# preaching as word of God



## Scott (Nov 2, 2005)

I have heard that John Murray and other reformed commentators have argued that the "word of God" referred to in Rom. 10:17 (and the related context) refers to the preaching (meaning not just reading aloud the text of scripture, but the sermon) of the scriptures. Is this right? Can anyone outline this argument? 

Both Calvin and Matthew Henry to affirm that Rom. 10:17 refers to preaching, but it is unclear whether they simply mean reading aloud the text of scripture (which may not have made sense given the incomplete nature of the NT at that time).


----------



## DTK (Nov 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I have heard that John Murray and other reformed commentators have argued that the "word of God" referred to in Rom. 10:17 (and the related context) refers to the preaching (meaning not just reading aloud the text of scripture, but the sermon) of the scriptures. Is this right? Can anyone outline this argument?
> 
> Both Calvin and Matthew Henry to affirm that Rom. 10:17 refers to preaching, but it is unclear whether they simply mean reading aloud the text of scripture (which may not have made sense given the incomplete nature of the NT at that time).


The context strongly suggests it...v. 14, _And how shall they hear without a preacher?_ (khru,ssontoj from khru,ssw, "proclaim as a herald") ...and v. 15, _And how shall they preach_ (khru,xwsin from  khru,ssw) _unless they are sent?_...._How beautiful are the feet of those who preach _(euvaggelizome,nwn from euvaggeli,zw, "to announce glad tidings") _the gospel of peace,_...

In other words, the nouns and verbs employed by the apostle here are derived from two Greek words that are always translated in the context of preaching, and never in terms of reading. Thus their (i.e., Murray, Calvin, and Henry's) hermeneutical contention in this context is firmly rooted in the grammar of the text.

But there is another grammatical point to be kept in mind as well. The phrase in v. 14, _And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?_ as translated in the NKJV and the NIV can be a bit misleading. There is no preposition "of" in the original text, and the strict translation should be _whom they have not heard_, thus the emphasis is that Christ Himself is speaking through the voice of the preacher sent by Him in the proclamation of the Gospel, and we wouldn't expect Christ to be reading His good news, but proclaiming it. Again, this contextual evidence sets the stage for identifying the _word of Christ_ (r`h,matoj Cristou/) in v. 17. The _word of Christ_ is thus the gospel proclaimed by Christ through his sent servant.

I don't think that this verse is intended to deny that people have been and are converted through the reading of God's word, but rather emphasizes the normal activity of Christ in the proclamation of the Gospel.

DTK

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by DTK]


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 2, 2005)

Insightful as always DTK, thanks!


----------



## JOwen (Nov 2, 2005)

Dear bother,

The word rheÌ„ma (word) is to be understood in the context of verse 15, which speaks quite clearly about the "œpreaching" of the gospel. Now, rheÌ„ma as opposed to logos (also translated word), is "œthe living word spoken" or "œlife giving word". The immediate context is preaching and hearing the word of God, so the phrase "œword of God" should be likewise.

Kind regards,

Jerrold H. Lewis
Pastor


----------



## Scott (Nov 2, 2005)

> But there is another grammatical point to be kept in mind as well. The phrase in v. 14, And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? as translated in the NKJV and the NIV can be a bit misleading. There is no preposition "of" in the original text, and the strict translation should be whom they have not heard, thus the emphasis is that Christ Himself is speaking through the voice of the preacher sent by Him in the proclamation of the Gospel



David: Thanks - very helpful and makes sense. I had heard the "of" argument and could not recall it. I think this is the point from Murray I was forgetting. Certainly seems consistent with Luke 10:16 and the like. 

Are we to understand this proclamation from Christ being the entire message from the preacher (such as the entire sermon), assuming it is faithful to scripture? 

Thanks,
Scott


----------



## DTK (Nov 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Are we to understand this proclamation from Christ being the entire message from the preacher (such as the entire sermon), assuming it is faithful to scripture?
> 
> Thanks,
> Scott


Scott,

I think what you are positing is true in a broader sense, but not necessarily to be argued from this specific text, because the distinct emphasis of the text seems to identify "the word of Christ" in v. 17 with the proclamation of the gospel specifically.

