Okay, a forum topic in its simplest form - questions. Namely, two:
1) What is the Word of God?
——and——
2) How do you know?
Although to some these may seem to be very easily answered, I expect there to be some very in depth commentary. I am very interested in seeing posts from people of various different backgrounds and affilations. Enjoy!
Re: Word of God?
Before heads clash and horns get locked, I felt it might be helpful to reflect on how different agendas might produce different responses to these questions.
‘The word of the Lord’ in the OT seems to me to mean a specific message that came from God to individuals, especially the prophets. ‘The word of God’ in the NT is used somewhat differently - as a way of describing the message that was preached, and in the letters: the substance of the gospel.
Taken further, ‘the word of God’ in the NT almost exclusively relates to the message of Jesus - in a twofold form: the message about him, the message which he came to bring. This message was developed by a history which included events before and after his death.
Given that the NT conveys a strong sense of Jesus being the fulfilment of all that the OT was tending towards, it seems to me not going too far to say that Jesus was the fulfilment of the broader sense and meaning of the ‘word of the Lord’ in the OT - especially the ‘word’ that consisted of God’s dealings with Israel and the nations through their history to the coming of Jesus.
So there is a sense in which Jesus as ‘the Word’ could be described as the apex, the consummation, of all that was on God’s heart in terms of what he wanted to communicate as his ‘word’ to mankind. This is reflected in Hebrews 1:1-2, as well as the description of Jesus as ‘the Word in John 1.
It is by tradition that the texts of the bible have come to be described or regarded as ‘the word of God’ - the means by which we can view the history and significance of Jesus in relation to Israel’s and the world’s history. But it is ‘word of God’ in a qualified sense - as that which was preserved through the gospels, and especially preached by the apostles and the early Christians in Acts and the letters.
‘The word of God’ becomes in this way an interpretation of the bible’s history and message, particularly as it was perceived through the person, life and message of Jesus. I, personally, have no doubt about the role of the Holy Spirit in marking out our biblical collection of texts as unique and distinct, (because I can find no other satisfactory explanation for its selection, preservation, and the power locked up in so many of its words), but there is also a heresy which elevates the bible as ‘word of God’ to almost equal status with Jesus, seeking to make it literally absolute in its every detail, and ultimately conflating the two. The bible can still be ‘divinely inspired’ and ‘canonically inspired’ (which I believe it is) without requiring this sort of protective absolutising, which comes down to a misunderstanding, or confusion, in what we mean and what the bible itself means by ‘word of God’.
So I’m also in favour of adopting a questioning, ‘critical’ approach to the meaning of ‘word of God’ in the NT - and especially as the message that was preached by the apostles and the early church.
I think this can go hand in hand with the equally necessary question of what the Spirit is saying to the church (and through the church to the world) now. I would be surprised if the church had got it essentially very wrong over the years. But I have no problem in asking all sorts of searching questions about the precise meaning of ‘the gospel’, which of course is the anglicised version of the word ‘evangelion’, and which is the issue of what lay at the heart of the message which Jesus came to proclaim, embody, and pass on through the church.
‘Evangelical’ has come to mean not only a kind of culturalised appropriation of the gospel (to which we rightly object), but an interpretation of the bible as having a message, which conveys ‘good news’. I’m happy to question both - but I would have some reservations about a view of the latter which suggested that the church had got it wrong in its essentials over the millennia.
Re: Word of God?
Okay, Mr. Wilkinson, I definitely see your point in expressing the Holy Spirit’s ability to "take care of it’s own" so-to-speak. But we are so clearly instructed to "rightly divide the word of truth" and "examine the Scriptures daily", etc…..so, how do we know what Scripture is? How do we know what we are reading is the word of God?
I mean, clearly there takes a trust in the Spirit to guide us, the the Spirit also just as clearly instructs us to be on guard against false doctrine and teachings. Some of which may very well come in the form various writings designed by the enemy to lead people astray from the truth. So what have we as the people of God been given that aids us in determining what is, and therefore what is not the "Word of God", whether it be written or spoken.
An additional comment would be that the "Scriptures" are clearly referred to by the writers of the NT as authoritative in matters of theology, spirituality, wisdom, practicality, life, etc…So how did they know that those "Scriptures" were the "Word of God" over and above the other writings and sayings available in that time?
Re: Word of God?
I don’t mind being called Peter. In fact I keep meaning to change my login name, since there haven’t been any other ‘Peters’ to be distinguished from. Or maybe I should have gone for something a bit more adventurous - like ‘mr.valiant4 truth’. Mr. Wilkinson sounds rather formal. So let’s keep to first names. I wonder what yours is?
Anyway, how do we know the scriptures are the scriptures, and not some cleverly inserted corruption, as Muslims, for instance, assert? Or as a tortured schizophrenic guy, who I am getting to know, believes.
To respond simply - maybe starting with ‘the scriptures’ isn’t a good starting point. Personally, I would start with myself - my need of God, the work of God in me: drawing me to himself, creating in me a thirst for him, an awareness of my need for him.
Then I find that ‘the scriptures’ begin to talk to this need - coming alive, speaking to me personally. It’s not just the words on the page, it’s something behind the words that brings them to life - maybe something in me that is projected onto the words.
To me, this is how the Holy Spirit works - and he does it through ‘the scriptures’ more than any other kind of literature - maybe because ‘the scriptures’ are relating more to the kinds of need which God wants to meet than any other form of literature. And maybe because the Holy Spirit was at work in the scriptures in a way that was not true of any other form of writing. There is an inner correspondence between the God who appears to be speaking through the scriptures, and the God who is at work in my life.
So how do I know that these scriptures aren’t corrupted in some way? I don’t; all I know is that they speak - or God speaks through them. God may not speak in the same way through all the scriptures as he does through some, but the fascinating thing for me is that through the various means of bible study: meditation, study, speaking aloud, hearing it read, hearing it preached, memorisation, God speaks.
How do I know it’s God who is speaking, and not just my own mind? Because there is a difference - a sense of certainty, peace, excitement, joy even. If this isn’t God, it is speaking to my life in a way that is just as good as God. It is consistent. It remains, deepens, is not exposed as fantasy or deception.
Sometimes the voice speaks loudly and clearly; sometimes it requires effort and labour to be heard; sometimes the voice speaks more faintly and dimly - when I’m probably on the wrong track altogether.
Do I only have these existential clues to the veracity of the scriptures? Not at all. There is the experience of other believers, and the church worldwide throughout time and geography. There are the tests of apostolicity, catholicity and orthodoxy. There is the thirst for the scriptures in places where access to them is restricted or hindered.
It’s possible that the scriptures in their broadly canonical form are an artificial construct compiled by largely corrupt ecclesiastical authorities and set frozen in their form by the invention of the printing press, but the weight of evidence is so overwhelmingly against this that I don’t think it stands as an argument against the trustworthiness of the scriptures as we have them.
But in the end, let the academics in aspotasizing Europe and North America debate the issue. There are plenty of ordinary people in other parts of the world (as well as their own) who find that these words, and not any others, speak to their needs and situation in a way that others don’t - not the Koran, Bhuddist or Hindu texts, the writings of Confucius, Zoroaster, nor any other religious teacher.
How’s that for starters, knight4yshua? Will it bring the intellectuals out of their unbelieving bolt-holes?
Re: Word of God?
Hello again Peter! You may call me by my screen name, which is actually spelled without the "i" in "knight" - knght4yshua; or by my first name, which is much simpler - Adam.
