Does this article propagate idolatry?

[Tarheel Baptist]

Alayman:
As I suspected of him, and he recently confirmed in explanation, he had turned your methodology against you at that point, not taking you seriously because you didn't offer sincere dialuge and weren't intellectually honest with him.

I took a page from Rush Limbaugh.....he illustrates the absurd by being absurd...

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]So you earlier said that:

...the epithet of "bibliolatry" has been lobbed at those who simply hold to the longheld accepted evangelical tradition of 66 books...

Now you say it was:

...to those who were holding to the traditional view of inerrancy...

Are you again moving goalposts or were you wrong or can you not make up your mind or what?

(And, FTR, it wasn't about either canon or inerrancy. Do you even know what the point of contention in this conversation is?)

I posted a link to an article by John MacArthur.
You said he elevated the Bible to a position of worship.[/quote]

He did. I actually cited several examples. JM said Scripture is our greatest possession. Idolatry. Jesus is our greatest possession. He said Scripture delivers us. Idolatry. Christ alone.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]MacArthur, the noted idolater...who holds the same position as we* do...the historic evangelical position.[/quote]

Idolatry? Sure....all of us are idolators to some degree or another. Historic evangelical position? Nope.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]A logical conclusion....the generic 'we' worship the Bible.....[/quote]

Confession is good for the soul, no?

(Just so you recognize that the basis of my claim wasn't because of an inerrant view of Scripture...you can be a radical hyper-literalist and not make the statements that you have claimed elevating Scripture to God-hood.)

 

[rsc2a]

Alayman:
As I suspected of him, and he recently confirmed in explanation, he had turned your methodology against you at that point, not taking you seriously because you didn't offer sincere dialuge and weren't intellectually honest with him.

I took a page from Rush Limbaugh.....he illustrates the absurd by being absurd...

That would explain why you still insist on an absurd view that Scripture is the only way we can learn about God in spite of repeated attempts to get you to revise your statement...

 

[ALAYMAN]

Hacks like Wayne Grudem, R.C. Sproul, and a host of other no-names have categorically stated the mainstream historic position of the evangelical community to be that Scripture is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.  I could literally cite dozens (maybe hundreds) of other similar low-brow theologians <ahem>, but at the end of the day we should all bow to the enormous hubris, erm, I mean vast wealth of Biblical knowledge of the great rsc2a and admit that creeds, tradition, experience, pizza with anchovies, sex, and a host of other things are really our authority.


Or maybe not.

I'll leave this discussion with another quote that demonstrates the folly of such notions which attempt to undermine the authority of Scriptures....

W. A. Criswell, pastor emeritus at First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, expresses a proper Christian attitude toward the authority of God’s Word when he writes as follows: "The Bible is our final court of appeal. We have no other final and ultimate authority than the Bible. It is not a question of what I think or what anyone else thinks. The question is always, ‘What saith the Scriptures?’ Therefore, it is for me to bow to God’s authority, to submit to His Word, and to obey His teachings." The late David Nettleton, also a longtime Baptist pastor, adds the following on this point: "We dare not look for authority to human experience, scholarship, history, science, sociology, or anything else but the Bible. All else is fallible and changing. The Bible stands."

Religious liberals deny the doctrine of the supreme and final authority of the Holy Scriptures by subordinating the Bible to either human reason or religious experience. Some religious liberals elevate human reason to the place of final authority and are willing to accept as true and authoritative only those things that seem reasonable according to human standards or that are in agreement with their own subjective way of thinking. This, of course, rules out the whole realm of the supernatural and miraculous. Other religious liberals elevate religious experience to the place of final authority and are willing to accept as true and authoritative only those things that they have experienced to be true in their own lives. Consequently, reason, in the former case, and experience, in the latter case, become more authoritative and binding than God’s Holy Word.