But with respect to this "broader sense," I don't think I will ever forget an illustration that I heard from a man who is the most powerful preacher I've ever been blest to sit under, Pastor Albert N. Martin. In his series, "Rightly Receiving the Word," he illustrated the principle of which you speak in the following way...He said (and I paraphrase), "Just suppose someone received a special revelation from God that Isaiah would rise from the dead, and be in our midst on such and such a date, at such and such a time. And sure enough, at the appointed date and time Isaiah appeared on the scene, opened his mouth and began to proclaim, "Thus saith the LORD..." What would our whole mental and spiritual disposition be in that context as we try to imagine how we would respond to God's prophet proclaiming God's word? 

Pastor Martin went on to point out, that if we come to the ministry of the word wherein we are to sit under an exposition of the Book (prophecy) of Isaiah chapter 1, and our attitude or disposition is in any way qualitatively different from the way we would give heed to Isaiah returning from the dead and speaking "thus saith the LORD," then there is something terribly defective in our approach to the ministry of the word as listeners. He said, "Granted, there would be some psychological factors, perhaps, that would make some element of it different, and that God doesn't dehumanize us when He reveals Himself to us and makes us his own...But, nonetheless, if we gave any kind of qualitative reverence or submission to the spoken word of Isaiah that we would not give to the written word of Isaiah when rightly expounded, then we have something terribly defective in our understanding of the ministry of the word as the Scriptures are opened and proclaimed in our hearing."

It made a very powerful impression upon me from that day to this, and I have never forgotten it. This is the kind of consciousness we need to cultivate when we come to the ministry of the word, when the Scriptures are opened and applied to our lives, namely, that we are having direct dealings with God in and through the word of God as it is preached. There is something utterly sacred about our attending to the word of God carefully and reverently, each and every time our ministers stand before us behind the sacred desk and proclaim it.

While God's normal means is to accomplish this task through his duly ordained and sent servants, sometimes his word comes through unexpected channels, e.g., Balaam's donkey. And I have learned some of the greatest lessons through a jackass of a man in a pulpit, and occasionally even from the lips of a child, "Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants..." (Ps 8:2).

But I do not believe that it can be gainsaid from the overall evidence of the Bible, that when God's appointed minister stands and proclaims God's word to His people, we are to stand in awe of the act that is transpiring in our presence, and to receive it, as it were, from the very portals of heaven when rightly proclaimed.

DTK


----------



## DTK (Nov 2, 2005)

I'm getting old, I also meant to follow up with this word from Calvin...

*John Calvin (1509-1564):* Those who think the authority of the Word is dragged down by the baseness of the men called to teach it disclose their own ungratefulness. For, among the many excellent gifts with which God has adorned the human race, it is a singular privilege that he deigns to consecrate to himself the mouths and tongues of men in order that his voice may resound in them. _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book IV.i.5, p. 1018.

DTK


----------



## Scott (Nov 3, 2005)

All good points, thanks.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 3, 2005)

The emphasis upon the preaching being the Word of God is also prominent in continental reformed theology. Notice the Belgic Confession stresses this. You can also see this in Peirre Marselle's The Relevance of Preaching. In our American context, we would shy away from that idea because we are so worried about heretical preachers in our pulpits. But the concept of the preacher being Christ's herald, proclaiming with all His authority, cannot be forgotten or ignored.


----------



## Scott (Nov 3, 2005)

Regarding the exposition, as opposed to the reading of text, in what sense is it appropriate to say that this exposition, or sermon, is "God's Word." It would not carry the weight of scripture, so in what sense is it God's word? Is it analogous to having a herald show up and have an ambassador proclaim a king's message, even though the ambassador uses his own words? Of course the ambassador can be a rogue or otherwise deviate from his king's message, but that does not undermine the authority with which he speaks the true message.

Patrick: Do you recommend Marselle's book? If so, I will have to grab a copy.


