Is the Bible properly described as "The Word of God"?

[Doubting Thomas]

And where do you find this? And how?

I'm not officially participating in this thread (in terms of debate), but to find the tradition of the undivided Church, I'd read the Church fathers and observe the consensus patri. However, an excellent overview work on the beliefs of the Church during the first 5 centuries is EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES by historian JND Kelly. BTW--it has an excellent chapter on the relationship between Tradition and Scriptures, and what the fathers believed/taught about this. It also covers: the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, Grace, Sacraments, the Church, and Final things

 

[Matt Black]

I'd second that recommendation

 

[DHK]

I'm not officially participating in this thread (in terms of debate), but to find the tradition of the undivided Church, I'd read the Church fathers and observe the consensus patri. However, an excellent overview work on the beliefs of the Church during the first 5 centuries is EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES by historian JND Kelly. BTW--it has an excellent chapter on the relationship between Tradition and Scriptures, and what the fathers believed/taught about this. It also covers: the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, Grace, Sacraments, the Church, and Final things

You deceive yourself. The RCC has been divided for many years and remains divided to this very day. Even now there are dissenting voices within its ranks. It is like a chameleon adapting to the nation which it resides in, taking on heathen practices in order to placate the people. It has always been that way: idolatrous in its practices, accommodating to the customs of the people. Its "Traditions" are ever-changing, progressive, evolutionary, and unstable.

The Orthodox is not much better.

Neither is the Anglican.

With so many "sets" of Traditions, who is right? The Orthodox? The Anglican? The RCC? You all have your heads in the sand and cannot agree even on "Tradition." At least we have a Book, called Scripture, and by sola scriptura, evangelicals do agree on the essentials of the faith. There is more agreement among evangelicals on the basis of sola scriptura then there is among those who reject it.

 

[Marcia]

I'm not officially participating in this thread (in terms of debate), but to find the tradition of the undivided Church, I'd read the Church fathers and observe the consensus patri. However, an excellent overview work on the beliefs of the Church during the first 5 centuries is EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES by historian JND Kelly. BTW--it has an excellent chapter on the relationship between Tradition and Scriptures, and what the fathers believed/taught about this. It also covers: the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, Grace, Sacraments, the Church, and Final things

I have that book - got it in seminary.

I think the difference here may be that I do not believe Tradition has authority.

 

[Marcia]

You deceive yourself. The RCC has been divided for many years and remains divided to this very day. Even now there are dissenting voices within its ranks. It is like a chameleon adapting to the nation which it resides in, taking on heathen practices in order to placate the people. It has always been that way: idolatrous in its practices, accommodating to the customs of the people. Its "Traditions" are ever-changing, progressive, evolutionary, and unstable.

The Orthodox is not much better.

Neither is the Anglican.

With so many "sets" of Traditions, who is right? The Orthodox? The Anglican? The RCC? You all have your heads in the sand and cannot agree even on "Tradition." At least we have a Book, called Scripture, and by sola scriptura, evangelicals do agree on the essentials of the faith. There is more agreement among evangelicals on the basis of sola scriptura then there is among those who reject it.

DHK is making the point I was trying to make.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You refuse to admit your wrong. I never put Polycarp in that category. I never said ALL ECF. Put it to rest. If you want to look at some of the ECF writings in only one area of doctrine--the heresy of Mariolotry, I will oblige you:




Of course there are plenty of other heresies held by the ECF:
--a belief in purgatory,
--baptismal regeneration,
--Arianism
--infant baptism,
And many more. Not all held the same doctrines. They contradicted each other in their beliefs. Origen was a heretic, even to the RCC he was a heretic. These are your ECF. As for me I would rather stick to the unchanging everlasting Word of God.

You're quoting Donahue? I mean really? Huh? That's definately a scholarly source. And you're refering to a calvinist institute to elucidate ECF statements? At least they're actually scholarly but to what extent? I'm not certain. Nor am I certain that they are making statements on a unbiased platform.