This rationalistic, subjectivistic approach to the Bible robs it of its supreme and final authority and places man in a position of being his own final authority and, therefore, his own god. Under liberalism, every man ends up believing and doing that which seems right in his own eyes, which inevitably leads to chaos, confusion, calamity, and catastrophe.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Hacks like Wayne Grudem, R.C. Sproul, and a host of other no-names have categorically stated the mainstream historic position of the evangelical community to be that Scripture is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.  I could literally cite dozens (maybe hundreds) of other similar low-brow theologians <ahem>, but at the end of the day we should all bow to the enormous hubris, erm, I mean vast wealth of Biblical knowledge of the great rsc2a and admit that creeds, tradition, experience, pizza with anchovies, sex, and a host of other things are really our authority.


Or maybe not.

I'll leave this discussion with another quote that demonstrates the folly of such notions which attempt to undermine the authority of Scriptures....

W. A. Criswell, pastor emeritus at First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, expresses a proper Christian attitude toward the authority of God’s Word when he writes as follows: "The Bible is our final court of appeal. We have no other final and ultimate authority than the Bible. It is not a question of what I think or what anyone else thinks. The question is always, ‘What saith the Scriptures?’ Therefore, it is for me to bow to God’s authority, to submit to His Word, and to obey His teachings." The late David Nettleton, also a longtime Baptist pastor, adds the following on this point: "We dare not look for authority to human experience, scholarship, history, science, sociology, or anything else but the Bible. All else is fallible and changing. The Bible stands."

Religious liberals deny the doctrine of the supreme and final authority of the Holy Scriptures by subordinating the Bible to either human reason or religious experience. Some religious liberals elevate human reason to the place of final authority and are willing to accept as true and authoritative only those things that seem reasonable according to human standards or that are in agreement with their own subjective way of thinking. This, of course, rules out the whole realm of the supernatural and miraculous. Other religious liberals elevate religious experience to the place of final authority and are willing to accept as true and authoritative only those things that they have experienced to be true in their own lives. Consequently, reason, in the former case, and experience, in the latter case, become more authoritative and binding than God’s Holy Word.

This rationalistic, subjectivistic approach to the Bible robs it of its supreme and final authority and places man in a position of being his own final authority and, therefore, his own god. Under liberalism, every man ends up believing and doing that which seems right in his own eyes, which inevitably leads to chaos, confusion, calamity, and catastrophe.

Nobody is debating  what the "mainstream historic position of the evangelical community" on the matter is, what we are debating is whether or not "the mainstream historic position of the evangelical community" is correct in its assessment.

Like I told TB, those who accept the 66-book canon do so by the exact same means people accept other religous works. They all can find historical apologists for their belief system. Many claim to be directly from God Himself (without proof, of course). Many claim divine inspiration.

Without the authority of any canon (not just the 66-book canon), the venom is gone from the fangs of the serpent; that meaning that people who use the Bible as ultimate authority as a bully pulpit (I'm NOT saying "as a way of direction in life") lose the power they are trying to wield on the unsuspecting, innocent and sincere.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Nobody is debating  what the "mainstream historic position of the evangelical community"...

In rsc2a's last post in this thread....


Idolatry? Sure....all of us are idolators to some degree or another. Historic evangelical position? Nope.

Like I told TB, those who accept the 66-book canon do so by the exact same means people accept other religous works. They all can find historical apologists for their belief system. Many claim to be directly from God Himself (without proof, of course). Many claim divine inspiration.

How would you go about accepting ANY claim that ANY religious book is inspired of God and authoritative in any sense?  How would you validate ANY writing as being breathed out by God?

Without the authority of any canon (not just the 66-book canon), the venom is gone from the fangs of the serpent; that meaning that people who use the Bible as ultimate authority as a bully pulpit (I'm NOT saying "as a way of direction in life") lose the power they are trying to wield on the unsuspecting, innocent and sincere.

You have no authority to direct a "way of life" if you don't acknowledge God has spoken to mankind at some point in time, except your own opinion.  It comes down to whether you believe the God that you claim exists has revealed Himself in written form.  If so, which written form, and how do you prove it. 

 

[Castor Muscular]

If so, which written form, and how do you prove it.

You can't prove any work is divinely inspired.  But you can subject all documents of antiquity to various tests to determine the document's reliability, historicity, etc.  And then you go where the evidence takes you.  In some cases, the evidence supports your faith that the document is divinely inspired.  But it doesn't PROVE it. 

