Is Word of God equal to scripture?

[thessalonian]

Simple question I have never had answer by a Protestant. It seems you use the two interchangably. Please provide substantiating scriptural evidence that says they are. Here are my thoughts from another thread.

2 Thes 2:15: "Hold fast to the traditions you have revieved, whether BY WORD OF MOUTH or in letter from us."

You see my definition and the scriptural definition of WOG = scripture (written tradition) + oral tradition. This matches exactly what 2 Thes 2:15 is saying. In Hebrews 4:12 why does Paul not say scriptures, rather than Word of God? I give you the verse for context. Are the two interchangable? I have asked the question many times and noone has been able to show me they are.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

If one has the incorrect view of what scripture says then do they have the WOG?

This verse also seems to me to say that theological error will be convicted by the WOG as well as sin.

Clarification - I am not saying that scripture is not the word of God.

Blessings

[ October 16, 2003, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Scripture does not relate the Word of God to Scripture, so why should we if we believe the Scriptures?

"And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thes 2:13)

"Now the apostles and the brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God" (Acts 11:1)

"The next sabbath almost the whole city gathered together to hear the word of God" (Acts 13:44)

"But the word of God grew and multiplied" (Acts 12:24)

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Scripture does not relate the Word of God to Scripture, so why should we if we believe the Scriptures?

I think I know where you are going, but it almost looked as if you were refuting Thess.

"And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thes 2:13)

"Now the apostles and the brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God" (Acts 11:1)

"The next sabbath almost the whole city gathered together to hear the word of God" (Acts 13:44)

"But the word of God grew and multiplied" (Acts 12:24)

Which was spoken before it was written, and when it was written it was included as the "Written Word of God" by....(what authority)..........?

That is what our Protestant friends should be considering...that before it was written, it was spoken.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[BobRyan]

The Word of God - is scripture - but is also the divine - supernaturally communicated word of God given to His servants the prophets.

However as Acts 17:11 points out regarding Paul and the Bereans. The Bereans "Studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

Impossible to miss.

Sola Scriptura was used as the "rule" for judging EVEN the NT apostolic teaching - and the judging was being done by non-Christians.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The Word of God - is scripture - but is also the divine - supernaturally communicated word of God given to His servants the prophets.

Which "scripture"? Ths Gospel of Thomas perhaps?

However as Acts 17:11 points out regarding Paul and the Bereans. The Bereans "Studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

Indeed! and the "scriptures" in this case was nothing other then the Old Testament only, and what Paul spoke of to them was the "Oral Word" only.

Impossible to miss.

Is it just possible you are coming to an understanding I have been trying to promote all this time.....?

But in a nutshell, I will take your last comment to concur with my statement immediately above it!

Sola Scriptura was used as the "rule" for judging EVEN the NT apostolic teaching - and the judging was being done by non-Christians.

Ah shucks! I thought you were going to get it!

The Bereans compared what was "written" with what was to, eventually, become "written" as well, but in that case, it was, one more time, oral.

And at that time, it certainly was not Sola Scriptura, but in fact, it was a perfect example of what the Church does to this very day, compare tradition with scripture for concurrence, and the Bereans were the first to do that!

YOU, Bob, have no "tradition" to compare scripture to, thus you must use scripture alone (like all heresies must do, since they have no tradition to fall back on), and in Latin, that is called Sola Scriptura.

One of these days, you will get it, my son...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The Word of God - is scripture - but is also the divine - supernaturally communicated word of God given to His servants the prophets.

However as Acts 17:11 points out regarding Paul and the Bereans. The Bereans "Studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

Impossible to miss.

Sola Scriptura was used as the "rule" for judging EVEN the NT apostolic teaching - and the judging was being done by non-Christians.

In Christ,

Bob

So were the Jews correct in requiring circumcision of the Gentiles before the council of Jerusalem of Acts 15. Had Paul presented that verse to the Jews of Berea in Acts 17 before the issue was settled in Acts 15, would they have had an obligation to reject his teaching?

In fact is Acts 15 even relative to the issue. Did Paul have to avoid teaching about there being no need to circumcise to them because it was not in the OT scriptures (which was the only scriptures that they were checking on).

 

[Abiyah]

Hi, Thess!! Haven't seen you for a while.

I am glad you asked the following, because I have
considered asking a similar question here myself.
Thank you.

I often use the blanket term, Word of God, for the
Bible, too, and someone once jumped on me for
using it, going into one of those long "Let Me Tell
You A Thing Or Two" lectures some people like
to give in order to show their exceedingly great
knowledge. :-D

I don't use the term Protestant for myself, but may
we "talk"?