----------



## Scott (Nov 3, 2005)

Also, in what sense, if any, is Christ present in the exposition of the Word? In the ambassador analogy, the king is present only vicariously, or in the sense that he is represented. His person is entirely in another location. Is Christ present (mystically, or otherwise) in preaching and, if so, how?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Regarding the exposition, as opposed to the reading of text, in what sense is it appropriate to say that this exposition, or sermon, is "God's Word." It would not carry the weight of scripture, so in what sense is it God's word? Is it analogous to having a herald show up and have an ambassador proclaim a king's message, even though the ambassador uses his own words? Of course the ambassador can be a rogue or otherwise deviate from his king's message, but that does not undermine the authority with which he speaks the true message.
> 
> Patrick: Do you recommend Marselle's book? If so, I will have to grab a copy.



I do recommend it. It's short and a great introduction to the theology of preaching. The principles are great. But I would keep the terminology to yourself. Americans would probably not like you to speak of preaching that way.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 3, 2005)

Here's my concept of it, Scott. I think it follows the Continental Reformed concept mentioned by Patrick. 

In Ezra's time the congregation stood up when the Word of God was read. The idea, it seems to me, is that there be a deep reverence for God's Word as His Word: when He speaks, we give all our attention and revere it. 

In the same way, the reading of the Bible is a deeply reverent and austere moment in the time of worship. These are His words, holy and full of grace. When a minister preaches, therefore, it must be in keeping with that deep reverence. If he shows any kind of disrespect to it at all, such as detracting from the message, or from its authority, or from its pespicuity and sufficiency, then that calls into question his own adherence to that Word as its messenger and expositer. 

When the people listen to the preaching of the Word, it is for the the Word that they are listening, not for a man's word. Since it is clear that God has chosen, specifically stated in His Word ( note: the text you cited ), to cause His Word to be heard through the agency of preachers, it would follow that those who long to hear that Word would give all their attention to preachers as if it were God Himself, since He says that this is how He will do it. 

So it follows that preachers preach the Word, and only the Word; and that listeners attend to it as if it were the Word itself.


----------



## DTK (Nov 3, 2005)

> Also, in what sense, if any, is Christ present in the exposition of the Word? In the ambassador analogy, the king is present only vicariously, or in the sense that he is represented. His person is entirely in another location. Is Christ present (mystically, or otherwise) in preaching and, if so, how?


I don´t think that this is the sort of question that can be answered beyond the simple point that Christ is present by His Spirit. I think the ambassador analogy emphasizes that the representative of the King has no authority to deviate from the message entrusted to him by the King. There is the sense that Christ the King is present vicariously in His servant, but that is to be conceded when we say that Christ is present spiritually. I´m not sure that the word "œmystically" (what nuance of the word is one after here, cryptically, unintelligibly, subjectively?) is especially helpful apart from saying that Christ is present spiritually. When Paul comes to speak of his experience among the Corinthians, he describes his proclamation as delivered "œin demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God" (1 Cor 2:4-5). In His second epistle while utilizing the ambassador analogy, he writes, "œNow then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ´s behalf, be reconciled to God" (2 Cor 5:20), to emphasize they are not speaking in their own name or acting on their own authority, and to show that the reception or rejection of their message is the reception or rejection of the King Himself, thus Christ´s ministers are in some sense Christ´s substitute or representative ("œon Christ´s behalf," or "œin Christ´s stead"). I´m personally convinced that Paul´s description of his experience as a "œdemonstration of the Spirit and of power," emphasizes that Christ by His Spirit worked in a manner through Paul that lifted his proclamation up beyond his own efforts and endeavors (persuasive words of human wisdom) to a position wherein he became the medium through which the Spirit worked efficaciously in the hearts of those to whom Paul spoke. We are dependent not only on the Spirit´s anointing (if we may speak of it in this way) upon the preacher, but on the Spirit´s activity in the hearts of those who listen. For if Holy Scripture teaches us anything, it teaches us that grace is not automatically conveyed in the ministry of the word (Heb 4:2). For it was Paul´s desire that their faith should not rest or stand in anything other than the power of God, indeed as Paul testified of the Thessalonians, "œFor this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe (1Thess 2:13).

But asking this question is somewhat akin to asking the question, "œwhat is unction?" There´s an old illustration that comes to mind of an old black minister who responded to this question in this way, "œUnction? I don´t knows what it is, but I knows what it ain´t!" His point is, he knew when God was present "œin demonstration and power," and when he was simply offering the effusions of his own mind. We who have preached understand by our own experience what he was getting at. I´m not adept at explaining what it is, but I know what it isn´t. And I know when it´s sensibly present, and I know sometimes sensibly when it´s not. And sometimes, unction is present and I never knew it in the act of preaching. But the point is, whether sensibly conscious of unction or sensibly unconscious of it, we can be sure that when we remain faithful to the word of the King, he will accomplish the purpose for which he has sent His word, for God gives seed to His sower and bread to the eater.

