Are the epistles the very words of God?

[praise_yeshua]

Was Eschatology important to Calvin? Seems like if it was..... It'd be hard not to focus on Revelation.

Was history important to Calvin? Seems like if it was, it'd be hard not to focus on the historical books.

Was wisdom important to Calvin? Seems like if it was, it'd be hard not to focus on the wisdom literature.

In other words, if you have evidence of Calvin's motivation, present it. If not, just admit you're speculating, and move on.

1. Calvin prolifically dealt with Eschatology. Especially in dealing with the "Kingdom". Ignoring Revelation had to have been purposeful. You can't place any of the other books you mentioned in the same category of neglect.

2. Calvin wrote on Ezekiel, Daniel and Zechariah. No comments on Revelation. Just how can you write about Ezekial, Daniel and Zechariah and not point to Revelation?

3. Calvin implored Luther to include James in his canon. He didn't say a thing about Luther's comments on Revelation.

Question Calvin's motives? Sure. I'm not scared. You're the fan. Not me. I think he should have kept his mouth shut about most everything he wrote. Too young. Too naive. Too hungry for power. Power he abused.

 

[subllibrm]

By the way, there is some recent evidence to suggest that the # 666 is actually 616. Since you like "modern" commentary... I'll let you deal with the impact on eschatology.

Ruh roh! I live in the 616 area code. 

But it does make sense what with all the Dutch Reformed Calvinists around here.  8)

 

[FSSL]

Lol.... Avoid the tulip festival!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[T-Bone]

Haven't replied to this thread or the question in the title...so thought I would, then you all could get back to arguing....my response to the question is, yes they are.

Thank you very much!

 

[Bob H]

As I posted in another thread, there is a difference between prophecy and the epistles.  Like I pointed out before, the words of the prophets are explicitly said to originate from God, whereas (with a few exceptions) the words of the writers of the epistles are explicitly said to originate with the writers of the epistles:


Isaiah

1 The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

2 Hear me, you heavens! Listen, earth!
    For the Lord has spoken:


Revelation

1 The revelation from Jesus Christ...

2 ?To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:

These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands.

18 ?To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:

These are the words of the Son of God


1 Corinthians

1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,

2 To the church of God in Corinth


I often quote 1 Corinthians to support how an assembly works best. 

27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two?or at the most three?should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.  29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.

I take the above as advice.  I think it's good advice.  But I don't see why one should assume God is speaking here.  Paul is speaking here according to his wisdom.  He gets his wisdom from God.  But that's not the same thing as "This is what the LORD says regarding tongues and orderly speaking..."

What say you?  And can you back up your opinion with something other than a commentary from someone who happens to agree with you?

Why should we have to "back up" our opinion when you gave us yours and didn't back it up?.................................just wondering


another question: I take it you believe that the "gift of tongues" is still applicable for today. Am I right?


An OBTW question you don't have to answer. Do you believe Romans 9 is inspired or not?

 

[Sola scriptural]

there are places throughout pauls writings where he actually states that either what he is about to say.... or the statement he just made....is not a commandment of God but something being offered as his own thoughts

one example is 1st corinthians 7:6 .. where he says....

"but i speak this by permission, and not of commandment....."

i rmember wondering the very first time i ever read that if there might have been other places where paul spoke by permission rather than commandment and just didn;t express it as such.. ..... ....of course there are also places where he plainly states that what he is writing is a commandment of God...... ... but still...... lots of scripture in between that is not qualified by him either way.... yet appears to be written the same way his other thoughts written by permission were.... ......  so it can lead to some questions.... at least when i comes to pauls writing......

Paul was not only writing scripture, he was writing sermons for the congregations he helped established.  Like any GOOD pastor, he lets his congregation know his opinions verses "Thus saith The Lord".

 

[Bob H]

Lol.... Avoid the tulip festival!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanx for the warning. The "stake" thingie would seem to me to be a bit uncomfortable. 

 

[FSSL]

They have an annual dragging by the horses. Those Dutch know how to have fun!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

This was interesting to me that going back to John Knox, he recognized Marcion's influence in determining the canon but recognized that Marcion redacted parts of Luke and Acts. This led to another to try to "...write the canonical Acts of the Apostles in the same pattern in an attempt to reclaim both the Gospel of Luke and Apostle Paul from the Marcionites."

The blogger goes on to say:

Thus we see that Knox conceived of Marcion?s notions of scripture, canon, and authority as highly influential for later Christian perspectives. The ?Gospel and Apostle? format especially influenced not only the later formation of the Christian New Testament, but also directly influenced the redaction and writing of the proto-orthodox Luke-Acts.

The Marcion Problem: Canon and Literature Formation (Part I)

So a literal acceptance of the canon is actually not an acceptance of the original autographs, but rather acceptance of the revisions back and forth until something 'firm' seemed acceptable.