EDITED TO ADD:

From what I've read, there is ample evidence that the Quran/Koran/whatever is a reliable document of antiquity.  But that doesn't mean it's divinely inspired.  The errors in it testify against it being divinely inspired.  For example, it attempts to discredit the trinity, but does so by speaking against the Father, Mother, and Son as the trinity.  As luck would have it, Mohammed was exposed to that error by a church that had the trinity wrong.  That testifies to the fact that Mohammed, not "Allah", wrote the words.  Allah, if he existed, would have known better and would have referred to the trinity correctly. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

If so, which written form, and how do you prove it.

You can't prove any work is divinely inspired.  But you can subject all documents of antiquity to various tests to determine the document's reliability, historicity, etc.  And then you go where the evidence takes you.  In some cases, the evidence supports your faith that the document is divinely inspired.  But it doesn't PROVE it. 

Without addressing the issue of proving something to absolute certainty (in the mathematical "proof" sense) I'll just say what I said earlier in the thread...


that whatever Scripture is identified and determined to be, rsc2a is contending that it <the Scriptures> is still not a final authority in the faith and practice of the Christian (even going so far as to call such belief "bibliolatry").  That's a simply preposterous notion on its face.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Without addressing the issue of proving something to absolute certainty (in the mathematical "proof" sense) I'll just say what I said earlier in the thread...


that whatever Scripture is identified and determined to be, rsc2a is contending that it <the Scriptures> is still not a final authority in the faith and practice of the Christian (even going so far as to call such belief "bibliolatry").  That's a simply preposterous notion on its face.[/quote]

I am absolutely contending that. Scripture is assuredly not our final authority in anything. And, I wouldn't say "either human reason or religious experience" (to use your quote) is our final authority either. God, and only God, is our final authority in all things. Anyone who would deny this has elevated that other authority (which may, in fact, be authoritative) to the place of God. God is bigger, grander, and more authoritative than anything you could bind in leather and keep in your car.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I am absolutely contending that. Scripture is assuredly not our final authority in anything. And, I wouldn't say "either human reason or religious experience" (to use your quote) is our final authority either. God, and only God, is our final authority in all things. Anyone who would deny this has elevated that other authority (which may, in fact, be authoritative) to the place of God. God is bigger, grander, and more authoritative than anything you could bind in leather and keep in your car.

It's logically inconsistent to separate God (and His authority) from His word.  You may disagree as to what constitutes His word, or you may claim He hasn't revealed Himself in written form,  but to claim that His revealed and inscripturated word are on different planes of authority is simply incoherent gobblety-gook and a false dichotomy.

 

[rsc2a]

I am absolutely contending that. Scripture is assuredly not our final authority in anything. And, I wouldn't say "either human reason or religious experience" (to use your quote) is our final authority either. God, and only God, is our final authority in all things. Anyone who would deny this has elevated that other authority (which may, in fact, be authoritative) to the place of God. God is bigger, grander, and more authoritative than anything you could bind in leather and keep in your car.

It's logically inconsistent to separate God (and His authority) from His word.

You know what else I separate? State troopers and stop signs.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]You may disagree as to what constitutes His word, or you may claim He hasn't revealed Himself in written form,  but to claim that His revealed and inscripturated word are on different planes of authority is simply incoherent gobblety-gook and a false dichotomy.[/quote]

Yes...refusing to elevate God's revelation to the status of Godhood is clearly nuts. Claiming that the Spirit, and not Scripture, transforms us is clearly nuts. Claiming that Jesus delivers us, and not Scripture, is clearly nuts.  :

 

[rsc2a]

Hacks like Wayne Grudem, R.C. Sproul, and a host of other no-names have categorically stated the mainstream historic position of the evangelical community to be that Scripture is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice...

..the Bible alone is the only authority that can bind the conscience of a person absolutely because it is the only authority that carries with it the intrinsic authority of God Himself. - R.C. Sproul

Notice where Sproul places the ultimate authority. Why is Scripture authoritative? Because God has granted it. Who (or what) is the ultimate and final authority according to Sproul?