You started at the end of your post to dip into a little more of where my mind seems to want an answer. Again, although I agree that apostolicity, orthodoxy, etc…are all good tools to some degree, these have shown to be flawed as well. If you have done any study on textual criticism, which I am assuming based on your responses thus far you have, you know that there are numerous manuscripts that were not included in today’s canon. Why?
Some "gospels" were accepted and TAUGHT as the Word of God in certain 1st & 2nd century assemblies, while others condemned the exact same book as being heretical. Is there some medium through which these two groups could come that would show them that that particular gospel was, or was not, the Word of God? I know that the first answer rising up in you is probably - "Yes! The Holy Spirit!" And again, where I agree with you to some degree, we both have to agree that being "led by the Spirit" is a phrase that is tossed around far too much today. Some believe baptism can be a simple sprinkling on the head, others believe only in full emersion. Some believe in the continued use of the gift of speaking in tongues, others say it is of the devil. Some say Yahushua is God almighty, others say he is not. Yet seemingly ALL of them claim to be "led by the spirit".
So, if possible, what else is out there, that we can all access, that could solve the problem that the two example assemblies above were having? How can we determine if that "gospel" is the Word of God, WITHOUT getting into a "Well, I feel like the Spirit says it is…." type of argument? Do you feel that there are standards out there against which we can measure any writing to determine whether or not it is inspired of God? If so, what do you believe these standards to be?
Re: Word of God?
Adam,
Try this little exercise… Try and write a short story that exhibits love, humility and compassion but is NOT inspired by God. I bet you can’t do it. I bet that if your story exhibits these traits then when we read it we will all agree it was “inspired by God”. Even more amazing is that your story will also be the "word of God" because it will be repeating the message that Jesus already delivered. It will be delivering the same truth that was in the beginning with God and became flesh through the life and teachings of Jesus.
Measuring what texts God inspires is very easy if you are willing to re-examine your understanding or "image" of God. I place my faith in the image of God that we find in the biblical accounts of Jesus’ description of God. I feel that God is love. I don’t just think that God is a being that loves, but I actually believe the biblical words that God is love. I believe God’s nature is humility and compassion because that is the nature revealed in Jesus. Anytime someone loves someone else then God is being manifested. Therefore, I would argue that ANY text or experience that truly exhibits love, humility, and compassion is "inspired by God".
I would suggest we commonly misinterpret what it means to be inspired by the spirit of God. This misinterpretation comes from all the weird little theological nuances that we have to put in place if we want to prop up the strictly literal Trinitarian view of the Holy Spirit as a "being" rather than understating it as the nature of God that we take on as we undergo the radical transformation of character described by Jesus. The traditional theology tries to make spirit = ghost or being without a body. But it isn’t that complicated or spooky. If we just see spirit as a metaphor for "nature" or "character" and inspiration is anything done in that “nature” then it makes everything so simple.
The literary personification of character traits or intellectual and emotional concepts was very common in literature at the time of the bible. For example the use of the name Sophia was used to describe wisdom throughout many ancient texts of the same time period. You will see that picked up by the author of certain verses in Proverbs (chapter 8 for example) that refers to wisdom in the form of a female.
Re: Word of God?
Yo Danutz, wassup!
I see your point regarding any saying or writing that is written about or through an attribute that is clearly "Godly", ie.love, could be seen as being inspired of God. But another question then arises…without having the scripture to tell you, "God is love," how would you know that God is in fact love. None of the Hebrews or Christians prior to the 2nd or 3rd century had this scripture to reference.
One could make the argument that the fact that "God is love" is clearly demonstrated in the OT as well, which I personally believe. But then you get into how people prior to having the OT as we know it would have known? People like Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Job, etc…I mean, even the vast majority of the prophets had the "book of the law" at BEST.
I guess what I may be futily trying to find is a set of "rules", so-to-speak, that are made available to all people, that can be used in determining whether or not anything is or is not the Word of God. My basis and drive for this search is this: witnessing to the lost! Many conversations between Christians and Muslims, or Christians and Hindus, end very suddenly because one claims their writings to be the "Word of God", and of course the others claim their’s to be. So, pending a miraculous work demonstrating the truth of our God over their’s (as in Eliyah and the fire from heaven), or something showing them that their writings are false (not the Word of God), the witness opportunity is lost.
Clearly I am in no way opposed to the "work of God" aspect, but would find it very valuable to the "arsenal" so-to-speak to have a way to show that other religions writings are NOT the Word of God.
What do you think about this?
Re: Word of God?
Adam,
I am curious why your goal of reaching the lost leads you to look for ways to convince people of other religions that they are wrong? I have found that the best way to reach people of other religions is by trying to prove those other religions contain the same absolute truth that Jesus delivered. You might try that approach instead.
The fact that Islam or Hindu traditions contain wonderful truths about God will help to prove that God exists. It will also give weight to the message of Jesus in their eyes if they realize he was speaking these same truths. Wouldn’t it be easier to speak to them if you first got them to see the value of Jesus’ message by relating the truth in his message to the truth in their tradition? Then you have a starting point for discussion.
Why is there such a need to prove that our particular image of God is so much more accurate than everyone else’s? I think the important things to address are the underlying truths and not the particular cultural wrappings of the truths (sacred texts and practices).
I think this highlights Andrew’s points here and elsewhere that our particular background and context will mold your views on scripture. You view scripture as the poof text for your faith because your goal is to "fix" or convert people of other religions by proving their texts to be wrong. That is the exact frame of mind that created all the dogmatic Christian doctrines (trinity, virgin birth, atonement, 6-day creation, literal judgment day prophecies, etc). The people that created that dogma were trying to put together formula to prove their view of God was correct.
The same points can be made about my comments. I have my own ulterior motives that revolve around the need to "fix" or convert Christians away from the false religious views of Christianity. So I admit that my views are often skewed by my own background and motive.
To answer you question “without having the scripture to tell you, ‘God is love,’ how would you know that God is in fact love”: I wouldn’t. That is why I love the Bible and place value in it. It is the primary means of preserving the message of Jesus. That is why I call myself a Christian and live and work within the Christian church even though I value truth in other religions, in the many Christian denominations, and also in science.
Danutz
Re: Word of God?
Adam - I replied the way I did partly because I’m convinced there is no rationally convincing answer to your question - otherwise someone would have found it by now.
Well, maybe that’s a slight overstatement. I’m not really qualified to answer your question anyway, but the little I have read of non-canonical texts suggests to me very good reasons why they were not included in the primary canon of biblical literature: the gospel of Thomas was illustrated in this way on this site by a previous contributor; Tobit being blinded by sleeping with his eyes open and sparrows depositing bird droppings on his eyes is another; one could go on. So often the non-canonical texts exhibit the fabulous and fantastic in a way that the biblical texts do not. Occasionally there are texts which might have slipped in (Wisdom?) - but largely on account of their correspondence or similarity to canonical texts, rather than any outstandingly unique contribution to the canon. Or maybe someone could correct me?
The responses I was giving in a previous post are serious and need serious consideration. First - what do we mean by ‘the word of God’? How has that come to be applied to the books of the bible, OT & NT, rather than its more specific meaning as used within the bible, OT & NT? What actually is ‘the word of God’?
