The questions we have then, are this: Should the phrase the Word of God , which appears to have been traditional but fell out of use in the last century, be recovered again? Is it accurate to say that other descriptors such as inerrancy and infallibility, without necessarily being incorrect, are of recent origin without a long pedigree in the history of the Church? Does the Word of God sufficiently encapsulate all the different genres of Scripture, with their different truth criteria, to be a better descriptor than inerrancy or infallibility, for the purpose of making Scripture to be trustworthy without making it susceptible to the scientific criticism?
Actually, I would say that the 'word of God' referred to in James (and possibly, at least to a partial extent, in Hebrews) referred specifically to what we now call the OT. The "law and prophets" writings were what the Israelites thought of as the 'word of God.' But you are right to point out that Christians tend to think of their entire Bible as being referred to by such NT references, which is not possible since the NT writings were not yet (in the 1st Century) regarded in that way.
(1) My only objection to the Bible being referred to as 'the Word of God' with those capitals used in the 39 Articles, is that the Title 'The Word' should be reserved for Christ alone. But since the scriptures are our main source of knowledge of Jesus Christ, (along with the witness of the Church), it would be churlish of me to insist on 'The word of God' not being used to describe the scriptures gathered together in what we now call 'The Books' which is what the word 'Bible' means. So the word of God would seem to be worth recovering as a description of the Bible. (2) I think it would be accurate to say that, yes. (3) A yes to three as well. Scripture is trustworthy, but not foolproof. Fools have always misinterpreted it and will probably continue to do so. .
I take note that the folks who wrote the 39 Articles must not have felt this way. Not saying they were infallible men by any means, but for what it's worth, it seems there has been a change in thinking over the past few centuries. How much credence do we give the 39 Articles, and how much do we give today's thinking?
This particalr issue may not be so much a difference of thinking, between the modern mind and the mind of the Reformers, (though that may certainly be true), as much as merely a change in printing conventions and the use of capital letters.
Since we are discussing the change to the rules, and this seems to be at the heart of the substance of the change I feel we should be discussing this. I have some issue with this, however, my issue may be a reaction to those who have espoused this concept so loudly that the bible becomes a prison, and the Word of God is understood trapped in a narrow prism of a particular theological view, sometimes referred to as The Doctrine of Propositional Revelation. This, in my view, is dangerous country and a long way from the mind of the reformers, and the Anglican Divines. I would prefer to see and understanding that embraced the idea of Divine Inspiration and human authorship, as both the record of revelation and a primary means of revelation, and as canon (the rule or reliable measure whereby we might form a view of other claims for divine inspiration). Our Salvation is thankfully wrought not by corect doctrine, but by the atoning work of Christ upon the Cross. The way of salvation is a matter of our relationship with the one who stretches out his arms to embrace all who would be so embraced, who respond in faith to grace so freely offered.
That is an important truth. Indeed, one does not need to have perfect doctrine to receive grace and eternal life... far from it. (Yet we strive to preserve and transmit correct doctrine so that the truth of the Gospel be not perverted and lost, for the knowledge of the truth leads many to faith and bestowal of grace.) Botolph, what is your opinion of this brief article regarding propositional revelation? Do you disagree with its conclusions? https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/propositional-revelation/ Jesus said (Matt. 11:25), I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth... This reveals a highly significant truth (that God is Lord of heaven and earth), and it is propositional. There is no event here from which we may draw a conclusion. Should we disregard or devalue such propositional truths?
