Jesus the Word or the Bible the Word?

Just wondered whether posters here regard the most important or supreme revelation of God is to be found in the Incarnation or the Scriptures. Which is more important to you,and why?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I think the question is important because it does affect the way we relate to God and view Him. If the Word (Christ) is the ultimate revelation then we have to try to make other bits of the Bible fit that revelation of God as ultimate self-giving love. If the word (Bible) is the ultimate revelation then we have to try to make our understanding of God's love stretch to encompass what seem on the surface to many people to be extremely unloving acts and decisions, particularly in the OT. I tend to find that, consequently, those who espouse the Bible as the primary revelation tend to be be from a more conservative theological background, whereas those who stress Christ tend to be more liberal in flavour.So, whether you are Bibliocentric or Christocentric does I think have a major bearing on your theological outlook

Oh, and Dr Bob is right - Jesus is Logos and the Bible is logos ("En arche en ho Logos" etc)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Thanks, all! But which is more important to you in your daily walk with the Lord, and why? Also, what do you make of my observation that those who stress Christ tend to be more liberal (love?) oriented, whereas those who are Bibliophiles tend to be more conservative (law?) oriented?


Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I ask the OP question as I consider it to be important as to our outlook. A purely Biblocentric worldview can lead to a plethora of theological positions. Right at the far end of this is Jack Chick, with his view of Jesus as the faceless judge in front of a conveyor belt of resurrected souls. Furthermore, you have the types who think they can get such a grip on biblical prophecy that they can tell you what time of the afternoon Judgement Day/the Tribulation/the Rapture will start on.

On the other hand, if we simply argue that the bits we don't like are incompatible with (the biblical portrayal) of Christ, then without adequate safeguards we have the wonderfully shiny Marcion, and his let's ignore/expunge the OT and "Jewish" bits of the NT, because we're dealing with a separate God from that revealed in Jesus.

Now, ISTM that 'Christocentrics' aren't always trying to harmonise or reconcile their interpretations of Christ with uncomfortable concepts in the Bible, but instead find the latter incompatible and so jettison them. I don't have to be an inerrantist to believe that the Bible doesn't "work" like that - I think it's picture is more consistent.

ISTM futher that it is fairly uncontroversial to say that there is sometimes a tension between what the Bible seems to say and what a Christian's (God-given) sense of justice, of what is morally right, seems to say. And that in such cases some "wrestling with God" is called for.

We recognise in our better moments that the word "seem" is rightly employed on both sides of the above sentence - that there is the possibility of a gap between perception and reality on both sides of that tension. Neither our initial sense of right and wrong nor our initial sense of what the Bible is saying to us is infallible down to the last detail.

We might even agree that to choose sides too soon - to "jettison" one side or the other too lightly - is a mistake, that gives up on the possibility that through that period of wrestling we will be led to a deeper understanding of God.

So far so good.

But what if, after much wrestling, the tension is irreconcilable ? If you'll pardon the dreadful phrase "in the final analysis" , "at the end of the day", having striven our best for reconciliation and failed, which way should we jump ?

It seems that for the 'Bibliocentrics' the bottom line is that what the Bible says is what God says, and anyone following their own moral sense against that is a rebel setting themselves up in the place of God.

And that for the 'Christocentrics' the bottom line is that what is morally right is what God wants, and any philosophy which goes against that is ultimately depraved. Once you truly delegate your conscience to a book or a person or an organisation, there is no crime so unspeakably vile that you would not do it if that book/person/organisation told you to.

Both sides have faith that they are right and that the others' view of God is mistaken.

Discuss!


Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Guys, my wife and I are in a similar position! She also is a healthcare professional (speech and language therapist).

What I'm driving at in this thread is that for Christocentrics, what can make them liberal is that they find it very difficult to square the picture of God found in some areas of the OT (eg: genocide in Canaan passages)with the God of love Who dies on the cross for our sins they find revealed in the Incarnation and they therefore either jettison these passages or regard them as non-inerrant or non-literal. How do we square the circle here?

Yours in Christ

Matt