Second, it’s not just the Holy Spirit in an abstract sense who ‘superintends scripture’ - it’s the verdict of people, and that is the people of faith communities, who read the material, and take on what is felt to be useful, having a divine imprimatur about it, and reject, or relegate to different categories what is not.
Third, there have been suggestions made on the site, which I take seriously, that the canonical texts be released from their canonical status, and be allowed to rest alongside other ancient texts without the one being set over the other in advance.
If this third suggestion were to be taken seriously, one would expect more discussion of ancient texts outside the bible in attempts to gain access to the authentic historical roots of the faith. This is in fact an important method, especially in historical critical scholarship. But few scholars seem to accord these texts the same status as the biblical texts. And on this site, we continue, by our practice, to accord greater authority to biblical than non-biblical texts. I don’t think the argument that this is simply through force of habit is very covincing.
Re: Word of God?
Hey Peter,
To answer your questions as best as I know how (at this time):
1)What do we mean by the "Word of God"? - I believe that we can say conclusively that from the ancient Patriarchs until now, the Word of God is anything spoken by God (including through a mediator such as an angel) or inspired by the Spirit of God working through His faithful. For example, do I believe that Paul thought when he was writing his various letters to the assemblies, "Man, I am writing the very Word of God right now,", no. Do I believe he felt inspired by God to write for the edification of those various assemblies, yes. He even instructed that his letters be distributed throughout the assemblies for public reading. Would Paul have held his own letters to the same authority of the already accepted scriptures, such as the Law, extremely doubtful! But he certainly would have felt comfortable distributing his letters if they lined up with the already accepted scriptures.
2)How did the phrase "Word of God" come to be associated with the books of the OT & NT? - I believe that people back then established some criteria by which they determined these books to be of God, and the various others not. Again using Paul as an example, he probably would have thought that he used the "Word of God" in his writings, not that his writings were the "Word of God". Some people trying very hard to maintain the "infallible scripture" belief, bend and twist many other scriptures to make it all somehow fit together. Rather than reading through everything, "holding to that which is good", they take every single word, even those that have been proven to be false late additions, and try to make it work some how with the whole. Although for the most part this can be harmless, sometimes it can prove to completely reform essential doctrines and beliefs that our Lord himself taught for obedience.
Another question along these same lines could be: Can I read through the book "The Wisdom of Sirach" and find some truth within? Or even better: Can I read through any book of the NT and find any false within? Should we even take the word-for-word, "There are absolutlely NO errors or falsities within" approach? Or should we read everything, including what we already know as scripture, with a close and discerning eye?
My answers: Yes, although the book "The Wisdom of Sirach" is not accepted, there could very well be some truth contained within. We have to remember that many books, both of the OT & NT, were under dispute at some points in time. And…and argument could be made that falsity could be found within the NT. For example: if you completely disregarded all books outside the already accepted scriptures, then there are at least two verses in the book of Jude alone that would be rejected. Verse 9 comes from a book called "The Assumption of Moses" and verses 14-15 are from "The Book of Enoch". Does this mean that Jude should be thrown out, or "rightly divided"?
All of this then bring us back full circle…if we are to read each and everything with a close and discerning eye, by what are we to read these works against to check there verity? To discern between anything requires some previous knowledge: ie. good vs. evil (you must know at least one to distinguish the other); darkness and light (same); etc… So what is the "standard" against which to compare the text in our Bibles to, to discern truth from lies?
Re: Word of God?
What a fantastic discussion fella’s. Is it fair to say if the answer to all of life’s circumstances can be found in the Bible then that can be the basis for the belief that the Bible is the Word of God? It seems that the Creator of life would provide us with this. It seems totally irrational that the God of light would leave us in the dark. The confusion is not in the Bible itself, but in adding or taking away from it by, who else? God’s creation.
I might like to add that the apostles believed so strongly in the the word of God that they were willing to die for it. Even Paul, who came around after Jesus ascended.This may be all the verification we need, unless one thinks the martyrs didn’t have all the facts before they made their choice. I am not so sure we should be looking at the word "word" literally. I can write words all day that don’t mean anything, but the word of God has power, love, mercy, strength, perfection capsulated within the "words". The only place you can find the words of God are in the Bible. It really doesn’t matter what other religious texts say, you can’t be indecisive when it comes to what you believe (words of God you can read in the Bible).
Re: Word of God?
What’s interesting on this thread is that I’ve found myself agreeing with danutz far more often that usual. But perhaps that’s because I just watched the movie ‘Crash’ last night and saw more than just a glimpse of something beautiful it pointed to. I am consequently inclined to reject angelamarie’s proposal that "the only place you can find the words of God are in the Bible." God is revealed concretely through Scripture, yes. But not completely and not fully and not precisely. God is also revealed through other means. I do not believe God limits himself to the Christian religion (and the texts it produces) to speak to the world. The Spirit is at work everywhere (I think this partially because I have a strange sense of God’s presence when I read Plato’s Republic).
And so with Peter and Angelamarie I want to affirm that there is something unique about Scripture—particularly because it arose out of the calling of a people for the blessing of the world (and so one might say that God was and is at work in a special way through Israel and the Church)—it is a unique artifact. However with danutz I do not want to limit where I can see God’s love and wisdom. As a Christian, I am grounded in Scripture (because it tells my story, and describes my place in the world’s story) but not limited to Scripture.
Re: Word of God?
On a side note, the movie "Crash" was wonderful. It is amazing to see how different presumptions and circumstances affect our view of the world and for our purposes here it affects our view of God. Daniel, be careful about letting those liberal movies into your brain. You might realize that people can actually love without understanding the bible. You might also have to take that "W" sticker off your SUV (just kidding…sort of!)
Re: Word of God?
There is a clear and distinct difference that will probably produce nothing but strife between you and I in continuing this. That being that I don’t believe in the "there is one God, and He reveals himself to different people in different ways, through all the different religions" theory. I DO believe that there is only ONE God, and that He doesn’t go against himself (which would prove to be exceedingly true if He were the same in all religions). One truth, one faith, one God.
As restated in a response above, I believe that God’s words can be written in things outside the scope of scripture, but not that the same God is leading Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc…alike. I can even accept that the truths of God can be found within the writings of various other religions, as some truths are for the most part universally understood…but not that the same God is leading all the different religions.
Re: Word of God?
Knght4yshua, there is a difference between saying that God does not limit himself to the Christian faith and saying that all religions are on equal footing. The latter is fairly scandalous, but if you think people on OST have been making this claim (me, danutz or otherwise), I think you may have misunderstood us.
Ours is a much more humble claim, namely that the Spirit of God is at work everywhere it is allowed to work. There are places inside and outside of Christianity where the Spirit is resisted (and places inside and outside of Christianity where that same Spirit is welcomed). In fact, I might say that there are certain Protestant denominations where the Spirit is quenched and I would no more look for truth there than in the worst of nihilist philosophies. God’s dream is the Reign of God, not a world under one Christian religion (I am paraphrasing McLaren here), and so while I would agree that religions (and further subdivisions within those religions) vary in terms of how well they point to God, I would deny that Christianity is the only way. Christ, not Christianity, is the way the truth and the life (and the philosopher in me would specify, the good life!). And though there is one way to the Father: Christ, I might say that there are several ways to Christ (or to rephrase this so that it is less controversial, different people on different life journeys encounter Christ in different ways).
I say all this, of course, as a committed disciple of Christ, and as a Christian. I am not trying to make my religion seem trivial or to strip away its uniqueness, but I am trying to open my eyes and see the Spirit’s work throughout the whole world—not just my little subset of it.
