"Living word of God," where in Bible?

[Jim_Baur]

I am looking for the passage that goes something like this: “the living Word of God.”

I want it to help me understand the the written words are given life by the Word of God Himself. The soul or spirit of the written words are God Himself.

I have tried to find it, but must be doing something wrong or incorrect.

Thanks!

I hope I made some sense, thanks.

 

[NHInsider]

1 Peter 1:23 and Hebrews 4:12, both of which sola-scriptura people tend to believe refer to the Bible, though in fact they refer to the Word of God which is Jesus and, secondarily, to the written Word that points to Him.

 

[Jim_Baur]

NHInsider

Thanks!

I will look at them right now.

Again, thanks!

 

[rcjones]

This is the idea:

John 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
…
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

 

[Jim_Baur]

rcjones

thanks!

 

[PJM]

I am looking for the passage that goes something like this: “the living Word of God.”

I want it to help me understand the the written words are given life by the Word of God Himself. The soul or spirit of the written words are God Himself.

I have tried to find it, but must be doing something wrong or incorrect.

Thanks!

I hope I made some sense, thanks.

Heb.4: 12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Love and prayers friend,
Pat

 

[Mig]

1 Peter 1:23 and Hebrews 4:12, both of which sola-scriptura people tend to believe refer to the Bible, though in fact they refer to the Word of God which is Jesus and, secondarily, to the written Word that points to Him.

Being one of the Sola Scriptura people I can tell you that we believe exactly as you have said you believe. Christ is the Living Word of God. We’ve no need for future revelation because Our Lord’s Son has come and He has completed what God in Genesis started. The Word of God is the Living, Everlasting Testimony Of God…

 

[Jim_Baur]

Mig

Thank you!

In your tradition, is there a difference between the Word of God Jesus Christ and the written word of God?

Again, thanks!

 

[kepha1]

13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous “condescension” of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, “that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature.” (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM (WORD OF GOD)

A difference might be that the written word of God has linguistic limitations due to the fact that the Bible is written human language. The word of God made flesh is Person, not a book, but the written word of God has within its limited human language divinely inspired truths. For an overview study on the Catholic understanding of the Word of God, please click on the above link^

 

[PJM]

=Mig;6508488]Being one of the Sola Scriptura people I can tell you that we believe exactly as you have said you believe. Christ is the Living Word of God. We’ve no need for future revelation because Our Lord’s Son has come and He has completed what God in Genesis started. The Word of God is the Living, Everlasting Testimony Of God…

So friend,

Help me out here.

You hold this beleif based on what?

And in your position I’m assuming the Church Fathers have no role to play?

Love and prayers,

 

[rcjones]

I am not going to argue the point, merely point out that those who bait people over sola scriptura use a straw man arguement.

There are no adherents to sola scriptura who believe that the the Bible just popped into existence. To imply that they do is simply wrong and argumentative.

When I went to an Orthodox priest to ask questions, he handed me a Bible and said that the answers were in there.

That is what people who hold to sola scriptura believe.

So then what is the essence of real sola scriptura? That everything necessary for faith and salvation is found in the Bible.

What does this mean? Only to a very small percentage does it mean that nothing external is required. The only thing required is faith. And even this is in your own heart, external to the covers of a printed Bible.

The most vociferous proponents of sola scriptura, are the ones most likely to have baptisteries, covenants, and a list of sacraments that they observe. By far they are most likely to have a way to ordain those who perform the sacraments.

So what sola scriptura means to them is that all the practices of the church which are required for the church are recorded in and discernible from, the scriptures.

The cry of the reformation was not to cast off all tradition, it was to test the traditions by the scriptures. There were those within the church who had a similar goal.

If there were a modern version of the reformation, a priest would pop up and examine the current tradition of transferring and disciplining (or not) priests accused of crimes. He would check the practice against the scriptures and call for the Vatican to reform the current practices. The Vatican would cast him out as rebellious and you would have a second Luther.

