The Bible is God

[Tree of Life]

Whenever I argue in favor of a high view of Scripture, I inevitably am met by opponents with the assertion that: "The Bible is not God." They mean different things by this. Sometimes they mean that the Bible is not infallible. Sometimes they mean that the Bible is not the only way that God authoritatively speaks to us. Sometimes they mean that the Bible should not be worshipped or revered like we worship God. Whatever they mean, the purpose of their assertion is to diminish the worth and importance of the Bible.

I have no problem affirming that the Bible is God with a few qualifications. First, when I say "the Bible" I am not referring to any particular physical copy of the Bible - any scroll, tome, or book. God is not a book. I'm referring to the Word of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Second, I'm not saying that the words of Scripture can be identified with God in every way in a one-to-one sense. There are ways in which the words of Scripture are not God. For example, the words of Scripture are not eternal. They were created at a particular place and particular time by human authors.

So what do I mean? I mean that the Bible is the very speech of God and that his speech cannot be easily separated from his person.

Imagine your mother hands you the phone and says: "John, it's your dad. He wants to talk to you." It would be silly to say: "That's not my dad! That's just a phone! A piece of plastic! I want to talk to my dad!" The phone and John's dad are not identical in every way. But John's dad is on the phone. To interact with the phone is to interact with John's dad. John can hear and speak to his dad through the medium of the phone. The words of the phone are the very words of John's dad.

The Bible is divine words. The Bible is authoritative just like God is authoritative. What the Bible says, God says. The Bible is infallible just like God is infallible. The Bible is truth just like God is truth itself. In this sense, the Bible is God. To hear the Bible is to hear God.

 

[Radagast]

I have no problem affirming that the Bible is God

No, the Bible is not God. The Bible is stuff that God said.

There are ways in which the words of Scripture are not God. For example, the words of Scripture are not eternal. They were created at a particular place and particular time by human authors.

Big clue that the Bible is not God.

This is an extremely unhelpful thing to say. One might as well say that the whole universe is God, because God created it.

 

[Tree of Life]

No, the Bible is not God. The Bible is stuff that God said.



Big clue that the Bible is not God.

This is an extremely unhelpful thing to say. One might as well say that the whole universe is God, because God created it.

Do you think that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, infallible, comprehensive, necessary, and sufficient?

 

[Tree of Life]

No, the Bible is not God. The Bible is stuff that God said.

The Bible is not just stuff that God said once. God still speaks through the reading, and especially the preaching, of Holy Scripture. To hear the legitimate preaching of the Bible is to hear God himself.

 

[Mark_Sam]

I see your point, but I still think the language is a little too strong. To go with your example, you wouldn't say that John's dad is the phone - merely that the phone is a means to communicate with John's dad. The same goes with the Bible.

And I do think that speech can be separated from the person speaking. When I read a biography, I'm reading the words of the author, but it's not actually the author himself I'm holding in my hand.

This way of speaking is unhelpful at best, and blasphemous at worst. Again, not to be rude, but this view of Scripture sounds a lot more like the Muslim view of the Qur'an than what Christian theologians have said about the Bible. One of the early Muslim controversies was whether the Qur'an - being the literal speech of God - was created or was co-eternal with God himself (the Mu'tazila controversy).

 

[sfs]

Do you think that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, infallible, comprehensive, necessary, and sufficient?

No. It's clearly not necessary, since the church existed before the Bible did. It can't possibly be comprehensive, given all of issues that had to be hashed out later, and that are still debated. "Sufficient" would leave no room for the Holy Spirit, which is completely unbiblical. And I see no reason to think it's inerrant or infallible. So, no.

 

[Tree of Life]

No. It's clearly not necessary, since the church existed before the Bible did. It can't possibly be comprehensive, given all of issues that had to be hashed out later, and that are still debated. "Sufficient" would leave no room for the Holy Spirit, which is completely unbiblical. And I see no reason to think it's inerrant or infallible. So, no.

Case in point. The people who would deny that the Bible is God are interested in maintaining a very low view of Scripture.

 

[Tree of Life]

This way of speaking is unhelpful at best, and blasphemous at worst.

I think it’s more unhelpful to assert that the Bible is not God. Contained within this assertion are the parallel ideas that the Bible is not infallible, inerrant, necessary, or sufficient. We’ve seen this already demonstrated on this thread.

