Under what circumstances is the Scripture the 'Word of God'

[Carl Emerson]

Okay. . .I guess the place to start is to address my previous points (regarding your non-Biblical statements):

1) The Word of God is not Jesus alone. There is the
Word of God Incarnate,
Word of God spoken,
Word of God written.

The Word of God Incarnate is Jesus alone.

2) All Scripture is God-breathed; i.e., the Word of God, and not just the words of Jesus and God alone.
.

I would appreciate it if you desist calling my statements non biblical.

If my theology doesn't match yours it is not suddenly 'non-biblical'.

Such statements stifle discussion and are frankly judgemental.

Again this is what I said.

No one is arguing that the Scripture is not inspired Words from God. The problem is that Jesus alone is the Word of God and He must not be confused with the record we have of some of His inspired Words.

You response agrees with this summary... I just chose to use less technical language.

Anyone can spell out a learned theology, fewer can discuss the matters in more depth.

 

[hedrick]

Okay. . .I guess the place to start is to address my previous points (regarding your non-Biblical statements):

1) The Word of God is not Jesus alone. There is the
Word of God Incarnate,
Word of God spoken,
Word of God written.

The Word of God Incarnate is Jesus alone.

2) All Scripture is God-breathed; i.e., the Word of God, and not just the words of Jesus and God alone.
.

There's no specific theory of inspiration given in the Bible. Indeed it's pretty clear that different books are inspired in different ways. Even 2 Tim 3:16 only claims that they are useful for certain purposes, and in my opinion the state of 2 Tim itself is questionable.

Nor does the Bible tell us how to recognize what is Scripture. Jesus accepts the Law and the prophets, though he doesn't give us a list of the prophets. There's no criterion given for recognizing NT books.

Jesus refers to the Law and the prophets, but he seems to feel free to change or qualify provisions of the Law. Of course Christians concluded that most of the Law didn't apply to Gentile Christians (Acts 15), which at this point is almost all of us.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Clare, you said in response to my comment...

"the record we have of some of His inspired Words..."

This, too, is not Biblical.

Clare the scripture is quite clear about this.

John 21:25
But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they were written in detail, I expect that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

We do not have record of all that Jesus said and did.

There was nothing unbiblical about this statement.

 

[Clare73]

There's no specific theory of inspiration given in the Bible.

Right. . .I would say authoritative NT teaching is that "All Scripture is God-breathed." (2 Timothy 3:16)
No theories. . .just the authoritative statement that it is all of the same nature--God-breathed.

Indeed it's pretty clear that different books are inspired in different ways. Even 2 Tim 3:16 only claims that they are useful for certain purposes, and in my opinion the state of 2 Tim itself is questionable.
Nor does the Bible tell us how to recognize what is Scripture. Jesus accepts the Law and the prophets, though he doesn't give us a list of the prophets.

I suspect Jesus knew exactly what were the Scriptures, including the Psalms, and I suspect it was in perfect agreement with the OT teachers of the Law.

There's no criterion given for recognizing NT books.

That they be in agreement, and not in contradiction.

Jesus refers to the Law and the prophets, but he seems to feel free to change or qualify provisions of the Law.

Yes, as God, Jesus is Lawgiver.

Of course Christians concluded that most of the Law didn't apply to Gentile Christians (Acts 15), which at this point is almost all of us.

Was that not Paul's teaching?

 

[Clare73]

I would appreciate it if you desist calling my statements non biblical.
If my theology doesn't match yours it is not suddenly 'non-biblical'.
Such statements stifle discussion and are frankly judgemental.
Again this is what I said.
No one is arguing that the Scripture is not inspired Words from God. The problem is that Jesus alone is the Word of God and He must not be confused with the record we have of some of His inspired Words.

You response agrees with this summary...

I thought my response showed that the Word of God was not just Jesus alone, but that it was also the Word of God spoken, and the Word of God written, in addition to the Word of God Incarnate.

Sorry, if I did no make myself clear.

I just chose to use less technical language.

Anyone can spell out a learned theology, fewer can discuss the matters in more depth.

 

[Clare73]

Clare, you said in response to my comment...