The Magna Carta is the symbol of the idea that the King was subject to the Law (of God), and the reformation is the symbol of the idea that the Pope is subject to the law of God.

It was not a rejection of all tradition. To imply that it was side-steps the real issues of sola scriptura.

No one denies that Jesus established his church. But what that church is in essence, and how it has been preserved are the real issue.

RC - God established a physical church on earth with administrative structures and the heretic Orthodox were splitters.
OC - God established a physical church on earth with administrative structures and the heretic Romans were splitters.

Among protestants you have those who believe in an administrative church and those who believe the church exists only in spirit.

Those who believe in an administrative church, believe God established a physical presence on earth of believers and the believers created the administrative structures under the direction of God. They work to ensure that they have what they think is proper authority through their denominational structures, and they often compare their practice to the practices of others in light of the word to demonstrate that they are more faithful.

Many of these believe that when the physical organization is corrupted, that a new physical organization is formed to carry the cross preserving the church on earth. Not too dissimilar from the ideas that formed the US Government.

Those who believe in a spiritual church are not tied to denominations and find fellowship with those with whom they have kinship, recognized by their shared experience with Christ.

An example of this can be found among war veterans. Although they never met, the fact they served in the same war, or in any war, makes them brothers. It is the shared experience of war that pulls them together.

Since I was saved in isolation, I am among the latter by default. As I look to discern between physical churches, I can do nothing but compare them to the scriptures. This is why I say that I am sola scriptura by default.

One will say that obviously the Catholic church is true. It is not so obvious to the outsider. Which one? They call each other heretic.

Many Catholics use the division between protestants as evidence they are false, yet overlook the divisions among themselves.

So back to the OP…

The Living Word of God is Christ Himself, and for me, sola scriptura means **Christ alone **as he is expressed in His spoken and written word, His works as expressed in creation and the cross, and his Life as expressed in His physical life and his dwelling in me.

 

[PJM]

=rcjones;6511862]I am not going to argue the point, merely point out that those who bait people over sola scriptura use a straw man arguement.

There are no adherents to sola scriptura who believe that the the Bible just popped into existence. To imply that they do is simply wrong and argumentative.

When I went to an Orthodox priest to ask questions, he handed me a Bible and said that the answers were in there.

That is what people who hold to sola scriptura believe.

So then what is the essence of real sola scriptura? That everything necessary for faith and salvation is found in the Bible.

What does this mean? Only to a very small percentage does it mean that nothing external is required. The only thing required is faith. And even this is in your own heart, external to the covers of a printed Bible.

The most vociferous proponents of sola scriptura, are the ones most likely to have baptisteries, covenants, and a list of sacraments that they observe. By far they are most likely to have a way to ordain those who perform the sacraments.

So what sola scriptura means to them is that all the practices of the church which are required for the church are recorded in and discernible from, the scriptures.

The cry of the reformation was not to cast off all tradition, it was to test the traditions by the scriptures. There were those within the church who had a similar goal.

If there were a modern version of the reformation, a priest would pop up and examine the current tradition of transferring and disciplining (or not) priests accused of crimes. He would check the practice against the scriptures and call for the Vatican to reform the current practices. The Vatican would cast him out as rebellious and you would have a second Luther.

The Magna Carta is the symbol of the idea that the King was subject to the Law (of God), and the reformation is the symbol of the idea that the Pope is subject to the law of God.

It was not a rejection of all tradition. To imply that it was side-steps the real issues of sola scriptura.

No one denies that Jesus established his church. But what that church is in essence, and how it has been preserved are the real issue.

RC - God established a physical church on earth with administrative structures and the heretic Orthodox were splitters.
OC - God established a physical church on earth with administrative structures and the heretic Romans were splitters.

Among protestants you have those who believe in an administrative church and those who believe the church exists only in spirit.

Those who believe in an administrative church, believe God established a physical presence on earth of believers and the believers created the administrative structures under the direction of God. They work to ensure that they have what they think is proper authority through their denominational structures, and they often compare their practice to the practices of others in light of the word to demonstrate that they are more faithful.