 

[sfs]

Case in point. The people who would deny that the Bible is God are interested in maintaining a very low view of Scripture.

No, I'm pretty sure "the people who would deny that the Bible is God" encompasses those with both high and low views of Scripture. In fact, I'd venture to suggest that it encompasses pretty much everyone who isn't you.

 

[Tree of Life]

No, I'm pretty sure "the people who would deny that the Bible is God" encompasses those with both high and low views of Scripture. In fact, I'd venture to suggest that it encompasses pretty much everyone who isn't you.

So far we’ve just seen the low view expressed. It would be interesting to see someone with a high view of God’s Word deny that God’s Word is God himself.

 

[Mountainmike]

Which again ignores your problem.

It is only the word of God, if you use the right meaning for the words.
And you cannot get true meaning from just the words alone.
And it is apparent that more detail is needed than just the bible to get true doctrine.


God is MORE than just the bible. So whether or not you have the Word of God, depends on what tradition or authority you use to interpret it or EVEN DECIDE WHAT IT CONTAINS!

Whenever I argue in favor of a high view of Scripture, I inevitably am met by opponents with the assertion that: "The Bible is not God." They mean different things by this. Sometimes they mean that the Bible is not infallible. Sometimes they mean that the Bible is not the only way that God authoritatively speaks to us. Sometimes they mean that the Bible should not be worshipped or revered like we worship God. Whatever they mean, the purpose of their assertion is to diminish the worth and importance of the Bible.

I have no problem affirming that the Bible is God with a few qualifications. First, when I say "the Bible" I am not referring to any particular physical copy of the Bible - any scroll, tome, or book. God is not a book. I'm referring to the Word of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Second, I'm not saying that the words of Scripture can be identified with God in every way in a one-to-one sense. There are ways in which the words of Scripture are not God. For example, the words of Scripture are not eternal. They were created at a particular place and particular time by human authors.

So what do I mean? I mean that the Bible is the very speech of God and that his speech cannot be easily separated from his person.

Imagine your mother hands you the phone and says: "John, it's your dad. He wants to talk to you." It would be silly to say: "That's not my dad! That's just a phone! A piece of plastic! I want to talk to my dad!" The phone and John's dad are not identical in every way. But John's dad is on the phone. To interact with the phone is to interact with John's dad. John can hear and speak to his dad through the medium of the phone. The words of the phone are the very words of John's dad.

The Bible is divine words. The Bible is authoritative just like God is authoritative. What the Bible says, God says. The Bible is infallible just like God is infallible. The Bible is truth just like God is truth itself. In this sense, the Bible is God. To hear the Bible is to hear God.

 

[Hearingheart]

Whenever I argue in favor of a high view of Scripture, I inevitably am met by opponents with the assertion that: "The Bible is not God." They mean different things by this. Sometimes they mean that the Bible is not infallible. Sometimes they mean that the Bible is not the only way that God authoritatively speaks to us. Sometimes they mean that the Bible should not be worshipped or revered like we worship God. Whatever they mean, the purpose of their assertion is to diminish the worth and importance of the Bible.

I have no problem affirming that the Bible is God with a few qualifications. First, when I say "the Bible" I am not referring to any particular physical copy of the Bible - any scroll, tome, or book. God is not a book. I'm referring to the Word of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Second, I'm not saying that the words of Scripture can be identified with God in every way in a one-to-one sense. There are ways in which the words of Scripture are not God. For example, the words of Scripture are not eternal. They were created at a particular place and particular time by human authors.

So what do I mean? I mean that the Bible is the very speech of God and that his speech cannot be easily separated from his person.

Imagine your mother hands you the phone and says: "John, it's your dad. He wants to talk to you." It would be silly to say: "That's not my dad! That's just a phone! A piece of plastic! I want to talk to my dad!" The phone and John's dad are not identical in every way. But John's dad is on the phone. To interact with the phone is to interact with John's dad. John can hear and speak to his dad through the medium of the phone. The words of the phone are the very words of John's dad.

The Bible is divine words. The Bible is authoritative just like God is authoritative. What the Bible says, God says. The Bible is infallible just like God is infallible. The Bible is truth just like God is truth itself. In this sense, the Bible is God. To hear the Bible is to hear God.

Where and how does the Holy Spirit fit in with this view? Which is more important...the Holy Spirit's leading or the bible? Or perhaps they are equal in importance? Just wondering. Thanks.