The argument you reference here is a good deal quieter than expressions of that that I have encountered (or been suggested to). The theory of Propositional Revelation. Roughly it goes like this, and I know this is crude, ‘God reveals himself in propositions, these propositions are contained in Holy Scripture, therefore the Holy Scripture is the inerrant word of God’. D B Knox, long time Principal of Moore College was a long-standing proponent of this theory. It is probably largely held by many in the Archdiocese of Sydney as being gospel, if not the Gospel. Many of us find this a long way short of satisfying, or even helpful. 'God Reveals' is probably the core question. In the world of mortals when one person meets another, they reveal something of each other, and sometimes we reflect those things we know and appreciate, and sometimes true friendship grows and even great love. Sometimes that is an instantaneous thing, however mostly it is a process, a process which has leaps forward and steps back, and simply goes along sometimes dancing, sometimes, running, and sometimes a slow crawl. People do not reveal themselves in propositions. People reveal themselves in what they do, in what they say, in how they dress and present themselves, and these things are part, and only part of what goes on. I find it very unsatisfying to consider that God would be less rather than more than this. Does the sunrise reveal the Glory of God, or is God the revealing and the sunrise the instrument of revelation? I also have a problem with that which follows this doctrine, namely some idea that there is no revelation outside of Scripture, and that God is somehow constrained (and/or contained in) to or by the library of the canonical books of the Bible. It is clear these days that we apprehend truth on many spheres, in many ways. Some of these things would seem, in part at least, not in Scripture. Darwin has proposed a Theory of Evolution and many, myself included, feel that there is good evidence and for the moment that is probably our best theory to date. Of course there are those who will then turn to the first chapter of Genesis and argue that this is on fact the true account of the process and therefore Darwin is wrong. Currently, I think it would be fair to say that Darwin’s theory is most often taught as fact, which I think is a little less satisfying. In a world that hungers for fact and for certainty, I guess that is the easy road, and allows people to comfort of knowing, rather than exploring. By and large the Bible condones slavery, whereas most of us today would regard that as unacceptable, and clearly counter to purposes of God. There are numbers of examples in similar areas, which I will not cite for the moment. The issue that this leads to is the understanding of Scripture. Article 6/39 tells us that Scripture contains all things necessary for us the believe. Article 20/39 uses the phrase ‘God’s Word written’ in discussing the authority of the Church. How do we understand Scripture. This has been explained to me in a variety of ways. Firstly I grew up on the understanding that the Bible was ‘inspired by God’, and I take that to mean that the people who wrote the words were writing because their experience required them to write, however it was very definitely they who did the writing. The next theory I encountered was that the Bible was the ‘expired word of God’. This was not to suggest that it had passed its use by date but rather the writer held the pen and God framed each stroke the pen made, or in other words God is the actual author. The next option I was given was that Scripture represents the record of the revelation of God as accepted by the Church, which is to suggest that people experienced something of God and wrote about the experience – the Church has sifted through the collection of these records and deemed some of them canonical. I find this the most satisfying option for me intellectually, though through faith we move beyond this as bare bones. So of Article 20/39 I am left to ask, and when you reflect you realise the three references made to the Bible here are ‘God’s Word written’, ‘Scripture’, and ‘Holy Writ’, and one may conclude that the terms reflect the literary style and do not force a decision as to how the understand Scripture. Indeed to return to Article 6/39 there seems a clear understanding that not everything in the Old Testament is binding, or indeed moral. __________________________________________________________________ Now when we look at the person Jesus it seems to me we find a fairly radical preacher, whose concern is not for the code, the tradition, or the law, but for the people. Rather than being liberated, people were held captive by the requirements of the law. It concerns me that the results of the propositional revelation argument ultimately end up in a legislative setting, where justification is the only acceptable salvation metaphor, and our concern is about who is out or in, and like cricket umpires and we end up being the contemporary Pharisees, rather than liberating Jesus people. I believe that there are as many ways of being Christian as there are Christians, and that we can seek to codify and legislate, or also we can seek to reflect something of the heart and mind of Jesus in our own lives, and a creative way that allows our best to shine, and sure we won’t always get it right, and we won’t always get it wrong, but we will always have the humility to learn and the tenacity to have another go. I believe that God reveals and we respond to what we grasp of revelation. I don’t think that the ultimate issue is about salvation and damnation, but rather love and other. There are a number of roles that belong to the Church: To be the agent of God's Mission in the Contemporary Setting To Worship, To Proclaim, To Teach, To Liberate, To Care, To be Community, To be Guardians of the Sacred Deposit of Faith To Proclaim the Eternal Gospel in the Temporal Reality There is a clear understanding that the Canon of Scripture is a significant and foundational plank in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. And to that I would add the holy faith proclaimed in the Symbol of the 1st Council of Constantinople, The Holy Sacraments of Baptism and Communion, and the Historic Episcopate. We are called to follow Jesus, who as I see it called out the Pharisees for being chained to law and tradition, rather than being committed to the change for good that God calls each one of us to embrace. Sorry that is all a bit long, however the Propositional Revelationiosts I have largely reminded me more of the Pharisees than they have of Jesus. God, who is relationship in the Most Holy Trinity calls us to relationship with him. This probably does not help, but hopefully it helps you understand my point of view.