Cheers!
-Daniel-
Re: Word of God?
Okay, first let me say that to some VERY small degree I agree with "the Spirit of God is at work everywhere it is allowed to work". Yahweh by his spirit is in control of everything. The best explanation for this comes from Romans 9:20-24 - "On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles."
Because of His unlimited foreknowledge, Yahweh prepares ahead of time those whom he know will reject Him to still useful to make known His grace to those who will accept Him. The Spirit of Yahweh will only be leading those who will accept His grace through Yahshua to Him. That is where I draw the line in regards to the Spirit working in "places outside of Christianity".
Other than that, the gift of the Holy Spirit is only given to those who accept and are baptized into the name of Yahshua - Acts 2:38. The Holy Spirit is only given to those who obey God - Acts 5:32 - which God do you think it is talking about obeying? If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him - Romans 8:9 - do you really think that Buddhists and Hindus would admit to having the Spirit of Christ within them? Those with the Holy Spirit can say "Yahshua is Lord (or Master)" - 1 Corinthians 12:3 - do you think Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus can say that? Those of the true circumcision, with the Spirit of God can "glory in Christ Yahshua" - Philippians 3:3 - can any of the above religious groups do that?
Malachi 3:6 - "For I, Yahweh, do not change;" - yet you seem to think that the "Spirit of God" who allows worshipping a cow (Hinduism) is the same one who wanted to consume the Israelites for making an idol of a cow at Horeb. Maybe you are confused?
Can you honestly say that the same spirit is leading all the different religious groups on this planet? And that the various forms of worship and idolism present in some of them, EXTREMELY contradictory in comparison to one another at times, is accepted by a God who says He changes not?
For one who stated that "as a Christian, I am grounded in scripture," your foundation seems to be pretty shaky.
Re: Word of God?
Very briefly, your quote from Romans is an excerpt from Paul’s argument about God’s freedom to graft the Gentiles in to the Jewish vine (to the promise made to Abraham and his descendants). I do not think you can generalize it in the way you are trying to.
Also, your assumptions about foreknowledge are not strictly biblical, and many would argue that "who’s in" and "who’s out" is not settled ahead of time for God to know, which is why He works to woo everyone into the Kingdom.
Your comments on the Spirit could quickly lead into a conversation about pneumatology. There are various views out there, and I am not well versed in most of them. Suffice it to say that I believe the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not a permanent state, but rather a temporary filling for a purpose (like the disciples at Pentecost, or Elisabeth when seeing pregnant Mary)—this I would agree is limited to ‘Christians’. However the Spirit does more than just reveal itself in these outbursts and is at work in much more subtle ways throughout the entire world.
I know very little about Hinduism, and so I take your cow-worshipping comment with a grain of salt (there’s a difference between thinking something is sacred and worshipping it…). Be that as it may it is obvious (no one is arguing this point!) that Christianity and other religions make different and contradictory truth claims. I do firmly hold to the law of non-contradiction and therefore am obliged to say that they cannot all be true. I’m not sure anyone with half a brain would (at least in any non-nuanced way).
The simple problem that I see with your argument is that you’re solely focused on propositional beliefs (and I sense that you focus on them for the sake of ‘getting into heaven’—a priority the biblical writers may not have shared with you). I am looking more at behaviors than anything else. Since Jesus said ‘you will know them by their fruits’, this seems to be a valid approach. I am simply observing that many non-Christians are loving, and caring, and selfless. To the extent that they embody these characteristics, they participate in the Kingdom of God.
Sorry this is so hurried, but I’m short on time.
Love to all,
-Daniel-
Re: Word of God?
Hi Daniel
I know you had said in another thread that you had moved away from the Reformed tradition (‘far, far away’, I believe you said). I assume then that you are familiar with the reformed doctrines of common grace and general revelation? Such are in basic agreement with your sense that God’s Spirit is at work in the world, both providentially (in sustaining all things) as well as redemptively. And more than that, that God is revealed in the natural world, and most remarkably in humanity (as the imago Dei). Allow me to quote at length from Calvin’s “Institutes” on this matter:
Of course, the distinction has always been made in the church that Scripture alone is God’s Word, as in ‘God-breathed’, such that, what Scripture says, God says (to paraphrase an early church father). As such, it is the final arbiter in all matters of faith and life, and unlike Plato (who wrote with the wisdom God gave him), has the absolute authority to bind our conscience. This is of course the essence of the reformers cry, “Sola Scriptura”.
Re: Word of God?
Hey Angelamarie,
I agree the discussion is interesting, and it is actually going into offshoots that I never expected. It would be very nice if the answers to all of life’s situations were contained within the pages of the Bible, but such is not so. To do so would be a book wider than the circumfrence of the Earth I suspect.
Although I agree that the testimony of people dying for their faith is a strong one indeed, it still doesn’t bring any more truth, or rather verification of truth, to the texts involved. To show that would involve that people have only been martyrs for Yahshua, and NEVER for anything else ever. In other words, people have died for their beliefs in other areas, without being followers of Yahshua.
I also must say that I disagree with your statement "the only place you can find the words of God are in the Bible". Although I kind of understand what I think you are trying to say, the words of God can be contained in writings outside the scope of scripture. We have to remember, that prior to the 5th century, "the Bible" as we know it didn’t exist in a compiled form. Yet early church fathers and brethren quoted from various texts numerous times. Not including that there are principles (ie. the "Golden Rule") that are well taught in literature outside the scope of scripture, without directly quoting the Bible. But….I DO agree with your statement that "can’t be indecisive when it comes to what you believe". Someone, I believe "danutz" posted something after your post speaking about how God can be found in all the different religions and texts. I believe a statement like that shows some degree of ignorance on the subject. To say that the gods of the Bible, Qu’ran, and the Vedas (Hindu scriptures) are all the same is ludicrous! I concur with what I think you were saying a-marie, that being that there are DRASTIC and SIGNIFICANT differences between the God of the Bible, and the "gods" of the other texts. Differences ranging from the particular god’s certain attributes all the way down to the lifestyle instructed to be obeyed by that god’s followers. By simply looking at the cultures surrounding the different faiths, you can tell they are not being instructed by one and the same God. Unless you believe in a god that gives commands in contradiction to it’s own nature one time, and in accordance with it another time. Who would want to serve a god who couldn’t even make up his OWN mind, nevermind intructing the minds of his followers?
Re: Word of God?
It seems like this is more related to pluralism and metaphysics, but here goes…
Adam,
At least you make the same mistake when referring to other religions that you do with Christianity. You are assuming that the image of God that is presented in Islamic or Hindu texts is a perfect reflection of the nature of their "gods" rather than a flawed description of our God. When they have orthopraxy problems in their faith because of mistakes in the "image" of God it is no different than the mistakes that result from certain Christian images of God.
The problem is that we all have different images of God but there is only one creative force in the universe. It is important that we recognize that what we think is God is really our “image” of him. You can argue that your image is “better” or more “accurate” (and I would agree) but you can’t argue that only our religion is worshipping the real force while the other religions are worshipping another force. That is not fair to us or them.
For example: I have a specific mental image of my wife that is a result of the experiences and information about her that I have collected in our lives together. Her co-workers have another mental image of her that could never be the same as mine (at least I hope not!!!!). If we all sat down and described her, our stories about her would be colored so much by our own perspective that a 3rd party might not think it is the same person. But I don’t think for a minute that my wife has a hidden life and she is lying to me or to her co-workers. It is a product of how our minds collect information and formulate perspectives.