Now, the parable of the sower, as well as historical instances from the Gospels, make it abundantly clear that there is also with the preached word, the presence of the activity of the evil one (Mk 4:15; Lk 8:12, Matt 13:19; Mk 1:21ff; Lk 4:31ff). From the accounts of demonic activity in opposition to our Lord´s own preaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath, we learn that the devil is no respecter of sacred days, sacred places, sacred scripture or sacred people. And whenever Christ is present by His Spirit in His word, one can be sure that the devil will in some measure, either directly or indirectly, perhaps through medium of one of his minions, be there to oppose it. This being true, I think it establishes the need for the presence of Christ by His Spirit to work not only through His servant, but in the hearts of those who would hear. 

Being a preacher, this subject is not only of great interest to me, but vital as a practitioner. But I need to stop now, other duties demand my attention...

DTK


----------



## Scott (Nov 3, 2005)

John are you talkign about the exposition as well as the scripture that is actually read?


----------



## JohnV (Nov 3, 2005)

Scott:

Yes, I am. Though the exposition is done through weak men, yet it is the way that God has chosen to feed the sheep from His Word. To say it differently, not to heed the preaching of the Word is to ignore God Himself. 

But this goes for the preacher many times more than for the listener, since he is the one through whom the Spirit feeds His sheep. If he neglects his call, in order to feed the sheep with his own feed instead, then he is robbing not only himself, but also those whom he was commissioned to feed. 

Preaching is a calling, a gift. It isn't a job that you get trained for, and then apply for position. If the Spirit does not call one to it, it is wrong to take that office upon oneself. 

Yet each one of us, whether in office or not, is commanded by that same Spirit not to heed false prophets and teachings. So a minister is subject not only to the ruling elders, but also is accountable to the congregation. And its not a matter of allowable opinion within the standards of the church, for that is not his calling. The WCF, for example, is the confessional, constitutional, ecclesiastical limitation put upon what is and is not properly derived from Scripture, accumulatd from all the centuries of doctrinal struggle in church history. If some things are not clear, then they are not God's Word, since His Word is perspicuous and sufficient. And the peacher has no business making up God's mind for Him on matters He did not reveal. 

I personally take a pretty strong stand on this, as not being an office-bearer in the church. Adding to the Word is a breaking of God's Word, which the Word explicitly condemns, along with adding curses upon the one who does this. Preaching is not a licence to theologize, but to preach established, approved theology.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 3, 2005)

From the 2nd Helvetic Confession (the French Protestant/Heugenot confession)


> *The Preaching of the Word of God Is the Word of God.*
> Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe the the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good.
> 
> Neither do we think that therefore the outward preaching is to be thought as fruitless because the instruction in true religion depends on the inward illumination of the Spirit, or because it is written "And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor . . ., for they shall all know me" (Jer. 31:34), and "Neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth" (1 Cor. 3:7). For although "no one can come to Christ unless he be drawn by the Father" (John 6:4), and unless the Holy Spirit inwardly illumines him, yet we know that it is surely the will of God that his Word should be preached outwardly also. God could indeed, by his Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of an angel, without the ministry of St. Peter, have taught Cornelius in the Acts; but, nevertheless, he refers him to Peter, of whom the angel speaking says, "He shall tell you what you ought to do."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> From the 2nd Helvetic Confession (the French Protestant/Heugenot confession)
> 
> 
> ...



Excellent quote!! 

(However, just to clarify, the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566 was the work of Bullinger and is considered the Swiss-German Confession as opposed to the French (Huguenot) Confession of Faith of 1559 prepared by Calvin.)


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 4, 2005)

Thanks for the correction, VH.

Of course. Helvetia is the old Latin name for Switzerland. I should have remembered. Do you know if any French speaking churches used it? Perhaps in Switzerland? (I'm trying to figure out how I associated it with the French in my mind.)

