No thanks. That is more a ricochet than a tangent.
Suit yourself.
I knew Christians held the bible in very high regard but the authority you invest in the dictionary seems right up there. While it is generally desirable for people to use words in the same way and a dictionary can help with that, you have to remember that dictionary definitions are descriptive of common usage - not prescriptive. Proper French usage is dictated by authorities, English is not. This isnât something over which we can reasonably disagree; English usage is democratically determined and constantly evolving.
1 Like
That the Word of God can mean Bible is the thesis that I have been arguing this whole thread. So, in other words, you agree I have proved that.
I have never once claimed that Word of God is the definition of Bible. I have claimed Word of God and Bible are synonyms.
You have repeatedly responded by saying that people shouldnât use them as synonyms, to which I have responded that your opinion about the appropriateness of the label does not matter when it comes to describing what people mean when they use the label. People will continue to use Word of God as a synonym for the Bible without your approval.
Your arguments for why people shouldnât use Word of God for Bible (even though it looks like you grant that they do, all the time) are based on the mistaken idea that if an English translation of the Bible uses a term one way, that is the only way we as English speakers are allowed to use the term. This is a demonstrably dumb argument, as I have shown with repeated examples.
2 Likes
Actually my argument is more important than what you describe, Christy.
I say the use of the term âWord of Godâ for Bible is misleading and sets up false expectations which can lead to a crisis of faith.
Since you call it dumb, then I suspect you have considered the ramifications of your practice.
A crisis in faith can be a good thing and should not be avoided at all costs.
1 Like
Yes, but Jesus said something very important about that:
Matthew 18:5-7 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
6 âIf any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes!
Many words have more than one accepted meaning. That applies to phrases as well. The agreement of one does not preclude another.
Furthermore the semantics of the phrase âword of Godâ is not precise or agreed. âofâ might be about, or from.
Perhaps this is ultimately a case of both personal preference and personal understanding and there is no right or wrong?
Richard
1 Like
If we took this at its limit there would be no debate or discussion at all. We would have to keep what we believed to ourselves which then contradicts the principles and instructions for evangelism and âmaking Christians of all peopleâ . We need to be able to distinguish between âtruthâ and âcertaintyâ. And âdisagreementâ and âliesâ or âLack of faithâ.
True debate leaves you vulnerable to the possibility of changing your mind⌠I wonder how many here would admit to that possibility (in truth)?
Richard
I wonder if the standard for what counts as Christian enough can be refined to a point which would make it compatible with universalism? Iâve asked before in other ways but you werenât present here at the time. My thought is that perhaps there are other ways -lived values, regard for others and so on- to make that determination than the beliefs one holds. If you could distill it down you might find amongst the worldâs religions many who are already âChristian enoughâ while within your own churches there might be plenty who are not but who would welcome the opportunity.
1 Like
Thank you for your statement/question. I agree that this is the heart of the matter, that is using the phrase the Word of God for the Book of God right or wrong, or only a matter of personal preference? Please note that I did not say that the phrase word of God was the phrase in question. My concern is primarily that the Word of God, Jesus Christ, be given the authority over the Bible that He demands. (Luke 6:5)
I agree that there are many words and phrases that have more than one accepted meaning. However just because this exists does not mean that it is right.
@Christyâs argument seems to be that because some word use exists, it must be okay. Many people take the Name of God in vain, but that is not good. Many use pejorative names for people which is not right. Jesus warned us not to call someone a fool. (Mt:22)
While there are somethings that are clearly a matter of personal preference, generally speaking I do not think that the way we treat the things of God are not one of them. The way we determine whether something is right or wrong, if Jesus is not clear on the matter is to look at the consequences of this action and this is what I have tried to do.
So what are the possible consequences of calling the Bible the Word of God? Just what I said, the confusion of the Bible with Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega of our faith, but some churches say that the Bible is the basis of their faith. Jesus is the Author and Finisher of Salvation. but some churches say that they preach the Bible and not Jesus.
Bad theology is not good, and saying that the Bible is the Word of God is not proof positive of bad theology, it is evidence of the same and in my opinion a practice which encourages those who preach bad theology and enables those who practice bad theology.
Bad theology of the Bible is the Word of God is found in Young Earth Creationism. YEC is a lie that masquerades as the Gospel. YEC is a consequence of the belief that the Bible is the Word of God and needs to be addressed rather than be pushed under the rug. YEC is a stumbling block to full salvation because it enclaves the mindâŚ
As I said before the theology of the Bible is the Word of God is bad theology that divides the Church into two hostile branches. The theology of the Bible is the Word of God is the bad theology which has been the basis of an alliance of evangelicals with the Republican Party which has been captured by false leader. This is a severe spiritual crisis that needs to be confessed and addressed by repudiating this bad theology.
This is why I think that this is not the case of personal preference and personal understanding, and there is a definite right and definite wrong in this situation.
1 Like
OrâŚItâs just a difference in capitalization conventions.
If someone is talking, how can you tell if they are using the perfectly fine expression âword of Godâ as opposed to the totally confusing and evidence of bad theology âWord of Godâ when they are referring to the Bible?
