Does this article propagate idolatry?

[Tarheel Baptist]

Still more book worship.

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-19/the-sufficiency-of-scripture-pt-2

 

[rsc2a]

Still more book worship.

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-19/the-sufficiency-of-scripture-pt-2

And by the way, in Scripture, God is always the source.

The fact is that God in a Scripture that we hold in our hands has given us a relatively perfect expression of His eternal will to establish all the necessary truth for spiritual life and duty.

The fact is that God in a Scripture that we hold in our hands has given us a relatively perfect expression of His eternal will to establish all the necessary truth for spiritual life and duty. And I believe that with all my heart because that's the testimony of God Himself.

Ahh...yes. Ultimate authority still rests with God according to this author. Another source to repeat what I've been stating all along.



With that being said...

The Word of God then has the power of total transformation...In other words, the new birth or conversion, transformation is accomplished by the Word of God.

Are we to believe that people have to go someplace to...because the Word of God is not sufficient to deliver people from sin? Do we no longer believe in its power to purify a nation of people so that we must turn to power politics to overcome the weakness of the eternal Word of the living God? God forbid that we should believe that for a moment. The Word is adequate and sufficient as a clean Word, to clean the heart, to purge the heart.

Listen, the Word of God is the greatest possession.

The Scripture, yes it is the one thing that gives us without question the greatest possession, the greatest pleasure, the greatest protection, the greatest profit and fifthly, verses 12 and 13, the greatest purification. It is a purifier.

Yes, this author has elevated Scripture to the place of Godhood. If only the author was referring to the Word of God, Jesus the Christ, when he wrote these things, then yes and amen. When he is talking about the revelation of God without referring to God Himself in Jesus, the author is promoting bibliolatry.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]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.[/quote]

Scripture doesn't lose its authority just because we fail to acknowledge Scripture as such. Conversely, just because someone decides to call something Scripture doesn't make it Scripture either.

With that being said, I still support a 66-book canon for a variety of reasons. Sounds like a good idea for a formal debate for a couple people actually.

 

[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.

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.

FWIW, I have read enough about the history of the canon that I have a fairly good grasp on how it came to be recognized-- although I am far from an expert.

The important point is that it was recognized, not "chose."  In short, those men who were involved examined and recognized the books that bore the stamp of God's authority. 

The objection that nowhere in scripture is a list of approved books found is silly for a couple of reasons:

One, being, that those making the claim apparently don't recognize the authority of scripture anyway-- so they wouldn't necessarily believe it if it did. They claim to be subjective (but only when it suits them), but want to hold others (God included) to their requirement.  It's kind of like the argument the atheists use when they say "I won't believe God exists unless you show Him to me."  We appeal to the self-attesting authority of scripture and they cry "foul," all the while appealing to the authority of their own reason.  They don't "believe" in Scripture (I guess that makes them unbelievers, huh?), and we do, but they want to deny us the use of appealing to our authority while they retain the right to appeal to their's.  They won't subject themselves to our authority but insist we must bow to their own reason(s).

We could look at it this way.  The creation account tells us of the sun- to rule the day- and of the moon- to rule the night.  Now we know what the sun is and we know what day is- likewise, the moon and night.  But nowhere does scripture give us a picture of day and a picture of night-- there's no color graph of light nor is there one of darkness.  Think how silly it would be to argue that the sun is the moon, and day is night, because we require that scripture give us this important detail.  No, that won't work--because apart from any 8x10 glossy photograph scripture is clear enough in it's information given that we can recognize day and recognize light.  Scripture, from it's opening pages, bears the mark of God's authority and assumes such authority that God's people may recognize what is the Word of God.

 

[Reformed Guy]

http://www.the-highway.com/scripture_Ridderbos.html

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Reformed Guy]The important point is that it was recognized, not "chose."  In short, those men who were involved examined and recognized the books that bore the stamp of God's authority. [/quote]

Yes.

[quote author=Reformed Guy]The objection that nowhere in scripture is a list of approved books found is silly for a couple of reasons:[/quote]

The objection is against the notion that Scripture is to be our sole source of authority in matters of faith and the absurd statement that Scripture is our only means of learning about/from God.

[quote author=Reformed Guy]One, being, that those making the claim apparently don't recognize the authority of scripture anyway-- so they wouldn't necessarily believe it if it did.[/quote]

I don't? Strange...I have explicitly stated otherwise.

 

[christundivided]

FWIW, I have read enough about the history of the canon that I have a fairly good grasp on how it came to be recognized-- although I am far from an expert.

The important point is that it was recognized, not "chose."  In short, those men who were involved examined and recognized the books that bore the stamp of God's authority. 