Originally posted by thessalonian:
Simple question I have never had answer by a Protestant. It seems you use the two interchangably. Please provide substantiating scriptural evidence that says they are. Here are my thoughts from another thread.

2 Thes 2:15: "Hold fast to the traditions you have revieved, whether BY WORD OF MOUTH or in letter from us."

You see my definition and the scriptural definition of WOG = scripture (written tradition) + oral tradition. This matches exactly what 2 Thes 2:15 is saying. In Hebrews 4:12 why does Paul not say scriptures, rather than Word of God? I give you the verse for context. Are the two interchangable? I have asked the question many times and noone has been able to show me they are.

I believe that the Word of God is the Bible and the
Bible alone. I put no stock in Christian traditions
(someone's gonna shoot me for that, for sure!)
or in Jewish traditions if they cannot be
completely shown in, and supported by, the Bible.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

If one has the incorrect view of what scripture says then do they have the WOG?

This verse also seems to me to say that theological error will be convicted by the WOG as well as sin.

Clarification - I am not saying that scripture is not the word of God.

Blessings

I believe that even if one has an incorrect view of
what the Bible says, the Word of God remains,
because it is in a Book, not in the words and
actions of people, unless they are actively doing,
truly living, the Word of God.

Unlike some others' beliefs, I do not believe that
just because the believers were told that they had
received the traditions in letters, this means that
all believers who write religious or living instructions
are writing the Word of God. I do not believe that
just because a pastor is a pastor, what they say
(even from the pulpit) is always the Word of God,
always without error, or even nearly error-free.

I believe that the Bible was a Work of our Lord over
centuries, finally coming together in a single book,
and error-free in its autographs. I believe it was
protected by Him and assured to us that we would
finally receive a Book that would contain enough of
His truth to save us.

I do think that it is a mistake to assume that all the
writings in the Book are directly pointed to us and
about us, when originally, they were telling of
specific incidents involving specific people in a
specific time. I believe that too often, people would
like to think that all the Scripturs are directly all a
bout them and all about their belief systems, but
that is, in my opinion, in error.

[ October 17, 2003, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Abiyah,

"I put no stock in Christian traditions
(someone's gonna shoot me for that, for sure!)
or in Jewish traditions if they cannot be
completely shown in, and supported by, the Bible."

You mean, you only put stock in the Christian tradition that says "these 27 books are Scripture and no other" apart from the Bible. Of course, the Bible didn't write and compile itself.

 

[BobRyan]

The NT was complete (and READ) in the FIRST century - it did not wait for Catholicism to come along.

The Bereans were completely affirmed by Luke in Acts 17:11 for their position of CHECKING OUT the apostolic teaching of the apostle Paul BY the Word of God - BY the scriptures.

As Bill points out - those scriptures USED IN THe NT church - were the OT. They trusted them to CHECK OUT doctrine in the NT - and so can we.

It is that simple (though some of our catholic bretheren would "like to think" it is difficult).

As Christ said in Mark 7 - the ONE true Church of Christ's day - pre-cross was already going into doctrinal error with their man-made tradition.

That does not mean all tradition is error - but all doctrine (and yes all tradition) must be verified against scripture to see IF it stands.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Abiyah,

"I put no stock in Christian traditions
(someone's gonna shoot me for that, for sure!)
or in Jewish traditions if they cannot be
completely shown in, and supported by, the Bible."

You mean, you only put stock in the Christian tradition that says "these 27 books are Scripture and no other" apart from the Bible. Of course, the Bible didn't write and compile itself.

Oh Carson! Don't you know????????????!!!!!!!

(Frivolous mode on here)

God wrote the bible on beaten sheets of gold, (Authorized 1611 King James version, of course) bound in the finest of Corinthian leathers, borne on the gossimar wings of cheribim, and came down and went plop into the arms of the early church that is a bible-only Church, separate and hidden from the false church that Constantine established in Rome.

(Frivolous mode off and back to sanity...)

Just thought you should know.........

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"Gloria in excelsis Deo"

(Intoned by the celebrant of the Mass.)

(The choir response.)

Et in terra pax homininus
bone voluntatis
Laudamus te
Benedicimus te
Adoramus te
Glorificamus te,
Gratias agimus tibi propter
magnum gloriam tuum.
Domine Deus, Rex Coelestis,
Deus Pater omnipotens
Domine Fili unigenite
Jesu Christe Domine Deus
Agnus Dei Filius Patris
Qui tollis peccata mundi
miserere nobis.
Qui tollis peccata mundi,
suscipe deprecationem nostram.
Qui sedes ad dexteramPatris,
miserere nobis.
Quoniam tu solus Sanctus,
Tu solus Dominus
Tu solus Altissimus
Jesu Christe.
Cum Sancto Spiritu
in gloria Dei Patris
Amen.

