Does this article propagate idolatry?

[Tarheel Baptist]

I guess he was right:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2005/06/19/d-martyn-lloyd-jones-on-the-authority-of-scripture-we-must-choose-between-two-positions/

Tis clear from the quote below.....

The man in the street says, ‘What do these Christians know? It is only their opinion, they are just perpetrating something that the real thinkers and scientists have long since seen through and have stopped considering’. Such is the attitude of the man in the street! He does not listen any longer, he has lost all interest. The whole situation is one of drift; and very largely, I say, it is the direct and immediate outcome of the doubt that has been cast by the Church herself upon her only real authority. Men’s opinions have taken the place of God’s truth, and the people in their need are turning to the cults, and are listening to any false authority that offers itself to them.
We all therefore have to face this ultimate and final question: Do we accept the Bible as the Word of God, as the sole authority in all matters of faith and practice, or do we not?

...that Lloyd Jones was not only a heretic, but undoubtedly had Gnostic tendencies.

Jones is misplaced in that he doesn't drill down the idea that "God's truth" is a relative perception. The JW would say something different than the Mormon which would be different than the Catholic which would be different than the Reformed, etc. And all would be using the same texts in their opinions. So even "authority" of a text itself lends to interpretation. The problem is, all of those religious groups adhere to their own interpretations as being that of "authority". In essence, giving the Bible "final authority" gives us free reign to use it to support our own ideals. That isn't authority at all but rather a bully weapon.

So Jones' "God's truth" is really no different than the "men's opinions" he gripes about.

A hearty Book of Mormon  and New World Bible translation "Amen".

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I guess he was right:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2005/06/19/d-martyn-lloyd-jones-on-the-authority-of-scripture-we-must-choose-between-two-positions/

Tis clear from the quote below.....

The man in the street says, ‘What do these Christians know? It is only their opinion, they are just perpetrating something that the real thinkers and scientists have long since seen through and have stopped considering’. Such is the attitude of the man in the street! He does not listen any longer, he has lost all interest. The whole situation is one of drift; and very largely, I say, it is the direct and immediate outcome of the doubt that has been cast by the Church herself upon her only real authority. Men’s opinions have taken the place of God’s truth, and the people in their need are turning to the cults, and are listening to any false authority that offers itself to them.
We all therefore have to face this ultimate and final question: Do we accept the Bible as the Word of God, as the sole authority in all matters of faith and practice, or do we not?

...that Lloyd Jones was not only a heretic, but undoubtedly had Gnostic tendencies.

Jones is misplaced in that he doesn't drill down the idea that "God's truth" is a relative perception. The JW would say something different than the Mormon which would be different than the Catholic which would be different than the Reformed, etc. And all would be using the same texts in their opinions. So even "authority" of a text itself lends to interpretation. The problem is, all of those religious groups adhere to their own interpretations as being that of "authority". In essence, giving the Bible "final authority" gives us free reign to use it to support our own ideals. That isn't authority at all but rather a bully weapon.

So Jones' "God's truth" is really no different than the "men's opinions" he gripes about.

A hearty Book of Mormon  and New World Bible translation "Amen".

 

[Reformed Guy]

How great rsc2A art and SC...my two go to guys for Biblical apologetics.
;D

Funny thing is I agree with most of his arguments for why the Bible is trustworthy...

...while disgreeing with pretty much everything the author says about what Jesus meant. (More or less, the entire first paragraph.) He's also a bit lacking on his understanding of other major religions. (last few paragraphs)

For me, being "trustworthy" concerning history isn't the issue any more than the local paper. I agree that there is a great deal of reliability in many of the things, including the miraculous. However, it is clear that Jesus did not claim divine inspiration of a 66-book canon and neither did Paul (regardless of what one thinks about him). So the claim of inspiration of any canon is simply subjective at best.

I guess it would be nice (in a flesh-pleasing sort of way) to be able to pick and choose what parts of scripture to believe...

... if it weren't for that damning litlle stickler that it would amount to suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

 

[christundivided]

How great rsc2A art and SC...my two go to guys for Biblical apologetics.
;D

Funny thing is I agree with most of his arguments for why the Bible is trustworthy...

...while disgreeing with pretty much everything the author says about what Jesus meant. (More or less, the entire first paragraph.) He's also a bit lacking on his understanding of other major religions. (last few paragraphs)

For me, being "trustworthy" concerning history isn't the issue any more than the local paper. I agree that there is a great deal of reliability in many of the things, including the miraculous. However, it is clear that Jesus did not claim divine inspiration of a 66-book canon and neither did Paul (regardless of what one thinks about him). So the claim of inspiration of any canon is simply subjective at best.