Anyone else I need to look up or are you going to keep making positions up for people?

 

[Castor Muscular]

You know what else I separate? State troopers and stop signs.

Which reminds me of a joke (in fact, I think I first read the joke somewhere on this forum). 

A New York lawyer is driving through Texas, and comes to a rolling stop at a stop sign.  Soon afterward, a Texas cop pulls him over and asks for his license and registration. 

The lawyer says, "What did you pull me over for?"

The cop says, "You failed to stop at the stop sign."

The lawyer figures he'll out-argue this cop and avoid a ticket.  "I slowed down, saw there was no oncoming traffic, and I proceeded.  What's the difference?  What I did was perfectly safe.  If you can demonstrate to me that there's a meaningful difference between slowing down and stopping, then I'll give you my documents and you can write me a ticket."

The cop says, "Fine.  Step out of the car, please."

The lawyer gets out of the car.  The cop pulls out his night stick and starts beating the lawyer.  Then he says, "Okay, now... would you like me to stop?  Or would you like me to slow down?"

 

[ALAYMAN]

You know what else I separate? State troopers and stop signs.

But you can't separate a State Trooper from his being anymore than you can say a person is only a body OR only a soul.  God, in his essence, is master and Lord.  When He speaks, it comprises his legitimate authority.  Your analogy is bogus, apples to oranges.

Yes...refusing to elevate God's revelation to the status of Godhood is clearly nuts.

God's revelation is a generic term.  He has revealed himself in word, in Person, and nature.

Claiming that the Spirit, and not Scripture, transforms us is clearly nuts.

The word claims that the Spirit uses the word to transform us, so clearly ye know not the Scriptures.

Claiming that Jesus delivers us, and not Scripture,

Scripture claims for itself to be the power of God unto salvation.  Ye do err again.

is clearly nuts.  :

Nuts, or beguiled by the spirit of the age.

 

[ALAYMAN]

..the Bible alone is the only authority that can bind the conscience of a person absolutely because it is the only authority that carries with it the intrinsic authority of God Himself. - R.C. Sproul

Notice where Sproul places the ultimate authority. Why is Scripture authoritative? Because God has granted it. Who (or what) is the ultimate and final authority according to Sproul?

Anyone else I need to look up or are you going to keep making positions up for people?

Like I said, I listen to Sproul everyday.  You're no Sproul.  He is found of making the fine distinctions but making sure that distinctions don't amount to undue separations.  You are crossing that line.  Sproul's statement is tantamount to saying that God's authority is in the word as it is revealed to us, and without it we would not know His imperatives.  He is not separating the word from the person in regards to authoritative declarations to mankind, but you are.

 

[rsc2a]

You know what else I separate? State troopers and stop signs.

But you can't separate a State Trooper from his being anymore than you can say a person is only a body OR only a soul.  God, in his essence, is master and Lord.  When He speaks, it comprises his legitimate authority.  Your analogy is bogus, apples to oranges.

You are not claiming that Scripture is God itself? No reason to pretend that you worship Scripture anymore since you plainly stated it here.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Yes...refusing to elevate God's revelation to the status of Godhood is clearly nuts.

God's revelation is a generic term.  He has revealed himself in word, in Person, and nature.[/quote]

Whoo hoo! So all three are authoritative insomuch as He has revealed Himself (which would be perfectly, but not necessarily completely, in two of the three cases).

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Claiming that the Spirit, and not Scripture, transforms us is clearly nuts.

The word claims that the Spirit uses the word to transform us, so clearly ye know not the Scriptures.[/quote]

You just said it...what (or Who) does the transforming? Scripture, by itself, is just words on a page. The Holy Spirit, by Himself, is fully God.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Claiming that Jesus delivers us, and not Scripture,

Scripture claims for itself to be the power of God unto salvation.  Ye do err again.[/quote]

"The gospel", not "Scripture".