- The Ambrosian Gloria -


http://www.solesmes.com/sons/gloria.ram

(Real monks chanting....)


Gregorian Chant - God's music!

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The NT was complete (and READ) in the FIRST century - it did not wait for Catholicism to come along.

who gathered it together, compiled it and declared it divinely inspired by at least three church synods in the latter 3rd century/early 4th centuries, Bob?

Where was YOUR church in those early times, Bob?

The Bereans were completely affirmed by Luke in Acts 17:11 for their position of CHECKING OUT the apostolic teaching of the apostle Paul BY the Word of God - BY the scriptures.

Yes, and the perfect example of comparing what was written (the Old Testement being the only written bible them) to the (gulp!) ORAL TRADITION and then preached by Paul! (Later to also be included in the New Testament).

As Bill points out - those scriptures USED IN THe NT church - were the OT. They trusted them to CHECK OUT doctrine in the NT - and so can we.

But then, at the time this happened, there was no New Testament! The event of Paul preaching to the Bereans was later etched on papyrus after the fact, Bob! Get it yet?

It is that simple (though some of our catholic bretheren would "like to think" it is difficult).

Not difficult at all!

As Christ said in Mark 7 - the ONE true Church of Christ's day - pre-cross was already going into doctrinal error with their man-made tradition.

Certainly not Christ's Church, as it was not "jump started" yet.

That does not mean all tradition is error - but all doctrine (and yes all tradition) must be verified against scripture to see IF it stands.

There are "traditions" and SACRED TRADITION. Before the New Testament was written, what was given orally to Jesus Christ to the apostles, etched in their hearts and minds, was Sacred Tradition.

And when ink dried on the last page of the Book of Revelation, that sacred tradition did not go poof and disappear into thin air, along with the authority of the very Church who is soly responsible for preserving the bible for you, did it?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"Gloria in excelsis Deo"

(Intoned by the celebrant of the Mass.)

(The choir response.)

Et in terra pax homininus
bone voluntatis
Laudamus te
Benedicimus te
Adoramus te
Glorificamus te,
Gratias agimus tibi propter
magnum gloriam tuum.
Domine Deus, Rex Coelestis,
Deus Pater omnipotens
Domine Fili unigenite
Jesu Christe Domine Deus
Agnus Dei Filius Patris
Qui tollis peccata mundi
miserere nobis.
Qui tollis peccata mundi,
suscipe deprecationem nostram.
Qui sedes ad dexteramPatris,
miserere nobis.
Quoniam tu solus Sanctus,
Tu solus Dominus
Tu solus Altissimus
Jesu Christe.
Cum Sancto Spiritu
in gloria Dei Patris
Amen.

- The Ambrosian Gloria -


http://www.solesmes.com/sons/gloria.ram

(Real monks chanting....)


Gregorian Chant - God's music!

 

[Carson Weber]

who gathered it together, compiled it and declared it divinely inspired by at least three church synods in the latter 3rd century/early 4th centuries, Bob?

The Catholic Church.

Where was YOUR church in those early times, Bob?

Non-extant.

Yes, and the perfect example of comparing what was written (the Old Testement being the only written bible them) to the (gulp!) ORAL TRADITION and then preached by Paul! (Later to also be included in the New Testament).

Preach it brother..!

Bob! Get it yet?

No.

And when ink dried on the last page of the Book of Revelation, that sacred tradition did not go poof and disappear into thin air, along with the authority of the very Church who is soly responsible for preserving the bible for you, did it?

The Bible disagrees with you Bill.. turn with me to right.. um.. well..

 

[thessalonian]

Bob,

Could you answer my question please. Did Paul avoid the question of circumcision with the berean Jews until after they accepted the rest of his doctrine that matched the Old Testament, which is the scriptures that they held to be true. If he did not avoid the issue then did the Thessalonians who rejected Paul say "look here you Bereans, he says you don't have to be circumcized, but right hear in the OT it says that you do. For crying out loud he says you don't have to follow the cerimonial law!". How would that not have been a noble statement by Protestant Sola Scriptura standards. Where is Peter's Old Testament Scriptural support that circumcision is no longer neccessary in Acts 15 that Paul could provide to the Bereans and the Thessaloinians so that he wouldn't have to hide this doctrine until he hauled them in.

Blessings

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The Bereans were completely affirmed by Luke in Acts 17:11 for their position of CHECKING OUT the apostolic teaching of the apostle Paul BY the Word of God - BY the scriptures.