Many of these believe that when the physical organization is corrupted, that a new physical organization is formed to carry the cross preserving the church on earth. Not too dissimilar from the ideas that formed the US Government.

Those who believe in a spiritual church are not tied to denominations and find fellowship with those with whom they have kinship, recognized by their shared experience with Christ.

An example of this can be found among war veterans. Although they never met, the fact they served in the same war, or in any war, makes them brothers. It is the shared experience of war that pulls them together.

Since I was saved in isolation, I am among the latter by default. As I look to discern between physical churches, I can do nothing but compare them to the scriptures. This is why I say that I am sola scriptura by default.

One will say that obviously the Catholic church is true. It is not so obvious to the outsider. Which one? They call each other heretic.

Many Catholics use the division between protestants as evidence they are false, yet overlook the divisions among themselves.

So back to the OP…

The Living Word of God is Christ Himself, and for me, sola scriptura means **Christ alone **as he is expressed in His spoken and written word, His works as expressed in creation and the cross, and his Life as expressed in His physical life and his dwelling in me.

Thank you! Every interesting response.

So what is your understanding of:

Mt. 16:15-18, Mt. 16:19, Mt. 18:18, John 20:20-23, Eph. 2: 19-23 and Regards the Eucharist… Mt. 26:26-28, Mk. 14:22-24, Lk. 22:19-21, John 6: 40-60, And 1 Cor. 11:23-29?

Love and prayers

 

[rcjones]

Mt. 16:15-18, Mt. 16:19, Mt. 18:18, John 20:20-23, Eph. 2: 19-23 and Regards the Eucharist… Mt. 26:26-28, Mk. 14:22-24, Lk. 22:19-21, John 6: 40-60, And 1 Cor. 11:23-29?

Haha, I appreciate your questions, however, I do not know how to answer them in the context of the OP. So I will keep it very brief, and continue the conversation elsewhere if you wish.

First, beyond a small core of truths, I hold all other positions with intellectual humility, willing to be corrected and taught by scripture.

The answers to the questions you ask are the reasons for the visits to OC’s and visit here. My tentative position is that I agree with the OC concerning the pope. But until the initial question to the nature of the church itself is answered, choosing a position really doesn’t make sense.

It would be more proper to ask you, since I have only the Bible, by what criteria would you have me choose? Certainly I can’t just flip a coin to chose one tradition over the other.

If we pursue this line, we should probably start another thread.

As for the Eucharist, it is what it is, and my choosing a side in that issue does not change what it is. Since it does not subject itself to scientific investigation it is a matter of faith in the hermeneutic or the proclamation of one church or another.

 

[spockrates]

Jim:

Here is another thought:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness …

(2 Timothy 3:16)

Compare it to this passage:

The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

(Genesis 2:7)

The implication seems to be that the breath of life is in both us and the words of Sacred Scripture. I think the symbolic meaning is that the real truths of Sacred Scripture (as taught by our Church) are as life-giving as breathing air, or eating food. As Christ said:

"It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ "

(Matthew 4:4)

 

[rcjones]

Jim:

Here is another thought:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness …

(2 Timothy 3:16)

Compare it to this passage:

The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

(Genesis 2:7)

Very good observation. You are instinctively using the methods of sensus plenior. Modernist theologians will tell you that you can’t link the two verses and that you are interpreting them out of context.

The implication seems to be that the breath of life is in both us and the words of Sacred Scripture. I think the symbolic meaning is that the real truths of Sacred Scripture (as taught by our Church) are as life-giving as breathing air, or eating food. As Christ said:

"It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ "

(Matthew 4:4)

In sensus plenior, the symbolic meaning must be the same everywhere it is used. If you use ‘Holy Ghost’ for breath and air and wind you may find it works everywhere.