I guess it would be nice (in a flesh-pleasing sort of way) to be able to pick and choose what parts of scripture to believe...

... if it weren't for that damning litlle stickler that it would amount to suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Whether you want to believe it or not..... those who set the canon did exactly the same thing. They chose what parts to believe. Many of the writings of the NT were distributed among certain classes of peoples. Matthew was pretty much a work that was exclusively distributed among early Christian Jews. Were as, Luke was pretty much distributed among early Gentile believers. There was quite some time before there was ever an attempt to set forth a truly authoritative collection of writings of the NT. There earliest known list of accepted writings post date the time of the apostles by well over 100 years or more. Maybe even 150 years. It just depends on who you believe. Even then, that list doesn't match the 66 book canon. Most people don't care one thing about studying the canonical process. Not one thing. They hide their head in the sand and try to wish the facts away. You owe it to yourself to study the process. To know who made what decisions and why.

While I accept the vast majority of the canon..... there absolutely no reason to believe that God ordained an exclusive 66 book canon. None. I have often compared the 66 book canon people to the KJVOist. They have so many things in common. There is no reason for you to be a 66 Book onlyist.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You don't believe the words written by Paul are truthful....he stole from the Gnostics.

He clearly "borrowed" from pagan sources. No question. Gnostics? Not sure, but they sure love him for a reason.

Yet Luke's gospel is true but Luke's writing in Acts aren't truthful.

Again, IMO that's inconsistent subjectivity....based on the discernment of YOU!

OK, this is an outright lie as I have addressed it to you on a couple different occasions when I assumed you didn't understand my position. I'm now calling it a deliberate lie on your part. In a subjective way, of course.

I accept what I believe by faith...because the Scripture tells us the just shall live by faith.

Not the "Scripture" that Jesus taught from: the prophets.

Habakkuk 2:4

Look! His spirit within him is puffed up; it is not upright. But the righteous shall live by his faithfulness.

 

[rsc2a]

I guess it would be nice (in a flesh-pleasing sort of way) to be able to pick and choose what parts of scripture to believe...

... if it weren't for that damning litlle stickler that it would amount to suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Whether you want to believe it or not..... those who set the canon did exactly the same thing. They chose what parts to believe. Many of the writings of the NT were distributed among certain classes of peoples. Matthew was pretty much a work that was exclusively distributed among early Christian Jews. Were as, Luke was pretty much distributed among early Gentile believers. There was quite some time before there was ever an attempt to set forth a truly authoritative collection of writings of the NT. There earliest known list of accepted writings post date the time of the apostles by well over 100 years or more. Maybe even 150 years. It just depends on who you believe. Even then, that list doesn't match the 66 book canon. Most people don't care one thing about studying the canonical process. Not one thing. They hide their head in the sand and try to wish the facts away. You owe it to yourself to study the process. To know who made what decisions and why.

While I accept the vast majority of the canon..... there absolutely no reason to believe that God ordained an exclusive 66 book canon. None. I have often compared the 66 book canon people to the KJVOist. They have so many things in common. There is no reason for you to be a 66 Book onlyist.

CU and I are looking at the same foundation even if we see different color carpeting in the living room. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I guess it would be nice (in a flesh-pleasing sort of way) to be able to pick and choose what parts of scripture to believe...

... if it weren't for that damning litlle stickler that it would amount to suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

So your belief in the "whole" is justified but not in the "part"? Seems your position comes from the same standard: choice. Nowhere does the canon claim inpiration of the 66 books.

 

[Reformed Guy]

Nowhere does the canon claim inpiration of the 66 books.

Kind of a mute point in light of the fact that it's not your authority.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

You don't believe the words written by Paul are truthful....he stole from the Gnostics.

He clearly "borrowed" from pagan sources. No question. Gnostics? Not sure, but they sure love him for a reason.

Yet Luke's gospel is true but Luke's writing in Acts aren't truthful.

Again, IMO that's inconsistent subjectivity....based on the discernment of YOU!

OK, this is an outright lie as I have addressed it to you on a couple different occasions when I assumed you didn't understand my position. I'm now calling it a deliberate lie on your part. In a subjective way, of course.

