Maybe look at this another way. If the writers of the scriptures did not claim the scriptures were, in their entirety, the Bible, by what authority do you claim that the scriptures in their entirety are the Bible?
Remember, Christy has said repeatedly that the Word of God and the Bible are often used as synonyms. Both “the Bible” and “the Word of God” are English names commonly used for the whole collection of scriptures even though those English names aren’t found in the scriptures themselves.
That is a good question, Marshall.
There are several ancient canons tracing their roots to the Apostles.
I think it is best to choose a canon that has been accepted by an ancient agreement of church leaders. I prefer the canon of the Church of the East. Which canon do you prefer? And how did you decide on that canon? Did you accept the first one offered to you, or did you assess the options?
Well, I thought you were presenting your views. It appears I was incorrect.
That’s a much larger question. I see the canon as something settled above my pay grade. My decision is the church I join. Since my understanding of scripture’s inspiration allows full human involvement that goes well beyond taking dictation, and since I don’t think inerrancy is a good way to measure inspiration, the canon isn’t so pressing of an issue. I’m not worried about “letting in” some book that might turn out to have a mistake in it.
I generally stick to the 66 books most widely accepted, but also read through the Catholic deuterocanonical books from time to time as well as some other extracanonical writings. But even within the 66, I certainly give some books disproportionate attention (such as Genesis, Matthew, 1 Corinthians).
As for how the church made its decisions, I’ve also appreciated Allert’s book. I read parts of it back when I was working on a paper, and from what I’ve read, I think you’d enjoy it. He gets into how terms like “scripture” were quite a bit more loose in the early church than they are today.
I believe I’ve already answered this question in the post you re responding too. Perhaps you would would be kind enough to reread my post where I said:
Please also see further comments from Christy later on in the thread:
I don’t use any Biblical text to back up my statement. You don’t like it but for many people Bible and the Word of God are synonyms for the collection of texts that conform to a given canon. Like many people that drop by here you continually argue against something but never say what it is exactly you are actually for. So what do you call the collection of books that are in line with the canon you accept and can you provide Scripture (and only Scripture) to support that claim?
Thank you for your comment.
You mentioned inspiration in the discussion of the canon, and I find that often. Metzger says inspiration was not a criterion for canonicity, and I find that interesting (emphasis mine):
It will have been noticed that in the preceding discussion concerning criteria used by early Christians in discerning the limits of the canon, nothing was said concerning inspiration. Though this silence may at first sight seem to be strange, the reason for it arises from the circumstance that, while the Fathers certainly agreed that the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments were inspired, they did not seem to have regarded inspiration as the ground of the Bible’s uniqueness. That is, the inspiration they ascribe to the Scriptures was only one facet of the inspiring activity of the Holy Spirit in many aspects of the Church’s life.7 For example, while Clement of Rome
speaks of the sacred Scriptures (here referring to the Old Testament) as ‘true and given through the Holy Spirit’ (lxiii. 2), the author of the Epistle to Diognetus writes for his own part to his correspondent: ‘If you do not offend this grace, you will learn what the Word (λόγος) talks about through those through whom he wishes to talk, when he pleases. For whatever we have been moved painstakingly to utter by the will of the Word that commands us, it is out of love for the things revealed to us that we come to share them with you’ (xi. 7–8). Among the writings of Eusebius there is a sermon attributed to the Emperor Constantine; whether or not this attribution is correct, the preacher clearly does not consider inspiration to be confined only to the Scriptures. He begins his sermon with the prayer, ‘May the mighty inspiration of the Father and of his Son … be with me in speaking these things’ (Orat. Const. 2).
“Not only do early ecclesiastical writers view themselves to be, in some degree at least, inspired, but also others affirm, in a rather broad sense, the inspiration of their predecessors, if not their contemporaries. In a letter that Augustine addressed to Jerome, the bishop of Hippo goes so far as to say (Epist. lxxxii. 2) not only that Jerome has been favoured with the divine grace, but also that he writes under the dictation of the Holy Spirit (Spiritu Sancto)—which may seem to be rather strong hyperbole applied to the often irascible Jerome. That Gregory the Great enjoyed the reputation of being inspired is easier to understand than is the case of Jerome, and Gregory’s biographer, Paul the Deacon, describes how the Holy Spirit, ‘under the form of a dove whiter than snow’, would explain to him the mysteries of Scripture (Vita S. Gregorii, 28)…
The same impression is conveyed when we examine patristic usage of the designation ‘non-inspired’. While the Fathers again and again use the concept of inspiration in reference to the Scriptures, they seldom describe non-Scriptural writings as non-inspired. When, in fact, such a distinction is made, the designation ‘non-inspired’ is found to be applied to false and heretical writings, not to orthodox products of the Church’s life. In other words, the concept of inspiration was not used in the early Church as a basis of designation between canonical and non-canonical orthodox Christian writings.
In short, the Scriptures, according to the early Fathers, are indeed inspired, but that is not the reason they are authoritative. They are authoritative, and hence canonical, because they are the extant literary deposit of the direct and indirect apostolic witness on which the later witness of the Church depends.”