[Edited on 11-4-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 4, 2005)

"The word is like the sun in the firmament. Thereunto it is compared at large Ps. 19. It hath virtually in it all spiritual light and heat. But the preaching of the word is as the motion and beams of the sun, which actually and effectually communicate that light and heat unto all creatures, which are virtually in the sun itself." John Owen


----------



## Scott (Nov 4, 2005)

Thanks. All helpful. Another question. If the preaching of the Word is the Word, then how does that not intrude into the doctrine of sola scriptura?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Thanks for the correction, VH.
> 
> Of course. Helvetia is the old Latin name for Switzerland. I should have remembered. Do you know if any French speaking churches used it? Perhaps in Switzerland? (I'm trying to figure out how I associated it with the French in my mind.)
> ...



That's an interesting question, Bruce. It seems that some other churches, included the French Reformed Church, did "adopt" the Second Helvetic Confession at some point, but I'm not clear on what exactly was meant by "adopt" and how adopting the SVC impacted the previously binding French Confession of 1559. 



> At the same time the Swiss again felt the need for a new common confession, and a conference was called to meet in Zurich. Bullinger's confession was considered and a few changes were made in it, to which Bullinger consented. It was published in German and Latin on March 12, 1566, and had the approval of Berne, Biel, Geneva, The Grisons, Muhlhausen, Schaffhausen, and St. Gall. This Second Helvetic Confession (Confessio Helvetica posterior) was soon translated into a number of languages ranging from French to Arabic and was adopted by the Scots in 1566, the Hungarians in 1567, the French in 1571, and the Poles in 1578.



Certainly, the French and Swiss Protestants made common cause given that Calvin was French-born but lived in Switzerland and was friends with Bullinger and other German Reformed leaders. That unity must have been a bulwark during the Counter-Reformation era.


----------



## DTK (Nov 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Another question. If the preaching of the Word is the Word, then how does that not intrude into the doctrine of sola scriptura?


Scott,

Here are three quotes from Muller that I think help to answer your question, the third of which I think answers your question directly. I thought about simply posting the last quote by itself, but the two previous quotes were too helpful (at least in my opinion) to ignore. Given your interest in this area, you really ought to purchase these four volumes by Muller, especially Volume two.

*Richard A. Muller:* The Word of God provides the _universalis Christi ecclesia_ with "œall things fully expounded which belong to a saving faith, and also to the framing of a life acceptable to God." For this reason, the text itself commands that nothing be taken away and nothing added to its message (cf. Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19). Scripture, therefore, provides a standard for "œtrue wisdom and piety, the reformation and government of churches, instruction in all duties of piety, and, finally, the confirmation and condemnation of doctrines and the confutation of all errors."
Having presented Scripture as the foundation of Christian faith and practice, Bullinger moves on to what is a virtually unique series of paragraphs in the Reformed confessional literature: the role of the Word preached in the life of the church. When the biblical Word is preached, Bullinger argues, "œthe Word of God itself is announced and received by the faithful" "” or as the marginal summaries given in Niemeyer read, "œScriptura verbum Dei est. . . . Praedicatio verbi Dei est verbum Dei." No other Word of God is to be expected by Christians, and this Word, as preached, is to be regarded as authoritative despite limitations inherent in the means. Echoing Augustine on the Sacraments, Bullinger insists that the Word, not the minister, ought to be our proper object: "œeven if he is evil and a sinner, the Word of God remains nonetheless good and true."
The importance of this relation of Scripture as living Word to preaching, albeit unique in the confessional literature, was not lost on later Reformed dogmaticians. Indeed, Bullinger´s discussion of the issue in a confession that enjoyed such broad and continued use in the Reformed churches seems to have guaranteed the dogmatic importance of the topic. The later theological systems remained in contact with the confessional norms "” despite their technical and disputative character "” with the life of the church. Both the living character of the inscripturated Word and the importance of lively exposition remain topics dealt with in theological system even during the high and late orthodox eras.
Bullinger also takes pains to state that this "œoutward preaching" ought not to be opposed to or devalued by a doctrine of the inward illumination of the Spirit. It is true that effective "œinstruction in religion" depends on the inward working of the Spirit, but that inward working is usually conjoined with appointed, external means. Thus, the teaching of Paul that "œfaith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom. 10:17) provides a normative statement for Christian practice, despite the possible exception of a purely inward and spiritual work of God. "œWe recognize," writes Bullinger, "œthat God can sometimes also also illuminate human beings, whomever and whenever he chooses, without an external ministry, for such is his power. We speak, however, of the usual practice of instruction, bestowed on us by God both by commandment and by example." The point draws on the scholastic distinction between absolute and ordained power: _de potentia absoluta_ God may work without means, but _de potential ordinata_ God covenants to work means that he has appointed. Richard A. Muller, _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725: Vol. II, Holy Scripture, The Cognitive Foundation of Theology_, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), pp. 83-84.