"the record we have of some of His inspired Words..."
This, too, is not Biblical.
Clare the scripture is quite clear about this.
John 21:25

But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they were written in detail, I expect that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
We do not have record of all that Jesus said and did.
There was nothing unbiblical about this statement.

Agreed, if one does not understand you to be saying some of Jesus' words were inspired,
but to be saying that not all of his inspired words were recorded, which was your meaning.

My answer to the question of the OP is: under all circumstances, Scripture is always the word of God.

I apologize for the confusion.

 

[Clare73]

My answer to the question of the OP is:

under all circumstances, Scripture is always the word of God.

 

[Carl Emerson]

So the issue I raise is that anyone picking up the bible can use it to further their own deception and their pronouncements are not God's Word when they quote scripture.

In a similar way Satan used Scripture to tempt Jesus and Satans proclamation was not God's Word even though he quoted scripture.

So the reason for this thread is to discus under what circumstances spoken quotes from Scripture are the Word of God.

So many on CF assume that if they quote Scripture they must be believed as if there is something magical about the words themselves.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Agreed, if one does not understand you to be saying some of Jesus' words were inspired,
but to be saying that not all of his inspired words were recorded, which was your meaning.

My answer to the question of the OP is: under all circumstances, Scripture is always the word of God.

I apologize for the confusion.

Sorry I didn't make things more clear.

 

[Clare73]

Sorry I didn't make things more clear.

All is good. . .

 

[BewareTheLamb]

Interesting discussion. Thanks for posting
The Word of God is always the Word of God whether or not one uses it in its intended context.
Misuse and misapplication are dependent on the giver and the receiver. God's word is not bound by our shortcomings.
(Heb 4:12 [WPNT])
Because the Word of God is living and efficient, and sharper than any two-edged sword, actually penetrating to the point of separating soul and spirit, joints and marrow; in fact, it is able to evaluate a heart’s reflections and intentions.

The following verse is very profound to me, in light of Peters being an eyewitness.
(2Pet 1:19 [KJV])
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

 

[Clare73]

Interesting discussion. Thanks for posting
The Word of God is always the Word of God whether or not one uses it in its intended context.
Misuse and misapplication are dependent on the giver and the receiver. God's word is not bound by our shortcomings.
(Heb 4:12 [WPNT])
Because the Word of God is living and efficient, and sharper than any two-edged sword, actually penetrating to the point of separating soul and spirit, joints and marrow; in fact, it is able to evaluate a heart’s reflections and intentions.

The following verse is very profound to me, in light of Peters being an eyewitness.
(2Pet 1:19 [KJV])
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

In the Greek, that is: "and we have the prophetic word made more sure" by its fulfillment.

In 2 Peter 1:12-21, he is giving the purpose of and the authentication of his message;
his purpose--to refresh their memory before his body is put aside (1:13-14),
his authentication--eye-witness to the events; the voice of God at the transfiguration; and the fulfilled testimony of the prophets in Scripture (Romans 1:2; 1 Peter 1:10-12); e.g., Matthew 26:31, 54, 56; Isaiah 53; Daniel 9:26; Mark 9:12; Luke 24:25-27, 46.

Peter is not referring to unfulfilled prophecy there.

 

[BewareTheLamb]

Yes, that is why if is so profound. Peter being an eyewitness and a companion of the Son of God, testifies that the written Word of God is more sure than his personal experience.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Interesting discussion. Thanks for posting
The Word of God is always the Word of God whether or not one uses it in its intended context.
Misuse and misapplication are dependent on the giver and the receiver. God's word is not bound by our shortcomings.
(Heb 4:12 [WPNT])
Because the Word of God is living and efficient, and sharper than any two-edged sword, actually penetrating to the point of separating soul and spirit, joints and marrow; in fact, it is able to evaluate a heart’s reflections and intentions.

The following verse is very profound to me, in light of Peters being an eyewitness.
(2Pet 1:19 [KJV])
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

In Heb 4:12 you interpret 'word of God' as the bible.

I interpret it as the manifest expression of the Godhead.

In fact without this act of the Holy Spirit, there is no division between soul and spirit.

