The Bible, God's Word
Perhaps we should allow God to speak for himself:
"Is not my word like fire", declares the LORD, "and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces? Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets", declares the LORD, "who steal my words from one another. Behold, I am against the prophets", declares the LORD, "who use their tongues and declare, 'declares the LORD.' Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams", declares the LORD, "and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all", declares the LORD. [Jeremiah 23:29-32]
I think we would agree that these are the words of God, and that those prophets and Apostles who speak his word are speaking his word and not the word of another. Also, when they write his word down, it remains his word, just as much as when they spoke his word, and it does not lose its power or effect because it is written and not spoken.
So, it seems elementary that the Bible is the Word of God, so long as one accepts that the Bible is inspired.
8 comments:
Don't you think you are skipping a few steps? The prophecy you are quoting doesn't say much about what IS God's Word or about true prophets. It is mostly about false prophets and what ISN'T God's Word. And it certainly says nothing about the relative value of prophecy orally proclaimed vs. written down.
You cannot assume that every time the Bible mentions God's word it is talking about the Scriptures. The fact of the matter is that it is almost always not talking about the Scriptures. The primary meaning of the phrase "the Word of God" in the Scriptures is Christ, the only-begotten Son through Whom all things were made. The Scriptures can be said to be "the Word of God" only because they testify to Him Who is, in truth, the Word of God. That is, the Scriptures are God's Word only in a decidedly secondary and derivative sense.
If we assert that the Scriptures are God's Word in an absolute sense, rather than in the derivative sense that I spoke of, then we cut the ground from under our feet. For we know that the Scriptures are God's Word only by faith; and we can have faith only if that faith is worked in us by the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is given to us only through the Church's ministry of Word and Sacrament; and the Church's power and authority to minister Word and Sacrament to us is given to her by Jesus Christ, the Word Himself; and the canon of truth, by which the Church knows the true exegesis of the Scriptures, was given to her by the Word Himself, as when He "opened the Scriptures" to Luke and Cleopas on the road to Emmaus.
Thus the authority of Scripture is grounded in the person and the reality of Jesus Christ crucified and risen, Whom the Church proclaims. The Scriptures can have no authority independent of Him (nor independent of her, who is His body). We believe the Scriptures because we believe Him Whom the Church proclaims -- not the other way around.
Chris,
I more or less agree with the distinctions you make, with come caveats. The context is one of someone asserting that the Bible is not God's word, it is just the record of God's Word. I think God's word is much more dynamic than that, so that when we read the Scriptures it is not a one-way deal of us interpreting the Bible, but the words also have an effect on us because they are God's words.
When ever I cite the passage above, I am citing God's very words because it is his very proclamation recorded to one of his prophets. Now, in the Bible it is not as if I am standing there with Jeremiah and hearing the very words, but at the same time the words have the same power, through the Holy Spirit, as when they were originally spoken. It is similar to our belief that when the pastor absolves us of our sins in the stead and by the command of Jesus Christ--the words are Christs, the pastor is a conduit. And in the Bible, the words are God's while the ink etc. are the conduit.
The rest of the Scriptures work the same way. Since I think we both believe in plenary inspiration, God is the actual writer of the Scriptures. It is as if I sent you an email, and you read it to someone and said "These are Ed's words". Of course, my word, unlike those of God, often return to me void. :-)
P.S. When will you start blogging again? :-D
Ed,
You wrote:
I think God's word is much more dynamic than that, so that when we read the Scriptures it is not a one-way deal of us interpreting the Bible, but the words also have an effect on us because they are God's words.
I sort of agree with this. Our engagement with the Scriptures is certainly not a "one-way deal" as you put it. We don't read the Scriptures in order to interpret them analytically simply to gain information. We engage the Scriptures in order for our hearts to be formed by them.