This is such an interesting discussion. If we consider all possible sources for what can precisely constitute revelation of doctrine, there are essentially three sources: 1. the Scriptures; 2. Tradition; 3. Inspiration. The divines, following the church fathers, have adopted the first option. The Roman Catholics, as is well known, have embraced the second option. And the modern charismatic and pentecostal movement has largely embraced the third. Option #2 is wrong because it is non-objective, it is essentially whatever they say it is. That's why they keep changing what they believe, and each new instance is still stamped with "Roman Catholicism", whereas you clearly see a corruption of Anglicanism, by comparison with a standard that doesn't change. Tradition as a source of doctrine is problematic because it isn't written down anywhere (and if it were, then it'd just become another Scriptures, option 1!). Option #3 is wrong also because it is non-objective; you feel whatever you feel, and nobody knows whether you were really inspired or not. Therefore I conclude that the only viable method is the one the Church has in fact adopted during her healthy periods, namely the reliance on Scripture as the actual place, the location, where God's revelation may be found in a reliable, objective way. Obviously modern Evangelicals have twisted this reliance on the Scriptures and made a mockery of it, so I don't in any way seek to embrace brute literalism of modern fundamentalists. We all know that the Scriptures contain various genres of literature, some of them poetic, some metaphorical, some historic, (etc), which have to be carefully parsed. But that we can depend on Scripture as a whole, seems undeniable. And that we can depend only on the Scriptures seems to be the only logical conclusion. Whatever the rule changes are made here, I hope they do not undermine this core foundational truth.
How then, if this be true, was the canon derived? We have a Bible of 66 books, all of which are considered to have been produced by authors 'inspired by God'. The additional books in the Apocrypha are merely considered good as examples for life and instructions of manners but not necessarily 'inspired' and so not included in the Biblical canon. If the church was qualified through revelation to decide what was and what was not 'inspired by God', when did the church lose that capacity and if it ever did, why? Is there now no such discernment in the church? Surely that cannot be so. I would say that there are still those in the church who 'reveal' to the church 'good examples for living' and 'instructions of manners', even revelation concerning previously unperceived meaning in the 'inspired' books of the Bible which had in some measure remained 'closed to previous generations', since those revelations did not concern them in their own eras. There is in my opinion a place still in the church for 'inspired revelation' but it is necessarily subordinate to the church's traditional understandings of the meanings of scripture. The Church of Christ is not hidebound by a rulebook of fixed immutable edicts, like the Muslim faith is by The Koran. The Church of Christ is guided by Christ and it's understanding of The Bible must conform to HIS understanding of what it means. We must have The Mind of Christ if we are to serve Him effectively. 1 Cor.2:16. And that is a function of The Holy Spirit, not specifically of rigidly conformed, well established, docrines of men. Matt.15:9, Mark 7:7, Col.2:22. .
What was the revelation which told the Church about the canon? Perhaps I missed it. Did Jesus appear at the Council of Nicea, or to St Jerome, or to the author of the Muratorian Fragment, or to any of the other ancient witnesses to what we now call the Canon of Scripture?
Discernment of truth is not a matter of 'thophanic appearances', it is a matter of inspiration. Revelation of truth is not necessarily a matter of subjective mystic experiences, it is also a matter of insight and wisdom which proceeds from The Holy Spirit. The true church has never lacked these, only those within the visible church who merely 'claim' to be disciples of Christ, (of which there have been many), lack them. .
Okay, can you cite to me something from those ancient witnesses where they claim to have been revealed unto, as to what the Canon should be. If you look at the Church Fathers, you'll find that they considered personal revelation to be a very dangerous subject, typically left to dangerous sects which were cut off from the one true Church.
Here it is from the most ancient witness of all, Jesus. Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. Joh 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. The early church leaders relied upon 'personal revelation' from the Holy Spirit to adjudge and declare the Canon. But if we suppose that they had no such guidance, then we have no assurance that they got it right. (Of course, that is the very argument skeptics use to denigrate the Bible.) To Tiffy's comment, I would add that discernment of truth is a matter of inspiration (with the caveat that any inspiration must be) adjudged by and found to be in agreement with the written word, the Bible.
With the possible exceptions of what we may have learned from the Holy Spirit by 'word of knowledge' or 'word of wisdom'. 1 Cor.12:8. In which case such direct revelation never actually contradicts the spirit of written word, nor violates Christ's command for all his servants, to Love. .
Obviously I am in no way gainsaying against the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. But that's a different question from what we should accept as a matter of doctrine. Do you believe that it should be acceptable for a Christian to claim to 'discern' or 'be inspired' about some new realization, and to present it as a point of doctrine unconnected with the Scriptures, for all of us to have to accept it?
Isn't that basically what happened at the Reformation, (apart from the 'unconnected with scripture bit' )? .
Disconnected from the Scriptures? No. (example: the doctrine of purposely handling snakes as a part of one's religious observance. Insufficient support for that in Scripture.) Supported by the Scriptures? Most likely yes.
How do you imagine the church decided which were and which were not 'inspired' witings then? The church most certainly did debate, consider and deliberate, then decide. Surely the Holy Spirit was involved in that process, but by what means do you suppose the Spirit acted within the church, if not by revelation and inspiration? .