revelation as part of the Apostolic Kerygma and as sources of Doctrine would have a disastrous knock-on effect to every other book of the Bible.

FIrst of all, there is the problem of interpretation, where prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:6-8) are subject to more than one interpretation.

Secondly, to be correct, interpretation must be in agreement with NT apostolic didactics, which much interpretation of prophecy today is not.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Oh well then explain it to me. Of course Jesus put "word of God" and "scripture" together in John 10:35, but go ahead anyways, I'd love to hear it.

If he called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken; John 10:35

I cannot teach you to read. Nevertheless "was spoken" ought to give you a clue.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Now, to be clear, unlike my friend @Xeno.of.athens I believe the phrase “Word of God” can and does refer to Scripture

But that isn't so, "word of God" refers to what God reveals, usually by speaking, sometimes by dreams and visions, while scripture is the record of what God said, or taught by dreams and visions. It is always the case that first comes the revelation from God, "the word" and afterwards comes the recording of it (scripture).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

BTW, Jesus is nowhere called the Word of God in the NT. He is the Word, who is God.

Take a second look

Revelation 19:11-13 LSB Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sits on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. (12) His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; having a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself, (13) and being clothed with a garment dipped in blood, His name is also called The Word of God.​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Thus I reject your position and that of @Xeno.of.athens

Do not be fooled by the subterfuge of your interlocutor, my view is that God reveals (usually by speaking) and man records (as scripture). What God reveals is often called "the word of God" and a little less often "the Word of God" which in both cases is not a reference to what is written which is called scripture. In many cases "Word of God" is without doubt a reference to Jesus Christ who is the revealer of the Father.

 

[The Liturgist]

Do not be fooled by the subterfuge of your interlocutor, my view is that God reveals (usually by speaking) and man records (as scripture). What God reveals is often called "the word of God" and a little less often "the Word of God" which in both cases is not a reference to what is written which is called scripture. In many cases "Word of God" is without doubt a reference to Jesus Christ who is the revealer of the Father.

I believe in all cases the phrase Word of God refers to Jesus Christ, but that in many cases it can also refer to Scripture, because Scripture is a verbal icon of Jesus Christ, and it reveals him just as He reveals the Father. However there are more cases where the phrase the Word of God, and especially the Word in isolation, refer only to Jesus Christ and not to Scripture, for example in John 1:1-18, John 10:35 and Revelation 13:19 , than there are cases such as in Acts where it could be used to refer to our Lord and Scripture simultaneously.

Specifically when it talks about the Apostles preaching The Word of God, they are obviously preaching Christ Crucified, as St. Paul said, which is to say the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which would later become Scripture although was not commonly referred to as such at the time the New Testament was written. Which is another problem with regarding the phrase “The Word of God” as only meaning Scripture - when it appears in a context that indicates the Apostles are preaching the Gospel, we must remember that at the time the Gospel was not yet written down in what is now the four gospels, which are the most canonical of canonical Scripture, but rather Scripture referred to the Old Testament. So when the Noble Bereans “Searched the Scriptures” they were obviously reading the books of the Tanakh, the Old Testament. If the use of the phrase “the Word of God” cannot be attributed to the Old Testament specifically, then it must be referring to Jesus Christ or the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which was preached orally, and later written down by the four evangelists.

 

[The Liturgist]

But that isn't so, "word of God" refers to what God reveals, usually by speaking, sometimes by dreams and visions, while scripture is the record of what God said, or taught by dreams and visions. It is always the case that first comes the revelation from God, "the word" and afterwards comes the recording of it (scripture).

Ok, I can accept that. Although reading it in retrospect we can regard it as having become scripture, so it can be applied retroactively, but we should not lose sight of the primary meaning, of referring either to Jesus Christ or to a revelation of God such as the Gospel preached by the Holy Apostles.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Ok, I can accept that. Although reading it in retrospect we can regard it as having become scripture, so it can be applied retroactively, but we should not lose sight of the primary meaning, of referring either to Jesus Christ or to a revelation of God such as the Gospel preached by the Holy Apostles.