*Richard A. Muller:* In the present of the church, both the prophetic Word and the preaching "” indeed, the person! "” of Christ are mediated by the scriptural testimony: the living biblical Word provides the necessary access to the message of salvation and to the covenantal history in which it is lodged. Richard A. Muller, _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725: Vol. II, Holy Scripture, The Cognitive Foundation of Theology_, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), pp. 83-99.

*Richard A. Muller:* It is important that the famous marginal title in the _Second Helvetic Confession_, "œPraedicatio verbi Dei est verbum Dei." "” "œthe preaching of the word of God is the word of God" "” be understood in the context provided by these distinctions between the eternal Word and the Word written. The statement is typically taken as an indication of the incredibly dynamic character of the Reformers´ doctrine of Scripture and of their existential emphasis upon preaching, but it is also clear that it in no way stands over against a fairly strict identification of Scripture as Word of God and, indeed, rests on such an identification. Thus, the previous marginal title reads, "œScriptura verbum Dei est." Bullinger insists that preaching the "œwords" was the Word because he was convinced that the text of Scripture was not merely a witness, but, because of the work of God and the spirit of God, a form of Word itself. It was surely not the intention of the confession to claim either that every sermon ought to be regarded as divine Word or that the moment of revelation that produced the words of the text was somehow automatically re-presented in the pulpit through the activity of the clergy: the confession simply indicates the permanent and authoritative relation between the words of the text and the Word of God that they convey. Richard A. Muller, _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725: Vol. II, Holy Scripture, The Cognitive Foundation of Theology_, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), p. 187.

DTK


----------



## Scott (Nov 4, 2005)

Thanks. I don't understand this: "Bullinger insists that preaching the "œwords" was the Word because he was convinced that the text of Scripture was not merely a witness, but, because of the work of God and the spirit of God, a form of Word itself."

Can anyone help me better understand what this means?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 4, 2005)

I think the simplest way to understand it is: that in a Holy Ghost demonstration of power (1 Cor. 2:1, 4), when the Word written is proclaimed aloud by an appointed herald, since the promise is attached, when that Word is faithfully and accurately proclaimed a _form_ of the Word is actually present in the preaching. This is not inspiration, such as the prophets or apostles or biblical writers experienced. Rather it is proclamation to be received "as it is in Truth, the Word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).

It's not just that we hand someone a Bible, and say, "Look there--the Word of God." And so it exists as a witness, all by itself. In a carnal way (by way of analogy) a skillful lecturer can make the dry witness of a textbook "come alive." How much more, when the "living and active" Word is proclaimed by a man full of faith and the Holy Ghost (Acts 6:5; 7:55)?


----------



## DTK (Nov 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I think the simplest way to understand it is: that in a Holy Ghost demonstration of power (1 Cor. 2:1, 4), when the Word written is proclaimed aloud by an appointed herald, since the promise is attached, when that Word is faithfully and accurately proclaimed a _form_ of the Word is actually present in the preaching. This is not inspiration, such as the prophets or apostles or biblical writers experienced. Rather it is proclamation to be received "as it is in Truth, the Word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).
> 
> It's not just that we hand someone a Bible, and say, "Look there--the Word of God." And so it exists as a witness, all by itself. In a carnal way (by way of analogy) a skillful lecturer can make the dry witness of a textbook "come alive." How much more, when the "living and active" Word is proclaimed by a man full of faith and the Holy Ghost (Acts 6:5; 7:55)?



Pastor Buchanan,

Carefully nuanced, and very well put.

DTK


----------

