Can the Church Survive Without God's Word?

[-Sasha-]

Some in my other thread have begun to argue that the Bible is not strictly necessary. They said that if all the Bibles in the world were destroyed, the church would still survive. Could the church survive without God's word?

I think this question gets to the heart of the relationship between God's word and God's church. Catholics and EOs are wont to say: "Jesus didn't just leave us a Bible, he left us a church." They also want to say that the Bible and the church have an equal authority and even that the church wrote the Bible! In the Catholic and EO view, it sometimes seems to be the case that it's really the church that is most important, and the Bible is just a book that the church wrote.

But what would the church be without the word of God? Isn't it the word of God that creates and continually recreates the church? Isn't it the word of God that sustains the church? Isn't it the word of God that sanctifies the church and teaches the church?

Without the word of God, the church might still function in some traditional sense. It might go on to ordain bishops, sprinkle babies, lift up crackers to heaven and break them, etc. It might even have an unbroken line of ordination succession that can be traced back to the apostles! But without the word of God, the ministry of the church would not be able to help or save anybody. The church would become a dead institution that is utterly indistinguishable from the world.

Isn't this what happened to Israel in the time of Hosea? Though they were circumcised and had maintained certain Jewish traditions, they had become "Lo-Ammi" - not my people. Without God's word, we are not his people and he is not our God.

I forgot who it was that said it, but something roughly along the lines of: if all the Scriptures and Christian writings were destroyed, they would be recreated by those who love God - maybe not word for word, but the same Spirit would still be present therein. This is what I believe.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So you admit -- it's a hodgepodge of different texts, of different ages, coming from different places. Do you think the "Textus Receptus" is perfect?

I believe the KJV 1900 circa Cambridge Edition is perfect, and before that the Latin Vulgate (not the Catholic version Vulgate) was perfect. Before that, certain copies of the NT Greek were perfect. For they say the same thing.

Check out this website here:
LATIN VULGATE - TEXTUS RECEPTUS - KING JAMES NEW TESTAMENT

 

[Mary Meg]

I believe the KJV 1900 circa Cambridge Edition is perfect, and before that the Latin Vulgate (not the Catholic version Vulgate) was perfect. Before that, the NT Greek copies were perfect. For they say the same thing.

Um...

There's not a "non-Catholic" Latin Vulgate.

Even the website you linked says that they're talking about Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Yep. Guess what: Jerome was Catholic. He produced the Latin Vulgate on the orders of Pope Damasus. The Latin Vulgate, as produced by Jerome, contains the apocrypha and probably other things you don't consider "perfect."

 

[Shimokita]

All Bibles, regardless of the version or canon, include sufficient information for a person to understand they are a sinner and Christ is their Savior who died for them to atone for their sins.

Unproven.

 

[FireDragon76]

Unproven.

John 20:31.

 

[Shimokita]

John 20:31.

That verse does not prove what you wrote.

 

[Hank77]

Are you saying that the church can survive without the word?

I am saying that the church will not be defeated no matter what happens. I saying the every physical Bible could be taken away and Christ's church would not be destroyed because the fate of the church is in God's hands.

on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[A Realist]

God's word was God's word before it was written down on anything. Written communication is merely a medium for transmission. God's word might be written in text form, but the text form itself is not God's word.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Um...

There's not a "non-Catholic" Latin Vulgate.

Even the website you linked says that they're talking about Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Yep. Guess what: Jerome was Catholic. He produced the Latin Vulgate on the orders of Pope Damasus. The Latin Vulgate, as produced by Jerome, contains the apocrypha and probably other things you don't consider "perfect."

You believe this because you do not realize that most of the original Vulgates were burned and replaced by the Catholic version's of the Vulgate.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

God's word was God's word before it was written down on anything. Written communication is merely a medium for transmission. God's word might be written in text form, but the text form itself is not God's word.

This is a contradictory statement. If it is God's Word in text form it is still God's Word. The changing of the form of communication does not undo it being God's Word. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is inspired by God. They are the very words of God.

 

[FireDragon76]

That verse does not prove what you wrote.

Perhaps you can explain why? Was John the Apostle just full of hot air?

 

[JacksBratt]

Some in my other thread have begun to argue that the Bible is not strictly necessary. They said that if all the Bibles in the world were destroyed, the church would still survive. Could the church survive without God's word?

I think this question gets to the heart of the relationship between God's word and God's church. Catholics and EOs are wont to say: "Jesus didn't just leave us a Bible, he left us a church." They also want to say that the Bible and the church have an equal authority and even that the church wrote the Bible! In the Catholic and EO view, it sometimes seems to be the case that it's really the church that is most important, and the Bible is just a book that the church wrote.

But what would the church be without the word of God? Isn't it the word of God that creates and continually recreates the church? Isn't it the word of God that sustains the church? Isn't it the word of God that sanctifies the church and teaches the church?

Without the word of God, the church might still function in some traditional sense. It might go on to ordain bishops, sprinkle babies, lift up crackers to heaven and break them, etc. It might even have an unbroken line of ordination succession that can be traced back to the apostles! But without the word of God, the ministry of the church would not be able to help or save anybody. The church would become a dead institution that is utterly indistinguishable from the world.