So the scriptures were God-breathed, or produced by the Spirit of God… where was the Spirit when he produced it? He was in man since God had blown the Spirit into a lump of clay.

This interpretation is consistent with the tradition of the church saying that he authors were inspired by the Holy Ghost.

 

[spockrates]

Very good observation. You are instinctively using the methods of sensus plenior. Modernist theologians will tell you that you can’t link the two verses and that you are interpreting them out of context.

I take it, RC that you (1) disagree with these modern scholars who would say I’m taking the verses out of context, or (2) believe taking the verses out of context makes a good observation, or (3) were being sarcastic when you said my observation was good!



(I’m guessing (3) but I’m not offended. I tend to be grateful to those who point out my errors in thinking so that I won’t continue to make the same mistakes.)

In sensus plenior, the symbolic meaning must be the same everywhere it is used. If you use ‘Holy Ghost’ for breath and air and wind you may find it works everywhere.

So the scriptures were God-breathed, or produced by the Spirit of God… where was the Spirit when he produced it? He was in man since God had blown the Spirit into a lump of clay.

This interpretation is consistent with the tradition of the church saying that he authors were inspired by the Holy Ghost.

As Socrates said,

A wise man is not likely to talk nonsense. Let us try to understand him.

(Theaetetus, 152)

So I’d like to try to understand these wise and modern theologians of whom you speak. Please tell me why they believe “symbolic meaning *must *be the same everywhere it is used.”

 

[rcjones]

I take it, then that you (1) disagree with these modern scholars who would say I’m taking the verses out of context, or (2) believe taking the verses out of context makes a good observation, or (3) were being sarcastic when you said my observation was good!



(I’m guessing (3) but I’m not offended. I tend to be grateful to those who point out my errors in thinking so that I won’t continue to make the same mistakes.)

As Socrates said,

A wise man is not likely to talk nonsense. Let us try to understand him.

(Theaetetus, 152)

So I’d like to try to understand these wise and modern theologians of whom you speak. Please tell me why they believe “symbolic meaning *must *be the same everywhere it is used.”

Well you did better at interpreting the text than at interpreting my post.

You should have stuck with (1)

Modernists do not believe in sensus plenior. They say there is only one meaning of scripture which is the literal-historical-grammatical interpretation.

The rules themselves are discerned from scripture using the same method that you are using.

1. Since God has said that not a jot or tittle will pass away, until one knows why each jot and tittle is there, a complete understanding has not been derived. (This keeps us humble)
2. Since man shall live “…by every word”, a doctrine is not sound until it sums up and includes all that God has said about it. (This keeps us searching)
3. Since every word must be established by two or three witnesses, every shadow must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses. (This keeps us rigorous in methodology)
4. Since God’s word is established forever, a shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. So, since a donkey is a shadow of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a shadow of a prophet. This rule alone makes the shadows humanly impossible to fabricate. (This keeps us in awe)
5. The riddle of Samson tells us Christ is the answer to all the riddles. If the shadow doesn’t look like Christ, it isn’t a good shadow. (This keeps us focused)
6. And since we are to “let everyman be a liar and God be true”, outside references are not required to solve the riddles and see the shadows. (This keeps us devoted)

Those who have attempted typology and who have not been bound by the rules have interpretations that are inconsistent and are the source for suspicion concerning typology, which often warrant the term ‘free-for-all’.

And these are the methods of the Apostles and Christ, NOT of modern theologians.

 

[spockrates]

Well you did better at interpreting the text than at interpreting my post.

You should have stuck with (1)

Modernists do not believe in sensus plenior. They say there is only one meaning of scripture which is the literal-historical-grammatical interpretation.

The rules themselves are discerned from scripture using the same method that you are using.