Now the list you're quoting as ECF heretical beliefs I find somwhat amusing. Simply because you're saying that these believes are held by the people who were much closer in time to the Apostles than we who had access to works no longer extant. The Donhahue quote which is a debate long after Polycarp during the 3rd Ecuminical council between two bishops one of the Metropilian city of Alexandria and the Other from Antioch primarily about the nature of christ. Nestorius had a poor view of how Jesus could be both God and man and insisted that Mary was Christokos rather than Theotokos. So the evidence you give me is that the consensus of the Early Church on matters of belief are heretical with those aspects and the ony dicent from them is someone who has been determined as a heretic and unable to hold to the doctrine of the hypostatic union of christ. Which is why I find it funny. And these are the same group of people that assured us of what we now have as the bible. Show me documents. Also did you know the term that Liturgy (liturgeous) is used in the NT? I just found that out. Which makes me wonder at how the worship was ordered especially when you consider the Didache, and the documents attributed to Hyppolytus on the Apostolic Tradition.
With regard to the discussion of tradition and scriptures and the early church let me quote here from a scholarly source:

There is no reason to infer, however, that the primitive Church regarded the apostolic testimony as confined to written documents emanating from, or attributed to, the apostles. Logically, as it must have done chronologically, the testimony stood prior to the documents, and it would be more correct to say that the latter were valued precisely because they were held to enshrine the former. - J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines , Principal of St. Edmund Halll, Oxford, Harper San Francisco, 1978 p 33.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

You deceive yourself. The RCC has been divided for many years and remains divided to this very day...The Orthodox is not much better...

Obviously I can’t speak for the RCC, but I’m having difficulty seeing the ‘divisions’ in the Orthodox Churches in communion with Constantinople in comparison with Protestantism.

An example of one division in Protestantism would be that of Calvinism and Arminianism, yet another would be Women and or gay clergy.

If you believe that there must a ‘division’ when you see a Russian Orthodox Church, a Greek Orthodox Church and an Antiochian Orthodox Church in one city, then you are mistaken. Are there ‘cultural differences’…yes and it has to do with the sin of pride.

But at the end of the day, our Liturgy and our Creed unites us all as one.

Now, there’s some Orthodox Churches that are NOT in communion with Constantinople and those would be the Oriental Orthodox Churches. These Churches reject the dogmatic definitions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451, which held that Jesus Christ has two natures…one divine and one human.

In XC
-

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I have that book - got it in seminary.

I think the difference here may be that I do not believe Tradition has authority.

You asked where you could find the undivided Tradition. I told you, and then recommended a good book that summarizes that from the first five centuries. You now say in effect, "fine, I have that book [don't know if you actually read it though], but I reject Tradition as authoritative anyway" (however, if you actually read that book you'd find the early Church did believe the apostolic Tradition was authoritative). So I guess if you are going to reject the authority of the Tradition of the undividied Church anyway, I am puzzled why you would even bother to ask where you can find it in the first place.

BTW--another good book on the subject is Jaroslav Pelikan's The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition which covers the first 5-6 centuries. Despite the fact he was a Lutheran when he wrote (later became Eastern Orthodox) and JND Kelly is an Anglican, their books are in substantial agreement about what constitutes the common beliefs/Tradition of the early undivided Church...which I guess would answer your (apparently rhetorical) question about "whose Tradition".

 

[Doubting Thomas]

With regard to the discussion of tradition and scriptures and the early church let me quote here from a scholarly source:

Quote:
There is no reason to infer, however, that the primitive Church regarded the apostolic testimony as confined to written documents emanating from, or attributed to, the apostles. Logically, as it must have done chronologically, the testimony stood prior to the documents, and it would be more correct to say that the latter were valued precisely because they were held to enshrine the former. - J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines , Principal of St. Edmund Halll, Oxford, Harper San Francisco, 1978 p 33.

Good quote. Here's some more from the same book:
"Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complimentary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior of more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue for its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained , as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, unerring grasp of the real purport and the meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness". (p47-48, Early Christian Doctrines, Kelly--emphasis mine)

 

[DHK]

An example of one division in Protestantism would be that of Calvinism and Arminianism, yet another would be Women and or gay clergy.

I stressed "evangelical." I am not Calvinistic, and neither am I Arminian. I fellowship with churches who hold tenets to both systems. I don't let those systems of theology divide our fellowship in Christ. We are still united in Christ as believers. I am speaking of evangelicals. You don't have the right to nit pick here. I can pick apart the RCC (which both of us are acquainted with), and I am far more acquainted with than the Orthodox, and therefore will use it as "my default."

If you believe that there must a ‘division’ when you see a Russian Orthodox Church, a Greek Orthodox Church and an Antiochian Orthodox Church in one city, then you are mistaken. Are there ‘cultural differences’…yes and it has to do with the sin of pride.

Again I will speak of my experience with the RCC which you also are well aware of. Even now many of them are clamoring for birth control, the use of contraceptives. It is a hot issue in the RCC. They are divided over it. They also are divided over how much "authority" can be given to a woman. The issue is before them. Can a woman become a priest? There is an element within that are pushing for that. They are divided in doctrine. There exists Charismatic Catholics and Traditional Catholics. They are as far apart as black and white. And Charismatics do have a different doctrine. This cannot be denied.

