Poll - Views of the Bible

What is your view of the Bible?

  • The Bible IS the Word of God (Orthodox)

    Votes: 14 48.3%
  • The Bible CONTAINS the Word of God (Liberal)

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • The Bible BECOMES the Word of God (Neo-orthodox)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other view

    Votes: 11 37.9%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Total voters
    29

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Three main views of Scripture are:

The Bible is the Word of God (held by most Fundamentalists / Conservative evangelicals, eg. BB Warfield, early Berkouwer)

"Scripture is the Word of God in the sense that the human words as God-breathed are a divine product. As such they are true, trustworthy, infallible, inerrant, and authorative in every pronouncement they make, in every subject matter they address, and in every area in which they speak - as well as being fit to be the means of regeneration, justification and sanctification."​


The Bible contains the Word of God (most Liberals)

The Bible is a human witness to the acts and teaching of God.​


The Bible becomes the Word of God (Neo-orthodox, eg. Karl Barth, Emil Brunner)

"Over against a schema that views the Bible as the Word of God in esse, the Neo-orthodox school located the objectivity of the Word of God uniquely in the Person of Christ. He alone embodies or incarnates the Word. Revelation occurs as the Spirit speaks to us through the instrument of Scripture. Scripture is not itself revelation but is a vehicle of or witness to revelation. It becomes revelatory as the Spirit speaks through it. The Scripture, then, is a vehicle of the divine-human encounter. Without the activity of the Spirit the Scripture cannot be viewed as objective revelation.

For Calvin the testimonium results in a subjective acquiescence to an objective revelation. The Bible is the Word of God with or without the internal testimony.

For Neo-orthodoxy, the Bible is not the Word of God in essense but only a vehicle of revelation. It may or may not be the Word of God, depending on the testimony of the Spirit. Objectivity is restricted to Christ and does not extend to the Biblical writings."​
 
Last edited:

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,338
5,024
New Jersey
✟332,494.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I see the Bible as a human record of God's revelations to humankind. The most perfect embodiment of the Word is the Incarnation in Jesus Christ, but I would also say that God spoke to Abraham, Moses, and the prophets and was vividly experienced by the early church. Further, there is a sense in which the creation itself comes into being through God's Word (Genesis 1, John 1). The humans who experienced these events wrote down their experiences and reflections, and these writings became our Bible.

I can't tell whether I'm in agreement with Barth here. Possibly not, but I need to re-read Barth to wrestle with his words and meaning some more. I picked "other view".
 
Upvote 0

.Mikha'el.

7x13=28
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
May 22, 2004
33,059
6,418
39
British Columbia
✟997,851.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Three main views of Scripture are:

The Bible is the Word of God (held by most Fundamentalists / Conservative evangelicals, eg. BB Warfield, early Berkouwer)

"Scripture is the Word of God in the sense that the human words as God-breathed are a divine product. As such they are true, trustworthy, infallible, inerrant, and authorative in every pronouncement they make, in every subject matter they address, and in every area in which they speak - as well as being fit to be the means of regeneration, justification and sanctification."​


The Bible contains the Word of God (most Liberals)

If a passage teaches love and justice, its authentic, if it does not its not authentic.
Denial of the miraculous.​


The Bible becomes the Word of God (Neo-orthodox, eg. Karl Barth, Emil Brunner)

"Over against a schema that views the Bible as the Word of God in esse, the Neo-orthodox school located the objectivity of the Word of God uniquely in the Person of Christ. He alone embodies or incarnates the Word. Revelation occurs as the Spirit speaks to us through the instrument of Scripture. Scripture is not itself revelation but is a vehicle of or witness to revelation. It becomes revelatory as the Spirit speaks through it. The Scripture, then, is a vehicle of the divine-human encounter. Without the activity of the Spirit the Scripture cannot be viewed as objective revelation.

For Calvin the testimonium results in a subjective acquiescence to an objective revelation. The Bible is the Word of God with or without the internal testimony.

For Neo-orthodoxy, the Bible is not the Word of God in essense but only a vehicle of revelation. It may or may not be the Word of God, depending on the testimony of the Spirit. Objectivity is restricted to Christ and does not extend to the Biblical writings."​

It contains the word of God. I see grave theological problems with the doctrine if Scripture absolutely contradicts itself even one time.
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Saying that the Bible contains the Word of God does not commit you to denying the miraculous. I doubt that most people you’d classify as liberals today actually deny all miracles.

I think a common view among mainline folks today would be that the Bible is a human witness to the acts and teaching of God. I’m not sure that quite fits with your alternatives.
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Saying that the Bible contains the Word of God does not commit you to denying the miraculous. I doubt that most people you’d classify as liberals today actually deny all miracles.

I think a common view among mainline folks today would be that the Bible is a human witness to the acts and teaching of God. I’m not sure that quite fits with your alternatives.

OK I take your point, its a bit narrow. I'll alter the wording.