The same is true of God. When we speak about God we are speaking about the mental image we have formulated that allows us to speak about the unspeakable. Religions are formed to create communities centered on a group of people with a similar image of God. This in NO way means that all religions and all sacred texts are “right”. It just means that we all have baggage, agendas, and cultural experiences that color the image of God which we create. We do not create God, but we do create our image of him. You could argue that God helps dictate those images by the particular encounters he allows to occur, but clearly those encounters are diverse also.
This relates to how you view the scripture. I think it is helpful to see the bible as texts written through the lens of 2 cultural “images of God”. The first being the ancient Hebrew lens and the 2nd being the early Christian lens that built on the story of the first. I think the “word of God” is the truth that rings through in all of these views. The “word” is the truth that has been around with God sense the beginning and became flesh in the life and message of Jesus.
Re: Word of God?
Image of God = Yahshua. Period.
Anyone whose life is lived practicing their faith in a different way than him (ie. worshipping a God of a different name, breaking the Law of God as perfectly obeyed by him, worshipping a cow, etc.) is not reflecting the image of God.
One fundamental difference between what it seems you believe, and what I believe - you believe that the "image of God" can be different for different people, I believe the image of God is constant, unchanging, and the same to all people. As our knowledge of who God is and how He wants us to obey Him increases, His image becomes clearer and clearer to us, but the image does NOT change.
I emphatically DISAGREE with your statement, "but we do create our image of him." An all knowing, unchanging God, the God of Yahshua, the God of the Bible, has control over His own image. If we, as different people see Him differently, it is not because He is portraying or allowing a different image of Himself, it is because we have blinders on that prevent us from seeing Him in His true self. His image was created BY Him, and is maintained BY Him.
I am kind of wondering if this post is ever going to get back to the original questions - What is the Word of God? and How do we know? This forum was not started to discuss how certain people believe that the Hindu gods are really the same as the Christian God! It was started to seek an answer to how we can know what is inspired of God (the god of Yahshua, Yahweh) amongst all the different texts and books out there.
Re: Word of God?
Adam, You seem to think that I and others here are trying to say that all religions are “right”. I never said that. I just said they have a different image of the force that created us. You also seem to think that anything done within or on the behalf of a religion is done by God or the “god” they serve. That is not true even in Christianity (see the crusades, the holocaust, war in Iraq, child molestation by priests, incorrect doctrines, etc.). God does not force religions to make correct decisions. That is evident in the history of the church. Just because other religions make huge mistakes in developing their image of God it doesn’t mean that they are not seeking to understand the force that created them. If your goal is to have a healthy debate with others about theology, you must make the mental leap that not everyone will hold the same mental picture or “image” of God. You don’t have to agree with all of them, but you must respect them.
I think this is important because it helps us interpret scripture when we understand how the authors pictured God. Israel had a much different image of God than what Jesus presented. Jesus’ main message was that the religious leaders of the day had skewed the image of God and he gave us this wonderful new picture of God as a father figure. God didn’t change from OT to NT, but you can see a radical change in the author’s image of God during this transition thanks to the message of Jesus. This logic helps ADD weight to the argument for God, because it means he didn’t change. His people did change.
I have never used the word Yahshua in prayer, but that doesn’t mean I serve a different god than Israel. Our terminology and our imagination do not actually change God but it changes how we speak about him. It is important to separate our mental picture of God from what God really is. The whole purpose of theology is to derive this picture to the best of our ability. We must realize that we all have an incomplete picture. It is ok for you to argue that your picture is better than mine but you can’t argue that I don’t have a different picture. Every theologian in history has started his argument by first describing his particular thoughts about God’s nature (his image of God). Some have a very transcendental image and others focus more on the eminent nature of God.
Re: Word of God?
Adam - you refer more than once to ‘rightly dividing’ scripture, as separating truth from error. I assume you get this from 2 Timothy 2:15. But most commentators accept the meaning here to be something like ‘rightly handling’ the word of truth - not discerning between truth and error.
I think you may be approaching the subject the wrong way - after all, there is ‘truth’ in most forms of literature. I don’t think that was the overriding criterion for the formation of a biblical canon - nor was it a systematic process at all - our criteria for the formation of the canon are highly retrospective.
I don’t think we need to read any of the biblical texts against anything to prove their ‘veracity’ - but if we do, I don’t think we need to ponder too hard why most of the ‘included’ texts were included and the excluded ones excluded. As regards the references to apocryphal writings in Jude (and 2 Peter) - like Paul’s quotation of Greek poetry in Acts, it doesn’t make the entire texts from which quotations are taken ‘canonical’ - we can still simply assume that those parts which are quoted in context become canonical.
That’s assuming that you were interested in such a line of thought. I am - but many aren’t.
Re: Word of God?
Peter, This is exactly what I was thinking…
"Anyway, how do we know the scriptures are the scriptures, and not some cleverly inserted corruption, as Muslims, for instance, assert? Or as a tortured schizophrenic guy, who I am getting to know, believes."
Even if these writtings are "the word of God" they where interpreted by the person who received these word and documented them. This interpretation that was done must of included the person’s perspective and agenda.
Re: Word of God?
I know I said this somewhere, but I can’t find it, & can’t remember the context in which I said it. But I’ve got a feeling it wasn’t quite as you seem to be interpreting it - as I don’t actually believe there is any evidence of tampering with the biblical texts - in the way that muslims assert or my friend believes.
Actually, when I read the same stories in the bible and the Koran, the story of Joseph in the OT for instance, there is no question to me which of the two versions tampers with the truth. I leave it to you to guess, on the basis of what I have said so far, which version you think I trust.
Re: Word of God?
Peter, I’ve been perusing this thread for the past couple of days and have been very interested in the conversation. Some of my concerns have been touched on by various people. Overall, this has been quite the fruitful conversation! I would like your input on some of my concerns regarding this specific post of yours, however. I’ve addressed each of them below…
I’ve put in bold your words that communicate to me that you believe Scripture is only authoritative because the Holy Spirit convinces you that it is so. What about your Schizophrenic friend you mentioned above? Is Scripture still authoritative if your Schizophrenic friend doesn’t believe it?
Your personal experience is different than mine. It is your own unique experience. What about our Muslim friends who experience the same phenomena that you describe (the thirst, an awareness for the need of Allah, being drawn near to Allah) in the context of their religion? Based on your view of authority, the Koran could be considered just as authoritative as the Christian Scripture. Your closing remarks in this post communicate to me that you are not comfortable with that idea.
It appears that you view the Scriptures as a ‘tool’ that the Holy Spirit uses to communicate. While I can understand – and agree, to a point – with this position, I argue that this view can ultimately lead to the lowering of the Spirit’s authority. 2 Timothy 3:16 claims that Scripture is inspired, or God-breathed. The Holy Spirit has breathed meaning – and therefore authority - into Scripture when it was first communicated in its original tradition/context. (whether orally or written). Yes, the Spirit continues to help us connect with that meaning, but it is also vitally important that we do not limit Him by claiming His only function is speaking to us through the Scriptures. The Spirit speaks to me as I read stories of God’s work in the inner-city – can I call the writings of Bart Campolo the Word of God (Scripture)? Based on your view of authority, I certainly could!