Isn't this what happened to Israel in the time of Hosea? Though they were circumcised and had maintained certain Jewish traditions, they had become "Lo-Ammi" - not my people. Without God's word, we are not his people and he is not our God.

It has survived in many countries where the bible is forbidden and where they will hold on to just one page like it is gold, if they are lucky enough to have even one page.

 

[Mary Meg]

This is because most of the original Vulgates were burned and replaced by the Catholic version's of the Vulgate.

Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

If "most" of the "original" Vulgates were burned, then at least one of them survived. I wonder if you can show that to me?

And I suppose this "non-Catholic" Vulgate was translated by the "non-Catholic" Jerome, on orders from the "non-Catholic" Pope Damasus?

 

[A Realist]

God's word is in the collection of books and letters known as the bible.....but God's word is not the bible.

If the premise of the OP is whether or not the church would survive without the bible, the answer is yes.....the church would survive without the bible.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

If "most" of the "original" Vulgates were burned, then at least one of them survived. I wonder if you can show that to me?

And I suppose this "non-Catholic" Vulgate was translated by the "non-Catholic" Jerome, on orders from the "non-Catholic" Pope Damasus?

I had a link to this Bible online before in the past, but seeing I do not study Latin, I did not retain the link. If I find the link, I will let you know. But it is not the Catholic Latin Vulgate version. Of course, you are sympathetic to seeing the Catholic church as not being unbiblical, so of course you are going to find all this amusing.

 

[Mary Meg]

I had a link to this Bible online before in the past, but seeing I do not study Latin, I did not retain the link. If I find the link, I will let you know. But it is not the Catholic Latin Vulgate version. Of course, you are sympathetic to seeing the Catholic church as not being unbiblical, so of course you are going to find all this amusing.

As somebody who has read a history book or two, who appreciates facts (though I do enjoy a good fiction now and then), yes, I find it amusing.

 

[Mary Meg]

I had a link to this Bible online before in the past, but seeing I do not study Latin, I did not retain the link. If I find the link, I will let you know. But it is not the Catholic Latin Vulgate version. Of course, you are sympathetic to seeing the Catholic church as not being unbiblical, so of course you are going to find all this amusing.

I wonder, can you find me a single historical source -- by which I mean, some document from the same time or close to it -- which suggests that "the original Latin Vulgate was burned"?

To convince me of something, there are several things you need, and the first thing is facts -- some verifiable way of demonstrating that you or somebody else is not just making it up.

Seriously -- do you think somebody besides Jerome translated the thing?

 

[Philip_B]

This is because most of the original Vulgates were burned and replaced by the Catholic version's of the Vulgate.

Jerome lived 347 to 420. He was alive for the 1st Council of Constantinople and the Council of Ephesus. To refer to him as a Catholic is kind of odd. He did spend some time in Rome, yet far more of his time was spent in Antioch, and he certainly relied on some of the work of the school of Alexandria. In his early days he was a student of Hilary in Gaul (France). As such he is widely associated with the whole church, and reminds us that the Church as we know it with many denominational boundaries is very different to the way it was.

To suggest that there was a burning of Jerome's work to replace it with a Catholic version of the Vulgate is less than convincing:

1. The division the Church that is implied in this did not exist in the time period and so lacks meaning
2. There is no credible historical evidence to suggest this burning and replacement took place
3. It seems to be a failure to understand the purpose of the Vulgate

The Septuagint (LXX) was a translation of the Old Testament into Greek, undertaken by seventy scholars, to make the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures accessible to a great many more people, as in the Graeco-Roman world the general language of the Empire was Greek. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek - the language of trade in the Empire. Following the removal of the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to the new city on the old site of Byzantium - Constantinople - the importance of retaining Latin in the Old Rome was clear, and Latin became very much the lingua franca of the western Empire. The idea of the translation of the Scripture into Latin was to make them available to more people in the west in the language that they spoke - the vulgar tongue - Vulgate.

Indeed the translation of the Scriptures into all manner of languages from the time of the continental reformation was simply to revisit this important purpose. Those who insisted that the scriptures had to be read in latin simply missed the point as to why they had been translated into Latin.

 

[_Dave_]

I forgot who it was that said it, but something roughly along the lines of: if all the Scriptures and Christian writings were destroyed, they would be recreated by those who love God - maybe not word for word, but the same Spirit would still be present therein. This is what I believe.

That's a good point. I personally know enough Christians who have memorized huge portions of the Bible word for word who could get together and re-assemble the Bible in no time at all.

 

[Mary Meg]

Jerome lived 347 to 420. He was alive for the 1st Council of Constantinople and the Council of Ephesus. To refer to him as a Catholic is kind of odd.

I did not say he was "Roman Catholic" or anything like that. In Jerome's time, "Catholic" meant he was in communion with the Universal Church -- in other words, not heterodox. He did spend time in Rome and did work for the pope. He was certainly not "non-Catholic."