I've heard and debated that argument many times. Those who make such arguments are playing semantic games. The fact someone "recognized" the various books of the canon doesn't preclude the fact they made a choice.  A less than Divine choice. The KJVOist would readily say they are not making a "choice". God has already made the choice and they are just "recognizing" His choice. There is no difference. The same would be said by the Mormon and their filthy choice in the "book of Mormon".

Reality is...... no one single council on canonical recognition, agreed with any other council on canonical recognition, till the late 4th century. The 4TH CENTURY and it wasn't the 66 book canon. As much as you would like to show some type of "concise" process in which the canon was "recognized" with overwhelming "support"...... its not there. Even though some councils recognized the book of Revelation as being canonical, the churches didn't ready accept the canonical inclusion of The Book of Revelation. Disputes about it acceptance last well into the 16th century.

The objection that nowhere in scripture is a list of approved books found is silly for a couple of reasons:

One, being, that those making the claim apparently don't recognize the authority of scripture anyway-- so they wouldn't necessarily believe it if it did. They claim to be subjective (but only when it suits them), but want to hold others (God included) to their requirement.  It's kind of like the argument the atheists use when they say "I won't believe God exists unless you show Him to me."  We appeal to the self-attesting authority of scripture and they cry "foul," all the while appealing to the authority of their own reason.  They don't "believe" in Scripture (I guess that makes them unbelievers, huh?), and we do, but they want to deny us the use of appealing to our authority while they retain the right to appeal to their's.  They won't subject themselves to our authority but insist we must bow to their own reason(s).

Talk about nonsense. I readily accept the authority of Scripture. Likewise, there are many many peoples that question a 66 book canon that recognize Scriptural authority. I've not asked you to bow to my authority. Let me give an example.

There is no single doctrine destroyed by including the book of first 1 Maccabees. Yet there is a great historical loss in excluding it. Did you know that John 10:22-23 clearly references historical events found only in 1 Maccabees. Have you ever heard of the Feast of Lights or the Feast of Dedication?

We could look at it this way.  The creation account tells us of the sun- to rule the day- and of the moon- to rule the night.  Now we know what the sun is and we know what day is- likewise, the moon and night.  But nowhere does scripture give us a picture of day and a picture of night-- there's no color graph of light nor is there one of darkness.  Think how silly it would be to argue that the sun is the moon, and day is night, because we require that scripture give us this important detail.  No, that won't work--because apart from any 8x10 glossy photograph scripture is clear enough in it's information given that we can recognize day and recognize light.  Scripture, from it's opening pages, bears the mark of God's authority and assumes such authority that God's people may recognize what is the Word of God.

I'm not demanding a color graph. God's people haven't always made the same choices..... and still don't. The 72 book canon largely went unquestioned in many areas until the Reformation. Augustine approved of the Greek OT canon. So did Jerome to some degree. I hope you realize the very names of the OT books didn't come from a Hebrew canon that excluded the book rejected from your 66 book canon. There wouldn't even be a 66 book canon without the Greek OT.

 

[Ransom]

The objection is against the notion that Scripture is to be our sole source of authority in matters of faith and the absurd statement that Scripture is our only means of learning about/from God.

1. What other authoritative source is there?
2. How can we know it is authoritative?
3. What does it teach that is not also found in the God-breathed Scriptures?

 

[rsc2a]

The objection is against the notion that Scripture is to be our sole source of authority in matters of faith and the absurd statement that Scripture is our only means of learning about/from God.

1. What other authoritative source is there?

From the sister thread:

[D]reams, visions, feelings, experience, a community of faith, examples of the saints, revelations through the created order, and most importantly, the Holy Spirit.

[quote author=Ransom]2. How can we know it is authoritative?[/quote]

Does it encourage us to love God and love others? Is it in agreeance with or opposed to accepted revelations of God including (or especially) Scripture? Does it agree with the teachings of the overall community of faith or is it opposed? (I am not necessarily referring to capital "T" Tradtion.)

[quote author=Ransom]3. What does it teach that is not also found in the God-breathed Scriptures?[/quote]

Acceptable canon, to bring up a point that others have discussed. How eternal principles would look in a modern context. (Sometimes) how to handle the "grey" areas in Scripture.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

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.

And to make a canon an authority instead of or equal to God, well...

 

[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.

And to make a canon an authority instead of or equal to God, well...

Again, are you dense or purposely putting words into our collective mouths? So much softer than calling you a liar.

The Bible is how God revealed Himself to us. It is our guide in faith and practice toward our worship. As opposed to whatever you decide is right....

 

[Smellin Coffee]

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

Did Paul quote pagan sources as confirmation of doctrinal teaching? That itself should say something.

It is not an outright lie...it is your position.
The Gospels, including Luke's YOU choose to give credibility.