Excerpt From
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
Bruce M Metzger
](https://is2-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Publication123/v4/aa/61/2d/aa612d3d-683f-3a76-4377-878d93236528/9780191606878.jpg/1200x630wf.png)
The Canon of the New Testament
Religion & Spirituality · 1997
itunes.apple.com
This material may be protected by copyright.
I call them the sacred scriptures in the canon. I call it the Bible, which simply means the collection of scriptures in the canon.
The term sacred scriptures you can find in 2 Timothy 3. The term canon is evident in church history. The term Bible is a well defined term, dating back nearly to the time Constantine commissioned Eusebius to prepare 50 sets of the sacred scriptures.
I don’t call the Bible “the Word of God” because that term has different meanings in the sacred scriptures and calling the Bible “the Word of God” would be inconsistent with the Bible itself.
I value the scriptures as they are. I don’t think we should pad the Bible’s resume.
Does that meet your desired level of clarity?
I accept the apology assuming that it is sincere. Why do you say “if.” Why dan’t you admit that you misread what I sad.
You did not take to heart the sincere advice that I gave you. You do not make a serious accusation against someone based on a sentence taken out of context. Especially in this case where I have written extensively on this issue.
You make a mistake by t6aking something out of context. You made a mistake by not taking the time to read what I wrote to honestly understand my position. You made a mistake by assuming that the source of our disagreement is my dishonesty.
The only way that this statement would be incorrect is if the Word did not help absolute no one understand that the Bible is not the Word of God. Since it helps me and I am sure it helps at least a few others, there is no reason to say that it is incorrect, and if you were not trying to justify your mistake you should realize this too.
Christians are not perfect, we make mistakes, lots of them, but we are to Confess our mistakes and learn from them. We are to accept responsibility for being sinners and repent or change our ways. Your effort to shift responsibility for your mistakes to me sadly reminds me of what is going on in DC.
When YHWH commanded God’s people not to take the Name of God in vain, was YHAH asking people to bind their consciences in that manner. If I or anyone else asks people to honor this command, are we asking them to bind their consciences.
Luther made “Sola Scriptura” a theological principle. Scripture does not call Scripture “The Word of God.” So we follow Luther and Scripture or do we “lean on our own understanding?” You don’t know that people who call the Bible the Word of God are doing nothing wrong.
[quote=“LM77, post:62, topic:41433”]
You’ve done it again! You’ve made a claim that you are knowledgable in a certain area (previously bible translation, now historical theology of Scripture) and then tagged your own opinion on the end so it appears as a fact.
Okay. What have I done? I have said that I am knowledgeable in certain areas. You seem to question that statement. Why? You don’t know me, my experience, my education, etc. Why do you think that this is a lie?
Then when I say that my views are a result or are augmented by my study, you say that I am “tagging my opinion on at the end so it appears as a fact.” If I do a study on an issue and find something is a fact, am I supposed to lie? Am I supposed to believe something else is true when my studies indicate this is false. Because you disagree with my point of view It seems that you have prejudged me and the issue before any evidence that I might give.
I see by you statement in this paragraph that you are in the U.K., while I live in the U.S.A., which means we see things from different perspectives which explains some of our differences, although Britain has some of the same problems as America does.
I write these words while watching the funeral ceremony for Elijah Cummings in the Capitol.
Honestly I do not think any one can deny that the fervent support of Donald Trump by evangelicals has seriously split the Church in the US. Now others might think that belief that the Bible is the Word of God may not be the source of this issue. I am willing to listen to alternative theological suggestions.
My opinion is my opinion. That does not make it right or wrong. I would say that the fact is that the Church is seriously divided and hurting, and Christians need to take this seriously instead of saying that it is silly to be concerned.
OK, now you seem to concede that this is a theological difference of opinion and not a question of grammar. While I am glad that churches are growing, I do not think that growth per se is evidence of soundness of doctrine. Survival of the Fittest, anyone?
Maybe living in England you get a pass on this, but you need to become familiar with the history of the Fundamentalist movement, which began in the US, but the impact of which is now world wide as conservative Christianity has spread from the USA. Also you need to stop speaking from ignorance.
The Reformers taught the Biblical doctrine that Jesus is the Word of God, not the Bible.
Dear Roger. I unreservedly apologise.
Look forward to chatting again in the future.
Best wishes. Liam
The central issue here is that using the word that way can be misleading. Imagine reading Ephesians 4:11 and reading “ordained seminary grad salaried by a local church” into that verse! Is that legitimate? Does it increase understanding? Or obscure it? I’ve made efforts to clarify something like this if I were to preach a passage with the word “pastor” in it because I feel I have to.
The same is true if you were to read “Bible” into every occurrence of “Word of God” (whether it’s translated with a capital or not).
You’re well educated and intelligent. Not every church-goer is educated to the point where they wouldn’t default to reading “Bible” into “Word of God,” or even just “Word.”
I’ve seen it all my life (particularly when someone is quoting almost anything from Psalm 119).