I'm not so sure that Acts 17:11 is support for sola scriptura considering that in Acts 17:2 we see Paul entering into a discussion from the Scriptures with the Thessalonians for three Sabbaths.

The difference between the Jews of Beroea and the Jews of Thessalonica is matter of one group accepting Pauls teaching and another rejecting it.

Under the doctrines of sola scriptura and soul liberty then the Thessalonians were merely exercising their right to interpret Scripture.

In Acts 17, we see an early example of the danger of insisting on interpreting Scripture independently and in opposition to the Church.

 

[Ray Berrian]

The Word of God, the Bible, has been written down for our edification and has been written down from the original manuscripts. The oral tradition was and is and still remains only a recapitulation of what was written down in the first epistles manuscripts. [II Timothy 1:5-7] The faith of Lois was passed on to Eunice and then to Timothy. What was taught was carefully handed down as documented in the Word of God coming from Christ Himself. [Colossians 2:6-8]

Anything beyond Scripture was to be ignored even though it might have been delivered (hypothetically) from a bright angel from above. [Galatians 1:6-8] Anyone offering new material or add-on theology or another Gospel was to be considered from a false source. That person should be {Gr. anathema} accursed by Almighty God.

The Word of God is the Scripture and Scripture is the Word from Christ Himself.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:

Anything beyond Scripture was to be ignored even though it might have been delivered (hypothetically) from a bright angel from above. [Galatians 1:6-8] Anyone offering new material or add-on theology or another Gospel was to be considered from a false source. That person should be {Gr. anathema} accursed by Almighty God.

Ray, the problem with that is that the Gospel Paul was speaking of was delivered to the Galatians orally. In fact there were no NT writings available to the Galatians at the time other than that epistle, since it was probably the first book of the NT written (or second, if 1 Thess was written first) in about AD 51. The Gospel had already been received (orally) before Paul wrote this epistle.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Carson,
Why do you keep changing your picture back and forth?

 

[thessalonian]

Hi Abiyah!

Certainly we can talk. I don't have alot of time at the moment but a couple thoughts:

"I believe that the Word of God is the Bible and the
Bible alone. "

In saying this to me you are saying to me that this statement that you have made is supportable by the Word of God. i.e. it is equivalent to some scriptural passage. Otherwise it is a statement that is found in human tradition. So could you elaborate with a scriptural passage or five that demonstrate that this "truth" that you hold is true? Do you understand the distinction I am making that the Bible is the Word of God is not equivalent to saying that the Word of God is the Bible? How do you respond to what I said about 2 Thes 2:15?


"I put no stock in Christian traditions
(someone's gonna shoot me for that, for sure!)
or in Jewish traditions if they cannot be
completely shown in, and supported by, the Bible."

Explictly shown? Is everything you believe explictly shown in the Bible? Do you think the trinity is explicitly shown in the Bible? Also please show me where the statement I questioned above is explictly shown in the Bible. i.e. the Bible and the Bible alone is the word of God.

Thanks.

Blessings

 

[faithcontender]

The Word of God is both the oral and written teaching of the apostles. They are all inspired by God. Apostle Paul called it tradition in 2 thess. 2:15. Some of these oral traditions of the apostles were written in the book of Acts.

Now the catholic church, claim that their tradition was the tradition of the apostles. But we know that theirs are but a product of men's philosophy. We can not accept their tradition as the word of God though they may claim that their bishops are the successor of the apostle Paul because they are contrary to what was written.

Apotle Paul warns us of those who claim.

Galatians
1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Even if the apostle Paul himself or any apostle, or any one who claim He is from God, preach any other gospel contrary to that which they already preached before, we must not believe, for this is a false gospel.

Even if the bishops of the catholic church are the true successor of the apostles, the mere fact that they preach different gospel from what is written, is a sign that theirs are false gospel.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
The Word of God, the Bible, has been written down for our edification and has been written down from the original manuscripts. The oral tradition was and is and still remains only a recapitulation of what was written down in the first epistles manuscripts. [II Timothy 1:5-7] The faith of Lois was passed on to Eunice and then to Timothy. What was taught was carefully handed down as documented in the Word of God coming from Christ Himself. [Colossians 2:6-8]

Anything beyond Scripture was to be ignored even though it might have been delivered (hypothetically) from a bright angel from above. [Galatians 1:6-8] Anyone offering new material or add-on theology or another Gospel was to be considered from a false source. That person should be {Gr. anathema} accursed by Almighty God.

The Word of God is the Scripture and Scripture is the Word from Christ Himself.

Ray, I see alot of handwaving hear and little explict scriptural support.

Perhaps you could expound a bit. When did sola scriptura beomce the complete word of God? When John finished his last writing?