But at the end of the day, our Liturgy and our Creed unites us all as one.

The same general statement can be said of every evangelical. By the end of the day, that same old time gospel: "salvation by grace through faith, and faith alone," unites us all.

Now, there’s some Orthodox Churches that are NOT in communion with Constantinople and those would be the Oriental Orthodox Churches. These Churches reject the dogmatic definitions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451, which held that Jesus Christ has two natures…one divine and one human.
In XC
-

And there are many Protestants that are not evangelical. They are liberals denying the fundamentals of the faith. Those we do not include in our number.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I stressed "evangelical." I am not Calvinistic, and neither am I Arminian. I fellowship with churches who hold tenets to both systems. I don't let those systems of theology divide our fellowship in Christ. We are still united in Christ as believers. I am speaking of evangelicals. You don't have the right to nit pick here. I can pick apart the RCC (which both of us are acquainted with), and I am far more acquainted with than the Orthodox, and therefore will use it as "my default."

Again I will speak of my experience with the RCC which you also are well aware of. Even now many of them are clamoring for birth control, the use of contraceptives. It is a hot issue in the RCC. They are divided over it. They also are divided over how much "authority" can be given to a woman. The issue is before them. Can a woman become a priest? There is an element within that are pushing for that. They are divided in doctrine. There exists Charismatic Catholics and Traditional Catholics. They are as far apart as black and white. And Charismatics do have a different doctrine. This cannot be denied.

The same general statement can be said of every evangelical. By the end of the day, that same old time gospel: "salvation by grace through faith, and faith alone," unites us all.

And there are many Protestants that are not evangelical. They are liberals denying the fundamentals of the faith. Those we do not include in our number.

I must say DHK that was a well ordered and cogent reply. Thank you.

 

[Eric B]

JND Kelley Early Christian Doctrines says, regarding Irenaeus:

The difficulty was, of course, that heretics were liable to read a different meaning out of scripture than the Church; but Irenaeus was satisfied, that, provided the Bible was taken as a whole, it's teaching was self evident. The heretics who misinterpreted it only did so, because, disregarding its underlying unity, they seized upon isolated passages and rearranged them to suit their own ideas. [i.e. their error was not simply reading the Bible at face value without the traditions, but deliberately twisting it!] Scripture must be interpreted in light of its original ground plan, viz the original revelation itself. For that reason, correct exegesis was the prerogative of the Church, where the apostolic tradition or doctrine which had been the key to scripture had been kept intact.
Did Irenaeus then subordinate the scriptures to unwritten tradition? This inference has been commonly drawn, but it issues from a somewhat misleading antithesis. Its plausibility depends on such considerations as (a) that in controversy with the Gnostics, traditions rather then scripture seemed to be his final court of appeal, and (b) that he apparentely relied on tradition to establish the true exegesis of scripture. But a careful analysis of his Adversus Haereses reveals that while the Gnostics appeal to their secret tradition forced him to stress the superiority of the Church's public tradition, his real defense of orthodoxy was founded on scripture. Indeed, tradition in his view was confirmed by scripture, which was the 'foundation and pillar of our faith. Secondly, Irenaeus admittedly suggested that a firm grasp of 'the canon of truth' received at baptism would prevent a man from distorting the sense of scripture. But this 'canon', so far from being something distinct from scripture, was simply a condensation of the message contained in it. The whole point of his teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church's unwritten tradition are identical in content, both being vehicles of the revelation. (p.39)​

He then moves on to Tertullian, who he says is basically the same as Irenaeus. It was in the following century with Clement and Origen (both of Alexandria, a source of much corruption in doctrine) that this began changing into some "secret tradition...including semi-Gnostic speculations [or] ...an esoteric theology based on the Bible...reseved for the intellectual elite of the Church" (as we see it already was among the gnostics in Irenaeus' time).