1 Like
How can you compare using the phrase Word of God to taking the name of the Lord in vain or insulting people? We have given you a long list of uses of Word of God, capitalized, to refer to the Bible throughout English speaking church history. It isnât just some peopleâs bad habit, itâs a well-attested practice of Christians across denominations and through the centuries. You are the one out in left field here, and all of your assertions about the use of Word of God historically and what it âimpliesâ about theology have been demonstrated to be completely wrong. It isnât a Fundamentalist thing. It is used by plenty of people who reject inerrancy.
Your assertion that it confuses Jesus and the Bible is based on nothing more than your own capitalization preferences. While it is indeed a problem that some churches elevate the Bible over Jesus, you have been able to point to NOTHING that in any way suggests they got to that place because they capitalize Word when referring to the Bible. Itâs all in your head. It is an unsupported bare assertion that has been completely debunked on this thread.
So, if you take it upon yourself to harp on anyone here on the forum AGAIN for capitalizing Word of God, Iâm just going to delete your post. No one deserves to be harassed as some kind of heretic for capitalization conventions that are well with the norms of English-speaking church history.
1 Like
I have long thought that one of Christianityâs failings is its exclusivism. People quote certain phrase like
âno one comes to the father except by meâ and âthe narrow wayâ as an excuse for limiting paths to God.
It may be a cheat but, if Christ is part of God then anyone coming to God must come through Him. If He is the door then people will pass through Him whether they approached though Christianity or not. And so on.
The rule of hyperbolae must apply to Christâs words. How can He possibly imply that there is another route to those who are in His immediate physical vicinity? If we allow for the context of time and space then much of the exclusiveness goes out the window.
Many Christians accept the principle of the âdeath bedâ conversion or salvation. Why not take that one stage further and suggest that everyone will get the chance to understand full who God is and make a decision there and then?
The problem only seems to arise when you start to claim (as many seem to) that only belief in Christ is valid. And that the choice to deny or ignore is fatal. (Even if they do not understand.)
Logic dictates that God would not ignore 95% of his creation up to Christ (and beyond) or not provide a suitable method of approach that fits with local culture and understanding. I for one have no problem with the basic ethics and approach of the native American beliefs. If the white man had never invaded would God have rejected their simple faith? If not, then why must they change it now? Because the bible says so? That would be a rather dangerous assertion.
Christ Himself tried to delineate between theory and practice. That what mattered was the honesty and sincerity of the believer. So if someone has been brought up a Hindu with generations of predecessing examples, and is honest, sincere and true to their faith, why would God reject them? Because the Bible says so?
I know that such thoughts are controversial , even now. But I truly believe that God is the God of all of His creation, not just the favoured few.
I am a Christian. It is my religion. My father was a Methodist minister. There is no reason why I should be anything other than a Christian. But If I lived in Japan, or deepest Peru? Is God really that narrow minded and âstupidâ?
Let the outrage beginâŚ
I am still a Christian. I am saved by Christ. In many ways it should not matter how God treats anyone else. But, it matters because of who I think God is. And the God I would want to worship. I am not sure that I could worship a God who would condemn someone for their heritage or tradition when their behaviour far outstrips a conceited Christian who is convinced of His biblical certitude to the exclusion of their humanity and compassion.
Richard
2 Likes
A good answer and one that should make the great commission easier to accomplish. The claim of exclusivity not only makes it a tough sell to the those outside the faith but also to some of the young brought up within it who recognize a false note when they hear it.
1 Like
Roger, please, please tell me you didnât just accuse the majority of my congregants of not being fully saved and my fellow elders of being false teachers?
I am not sure what he means by âfull salvation,â and I am certain there are many YEC believers.
However, the near rabid insistence of a 6000-year-old earth by some YECers does turn people away from the gospel and does damage to the kingdom of God.
They claim to take the early chapters of Genesis as literal history but deny the plain wording of the second creation story (beginning in Genesis 2.4b) which has an order and method of creation which literally contradicts the first creation story.
Fair point. And I agree re: Gen 1&2.
Still I wonder how many of that vocal minority of YECs would say that the near rabid insistence of a Millions of years-old earth by some EC turns people away from the gospel and does damage to the kingdom of God?
The true enemy of the gospel and the cause of the greatest damage to the kingdom, isnât any particular doctrine or belief, itâs the idolatry and sin of the human heart. As the famous quotation goes, âweâve seen the enemy and he is us.â
1 Like
If I read you right, youâre referring to his saying âNo one comes to the Father but through Me.â I have actually been thinking about that recently, and agree itâs in the category of hyperbolae. Are we seriously saying that God suddenly, at that very minute of Jesusâ pronouncement, damned all Jews who were previously bound for heaven by the Old Covenant at that time, except those who actually heard Him and accepted him? That would include perhapsâwhatâ12?âwho were in the vicinity and (maybe) understood his meaning (without understanding His story of the cross, which came later)?
But if it was just a process of exclusion initiated at that timeâso that the New Covenant gradually came to take place over the old oneâwhere do you draw the line for when someone becomes a Christian or not?
It reminds me of the conundrum of an âage of accountability.â When can we come to a spot where someone suddenly can understand enough, that a single sin will put them in Hell forever?
All the black and white we seem to understand and accept at first in evangelicalism suddenly becomes very grey and mixed. I appreciate Randal Rauserâs âWhatâs So Confusing About Grace?â, as in here:
Thanks.
1 Like