Could you give me a couple representatives scholars to include, or a quote?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

seeking.IAM

Episcopalian
Supporter
Feb 29, 2004
4,235
4,910
Indiana
✟931,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I voted "other view" because I have problems with the category definitions and labels, as stated.
Could you describe your view?

Yes, but first my problems with the labels.
  • The poll labels choice #1 as "orthodox" but the OP elaboration changes the label to "fundamentalist." I am unsure fundamentalist and orthodox are equivalencies.
  • The second label "Liberal" has a definition by which passages of the Bible are determined non-authentic. I reject that premise. I know a bunch of liberals but never one who has used that rule of thumb.
As for my own view, I believe the Bible contains the inspired word of God. I believe it is not inerrant if inerrant is taken to mean perfect and without error. To the degree that the Bible has been touched by man, I think it is subject to have some things included and excluded that are of man and not of God. I believe there is no rule of thumb to safely determine what is "authentic" to use the OP definition, therefore I cannot call my position liberal as defined in the OP. Nonetheless, I fret little over it, however, because I honor the forest not the trees.
  • Much of the New Testament was written long after Jesus ministry and the resurrection. The further you get away from an event memory fades and elaboration may creep in. Oral tradition is important but things get added or lost (remember the telephone game we used to play as children?)
  • Books and letters included and excluded from the Bible were decided by man. Did they get it right? Did they leave out something important that should be scripture? Did they include something that probably shouldn't have been? "Inspired" then has to mean that the authors were inspired as were the men who decided what was scripture and what was not -- a double inspiration, if you will.
  • We have various ancient manuscripts but not the original. There is variation among those manuscripts. The Bible as we know it is limited by the manuscript(s) used to translate it.
  • Before the printing press, the Bible was reproduced one at a time by scribes copying texts. There are Biblical scholars who think there are places where the scribes, themselves, decided to help the text possibly to reflect their own bent.
Finally, perhaps, I honor the place of tradition as also being of importance along with the Bible. That about covers it.
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Yes, but first my problems with the labels.
  • The poll labels choice #1 as "orthodox" but the OP elaboration changes the label to "fundamentalist." I am unsure fundamentalist and orthodox are equivalencies.
  • The second label "Liberal" has a definition by which passages of the Bible are determined non-authentic. I reject that premise. I know a bunch of liberals but never one who has used that rule of thumb.

Ok, I changed the description text, I cannot change the text of the poll options. I agree there was some inconsistency in the wording of the first option but I don't think its too big a deal.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
"Inspired" then has to mean that the authors were inspired as were the men who decided what was scripture and what was not -- a double inspiration, if you will.

Could those involved in those deliberations not have been guided, guided in the criterion they used to select the books to include in the Canon?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

seeking.IAM

Episcopalian
Supporter
Feb 29, 2004
4,235
4,910
Indiana
✟931,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Could those involved in those deliberations not have been guided, guided in the criterion they used to select the books to include in the Canon?

Possible? Sure. Probable? Maybe not given the imperfection of man.
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Possible? Sure. Probable? Maybe not given the imperfection of man.

I was asking if they could have been guided by the Holy Spirit (at least some of them)? It might be improbable that everyone was.

Paul in when writing the epistles seems to have known when some of the instruction he wrote was just him because he said "I, not the Lord", and when it was from the Lord.

Could God not guide, or supervene over deliberations about the books to be included in the canon, or correct it by adding anything that had been left out initially - that is not to say there was no debate, or disagreement, or that they just heard the names of a list of books thundered from the heavens (but apparently God did speak audibly from the heavens a couple of times - eg Jesus Baptism, and on the Mount of Transfiguration) - but that wasn't how the canon was settled as far as I understand.

What is the canon of the Bible and how did we get it? (compellingtruth.org)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,799.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jesus IS the Word of God.

The Bible is a written record of the words that he spoke to, and through, his prophets - some of which pointed to the coming of THE Word. It contains many of Jesus' words and teachings; not all of them, John 21:25, but those that we need for salvation, faith and life. It contains words, and teachings, spoken by the Apostles - those who had been witnesses to the Word, 1 John 1:1-2. The apostles no doubt said, and wrote, many things too, but the books that we have in the Bible are those which were considered to have been authentic and in line with their teachings.

The Bible is inspired and contains all we need to know God, his nature, his works, his salvation and what he wants for us. It is useful for teaching, correcting and training in righteousness, 2 Timothy 3:16. It is the source of all doctrine. If someone produces a doctrine, belief or rule, says that God told them and it's not found in Scripture; he didn't. (E.g Moonies say that Jesus came to earth to get married but died before he could do so; in their eyes, he failed.)
The Bible teaches us the Gospel, which is powerful, Romans 1:16, and the word of God which is a sword, Hebrews 4:12, Ephesians 6:17. It is to be treated with respect - but is not to be worshipped.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums