There really are Protestants who say "The Bible is God"

[MoreCoffee]

Calvin saw an analogy between the Incarnation and Scripture. Scripture is a human work, but it is also God's word. When properly used, the analogy can actually be helpful. But this seems to be pushing it further, to say that the Bible is the inliberation of the Logos, the Word made book. While I'm not aware of any historical heresy that quite matches this, it seems to me that a second physical form of the Word contradicts the uniqueness of the Incarnation, and should properly be considered a form of idolatry. I'm tempted to call this the pumpkinification of Scripture.

I could not find a definition for "inliberation".

 

[MoreCoffee]

The bible is the only record of God in the whole universe.

Where does holy scripture say that?

 

[MoreCoffee]

And we're told to be relationally-one with Him. How is that possible w/o the bible? In knowing who God is one must study the bible to find out ... simply because that information is nowhere else to be found

Eve and Adam managed to know God without a bible so did Abram/Abraham and Isaac and Jacob/Israel and all the generations from Adam until Moses.

 

[Cassia]

The bible is the only record of God in the whole universe. And we're told to be relationally-one with Him. How is that possible w/o the bible? In knowing who God is one must study the bible to find out ... simply because that information is nowhere else to be found.
To avoid perversion of knowledge of who He is one must learn from His God-breathed revelation found in the Bible, essentially and foundationally, to have any intimate walk with God. The record that is in the Bible is the closest we will ever come to knowing who God is. Once known then His voice becomes unmistakable, yet intrically tied to the biblical message.
Then ours becomes one more of the human recordings of relationships with God that began it's recordings in the Bible. From visable to invisable is seen in the upside down Kingdom of our Lord Jesus as He comes forth from the unseen to the seen, recorded biblically for us in types and shadows of God, hidden in Him, the Bible.
Hypostasis as the essence of God, also being the definition of God, leaves the tracings of Him on Bible pages. His breath is that essence. Breath brings new life. But it is God who decides the one reading (or hearing) worthy to find Him there and whether to be uniquely tied with Him within that foundation.

Eve and Adam managed to know God without a bible so did Abram/Abraham and Isaac and Jacob/Israel and all the generations from Adam until Moses.

Faith is that which they were commended for that was the unseen, now we have the seen in Christ. Hebrews is explicate in saying that the things shown by prophets and multi ways is now seen only in Christ. Heb 1 and Heb 11. . But if faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God to produce new life, then what is the Father really saying other than to find Him we must do so in His word

 

[Cassia]

Faith is that which they were commended for that was the unseen, now we have the seen in Christ. Hebrews is explicate in saying that the things shown by prophets and multi ways is now seen only in Christ. Heb 1 and Heb 11. . But if faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God to produce new life, then what is the Father really saying other than to find Him we must do so in His word

In so saying as a disclaimer I don't believe the bible to be God, but I believe it to be the only way to find God, whether the scriptures says He can be found in nature He cannot be understood by such. His purpose cannot be fathomed in following Him blindly either. Living waters are not found in just any well.

 

[tango]

In the quote, did he say the letter is God?
He said, "It is the very speech of God."
The Bible is not God. We can agree on that. But, is it the word (speech) of God written down?

He obviously didn't say that, my point is that it seems to me that someone is looking for an attention grabbing headline and then trying to explain that it is kinda-sorta-true because, well, you know, it kinda looks a little bit like the truth if you look at it this certain way.

The idea that "his speech cannot be easily separated from his person" may have some validity but I don't think it does anything to support the idea that the speech is the person.

Maybe we are in agreement on this - it looks like we both think the assertion "the Bible is God" is silly.

 

[MennoSota]

He obviously didn't say that, my point is that it seems to me that someone is looking for an attention grabbing headline and then trying to explain that it is kinda-sorta-true because, well, you know, it kinda looks a little bit like the truth if you look at it this certain way.

The idea that "his speech cannot be easily separated from his person" may have some validity but I don't think it does anything to support the idea that the speech is the person.

Maybe we are in agreement on this - it looks like we both think the assertion "the Bible is God" is silly.

Yes, we're in agreement. I think the writer of the post is having a hard time articulating how God's word is an expression of His being, but the writer has mispoke by stating that the Bible is God.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I'm in the discussion a bit there (under another name) and that appears to be so. The title appears to be an "attention grab", but not seriously reflecting the OP's pov. It seems hard for him to articulate, though

 

[Cassia]

Calvin saw an analogy between the Incarnation and Scripture. Scripture is a human work, but it is also God's word. When properly used, the analogy can actually be helpful. But this seems to be pushing it further, to say that the Bible is the inliberation of the Logos, the Word made book. While I'm not aware of any historical heresy that quite matches this, it seems to me that a second physical form of the Word contradicts the uniqueness of the Incarnation, and should properly be considered a form of idolatry. I'm tempted to call this the pumpkinification of Scripture.

It seems to me that the 'incarnation' of the Word as the body of scripture, the Spoken Word, has been bodily (in book form) manifested as the fleshless and bodiless WORD of God. But when incarnation became flesh that which was seen and written preceeding His Incarnation have become the book of it's generation. The Holy Spirit speaks further to bring all, written and seen, together.

 

[Andrew]

This is the argument being used in the link to the other forum. And it should be rejected. The Word of God and the word of God need to be recognized as separate and distinct. Christ - the Word - was God made flesh. His word is truth, and those truths are contained in the word of God - the bible. Yet they are distinct and not on the same level. Elevating them is nowhere supported in that word, or by the Word.

Well of course the bible is not God, sorry if I worded it wrong, whoever believes that the bible IS God has to be completely insane.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

It seems to me that the 'incarnation' of the Word as the body of scripture, the Spoken Word, has been bodily (in book form) manifested as the fleshless and bodiless WORD of God. But when incarnation became flesh that which was seen and written preceeding His Incarnation have become the book of it's generation. The Holy Spirit speaks further to bring all, written and seen, together.

Sorry but I can't help but think the message above is close to gibberish. The normal way of referring to the bible as God's word is "the word of God" though that phrase can be quite misleading because scripture is not the only word of God that exists. Nevertheless if we use "the word of God" to designate the bible then we ought to be careful not to use "the Word of God" for the same purpose because the normal convention is to capitalise words that refer to a person and "the Word" is Jesus Christ while "the word" is a book. Jesus is not a book and that is so obvious it ought never need be said. But the above message confuses and mixes concepts to the point of making no sense.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm in the discussion a bit there (under another name) and that appears to be so. The title appears to be an "attention grab", but not seriously reflecting the OP's pov. It seems hard for him to articulate, though

I agree that the title is a troll text. But what is particularly disturbing is that the original poster on that thread attempts to justify his trolling words as theologically sound. The idea that "The Bible is God" is just horribly heretical. It is inexcusable. To attempt to teach it and justify it is serious sin.

 

[Cassia]

I agree that the title is a troll text. But what is particularly disturbing is that the original poster on that thread attempts to justify his trolling words as theologically sound. The idea that "The Bible is God" is just horribly heretical. It is inexcusable. To attempt to teach it and justify it is serious sin.

He should just change the paper title to the generative process of the new creation thru the word in letter, flesh and spirit. :kumbaya:

 

[MoreCoffee]

He should just change the paper title to the generative process of the new creation thru the word in letter, flesh and spirit. :kumbaya:

More than singing kum-by-ya is needed to make that into intelligible and meaningful English.

 

[Albion]

Eve and Adam managed to know God without a bible so did Abram/Abraham and Isaac and Jacob/Israel and all the generations from Adam until Moses.

That's more or less a proof of the need for the Bible, isnt it?

Unless, that is, we are convinced that Almighty God has planned to save only several people from very early history.

So much for a Savior, the Incarnation, in fact, for Christianity itself, in that case.

 

[MennoSota]

scripture is not the only word of God that exists.

Such as...

 

[MoreCoffee]

Such as...

Three things are immediately obvious. They are

• The things that God created.
• Human nature and human conscience.
• Apostolic Tradition.

But the most obvious of all is not a thing it is a man, the man Jesus Christ. He is the Word who is God.

 

[MennoSota]

Three things are immediately obvious. They are

• The things that God created.
• Human nature and human conscience.
• Apostolic Tradition.

But the most obvious of all is not a thing it is a man, the man Jesus Christ. He is the Word who is God.

None of those three are God's word. The first two are God's creation, which reveals God. Neither are the inspired words of God.
Apostolic tradition is your personal crutch made-up entirely by your church. What we know about the Apostles is what God reveals in scripture. Anything added to that is merely storytelling by secondary sources. It does not meet the high standards of scripture. Any tradition that contradicts God's word must be destroyed as an idol that takes away from God's glory. Rome has many idols.

 

[psalms 91]

If you believe as I do that the bible is the inspired Word of God then it may not be God but it is His Word so make of that as you will.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If you believe as I do that the bible is the inspired Word of God then it may not be God but it is His Word so make of that as you will.

I believe that the holy scriptures (all 73 books in the canon) are inspired by God and are useful for equipping Christians to know and do those things that God calls Christians to know and do. I call the holy scriptures "the word of God" but hesitate to capitalise the W in word because the holy scriptures identify the Word as God. So unlike the chap who wrote the original post in the thread on the other forum I do not believe that Christians ought to think of the bible as God because it clearly is not God it is a book made of paper and ink and whatever binding materials the publishers used to bind the pages and covers into a book.