 

[Tree of Life]

Which again ignores your problem.

It is only the word of God, if you use the right meaning for the words.
And you cannot get true meaning from just the words alone.
And it is apparent that more detail is needed than just the bible to get true doctrine.


God is MORE than just the bible. So whether or not you have the Word of God, depends on what tradition or authority you use to interpret it or EVEN DECIDE WHAT IT CONTAINS!

This is a denial of the sufficiency and the clarity of Scripture. You are saying that God’s Word is not enough to teach us how to be saved and how to live in a way pleasing to him. Further, you are denying that the Bible is clear enough for ordinary people to interpret and that magical people are needed to tell us the meaning of Scripture. Classic Catholic errors.

 

[Tree of Life]

Where and how does the Holy Spirit fit in with this view? Which is more important...the Holy Spirit's leading or the bible? Or perhaps they are equal in importance? Just wondering. Thanks.

Great question. The Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures is necessary in order for us to arrive at a saving understanding of the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit speaks in Scripture.

 

[HereIStand]

Seems like an overstatement. A high school classmate has read the Bible many times over. He is now convinced that St. Paul is a basically a heretic. Scripture is God's revelation to us and God speaks through it. People can physically hear the message and reject it, or arrive at a wrong belief.

 

[Tree of Life]

Seems like an overstatement. A high school classmate has read the Bible many times over. He is now convinced that St. Paul is a basically a heretic. Scripture is God's revelation to us and God speaks through it. People can physically hear the message and reject it, or arrive at a wrong belief.

Without the Holy Spirit we will never understand the Bible. But many saw Jesus in the flesh and did not regard him as God. This does not make him any less God.

 

[Hearingheart]

Great question. The Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures is necessary in order for us to arrive at a saving understanding of the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit speaks in Scripture.

So...are you saying the Holy Spirit is limited to directing or speaking to us only if we have a bible?

 

[Mark_Sam]

I think it’s more unhelpful to assert that the Bible is not God. Contained within this assertion are the parallel ideas that the Bible is not infallible, inerrant, necessary, or sufficient. We’ve seen this already demonstrated on this thread.

Before I comment I'll examine your definition of the Bible:

First, when I say "the Bible" I am not referring to any particular physical copy of the Bible - any scroll, tome, or book. God is not a book. I'm referring to the Word of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.

"Word of God" is a little ambiguous. Do you mean the actual Logos (John 1:1), the Word, the second Person of the Trinity? Or do you mean the speech of God? I'll assume the latter. In that case, the word of God contained in the Scriptures:
- did not exist from eternity
- had a beginning in time (when they were written down).
- is dependent on something physical (i.e. the Bible would be lost if all books in the world were destroyed).
- is a collection of speeches, statements, rulings, words ...
- is not a personal agent with a free will.
- is not omnipotent.
and so on ...
Clearly not the hallmarks of God.

If you mean the former ("the Logos is the Bible"), then you are teaching "inlibriation" ("God was made book") - a teaching unheard of before. Or that would make the Bible into a sort-of fourth person of the Trinity.

No matter how I take you statements, I cannot find a orthodox way to understand it, sorry. I love the Bible, have read it multiple times, and I pray parts of the Bible (mostly the Psalms) several times a day. But preaching that "the Bible is God" is taking it too far. I do believe that you have a sincere love of the Bible, and sincere Christian beliefs, but this language has consequences you cannot fathom. (The Catholic elevation of Mary to the level of Co-redemptrix ("Co-redemptress") pales in comparison to this.)

 

[Tree of Life]

So...are you saying the Holy Spirit is limited to directing or speaking to us only if we have a bible?

The Holy Spirit does not speak infallibly apart from Scripture.

 

[Radagast]

It would be interesting to see someone with a high view of God’s Word deny that God’s Word is God himself.

That would be me. I have a very high view of Scripture.

But to say that the Bible is God Himself is almost insanely heretical.

The Holy Spirit does not speak infallibly apart from Scripture.

Of course He does. The Holy Spirit spoke to people in both Old and New Testament times with words that have not been preserved.

If you mean the former ("the Logos is the Bible"), then you are teaching "inlibriation" ("God was made book") - a teaching unheard of before. Or that would make the Bible into a sort-of fourth person of the Trinity.

I'm hoping the OP does not mean that.

But you're right; there is no orthodox way of understanding the OP's words.