Does this article propagate idolatry?

[ALAYMAN]

"God's Word" is not a set of words found on paper, written in ink. "God's Word" is His character, His promises, His laws. Now putting that word on paper might be a means of revelation but that is not the authority. So those who want to follow God must try to figure out what exactly in what canon is what He actually said and distinguish what was interpolated thoughout history. IOW, God's Word and any canon are not the same at all. The canon may reveal some of "God's Word" but cannot all be "God's Word" nor can it contain ALL of "God's Word".

How do you know ANY of that?  You know it because of the authoritative word that God provided for you.

Your position of "contains God's word" is a notoriously liberal position, evangelically speaking.  Like TB has stated, we'll see in a hundered years.  At this point, my position resides in a strong tradition and reasonable logical inference, and I'm comfortable with it.  Your position is based much more in subjectivity, and your own reasoning ability.

And it seems to me that yours is a tremendous arrogant position to maintain.  You seem to be able to discern what *is* and what is *not* God's word within the Bible.  I would've figured that to be above most mere mortal's paygrade.

 

[ALAYMAN]

....(And, I've come to realize that your name-calling is pretty much what you do when you don't actually have a reasonable rebuttal. ....

... Why is it that whenever you cannot adequately explain yourself in a manner that makes any type of logical sense, I suddenly become "obtuse" and an "idiot"?

You haven't just "suddenly" become obtuse, it's obviously a finely honed craft, and one that has stumped numerous good men of this forum to the point where they have begun to ignore you  and your anemic argumentation too.

 

[ALAYMAN]

  We're talking about the sacrosanct assumption that the 66 books of the canon are God-breathed. 

no, rsc2a is not talking about the canon, he's talking about whatever it is that *is* God-breathed is not the Christian's final authority in the matters of faith and practice.  That notion is contrary to accepted mainstream evangelical tradition. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

....Look at the KJV for II Timothy 3:16:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The KJV shows that the word "is" in italics meaning both times, it was put in by the translators and not found in the original text. In essence, the original does not say that all Scripture IS God-breathed but rather all Scripture God breathes is profitable....

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

Whatever Scripture actually is, whether the 66 books, the Apocrypha, the prophets + law, or only the red letter, rsc2a is saying that to make the claim that such rightly defined Scriptures are the Christian's final authority is enough to make one a bibliolator.  Hogwash.

I believe he is talking about using the "rule of law" as the main authority rather than the King who proclaimed it. With that, I agree with him.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I believe he is talking about using the "rule of law" as the main authority rather than the King who proclaimed it. With that, I agree with him.

Birds of a feather, and all that.


Seriously, the concept that a King has authority but his pronouncements/decrees do not, is well, nutty than a squirrel turd.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

"God's Word" is not a set of words found on paper, written in ink. "God's Word" is His character, His promises, His laws. Now putting that word on paper might be a means of revelation but that is not the authority. So those who want to follow God must try to figure out what exactly in what canon is what He actually said and distinguish what was interpolated thoughout history. IOW, God's Word and any canon are not the same at all. The canon may reveal some of "God's Word" but cannot all be "God's Word" nor can it contain ALL of "God's Word".

How do you know ANY of that?  You know it because of the authoritative word that God provided for you.

Your position of "contains God's word" is a notoriously liberal position, evangelically speaking.  Like TB has stated, we'll see in a hundered years.  At this point, my position resides in a strong tradition and reasonable logical inference, and I'm comfortable with it.  Your position is based much more in subjectivity, and your own reasoning ability.

And it seems to me that yours is a tremendous arrogant position to maintain.  You seem to be able to discern what *is* and what is *not* God's word within the Bible.  I would've figured that to be above most mere mortal's paygrade.

It is above mortal paygrade. hence Jesus sent the Holy Spirit.

Jesus:

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

In essence, the Holy Spirit is "red-letter".

Is my position really based on subjectivity? Absolutely. But so is yours. If you feel comfortable with relying on "strong tradition and reasonable logical inference" and feel no need to test the spirits, that is your choice. But you (like I) have no "doctrinal mandate" to believe 100% in any canon.

God purposely left false prophets in the land of Israel because:

...the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

It is not unreasonable for there to be falsities left in canon by God to test us. And when we give the canon final authority, it becomes a god. So like Israel needing to find false prophets and weed them out, we should do the same, whether the false prophets be living or dead, outside canon or inside. IMHO, of course.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I believe he is talking about using the "rule of law" as the main authority rather than the King who proclaimed it. With that, I agree with him.

Birds of a feather, and all that.


Seriously, the concept that a King has authority but his pronouncements/decrees do not, is well, nutty than a squirrel turd.

But when those decrees are interpolated with history, poetry, law, myths and legends, to accept the whole package is from the King in its entirety is even nuttier.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Seriously, the concept that a King has authority but his pronouncements/decrees do not, is well, nutty than a squirrel turd. [/quote]

It's probably a good thing no one has said that then, isn't it?

 

[Castor Muscular]

It is not unreasonable for there to be falsities left in canon by God to test us. And when we give the canon final authority, it becomes a god. So like Israel needing to find false prophets and weed them out, we should do the same, whether the false prophets be living or dead, outside canon or inside. IMHO, of course.

This is the root of the matter.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Seriously, the concept that a King has authority but his pronouncements/decrees do not, is well, nutty than a squirrel turd.