 

[BewareTheLamb]

In saying that you interpret the Word of God, the Bible "as the manifest expression of the Godhead", are you saying that the Bible is god?
If so, that is of course your choice and opinion

It seems to me that you are equivocating the letter ("Word of God") with the spirit ("Godhead").
As you may well know the term "Godhead" is a wholly different word which, in my opinion, the Holy Spirit would have used rather than "Word of God" in Heb. 12:4.

Question, how would you interpret the following verse?
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isa 55:11)

If I go by your hermeneutic, it would read as follows...
...my godhead that goeth forth...godhead shall not return void, but godhead shall accomplish that which godhead please and godhead shall prosper in the thing whereto godhead sent it

It seems to me, in our brief encounter, that you are not accounting for the context of the text nor the whole counsel of Scripture. I may be wrong and stand to be corrected.

Shalom
`

 

[pescador]

Welcome to the forum!

Here is a better rendering of Isaiah 55:11, "In the same way, the promise that I make
does not return to me, having accomplished nothing. No, it is realized as I desire
and is fulfilled as I intend.” NET 2.1

Translator's notes: Heb “so is the word which goes out from my mouth, it does not return to me empty.” “Word” refers here to divine promises, like the ones made just prior to and after this (see vv. 7b, 12-13) and "Heb “but it accomplishes what I desire, and succeeds in what I commission it with.” Verses 8-11 focus on the reliability of the divine word and support the promises before (vv. 3-5, 7b) and after (vv. 12-13) this. Israel can be certain that repentance will bring forgiveness and a new covenantal relationship because God’s promises are reliable. In contrast to human plans (or “thoughts”), which are destined to fail (Ps 94:11) apart from divine approval (Prov 19:21), and human deeds (or “ways”), which are evil and lead to destruction (Prov 1:15-19; 3:31-33; 4:19), God’s plans are realized, and his deeds accomplish something positive."

As always, the KJV's 17th Century is confusing to readers 410 years later.

 

[Carl Emerson]

In saying that you interpret the Word of God, the Bible "as the manifest expression of the Godhead", are you saying that the Bible is god?
If so, that is of course your choice and opinion

I have never meant what you said...

How you got that from what I said I don't know.

For a serious conversation we need to first agree on what the Word of God actually is...

I am not meaning Scripture when I say that, as the Word of God existed way before the first Scripture was written.

 

[BewareTheLamb]

I have never meant what you said...

How you got that from what I said I don't know.

For a serious conversation we need to first agree on what the Word of God actually is...

I am not meaning Scripture when I say that, as the Word of God existed way before the first Scripture was written.

In Heb 4:12 you interpret 'word of God' as the bible.

I interpret it as the manifest expression of the Godhead.

It seems to me that is what you are implying in the quote above.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

I've known people who claimed to be Christians but had utterly no use for the Bible. They simply followed a New Age sort of Jesus who bore almost no resemblance to the biblical Jesus. Could they reasonably argue they were following the Word of God? I don't think so. The Jesus who is the Word is the Jesus of the Word (i.e., the Bible).

The reference to Jesus as the Word is referring to the Logos becoming flesh. Jesus is the embodiment of the Logos. Jesus thus is the Word in a different sense from the Bible being the Word (i.e., God's written message to humans).

The Bible is the Word of God in all times and places, but it can certainly be misused. It doesn't cease to be the Word when it is misused. It is fulfilling its intended purpose as the Word of God when it speaks to those who are guided in their reading and understanding by the Holy Spirit.

Playing the Word of God card in debates over doctrine accomplishes little unless the opponent's position is clearly, demonstrably unbiblical. I would have no problem playing the card with someone whose position was clearly unbiblical.

In the typical debate, however, both parties really think their positions are supported by the Bible. I don't see any way around this; on many issues, the Bible is indeed open to differing interpretations. I often think this was part of God's plan, so that we would engage with the Bible and wrestle with the issues, even if the wrestling is sometimes unedifying.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The scriptures to me are testimonies to the Word of God. I don't ever refer to the scriptures as the Word of God.

I call the Bible "the Word of God" during debates about Christianity with people of various religions. But in discussions with other Christians, I just call it "the Bible" since they all know God wrote it through people. Yes, I do know the first paragraph of John is about Jesus.