Is Word of God equal to scripture?

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)

 

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

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)

 

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

 

Which "scripture"? Ths Gospel of Thomas perhaps?

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.

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!

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)

 

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"?

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.

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 ]

 

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.

 

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

 

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!

 

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?

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).

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?

Not difficult at all!

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

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!

 

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..

 

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.

 

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, 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.

 

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

 

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.