Love it! Thank you. Surely such an accolade should come with a forum badge, though?
Returning to Word vs. word of God, whether either are legitimate English titles for the Bible, and the purported role of Christian Fundamentalists in this affair, the following may be of interest:
Article XX: Of the Authority of the Church
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.
Article XXI: Of the Authority of General Councils
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.
(Emphasis added)
That’s taken from The Thirty-Nine Articles. Adopted in 1563, The Thirty Nine Articles is the founding confession of the Anglican Church of England.
We can probably find many, many people who chose to misrepresent the Bible as the “Word of God” following the reformation, during the time when reformers needed a counter to a pope claiming to be infallible in faith and morals.
But that does not mean we who have more options and greater access to truth should continue with false claims that are inconsistent with scripture.
I think it’s about time for you to admit that you are the one “aligning yourself” with something aberrant by insisting the Bible isn’t the Word of God. The rest of us are just aligning ourselves with the whole of Christian tradition for hundreds of years.
The Bible never claims to be, in its entirety, the Word of God.
I have aligned myself with the use of the term “Word of God” in scripture.
You are the one embracing the words of men, words contrary to the use in scripture.
If you cannot repent now of disagreeing with the use of the term “Word of God” in scripture now, perhaps you will come to that level of maturity in the future.
The Bible never refers to Communion either. Or Eucharist. Or the Lord’s Supper. Those are just the words of men. (Funny how you use “words of men.” As opposed to what, the Word of God, maybe? ) Maybe we should disavow those names as not biblical and having no place in our worship.
The bible doesn’t include the word Rapture. And I don’t think it includes the word… bible. Far more problematically, it makes no mention of chocolate or tortillas.
But the Bible does refer to other things as “the word of God.” The Bible might fit within some of those things (e.g., God’s message or revelation to us); but not all of them. So…not “wrong,” per se, but certainly potentially misleading…?
I support the use of a term consistent with Christian history. My faith is definitely not based just on my personal interpretation of the Bible, it’s based on the apostolic tradition and the orthodox teaching of the church, which I believe has been guided by the Holy Spirit, throughout history.
If I heard someone in my Evangelical context say, “I shared the gospel today,” I would assume that by “gospel” they meant they told someone that Jesus died for their sins so they could be reconciled to God. That is how “the gospel” is used in my speech community. However in the Gospels “the gospel” that Jesus and his disciples went around preaching obviously means something entirely different because, Jesus had not died for anyone’s sin and that wasn’t what he went around preaching about. He preached the great values inversion of the coming Kingdom of God. What my hypothetical Evangelical friend means is arguably not even what Paul means by gospel elsewhere in the New Testament. It’s okay, I understand what my friend means. I understand what the Bible says. We can use the same biblical word two ways. Now maybe it is an issue that in our time we have reduced the robust gospel of the New Testament to “trust Jesus as your personal Savior so you can go to heaven when you die.” But that is irrelevant to whether or not I can understand what my friend means by “gospel.” I learned what “gospel” means in Evangelical contexts by hanging out with Evangelicals. I learned what the “gospel” means in the Bible by studying the Bible.
As to the Magisterial Reformers, Luther’s relationship to the Catholic Church was complex, and for a significant period time he sought to reform the Catholic Church internally. One might simply point out that papal authority is not at issue in 95 Thesis, which is in many ways the essence of Luther’s reformation thought. Calvin was less concerned about internal reform, but then he arrives on the scene later.
As for the Radical Reformers most of them believed that all human civil authority (Inc. the pope) was corrupt beyond rescue. Sure they set the Bible against pope, but they did the same with anyone else who would ‘wield the sword’ of Government. So at least they were consistent.
But to insistent that the development of the Reformers Doctrine of Scripture was polemical is to misunderstand the Reformation. Certainly, the Reformation eventually installed the Bible in place of the Pope as the final authority on matters of faith and godliness. However, I think a charitable reading of say Luther or Calvin would see that they do not envision themselves as doing something new, but returning to a belief which is very, very old. Wether they achieved that goal is a debate for another day.
I doubt the gospel, the good news, has changed. It was and still is the same as we find in the discussion with Nicodemus in John 3. We believe and follow.
But that is not relevant to calling the Bible the Word of God, when the Bible itself has different meanIngs for the term Word of God.
It was this statement in bold that I was responding to. If I have misunderstood you, my apologies. Could you clarify in quoted section, please? Please, you could provide the names of some of the reformers that you did have in mind?
It’s totally relevant because the Bible itself clearly has different meanings for the term gospel.
The meaning has. You are really going to argue that Jesus went around Jerusalem and Judea preaching “I died for your sins to reconcile you to God”? That’s just being stubborn. And clearly wrong.
If Mark’s Gospel is anything to go by the cross was Jesus best kept secret. Even those he did tell, which wasn’t many, either didn’t get it or thought he was pulling their leg.
) Maybe we should disavow those names as not biblical and having no place in our worship.