 

[Doubting Thomas]

More from JND Kelly's EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES:

"On the other hand, the ancient idea that the Church alone, in virtue of being the home of the Spirit and having preserved the authentic apostolic testimony in her rule of faith, liturgical action, and general witness, possesses the indispensable key to Scripture, continued to operate as powerfully as in the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian." (p.47)

"Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy, guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and correctly interpreted by the Church's unerring tradition." (p.51)

And again:
"Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complimentary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior of more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue for its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained , as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, unerring grasp of the real purport and the meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness". (p47-48, Early Christian Doctrines, Kelly--emphasis mine)

 

[DHK]

DT,
What are you trying to prove?
It has already been stated that Kelly was an Anglican. If that be true then he is speaking through rose-colored glasses. Everything he sees and says is through the eyes of an Anglican--liturgical in nature, a must-have Tradition, etc. He is biased before he starts. It proves nothing.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

More from Kelly (re: Irenaeus):
"If tradition as conveyed in the 'canon' is a more trustworthy guide, this is not because it comprises truths other than those revealed in Scripture, but because the true tenor of the apostolic message is there unambiguously set out." (p.39)

"Further, the regula points the way to the correct exegesis of Scripture. Like Irenaeus, Tertullian is convinced that Scripture is consonant in all its parts, and that its meaning should be clear if it is read as a whole. But where controversy with heretics breaks out, the right interpretation can be found only where the true Christian faith and discipline have been maintained, i.e. in the Church. The heretics, he [Tertullian] complained, were able to make Scripture say what they liked because they disregarded the regula." (p.40)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

DT,
What are you trying to prove?
It has already been stated that Kelly was an Anglican. If that be true then he is speaking through rose-colored glasses. Everything he sees and says is through the eyes of an Anglican--liturgical in nature, a must-have Tradition, etc. He is biased before he starts. It proves nothing.

Bias? I can say the same thing about you and others who look at history through trail-of-blood colored glasses. At least Kelly looks at the documented primary sources for the beliefs of the primitive Church. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Orchard, Carroll, and other revisionists.

 

[DHK]

Bias? I can say the same thing about you and others who look at history through trail-of-blood colored glasses. At least Kelly looks at the documented primary sources for the beliefs of the primitive Church. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Orchard, Carroll, and other revisionists.

There are many here who have quoted "straight from the horses mouth," so to speak. But you have rejected them. Any reason why?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

There are many here who have quoted "straight from the horses mouth," so to speak. But you have rejected them. Any reason why?

I'm curious--who is it that you think I have rejected?

 

[bound]

Hi Everyone! :tongue3:

I can understand and fully appreciate our Lord being 'properly' called "The Word of God" but are we confusing 'Word' with 'Logos'? We might not want to call the Bible the "Logos' but I think we understand the Logos properly as God and His inspired word truly and rightly "The Word of God" with all due respect to the "Logos".

 

[DHK]

I'm curious--who is it that you think I have rejected?

Read through the thread. Many have quoted profusely from the ECF without using historians. Have you accepted their own first hand research. I can easily do the same thing. Let me demonstrate.
Although this is somewhat second hand it still gives one a good idea.
One of the earliest of the writings of the ECF was Shepherd of Hermas. This doesn't even have the flow of Scripture, and even goes against much of Scripture.
Here is a sample of its summary

The book consists of five visions granted to Hermas, a former slave. This is followed by twelve mandates or commandments, and ten similitudes, or parables. It commences abruptly in the first person: "He who brought me up sold me to a certain Rhoda, who was at Rome. After many years I met her again, and began to love her as a sister." As Hermas was on the road to Cumae, he had a vision of Rhoda, who was presumably dead. She told him that she was his accuser in heaven, on account of an unchaste thought the (married) narrator had once had concerning her, though only in passing. He was to pray for forgiveness for himself and all his house. He is consoled by a vision of the Church in the form of an aged woman, weak and helpless from the sins of the faithful, who tells him to do penance and to correct the sins of his children. Subsequently he sees her made younger through penance, yet wrinkled and with white hair; then again, as quite young but still with white hair; and lastly, she shows herself as glorious as a Bride.
This allegorical language continues through the other parts of the work. In the second vision she gives Hermas a book, which she afterwards takes back in order to add to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherd_of_Hermas

Scripture itself tells us that the Lord no longer speaks to us through visions as He did through the OT prophets (Heb.1:1,2), but rather through Jesus Christ Himself (who is revealed through his Word. The above is fiction. It is simply a story. It is almost as if the writer is adding to the revelation that God has already given to us. And that is heresy. Keep in mind that this is one of the earliest works of the ECF, dating right back to the 2nd century.

Now if I had the patience and time I could go through the works of the ECF and find all the inconsistencies and heresies myself. But I don't have that kind of time. Others have already done it. Some have posted it already in this thread.
I posted a post listing evidence of how many were involved in the sin of Mariolotry. Marcia posted how the ECF used tradition and scripture interchangeably and that they often referred to the same thing. Read the thread.