 

[rsc2a]

..the Bible alone is the only authority that can bind the conscience of a person absolutely because it is the only authority that carries with it the intrinsic authority of God Himself. - R.C. Sproul

Notice where Sproul places the ultimate authority. Why is Scripture authoritative? Because God has granted it. Who (or what) is the ultimate and final authority according to Sproul?

Anyone else I need to look up or are you going to keep making positions up for people?

Like I said, I listen to Sproul everyday.  You're no Sproul.

I don't pretend to be Sproul. I'd rather be myself. God has created each of us as individuals.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]He is found of making the fine distinctions but making sure that distinctions don't amount to undue separations.  You are crossing that line.[/quote]

He is pretty clear about drawing a distinction here.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Sproul's statement is tantamount to saying that God's authority is in the word as it is revealed to us, and without it we would not know His imperatives.[/quote]

Absolutely!

[quote author=ALAYMAN]He is not separating the word from the person in regards to authoritative declarations to mankind, but you are.[/quote]

Actually, he very explicitly did just that. Notice the "because".

 

[Castor Muscular]

It's logically inconsistent to separate God (and His authority) from His word.  You may disagree as to what constitutes His word, or you may claim He hasn't revealed Himself in written form,  but to claim that His revealed and inscripturated word are on different planes of authority is simply incoherent gobblety-gook and a false dichotomy.

It is not logically inconsistent.  The written word we have today contains errors.  Minor errors, but errors.  God does not contain errors. 

The written word we have today is a collection of books chosen by men, and men just as Godly as those who chose the 66 books disagree on which books belong in the canon.  God did not decree that these 66 books are his complete and perfect word.  As difficult as it may be for you, consider the possibility that one - just ONE book doesn't really belong in the Bible, or one book that was rejected is actually inspired and is missing.  In that case, you had better be darn sure to separate God from you think his word is, because they don't match up. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

From what I've read, there is ample evidence that the Quran/Koran/whatever is a reliable document of antiquity.  But that doesn't mean it's divinely inspired.  The errors in it testify against it being divinely inspired.  For example, it attempts to discredit the trinity, but does so by speaking against the Father, Mother, and Son as the trinity.  As luck would have it, Mohammed was exposed to that error by a church that had the trinity wrong.  That testifies to the fact that Mohammed, not "Allah", wrote the words.  Allah, if he existed, would have known better and would have referred to the trinity correctly.

FYI, I know nothing of the Muslim texts so this statement in no way is meant to support any of it. However, Ruwach Quodesh (Spirit-set apart) is translated as Holy Spirit in our Bibles. Ruwach (Spirit) is actually feminine in Hebrew noun tense (though neuter in Greek) from what I understand. And God DOES have female characteristics according to the OT. Examples such as "gathering under wings" and even at creation when male AND female were created in the image of God. So there is some logic (whether right or not, I don't know) that there would be a Heavenly Father, a Heavenly Mother and the Son of God.

 

[Castor Muscular]

From what I've read, there is ample evidence that the Quran/Koran/whatever is a reliable document of antiquity.  But that doesn't mean it's divinely inspired.  The errors in it testify against it being divinely inspired.  For example, it attempts to discredit the trinity, but does so by speaking against the Father, Mother, and Son as the trinity.  As luck would have it, Mohammed was exposed to that error by a church that had the trinity wrong.  That testifies to the fact that Mohammed, not "Allah", wrote the words.  Allah, if he existed, would have known better and would have referred to the trinity correctly.

FYI, I know nothing of the Muslim texts so this statement in no way is meant to support any of it. However, Ruwach Quodesh (Spirit-set apart) is translated as Holy Spirit in our Bibles. Ruwach (Spirit) is actually feminine in Hebrew noun tense (though neuter in Greek) from what I understand. And God DOES have female characteristics according to the OT. Examples such as "gathering under wings" and even at creation when male AND female were created in the image of God. So there is some logic (whether right or not, I don't know) that there would be a Heavenly Father, a Heavenly Mother and the Son of God.

Well, what I read was second hand, so I can't confirm or refute it.  But I'm pretty sure the reference was to Mary as being the Mother, not the Holy Spirit.  I read this long list of points of evidence against the Koran way back in 2001 or so, so it's all fuzzy now.