1. Since God has said that not a jot or tittle will pass away, until one knows why each jot and tittle is there, a complete understanding has not been derived. (This keeps us humble)
2. Since man shall live “…by every word”, a doctrine is not sound until it sums up and includes all that God has said about it. (This keeps us searching)
3. Since every word must be established by two or three witnesses, every shadow must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses. (This keeps us rigorous in methodology)
4. Since God’s word is established forever, a shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. So, since a donkey is a shadow of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a shadow of a prophet. This rule alone makes the shadows humanly impossible to fabricate. (This keeps us in awe)
5. The riddle of Samson tells us Christ is the answer to all the riddles. If the shadow doesn’t look like Christ, it isn’t a good shadow. (This keeps us focused)
6. And since we are to “let everyman be a liar and God be true”, outside references are not required to solve the riddles and see the shadows. (This keeps us devoted)

Those who have attempted typology and who have not been bound by the rules have interpretations that are inconsistent and are the source for suspicion concerning typology, which often warrant the term ‘free-for-all’.

And these are the methods of the Apostles and Christ, NOT of modern theologians.

Yes, thank you! I see you have given this much deep thought.



Please tell me. Do you think that if two people follow these six methods of biblical interpretation, regarding a specific scripture, they will necessarily come to the same conclusion as to its meaning?

 

[rcjones]

Yes, thank you! I see you have given this much deep thought.



Please tell me. Do you think that if two people follow these six methods of biblical interpretation, regarding a specific scripture, they will necessarily come to the same conclusion as to its meaning?

I believe that. I am anxious to find others willing and capable to prove it out or falsify it. If it is invention, I have no use for it.

The nature of the rules is such that it is self-correcting. If you presume a symbol, when you try to make it fit the rest of the tapestry it does not work. If it works for two or three scriptures, it is a close solution, but it must work for all.

Take the symbol that leaven is sin. It works for most, but not all. The kingdom of heaven is likened unto leaven. The method didn’t fall apart our symbol was wrong. When leaven is seen as ‘teaching’ then it fits all.

So the proper dialog with sensus plenior is to bring more ‘witnesses’ to the table and reconcile them.

The mistake that many make is trying to compare it to popular typology. Popular typology has only a memory of sensus plenior. Without the rules it is free-for-all.

Oh and these are the rules that constrain the meaning. The methods from the first century are the childish rules of riddle and word play.

I am trying to teach the methods here:

sensusplenior.net/?page_id=2

 

[spockrates]

I believe that. I am anxious to find others willing and capable to prove it out or falsify it. If it is invention, I have no use for it.

The nature of the rules is such that it is self-correcting. If you presume a symbol, when you try to make it fit the rest of the tapestry it does not work. If it works for two or three scriptures, it is a close solution, but it must work for all.

Take the symbol that leaven is sin. It works for most, but not all. The kingdom of heaven is likened unto leaven. The method didn’t fall apart our symbol was wrong. When leaven is seen as ‘teaching’ then it fits all.

So the proper dialog with sensus plenior is to bring more ‘witnesses’ to the table and reconcile them.

The mistake that many make is trying to compare it to popular typology. Popular typology has only a memory of sensus plenior. Without the rules it is free-for-all.

Oh and these are the rules that constrain the meaning. The methods from the first century are the childish rules of riddle and word play.

I am trying to teach the methods here:

sensusplenior.net/?page_id=2

Interesting. I think you are on to something. Why not examine your theory one premise at a time and see where any weak points might be strengthened? If you are willing, we can start with (1):

1. Since God has said that not a jot or tittle will pass away, until one knows why each jot and tittle is there, a complete understanding has not been derived. (This keeps us humble)

As you said, we should consider the immediate context of the passage to get a proper understanding of its meaning. So let’s begin there.

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

(Matthew 5)

My first impression is that you are indeed right! It’s likely impossible to have a proper understanding of all that the Bible teaches. My second impression is that this is not what Christ is teaching in the passage you cited (although I’m sure He teaches it elsewhere). I’m thinking when He speaks of jots and tittles, He is speaking of obeying every detail of the moral precepts of the Old Testament rather than understanding every detail of the moral precepts of the Old Testament. Of course, who can obey what he does not understand?