How certain is this “certainty” you speak of? Is it only certain for you? Again, what about our Muslim friends and the Schizophrenic you spoke of earlier? I’m sure that your Schizophrenic friend hears numerous voices, and might even be certain (in his lucid state of mind) that he is hearing the voice of God. Based on your view of authority, how can you argue with this debilitated friend that the voices he hears are simply not true, when he is very convinced otherwise?
While I agree with the claims you make in this paragraph, I am bothered by the fact that much of your argumentation here is based on human factors. I see no mention here of the Holy Spirit’s role. Is the Holy Spirit only active in your own personal life? Is he not active in the church, the lives of other believers, and in the processes (apostolicity, etc) you mentioned?
One danger I see in the postmodern sway of theology is the tendency to replace the Spirit’s authority with human experience. This is what concerns me about your post and apparent view of the Scripture’s authority. I welcome any thoughts that you might have!
Re: Word of God?
ben - in response to your comments above: it’s a long time ago that this thread was exercising my mind, but if I remember, the questions were: what is the word of God, and how do we know? knght4yshua in particular wanted proof from outside the biblical texts that they were ‘the word of God’. My responses were twofold: try looking at other sacred texts (including the Koran) and compare with, for instance, how the bible handles similar stories; but essentially, there is little else, other than dogma, which can provide external proof of the bible’s authority. It seems to me that the way the scriptural texts became authoritative was through their use and acceptance in the faith community: Judaism and church. I then tried to look at how this might work in the micro-level: how do the texts work in my own life. I do happen to believe that there is a divine inspiration in the written word, as well as the Holy Spirit bringing the words to life for me in my experience. But I don’t have any rational or logical proof of this - other than that’s the way it has worked in history, and how it works for me now.
Re: Word of God?
Hello, I’m relatively new and I have been reading through the various threads on OST… and I thought I would finally post a bit in this one because it seems to be a very foundational issue — at least in my recent experience I have found that to be the case.
As has been said before, much (if not all) of the debating and struggling that goes on within Christianity is primarily dependent upon our views of Scripture and its place of authority over our lives. I find myself caught somewhere in the middle of all this, and it appears others do as well.
I am currently attending seminary (after a decade away from school!) and one of the things we discussed in a systematics class last quarter was the understanding of the "Word of God" as having three forms: The incarnate Word (Jesus), the written Word (Scripture) and the spoken Word (Preaching God’s revelation). Our professor made the statement that, historically, in order for a belief or doctrine to be considered orthodox, there was a general consensus that said doctrine would be in agreement with all three forms of the Word. This makes sense to me. If I am trying to understand an issue or establish a form of behavior, it seems wise to me that I would try to find a "consensus of the Word" whenever possible.
The difficulties come when such a consensus seems difficult to achieve. In that event, the general agreement among Christians seems to be that The Bible becomes our final source of authority. In other words, if we can’t find a clear path to a specific doctrine or belief, we have to fall back upon what Scripture says. Of course, this is rather circular; we end up asking all over again "How do we interpret The Bible?"
If all of this seems tedious and "old news", I apologize. I tend to ramble and head down rabbit-trails… My main point is simply to say that it seems, to me, impossible for the average layperson to really get at the deeper meanings behind the text. Most Christians instinctively (and erroneously) view The Bible as the only form of "The Word of God", yet they have so little training in the complexities of the text (historical, literary, etc) that they have no other option than to take it at face-value, coupled with whatever exegesis their pastor gives to them. So is it really any surprise that we face such confusion?
I am wondering if there really is a solution to this dilemma. I want to believe that we can love each other as the body of Christ should, but if history is any guide, what is more likely is that on issues where a consensus can’t be reached, those of different opinion will continue to split off and form new branches of Christianity; some of which will be seen as heretical. This is made all the more likely by our post-reformation model of Christianity. I don’t mean to sound negative — this is just where my thoughts are today.
Re: Word of God?
I think that this highlights a very important point. I really do not like the fact that so often we assume that expert, scholarly knowledge is required in order to grasp the ‘deeper meanings’ of the Bible. It suggests, in the first place, that the experts are not doing a very good job of communicating their insights and understanding to others. But I suspect that the real problem lies not so much with how we transmit knowledge but with our whole approach to reading the Bible.
In brief, I believe that as we learn to tell the story in the first place as contextualized historical narrative, as this telling slowly reshapes the community’s understanding of and response to scripture, as we allow this more realistic approach to inspire our devotion, ministry and mission, we will find it much easier to grasp the profundity of the Word of God in all its forms. We struggle because we are wearing a hermeneutical straight-jacket.
Re: Word of God?
I do not like thinking that either… but I guess my own experience causes me to be less optimistic… most of the conversations I have had with my Christian friends and other "spiritual seekers" (and these are intelligent, well-meaning people for the most part) continue to fall into one of two camps — either 1) The Bible says what it says, and we have to simply accept what is said, and if we can’t understand something, too bad; or 2) The Bible is too much of a struggle to figure out, so just take what makes sense to you, and what works for you, and don’t worry about the rest.
I really honestly believe that most people aren’t interested in grasping the profundity of the Word of God… they want someone else to tell them what the truth is, so they can just get on with living their lives. I realize this sounds very cynical but I find often it is the case. Perhaps we are all prone to that way of thinking… I know I’ve fallen into it many times. I just don’t like being there and I don’t like other people being there either.
Re: Word of God?
Reading the story as contextualised historical narrative is immensely helpful as a way of exposing our cultural misreadings and blindspots, and adding depth to our appreciation of the story, and as it shapes our lives.
But can it not, in turn, also become a hermeneutical strait-jacket? The central weakness of allowing this to be the only sure way of reading the story, it seems to me, is that it can freeze the story in history, and fail to relate the story to contexts other than its own.
There is a case to be made for arguing that the gospel narratives in particular are arranged in a way that takes them out of their strictly historical context, and makes them applicable for future contexts which were not those of the 1st century middle east. The teaching and parables of the gospels may not simply have in view the mindset and worldview of 2nd temple Jews living under the oppression of pagan Rome. The parable of the prodigal son, for example, may not simply be a story about the Jewish exile and return (informative as this is as a contextualised historical reading), but may well continue to be, as most people have taken it, a story about exile from and return to God as a loving father.
This isn’t an argument against contextualised historical narrative - the issues being raised are too important, the perspective it is giving us on misreadings of the story, and the instability of planks of modernist reformed theology are too fundamental to be dismissed.
But in the end, the question must be asked: how does this approach square with the adaptability of the faith to cultural contexts other than the 1st century? What is the relevance of the faith for today, if one particular approach is emphasising its historical and cultural limitations? Are these limitations actually a truthful reflection of the emphasis of the story itself?
And what has happened to the review we were promised of The Coming of the Son of Man?
the Coming review
Did you mean that final enquiry to sound grumpy, Peter?
I was really enjoying this thread and, as ever, your challenge to Andrew’s historical-critical narrative approach and then I read what seemed a slightly perturbed question.
Suffice it to say, "the review," such as it is, is well on the way… I just need a few more hours of reading and thinking… my paradigm shift is not quite complete…
Meanwhile in response to your suggestion that there must be other valid ways of reading and interpreting the scriptures, I refer readers to my earlier post on the four time-honoured methods of rabbinical Judaism.