Protestants, in recent times and especially in the USA, are so used to calling their bible "the Word" that some of them have begun to treat it as "The Word" and as an object of worship. So far, in CF, I have encountered four Protestants who have stated in their posts that the bible is God. And they will not retract their Idolatrous remarks even after the idolatry of it is pointed out to them. This is astounding; a failure of catechesis so profound that one wonders if the people in question have any understanding of the Christian faith.

 

[ARBITER01]

In the Gospel according to saint John the Word is called God, he was with God in the beginning, and he made all things, in truth nothing that was made was made without him. He became flesh and dwelt among us; he is the one who has seen God because he is God the only Son.

Some people mistakenly call the holy scriptures "the Word of God". And because of this mistake a few have come to think of "the Word as the Bible, and some of those few call the Bible God. This last is a serious heresy, the heresy of idolatry. The holy scriptures are a book, printed with ink on paper, bound in leather or something like it. How can anybody confuse a book with God. The holy scriptures are not eternal, nor omnipresent, nor omnipotent, nor are they able to save or grant grace. The holy scriptures can make a man wise if the man reads them and opens his heart to receive the Holy Spirit's teaching in them.

Christians must avoid this error, the bible is not The Word, the bible is holy scripture.

I agree.

That is why we see a capitalization of the Greek Logos (word) in the Gospel of John,....

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was GOD.

John's allusion to the "Word" most likely came from the Aramaic targums of the OT. They used this sort of language quite frequently.,...


The Jerusalem Targum of Johathan ben Uziel renders Bereshit 1:27 as follows: "
Gen. 1 [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And the Word [Memra] of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the Lord, the Lord created, male and female created He them."


There's a great resource about this here,...

https://oneinmessiah.net/TargumMemraTheWordOfGod.htm

 

[Unqualified]

Protestants, in recent times and especially in the USA, are so used to calling their bible "the Word" that some of them have begun to treat it as "The Word" and as an object of worship. So far, in CF, I have encountered four Protestants who have stated in their posts that the bible is God. And they will not retract their Idolatrous remarks even after the idolatry of it is pointed out to them. This is astounding; a failure of catechesis so profound that one wonders if the people in question have any understanding of the Christian faith.

The book is not God but His words are synonymous with who He is. You want to include @Xeno.of.athens the church fathers that’s obvious but they have changed the original meaning. Adding Mary, sprinkling for baptism, one world church, etc. holy mother church, that the 98 theses have not been corrected. I’m not a Protestant but there’s the beginning of the objections to the church fathers. It’s scripture alone that is the word of God. Your apologetics are for the RC church. But others have a different interpretation of some of the things they say.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

It is interesting to see what happens, when one suggests in many Sunday school classes, that God has chosen to quote many different voices into His Holy Scripture, including those of Satan, evil angels, evil men and women, men and women given without designation, men and women described as holy, holy angels, and God Himself. It is likewise most interesting, to notice what happens when one suggests that we are to divide the Scripture according to the persons quoted, where no words are to be considered anywhere near as good, as the words directly quoted from God Himself.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The book is not God but His words are synonymous with who He is. You want to include @Xeno.of.athens the church fathers that’s obvious but they have changed the original meaning. Adding Mary, sprinkling for baptism, one world church, etc. holy mother church, that the 98 theses have not been corrected. I’m not a Protestant but there’s the beginning of the objections to the church fathers. It’s scripture alone that is the word of God. Your apologetics are for the RC church. But others have a different interpretation of some of the things they say.

It is evident that you do not know what apostolic tradition is nor do your posts indicate an understanding of what sacred tradition means and how it operates. Let me offer a short explanation:

1. apostolic tradition is teaching that comes from the apostles of the Lord, Jesus Christ
2. sacred tradition is apostolic tradition and apostolic example, as in, for example, the liturgy and prayers of the Church
3. sacred tradition served as a subordinate tool to be used for the right interpretation and right understanding of sacred scripture
4. the Church's magisterium, that is to say, the Church's authority to teach, is derived from sacred scripture and sacred tradition and is wholly dependent on the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the Holy Spirit's work in bringing to mind all that Jesus said and taught.