I accept what I believe by faith...because the Scripture tells us the just shall live by faith.

Not the "Scripture" that Jesus taught from: the prophets.

Habakkuk 2:4

Look! His spirit within him is puffed up; it is not upright. But the righteous shall live by his faithfulness.

So, Paul's writings are pagan inspired and untrustworthy.

It is not an outright lie...it is your position.
The Gospels, including Luke's YOU choose to give credibility.
Luke, writing Acts, which he wrote before he wrote his gospel, isn't trustworthy.
Or he's gullible and dishonest....but when he wrote the gospel, he was on his game and trustworthy. Now, Dan that's the truth, no matter how you spin it.

The just shall live by faith is repeated numerous times in the NT, which I believe to be The Truth...God breathed, infallible.
Because without faith, in Him, it is impossible to please God.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I guess it would be nice (in a flesh-pleasing sort of way) to be able to pick and choose what parts of scripture to believe...

... if it weren't for that damning litlle stickler that it would amount to suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Whether you want to believe it or not..... those who set the canon did exactly the same thing. They chose what parts to believe. Many of the writings of the NT were distributed among certain classes of peoples. Matthew was pretty much a work that was exclusively distributed among early Christian Jews. Were as, Luke was pretty much distributed among early Gentile believers. There was quite some time before there was ever an attempt to set forth a truly authoritative collection of writings of the NT. There earliest known list of accepted writings post date the time of the apostles by well over 100 years or more. Maybe even 150 years. It just depends on who you believe. Even then, that list doesn't match the 66 book canon. Most people don't care one thing about studying the canonical process. Not one thing. They hide their head in the sand and try to wish the facts away. You owe it to yourself to study the process. To know who made what decisions and why.

While I accept the vast majority of the canon..... there absolutely no reason to believe that God ordained an exclusive 66 book canon. None. I have often compared the 66 book canon people to the KJVOist. They have so many things in common. There is no reason for you to be a 66 Book onlyist.

CU and I are looking at the same foundation even if we see different color carpeting in the living room. 

There goes the neighborhood.....

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Luke, writing Acts, which he wrote before he wrote his gospel...[/quote]

Whaaaat?

 

[Castor Muscular]

Nowhere does the canon claim inpiration of the 66 books.

Kind of a mute point in light of the fact that it's not your authority.

"Moot". 

--Your friendly neighborhood spelling and grammar nazi. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Luke, writing Acts, which he wrote before he wrote his gospel...

Whaaaat?
[/quote]

You are correct....gasp!
A fingers ahead of my brain moment (both are real slow), oh Theophilus....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Nowhere does the canon claim inpiration of the 66 books.

Kind of a mute point in light of the fact that it's not your authority.

"Moot". 

--Your friendly neighborhood spelling and grammar nazi.

Moot is shoot if you drop the M and add SH..... ;D

 

[Castor Muscular]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Luke, writing Acts, which he wrote before he wrote his gospel...

Whaaaat?

You are correct....gasp!
A fingers ahead of my brain moment (both are real slow), oh Theopolis....
[/quote]

Is that an historic site in Greece?  Do you have any pictures? 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Luke, writing Acts, which he wrote before he wrote his gospel...

Whaaaat?

You are correct....gasp!
A fingers ahead of my brain moment (both are real slow), oh Theopolis....

Is that an historic site in Greece?  Do you have any pictures?
[/quote]

Heil Castor! 

 

[Reformed Guy]

Nowhere does the canon claim inpiration of the 66 books.

Kind of a mute point in light of the fact that it's not your authority.

"Moot". 

--Your friendly neighborhood spelling and grammar nazi.

I'll stick with mute point because it's a point that ain't saying much...

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

More book worshipping, idolatry!

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj15j.pdf

 

[rsc2a]

More book worshipping, idolatry!

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj15j.pdf

"God's authority in Scripture..."

"Scripture is to be authoritatively preached and submissively obeyed since the Author of..."

"However, with a biblical worldview, original authority and ultimate authority reside with God and God alone."

I'm only two pages in. Should I keep reading or is this article going to keep repeating what I've been saying the entire time?

 

[christundivided]

More book worshipping, idolatry!

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj15j.pdf

I'm curious.... Just how do the Scriptures lose their authority......if I believe that 1st Maccabees should be included? Jews have long considered it to have great historical importance. Hanukkah would be nothing without 1 Maccabees. Many have made the observation that 1 Maccabees if often rejected and at the same time celebrated.