In fact, for those who don’t even want to follow a link, here they are:
shalom! - john
Re: the Coming review
First, my apologies for the pessimistic post yesterday, folks…
John, I appreciate your referencing the four rabbinical ways of interpretation. Maybe I should post this on a different thread, but I was wondering if you could give an obvious example of each? I think I understand them all but I would like to be more certain.
As I looked over the list, it occurred to me that often Evangelical Christians seem to focus heavily on "p’shat" and "midrash" applications but ignore the other two… I wonder if that is really the case, and if so, why? Perhaps, as you say, it is due to potential for abuse.
Re: the Coming review
I think that would be worthwhile. As soon as I’ve completed the review referred to above, I will do that; I think you’re right that a seperate post would probably be appropriate.
shalom! - john
Re: the Coming review
I too would be interested in this!
the coming rabbinic modes of interpretation
just to say I’m working on this, as promised. hope to post later today (Saturday)
shalom! - john
rabbinic modes of interpretation
Some examples have now been posted here.
shalom! - john
Re: the Coming review
Grumpy? Moi? But thanks John for the update. I’m sure the review is coming along nicely.
Andrew’s response misses my point: that if the historical/contextual/narrative approach to criticism is the only legitimate route to to biblical understanding, it places us in just as much of a straitjacket as other forms of understanding which incur the censure. I was actually affirming the approach - but also raising the possibility of a weakness, which I think is allowable, that it may tend to limit the faith to its historic context, without relating it to the present day, or different cultural contexts. I do accept the argument about how it can relate the faith to the present day, and a variety of contexts - I just haven’t seen personally how that works.
As for the four Jewish ways of interpreting the scripture: I have a feeling that the NT turns the tables on ‘midrash’ - in that the birth accounts of Jesus in Matthew follow a midrashic pattern, but (to my mind) pointing to things that actually happened, rather than cleverly spun inventions. The final method of interpretation sounds cabalistic - or close to a method which was reduced to absurdity in The Bible Code.
Historical and post-historical hermeneutics
I’m not sure I see this as such a problem, Peter.
1. We will always be retelling the historical story, drawing new lessons from it, adapting its meaning for new circumstances, exploring new hermeneutics, and so on. In a sense this is what we do when we make the parable of the prodigal son a more general existential story about exile from and return to God as a loving father - by changing the context in effect we tell a different story. What we don’t do - I would suggest - is give theological priority to the abstracted existential retelling of the parable.
2. I think we still need to grasp more clearly that the ‘adaptability of the faith’ is dependent not in the first place on a way of reading the text but on the responsiveness of the historical community to the calling of God to be an effective, contextualized missional people. I’m not advocating a narrow, restrictive historical hermeneutic, but if even that were the case, even if we treated the New Testament as a historically contingent text that had no relevance to later situations, we would still need to recognize that this historical text established the contours of a community that itself must be the living and relevant dwelling place of a dynamic God.
Re: Word of God?
"I am currently attending seminary (after a decade away from school!) and one of the things we discussed in a systematics class last quarter was the understanding of the "Word of God" as having three forms: The incarnate Word (Jesus), the written Word (Scripture) and the spoken Word (Preaching God’s revelation)."
The problem is that there is no conclusive proof that Jesus was speaking the incarnate word - you merely have to accept it. I don’t believe that scholars can do that. I go back to my original point that "Even if these writtings are "the word of God" they where interpreted by the person who received these word and documented them. This interpretation that was done must of included the person’s perspective and agenda." I would hape to apply this to any writting (OT, NT, Koran, whatever…). Based upon this logic, we shall never know the true word of God or the incarnate.
PW states later on in this thread "As for the four Jewish ways of interpreting the scripture: I have a feeling that the NT turns the tables on ‘midrash’ - in that the birth accounts of Jesus in Matthew follow a midrashic pattern, but (to my mind) pointing to things that actually happened, rather than cleverly spun inventions."
I don’t believe the NT changes anything because my point still applies. Even today history is written and interpretted. Many people have researched the assasination of JFK but they don’t all agree with The Warren Report. Unless you are positive that the writters of history in the days of NT are somehow more capable then today then I think the methods described in John’s post apply regardless.
Andrew then posts "I think we still need to grasp more clearly that the ‘adaptability of the faith’ is dependent not in the first place on a way of reading the text but on the responsiveness of the historical community to the calling of God to be an effective, contextualized missional people."
To expand on this I would say that ‘adaptability of faith’ is dependant on the perspective of the person reading the text. The question I have is - can perspective be taught?
If only Moses, Mohamed, Jesus, Paul, et al had been alive in the 20th century so that we might have had multiple sources of media to document this history. Imagine moses.blogspot.com???
A lot of this will never be resolved and will be up to the interpretation of the individual.
Re: Word of God?
Why do you say that scholars cannot (i.e. should not?) "accept" that Jesus was/is the incarnate Word? I would love to hear your thoughts - even if it requires a new thread.
I’m not sure the purpose of Christian theology is to resolve anything; rather, it enables us to humbly comprehend our faith (a little) better, so that we may live out that faith more authentically. Only the end of time, or presumably death, will allow us some resolution.
It doesn’t surprise me that many things will never be resolved… although sometimes it really irritates my analytical personality. On good days, it actually makes me rather thankful, since it means none of us have figured God out yet! God wouldn’t be much of a God if we could :-)
Re: Word of God?
Wow! I am never let down by the level of discourse on this site!
I am not suggesting that scholars should not accept Jesus. I am suggesting that scholars should not accept Jesus on faith alone. IOW the OT or NT says it, or appears to have said it, therefore it must be true. I would expect more from people who claim to be scholars.
I agree with your point tho - sometimes I take the end-game of this site too far. I keep forgetting that the point is to better comprehend, not solve all the problems. And as far as figuring God out - sometimes I can’t even figure out my wife. :)
Re: Word of God?
hehe :-)
This gets back to part of the frustration alluded to in my initial post — the idea that scholars, or laypersons in general, should accept Jesus based on anything other than faith alone, is generally met with a high level of defensiveness from many Christians. On the one hand, I can understand that. There is a point when faith becomes all we have and we have to rely on that. But on the other, I really want to respond with more than "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." And that seems to run contrary to the mindset of many of the Christians I know.
Just the other night I was talking to a friend about our responsibilities as Christians, and she said (basically), "all we have to do is live like Christ, show people who Christ is and why they need Christ, and He will take care of the rest." While I agree with this statement in principle, it is overly simplistic and has very little real-world application. So I get frustrated because it seems like people are just giving easy answers that don’t help much, especially in a world where it seems we can’t agree on what "living like Christ" really means.
I am tired of that kind of answer.
Re: Word of God?
I would like to add something more to this issue. I have been wondering what it must feel like to people who do not look like the eurpean representation of Jesus. Let me explain my concern.
If we are to tell all people that they are created in God’s image then the assumption is that those not created in his image are not people. If a black person, a latino person, an asian person, etc… uses the picture of Jesus from the last super as an indication of what God’s image is then do they feel that they are less then those who are white? Is it proper for black, latino or asians to worship a white man? What does this do to a non-white’s self image? Does it teach them that they are less than? Does it tell whites that they are superior to non-whites?
Does the issue of the image of Jesus cause harm? Does it further divide people?
Re: Word of God?
Great questions…. although I think many cultures have begun to appropriate their own "images of Jesus" in worship… I haven’t read much on this subject but I know one of the books recommended for my Christology class discusses this very issue… I can find the title and post it for you if you like. I would read it myself this quarter but I chose Johnson’s book on Feminist views of Christ instead….
