Is The Word Of God Equal To Scripture?

[thessalonian]

Hi all,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 :D

Edited October 24, 2003 by thessalonian

[dUSt]

My debates with Protestants often lead to them saying something like, "I believe in the Word, and the Word alone."

To which I reply, "well, so do Catholics!"

[kdewolf2]

On the basis of John 1:1-2, 14, 17, I would suggest that the Word of God, in essence, is Jesus Christ. I find it a little bit of a stretch to suggest that Hebrews 4:12 refers either to a sacred text or oral tradition. It sounds more like a description of a person, doesn't it? And a quick scan of the context shows that the passage is about Jesus Christ. Scripture and tradition both express the Word of God, and can be called the "word of God," but on the most basic and essential level I think the Word of God has to be identified with Jesus Christ.

The concept of "sola scriptura" never made much sense to me. It's easy enough to believe, when you don't know much, that the Gideon Bible placed in your hotel room was literally written by God. But when you know about the history and origin of the Bible, "sola scriptura" is much more difficult to believe in. Bible scholars say many of the epistles and the gospels in the New Testament were not literally written by the people whose names they bear. Many of them appeared much later in time. The books of the New Testament appear to have been a product of the tradition of the early Church, and if you have no respect for tradition you can hardly trust the New Testament.

You also have to ask the question, "Who decided what to include in the Bible, and what to leave out? How do you know that it's infallible?" I mean, Protestants say there's only sixty-six books in the Bible, and Catholics say there are seventy-three. The Gnostics came up with a bunch of "secret gospels" which purported to present the "hidden teachings" of Jesus Christ. There's the Gospel of Thomas, for example. The Sadducees said only the five books of Moses were really God's word. The other writings of the Old Testament might be edifying to read but they are not Scripture. The Pharisees said you have to include the rest of the Old Testament in Scripture. The Hellenic Jews read the Septuagint, which included the Apocrypha which the Jewish rabbis later rejected. I once read that the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible has over eighty books, though I'm not sure about that one.

I would just like to know how Protestants justify the assortment of books they call the Bible. How do they know for sure, that those books, only those books, and all of those books should be considered part of Scripture? How do they know that there are really sixty-six of them, and precisely those sixty-six?

[thessalonian]

kedwolf2

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

CCC97 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

Now is this in conflict with the WOG being Jesus. I don't think so for a correct understanding of the WOG in us brings us in to the fullness of a relatoinship with Jesus. We know who he is by his complete Word. So I don't think there is a contradiction between scripture + tradition and John 1 or Heb 12:4. If one has the scripture, John 1 and they have a false interprutation of it such that for instance when it says "the was with God and the Word was God" the do not see this as Jesus and say Jesus was a man, while they have the scripture they do not have the tradition by which it is correctly understood. Thus the Christ that they worship is not the true Christ. He is not the Word spoken on in John 1. Do you follow? To have the WOG is to know Christ is to have the true Christ revealed to you, through the WOG.

Thanks for participating. I am interested in the response to your questions also.

Blessings

[Robyn]

How about:

John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God.

[ICTHUS]

How about:

John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God.

And that proves what, exactly, Robyn? That Jesus is the Word of God!

Smart girl!! :P

[Robyn]

Yeah!

Is scripture the word? I refuse to elaborate.

[ironmonk]

I don't think you follow.

The WOG is Jesus, AND also can mean Scripture + tradition.

Many people think that something in the bible has to mean "this or that"... in reality, it's "this and that"

Take for instance the "Rock".... In the bible, the meaning of Rock is used for God the Father, God the Son, and Peter.

I think Thess's point is that who can provide proof that the WOG is Scripture - and not tradition.... WOG = Scripture alone is what most non-Catholic Christian's believe.

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[Joolye]

When we read a verse, we need to take it in its context, what it meant to the people then, how it applies to us these days, and any interpretation we make must be in concordance with other verses of Scripture.

Same with the oral Word of God. If someone says that God has told them something, we must test it. It must line up with what is written in the Bible and must not contradict the Scriptures. If it is prophesy (foretelling prophesy), then its proof is in its coming to pass.

[ironmonk]

When we read a verse, we need to take it in its context, what it meant to the people then, how it applies to us these days, and any interpretation we make must be in concordance with other verses of Scripture.

Same with the oral Word of God. If someone says that God has told them something, we must test it. It must line up with what is written in the Bible and must not contradict the Scriptures. If it is prophesy (foretelling prophesy), then its proof is in its coming to pass.

Not everything is in the bible.

How do you know what something meant back then?

Only the Catholic Church has been around 2000 years.

If the Catholic Church is not the authority to teach the WOG, an if the Catholic Church was not the Church built by Christ, then what right did they have to pick the 27 books of the New Testament?

God Bless, Your Servant in Chirst,

ironmonk

[cmotherofpirl]

When we read a verse, we need to take it in its context, what it meant to the people then, how it applies to us these days, and any interpretation we make must be in concordance with other verses of Scripture.

Same with the oral Word of God. If someone says that God has told them something, we must test it. It must line up with what is written in the Bible and must not contradict the Scriptures. If it is prophesy (foretelling prophesy), then its proof is in its coming to pass.

The oral word of God came before the written New Testament. People became christians from preaching, not paper. Letters and gospels were written for people to confirm what had already been preached to them.

THe New testament was not completed until 397AD So for all those years the living Church decided what is genuine and what was not.

THe Church is the standard, not the book. THe book is a product of the Church, not the other way around.

[thessalonian]

When we read a verse, we need to take it in its context, what it meant to the people then, how it applies to us these days, and any interpretation we make must be in concordance with other verses of Scripture.

Same with the oral Word of God. If someone says that God has told them something, we must test it. It must line up with what is written in the Bible and must not contradict the Scriptures. If it is prophesy (foretelling prophesy), then its proof is in its coming to pass.

Seems you have missed the point of the question. Is the WOG = Scripture. Once again I will reiterate, scripture is the Word of God. But is it scriptural to say that scripture contains the whole WOG? Once again 2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2. If you find that scripture is not equal to the WOG that is spoken of over and over in the scriptures themselves then how has your religious tradition protected and passed down the WOG as allowed for in 2 Tim 2:2 and 2 Thes 3:15 among many other places. Where are the other things that John has to speak of at the end of 3 John that he brings to the people in person.?

Please elaborate with scriptural evidence.

I appreciate your input.

[kdewolf2]

The Word of God is Jesus Christ. He handed his teachings down to the Church which he founded, and these teachings are partly contained in Scripture and partly contained in tradition. Scripture could not possibly contain all of God's word, so as to exclude tradition, because it is based on tradition itself. Apart from tradition, we would have no knowledge of what the Bible is, what books are in the Bible, and why it matters. Does that sound about right?