The reason I only "sort of" agree is because you speak of "when we read the Scriptures." The Scriptures are given to us not primarily for reading, but primarily for the Church to proclaim and pray the Scriptures in the liturgical assembly. Individual, private reading of the Scriptures is entirely secondary. It serves to deepen our understanding and appreciation of what is given to us in the public ministry of Word and Sacrament. But private reading of the Scriptures does not carry the divine promise as a means of grace that the public ministry of Word and Sacrament does.
You will notice that Augustana V does not say that "in order to obtain this faith, the Holy Scriptures were given for private reading, by which, as through an instrument, the Holy Ghost is given Who works faith." AC V assigns to the public "ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments" the instrumental role of conveying the grace of the Holy Spirit.
You also wrote I think we both believe in plenary inspiration. But to tell you the truth, I am a little vague on what "plenary inspiration" means, and I'm a little suspicious that it doesn't capture my views on the nature of Biblical inspiration.
Etymologically the phrase "plenary inspiration" would appear to mean that the Scriptures are "fully inspired" or that "all of the Scriptures" are inspired, and I would of course agree with both of those. But it shouldn't mean that the Scriptures are inspired for any use we might wish to make of them. The Scriptures are inspired for the purpose for which God gave them.
What the inspiration of the Scriptures means depends on what it is the Scriptures are for. The Scriptures are given so that the Church may use them, according to the canon of truth, to proclaim the Gospel of Christ crucified. Their inspiration by the Holy Spirit guarantees that the Scriptures will be effective for that purpose -- and no other.
Edward,
If I could chime in, you said over on Beggars All that you believed Irenaeus held to sola scriptura (which I clearly do not). I happily concede that he constantly sought to appeal to the common ground of Scripture in engaging his opponentsw, but I'm curious where you find him explicating s.s.?
Thanks,
Mike
Chris,
"The reason I only "sort of" agree is because you speak of "when we read the Scriptures." The Scriptures are given to us not primarily for reading, but primarily for the Church to proclaim and pray the Scriptures in the liturgical assembly. Individual, private reading of the Scriptures is entirely secondary. It serves to deepen our understanding and appreciation of what is given to us in the public ministry of Word and Sacrament. But private reading of the Scriptures does not carry the divine promise as a means of grace that the public ministry of Word and Sacrament does."
I didn't mean "read the Scriptures" so narrowly. But since that is what I actually wrote I suppose I have to concede the piint.
So I agree with you here. My wider point is that sine God's Word, which he spoke to the prophets, does not really have an expiration date as to its effectiveness. It is effective because of what it is.
Mike,
"If I could chime in, you said over on Beggars All that you believed Irenaeus held to sola scriptura (which I clearly do not). I happily concede that he constantly sought to appeal to the common ground of Scripture in engaging his opponentsw, but I'm curious where you find him explicating s.s.?"
I didn't actually say he believed in SS. I think that is a little anachronistic, though I think he was close. Anyway, here is what I was talking about:
In against Heresies Book 3, 1,1, St. Irenaeus sates that the Apostles wrote the Gospel down in the Scriptures and that these are the ground and pillar of faith.
Interestingly, in the very next section, he claims that the heretics are the ones who say one needs tradition (in their case the secret tradition) to read the Scriptures.
While this is not full blown SS, it is a little different from how he is typically used by e.g. RC apologists to show Apostolic Succession.
I think this is a good example of how using the Fathers as a sort of proof-text resource can be problematic.
Edward,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. (Also, thanks for the opportunity to interact here. You're welcome to drop by my place at syzygus.wordpress.com if philosophy, guitar music, and [lately] turn your knob.)
In Against Heresies 3, 1 I find St. Irenaeus extolling the Apostles and their Gospel and the Scriptures as the pillar and ground of our faith, which is a bit different than saying that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, as St. Paul did. "Our faith" (as qualified by St. Irenaeus in the phrase "the plan of salvation") is not convertible with "the truth" in 1 Tim. 2.
As you are quite right to point out, the Gnostics demanded adherence to secret traditions and they could not boast Apostolic pedigree, which is one of St. Irenaeus's biggest arguments against them.
Somehow "more apologetic stuff" [lately] got cut out above. Weird.
Post a Comment