Re: Word of God?
Does anyone else have any thought on this? I have been away for awhile and not able to post but I am no less interested in everyone’s views.
Re: Word of God?
Greetings all. I’m new here, so bear with me.
knght4yshua, you said:
I believe you are falling into a foundationalist trap here. Let me explain. To appeal to another external source as validation for your foundation (the bible), is to make that external source over and above what you already have. That, in turn, would need another external source to prove it’s validity. Newbigin, in The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, makes the point about the lack of objective rationality inherent in science as an example of what I am saying. Science in and of itself is based on assumptions of the rationality and contingency of the universe. Those assumptions can not be based on something external to the belief in science itself. Meaning, there is no universal guidebook defining and explaining the rational universe. It’s accepted because it has become part of the plausibility structure of a society.
How does this apply to our faith? Well, we accept the authority and the validity of the bible for the redemptive story that it portrays, which has been lived out by the people of God (whether through Israel or the Church) down through history and today. We don’t look for another foundation to "prove" the bible. The Holy Spirit illuminates the Word in the lives of a community of people gathered to live out and be to the world what Jesus was to Israel.
Hope that makes sense….it’s early, and my recollection of Newbigin may be slightly off.
Re: Word of God?
Hey rco4jah,
First, I can ascertain the "4jah" part at the end of your screenname, but what is the rest, if I may ask?
Second, I completely see where you are coming from. If I chose one source that needs validation, then it is not by itself going to help my cause. It would only produce more work. Which is why I would humbly submit this: If there are "standards" by which we are measure whether something is or is not the Word of God, then they would DEFINITELY have to be something(s) clearly manifest to all people. For instance, through creation itself, we can determine that there is an all-powerful (or at least more powerful than me) creator. Are there other things within the scope of nature or its governing laws that could also be used to aid in determining the Word of God?
What things are out there that are unchangeable, and immuatable by man, that can help direct us to God and His Word? (ie. although some men have thought they can "defy gravity", they really cannot - gravity holds the universe as we know it together —— the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t allows choas to reign (in a sense), yet we are in a pretty nice state of order (in comparison to what it could be))
What is out there, available to all? If anything?
Thanks and blessings in Yahshua!
Re: Word of God?
Okay, I know this looks like I am responding to my self, but….I really want everyone to read this.
I know LONG AGO in this thread I mentioned how I would like to know if it is possible to determine what the Word of God is in order to bring people of other faiths in…but there is also another reason. For about the past two years I have really been digging into the scriptures, trying to find the scriptural truth on numerous things. Anyone, in doing diligent study on this will inevitably run across very noticable additions to the canonical text. Scribal additions, mis-translated words, false accounts, etc…..they are all in there. But, recently (the past 3-4 mos.) I have really been focusing more study on the canon, its development, and what criteria were used to determine it.
I have not yet come to any specific conclusions, and if you read another thread I started on this site ("The Non-Canon Based Canon") then you can see why. So far every article, book, or post that I have read is circular - they use the Bible to prove the Bible. Long story short….my faith is guided by the text, but doesn’t come from it (completely). Others though, such as the following article shows, have LOST their faith by doing research into the canon of scripture. I mentioned either here, or on another post, the importance of this subject, and the fact that it is one of the most over-looked because people are scared to look into something they know has a cloudy development. They are afraid something will happen to him as it happened to the gentleman in this article
I am sure the you are all familiar with the name "Bart Ehrman". Well, due to the compiled research he has done, that can be found in his most recent book, he has admittedly lost his faith. Here is the link to the article:
http://www.newsobserver.com/667/story/387840.html
Again, I do not think that we can overlook this subject, or let it just pass by. If we as believers and followers of Messiah can unite together here, and pour our energy into this thread, can we not do the same in studying the canon for the sake of people like Bart. We know that God loves him too, and that His heart is broken because of Bart’s loss of faith. One could say that Bart’s faith was never real to begin with, which could be possible. But, this guy is VERY influential to many people, especially in the scholarly world. We need to consider not just the extent that we should be willing to go to for Bart and his salvation, but for everyone that could be negatively influenced by his opinions.
What do you all think?
***NOTE: the article above is relatively short, so please read it before posting. Thanks.***
Re: Word of God?
You know, I think what’s so interesting about both the article and your original question, is a fixation on a certain kind of grounding principle. I wonder if it doesn’t tend towards foundationalism in a way. The way I (mis?)understood your original question was that you wanted something indubitable, something that everyone could, in principle, agree on, that would found Scripture as "God’s Word." The post-modern insight, as I’m sure we’re already all well aware of, is that knowledge and ‘certainty’ can only rarely come from indubitable ‘first principles’. The vast majority of the time, they tend to emerge from a web or network of pragmatic beliefs about the world.
And so I fear your original question may be unanswerable, though I think a strong case can be made for the importance of Scripture. That doesn’t make it ‘inerrant’ however.
At its root though, I think this ties in to a larger question about providence, how God is at work in the world. For those of us who think of a more ‘modern’ God, a doctrine like inerrancy makes sense, and any amount of deviation from sheer perfection is problematic. I think what Scripture shows, and also what is revealed through the process by which Scripture was compiled, is that God works, not above humankind, but through it. Which is why so many of us Christians are more than willing to acknowledge the ‘problems’ with the canon-making process (and I was happy the article highlighted this). Only if your picture of God is somewhat mechanistic does the humanness of Scripture pose a problem. I for one, think God is much more subtle than that. And Scripture, in all its loose ends, odd additions and interesting expansions, is a reflection of that.
Am I making sense? I guess I’m simply trying to highlight how our views of providence are closely correlated with how we respond to evidence of tampering with Scripture.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: Word of God?
Hello everybody, and especially knght4yshua,
I am new on this site, and I would have hesitated to butt in if you would not have specifically invited comments from "different backgrounds and affiliations". I am 54 years old, from Germany and confess to be RC (but see below). I’ve got a PhD in formal logic & philosophy and have worked on my own for 25 years to figure out what this christian faith is all about. Over here, discussions on the web mostly are split between the esoteric and the very, very faithful who got all the answers pat (oh yes, and the majority who does not care at all), so I really enjoy this site.OK, lets go:
What is the word of God? Answer: The scripture as a whole.
How do I know? Answer: Because ‘God’ is defined by it.
Let me explain. Western Europe is, as far as I can see, regarded as something like Mordor by a large segment of christians in the US.Well, here in Germany we have the East Germans with joined us after the reunification and they probably are among the most non-christian people in the world. Add this to the general disentchantment with traditional religion and you got a generation which, to a large part, do not have any christian socialisation at all.
This situation has, of course, its drawbacks, but it has the advantage of making some things very clear. For one thing, the bottom has dropped out of a lot of concepts which before seemed natural to humans, one of them being ‘God’. Lot of people here simply do not have this idea in their own mind-world. So, at this point, you would have to explain first, what ‘God’ means (by means other then the scripture) and then hand them the bible and have them find out whether it (or part of it) is indeed the Word of this God. For me, that does not sound as if it makes sense.
The only way to start from scratch is to start with the scripture. Work at it as a whole, recognize its different parts, find out which of these parts are most important, hammer away at them till you begin to see some sense, compare them with the experience of different people and different times and your own experience, fit them together, find out their relationship to each other and to the spiritual and dogmatic history of the believers and never despair. When you have gone through this and have come out on the other side, then you will have an idea what ‘God’