Yes, I’ve seen that too, and it’s part of the reason I personally don’t often use “[W/w]ord of God” to refer to the Bible. While it may be a grammatically correct name, usually the reason to choose that name rather than “the Bible” is because it sounds scripturey. It encourages people to then back-read “the Bible” into all the places where the Bible speaks of the word of God (excepting, usually, the places where the Word clearly refers to Jesus). That, in turn, may lead to not seeing how creation, other prophetic words, and history and events can also be the word of God.
Of course not everybody intends to do that, and I also take the point that you can’t tell someone’s view on the Bible by whether they sometimes call it “the Word of God.” But it is a name that invites a misreading, much like deciding that “the Lion” (edit: or “Morning Star” or “Lucifer”) is a good name for Satan.
That’s a separate issue, and I’ve already provided a detailed explanation of how synonyms are not interchageable in every context in post 85. This is how language works all the time. We do not have to go through our language and disavow the use of all synonyms that don’t have perfectly overlapping semantic ranges and only the same senses.
Roger has repeatedly claimed that if someone refers to the Bible as the Word of God, they confuse the Bible and Jesus, they worship the Bible, and they think the Bible is divine. These are all ridiculous contentions, and they are what I am arguing against. You can personally dislike the English convention of calling the Bible the Word of God. You can wish people would not do so for any number of reasons. But you cannot say that Word of God and Bible are not used synonymously in English all the time. They are. Using Word of God to refer to the Bible in no way indicates any thing about confusing Jesus and the Bible, worshiping the Bible, or thinking the Bible is divine. It is just a convention of English. Whether this convention causes confusion interpreting verses for some people is a separate question. Whether or not people “should” call the Bible the Word of God in your opinion has absolutely no bearing on the fact that English speakers do all the time, and no one is confused about what they are saying. When a pastor says, “Let’s open the Word of God this morning and turn to Ephesians,” it communicates just fine what he wants people to do, open their Bibles, and you would have to be really off-base to say, “What! Are you claiming the Bible is Jesus, Pastor?” or “I bet this pastor worships the Bible and thinks it’s divine!”
To separate out what I snuck into my last post as an edit, I think the Word of God is as good a name for the Bible as Lucifer is for Satan. Grammatically proper, commonly used – of course. But also problematic and likely to lead to misreading various passages.
“Challenging the idea that only those who hold to a verbal plenary understanding of inspiration can claim to hold a “High View” of the Bible, he shows convincingly that such a theory is not at all required to safeguard the inspiration of Scripture and is in fact not historically based and does a great deal to actually weaken the authority of the Scripture by providing critics of the Bible with straw men to flog and burn.”
from a positive review of A Higher View of Scripture.
Thank you Dennis for the recommendation of the book, A High View of Scripture? by Craig Allert which refuted the Fundamentalist/Evangelical view that the Bible is literally The Word of God. In case anyone was not aware of it this is what I was referring to when I criticized the understanding of the Bible as the “Word of God” as opposed to Jesus Christ as the true Word of God.
Please be aware that I am not saying that Christians should not say the Bible is the word of God, just not the Word of God because that makes it equal to Jesus the true Word of God.
But some have asked what difference does it make if people think that the Bible is the Word of God, that is, verbally inspired by God? Well it certainly does.
At BioLogos we are discussing evolution. If we are to go by the observations of science that we all can share, we would think that the universe is very old, even billions of years old. On the other hand if we go by calculations based on the Word of God we would think that the universe is only about 6 thousand years old.
Now which figure so we accept, the one based on human experience or divine revelation? For the believer the answer is obvious, we believe in God’s Word!
However a closer investigation reveals that the answer is not that obvious. God did not dictate the Genesis to God’s People. It went through many stages. God also used the pagan ancient ideas and forms to tell the Hebrews how the universe began. That was necessary for the Hebrews to understand what God was revealing.
The result was that the universe was created in time and space and Gods created matter, energy, time, and space in six days (which might have been added by the priests to support the Temple.) The Creation is true and essential to our understanding of God, and ourselves. The 6 days is not. When we lump them together as God’s Word, we have disaster and chaos, the opposite of God., .
It seems to me that thinking Christians need to embellish the reputation of scripture by calling it the Word of God, a claim that scripture never makes for itself, reveals a low view of scripture.
Scripture does need for us to bolster its credentials.
Now, the big question: Do you capitalize the L in BioLogos?
I do hope that we are not going to claim that 2 Tim 3 makes Scripture the actual words of God. This misconstruction has caused so much division and misunderstanding and radical biblical idolatry*.*
God breathed does not mean dictated nor inerrant. And useful does not mean exclusive nor mandatory.
Cobra and I got a little tired of this on the Theologyforums.com
Richard
The argument is over the title of the book. He objects to the use of “Word of God” as an alternate title to Bible. To me this has no bearing on the meaning of that phrase in the actual book itself or any impact on what you want to take the meaning of words in said book. I doubt anyone has adopted a “radical biblical idolatry” solely on the choice of the title used.
And since the book is considered sacred scripture the title should really be Holy Bible shouldn’t it (as I quickly duck back into my hole)?
The bible is only sacred or sacrosanct to those who believe in it. So calling it “Holy” is pretentious at best.
Richard
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
