@Christy, as far as I can tell that statement is not true. If you have documentation to back up your statement, ple4ase provide it.
The phrase “Word of God” came into prominence with the Fundamentalist movement about 100 years ago. It was used as part of this theological movement to make the authority of the Bible (The Bible comes from the Greek Biblos or the Book of God.) The Fundamentalists, please do your own research, are the original Y.E.C.
Thus the Word of God for the Bible is not like Devil’s food cake. It is a deliberate theological statement indicating a “high” (verbal inspiration) view of scripture. If you want me to agree with you that not all people who use this phrase, which of course needs to be written because verbally it sounds the same, do not have a “high” view of scripture, I will agree.
Still it is not right to use theological words, esp. names, without care. We cannot call the Bible what ever we want to call it. We need to be concerned about confusion by Christians between the Bible which is holy and Jesus Christ Who is God…
One of the most important documents of Christian history was written by a “community of English speakers” in… England. It is the Westminster Confession, part of the Westminster Standards, dated 1646. Modern English was not even a century old. Here is an unsurprising quote from the first chapter of that document:
Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: [list of books of the bible]
@sfmatheson, you peaked my interest so I ran a search:
And to our advantage, the Word of God is not silent about this species of fornication of the soul; and it does not warn the soul against following such practices on the ground that those who profess them speak lies, but it says, “Even if what they tell you should come to pass, hearken not unto them.” (Deut 13:1-3)
A second direction I shall lay down for the same purpose, is, not only to prepare your hearts before you hear, but also to give diligent heed to the things that are spoken from the word of God.
“I don’t think a man gains much by loading himself down with weapons to defend himself. There has been life enough sacrificed in this country to teach men a lesson in this regard. The Word of God is a much better protection than the revolver.”
Now I see why you chose the WFC. Calvin, Luther, as well as the other major confessions (Belgic, Heidelberg, etc.) are all ruled out because they are translations too.
Hats off, Stephen, that’s some good detective work.
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.
Feeling very stupid for overlooking that right now.
Ha, it was just a mistake! You’re great. No more “feeling stupid.” Here’s a space invader from my youth to make you feel better. 
) Maybe we should disavow those names as not biblical and having no place in our worship.