Those Jews who had regarded the Pentateuch to be the final authority were wrong, weren't they?  And yet the same King who proclaimed those laws later said to "turn the other check" rather than take "an eye for an eye". 

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Seriously, the concept that a King has authority but his pronouncements/decrees do not, is well, nutty than a squirrel turd.

It's probably a good thing no one has said that then, isn't it?
[/quote]

Really?  SC didn't just say that.  Pay closer attention.

It is above mortal paygrade. hence Jesus sent the Holy Spirit.

How do you know that?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Quote from: Smellin Coffee on Today at 12:53:51 PM
It is not unreasonable for there to be falsities left in canon by God to test us. And when we give the canon final authority, it becomes a god. So like Israel needing to find false prophets and weed them out, we should do the same, whether the false prophets be living or dead, outside canon or inside. IMHO, of course.

This is the root of the matter.


It's really not the root of the matter.  rsc2a is saying that to give final authority to ANY thing called Scripture is to make an idol out of Scripture.  Your final authority resides in your ability to discern what is Scripture and what is not, personally.  I trust the apostolic passing more than you, or myself.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Quote from: Smellin Coffee on Today at 12:53:51 PM
It is not unreasonable for there to be falsities left in canon by God to test us. And when we give the canon final authority, it becomes a god. So like Israel needing to find false prophets and weed them out, we should do the same, whether the false prophets be living or dead, outside canon or inside. IMHO, of course.

This is the root of the matter.


It's really not the root of the matter.  rsc2a is saying that to give final authority to ANY thing called Scripture is to make an idol out of Scripture.  Your final authority resides in your ability to discern what is Scripture and what is not, personally.  I trust the apostolic passing more than you, or myself.

Actually, your final authority is placed in the people who assembled the 66 book canon.  Technically, that's where you're putting your trust when it comes to the scriptures. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Those Jews who had regarded the Pentateuch to be the final authority were wrong, weren't they?

Those Jews would say "thus sayeth the Lord" and understand that the writings of Moses were their final court of arbitration.  It was only when the various sects of pharisees and such added their own opinions to the law that there came moral confusion.

  And yet the same King who proclaimed those laws later said to "turn the other check" rather than take "an eye for an eye".

Both were Scripture, however you hermeneutically reconcile them.

Actually, your final authority is placed in the people who assembled the 66 book canon.  Technically, that's where you're putting your trust when it comes to the scriptures. 

I rest in the people of God having the providence of God in the word of God, yes.  No shame in that, and certainly not any form of idolatry as falsely alleged.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Seriously, the concept that a King has authority but his pronouncements/decrees do not, is well, nutty than a squirrel turd.

It's probably a good thing no one has said that then, isn't it?

Really?  SC didn't just say that.  Pay closer attention.[/quote]

Yes...he did say that...after I wrote the other. Unless you are trapped in some type of reverse-time vortex, pay closer attention. (Actually, you should still pay closer attention...probably more attention then.)

 

[Castor Muscular]

I rest in the people of God having the providence of God in the word of God, yes.  No shame in that, and certainly not any form of idolatry as falsely alleged.

That's fine.  And I rest in the Spirit-given discernment.  No shame in that, either. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]I rest in the people of God having the providence of God in the word of God, yes.  No shame in that, and certainly not any form of idolatry as falsely alleged.[/quote]

Good thing no one has referred to this as idolatry either...

 

[ALAYMAN]

Yes...he did say that...after I wrote the other. Unless you are trapped in some type of reverse-time vortex, pay closer attention. (Actually, you should still pay closer attention...probably more attention then.)

He said...
I believe he is talking about using the "rule of law" as the main authority rather than the King who proclaimed it. With that, I agree with him.

clearly pointing to the fact that he agrees with all that you have said regarding "authority" to that point in the thread, oh slow-witted one.  His point was that he believes in the KINGs (Gods) final authority, but not "the rule of law" (Bible's) final authority.  That is what you've argued, and that is what he was talking about (before your latest posts), molasses-boy.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]I rest in the people of God having the providence of God in the word of God, yes.  No shame in that, and certainly not any form of idolatry as falsely alleged.

Good thing no one has referred to this as idolatry either...
[/quote]

Two different conversations going on here turtle-boy.  Castor (and SC) is referring to the canon, and in that conversation there has been allegations or implications of idolatry.  Then there's your bogus allegations regarding bibliolatry (a form of idolatry), which are not founded in any basis of fact whatsoever.

 

[rsc2a]

Yes...he did say that...after I wrote the other. Unless you are trapped in some type of reverse-time vortex, pay closer attention. (Actually, you should still pay closer attention...probably more attention then.)

He said...
I believe he is talking about using the "rule of law" as the main authority rather than the King who proclaimed it. With that, I agree with him.

clearly pointing to the fact that he agrees with all that you have said regarding "authority" to that point in the thread, oh slow-witted one.  His point was that he believes in the KINGs (Gods) final authority, but not "the rule of law" (Bible's) final authority.  That is what you've argued, and that is what he was talking about (before your latest posts), molasses-boy.

Yes....see that underlined word...

And, nowhere has he claimed that the "rule of law" doesn't itself have authority.

Alayman - Honest question: Do you even know what the problem we have with your stated stance is? What is your stated position and why do we vehemently disagree with it?