You said about what my position:

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

I stated it to you at least 3 times before on here and FB that BOTH are credible as LUKE is credible, as far as I can tell. And he recorded how he understood things as a historian, not as a prophet or theolgian. In Acts he recorded Paul's deceit in his part of taking the vow, Paul's lie about his arrest, Paul's different spins on his testimony, Paul's rejection of Agabus, etc. Though Luke was Paul's friend and I would probably disagree with some of Luke's theology, he was brutally honest and that honesty comes through despite possible Marcionian interpolation that may have occurred as they purposely violated 1st century Ebionite writings.

Luke, writing Acts, which he wrote before he wrote his gospel, isn't trustworthy.

Acts 1:1

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

So Luke wrote another gospel than what is recorded? Where can I find it?

Or he's gullible and dishonest....but when he wrote the gospel, he was on his game and trustworthy.

See my point above. Again, I believe Luke recorded as honestly as he understood things AS A HISTORIAN and not a prophet.

Now, Dan that's the truth, no matter how you spin it.

I hope that clarifies things for you. I don't mind being disagreed with as it is discussions like this that I learn. But I do not appreciate a purposeful malignment of my ideals in order to spin them out of context.

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.

So is this an admission that Paul and Apollos (or whoever the writer of Hebrews was) "reinvented" Habakkuk's context?

 

[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.

And to make a canon an authority instead of or equal to God, well...

Again, are you dense or purposely putting words into our collective mouths? So much softer than calling you a liar.

The Bible is how God revealed Himself to us. It is our guide in faith and practice toward our worship. As opposed to whatever you decide is right....

Is some or all of the Bible, as we have it now, fallible?  Is the current choice of the 66 books infallible? 

When someone says "you aren't disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with God" and then quotes scripture, they are making (their interpretation of) the Bible equal to God. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The Bible is how God revealed Himself to us. It is our guide in faith and practice toward our worship. As opposed to whatever you decide is right....

I have no problem with that other than God does reveal Himself to us in other manners (just ask Paul ). But those statements are a far cry from claiming a particular canon and that alone is divinely inspired and authoritative in all manner of life's practices.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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

Did Paul quote pagan sources as confirmation of doctrinal teaching? That itself should say something.

It is not an outright lie...it is your position.
The Gospels, including Luke's YOU choose to give credibility.

You said about what my position:

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

I stated it to you at least 3 times before on here and FB that BOTH are credible as LUKE is credible, as far as I can tell. And he recorded how he understood things as a historian, not as a prophet or theolgian. In Acts he recorded Paul's deceit in his part of taking the vow, Paul's lie about his arrest, Paul's different spins on his testimony, Paul's rejection of Agabus, etc. Though Luke was Paul's friend and I would probably disagree with some of Luke's theology, he was brutally honest and that honesty comes through despite possible Marcionian interpolation that may have occurred as they purposely violated 1st century Ebionite writings.

Luke, writing Acts, which he wrote before he wrote his gospel, isn't trustworthy.

Acts 1:1

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

So Luke wrote another gospel than what is recorded? Where can I find it?

Or he's gullible and dishonest....but when he wrote the gospel, he was on his game and trustworthy.

See my point above. Again, I believe Luke recorded as honestly as he understood things AS A HISTORIAN and not a prophet.

Now, Dan that's the truth, no matter how you spin it.

I hope that clarifies things for you. I don't mind being disagreed with as it is discussions like this that I learn. But I do not appreciate a purposeful malignment of my ideals in order to spin them out of context.

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.

So is this an admission that Paul and Apollos (or whoever the writer of Hebrews was) "reinvented" Habakkuk's context?

I understand you perspective, but the fact of the matter is....you choose to give credence to Luke's Gospel but not Acts. I choose to accept both as Scripture.

Subjective? As Scripture says MANY times, the just shall live by faith....the faith that was once delivered to the saints. 

Consistent? Me yes, you, not so much.

And do you read the posts or just talk to yourself, Oh Theophilus?

Go thou and believe what thou chooseth to believeth and I shall do the same.
But you are foolish to think your (in my opinion) apostasy won't have an effect on your family.

 

[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.

And to make a canon an authority instead of or equal to God, well...

Again, are you dense or purposely putting words into our collective mouths? So much softer than calling you a liar.

The Bible is how God revealed Himself to us. It is our guide in faith and practice toward our worship. As opposed to whatever you decide is right....

Don't you get it already?  The way to see more clearly is to walk in a fog.

 

[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.

And to make a canon an authority instead of or equal to God, well...

Again, are you dense or purposely putting words into our collective mouths? So much softer than calling you a liar.

The Bible is how God revealed Himself to us. It is our guide in faith and practice toward our worship. As opposed to whatever you decide is right....

Is some or all of the Bible, as we have it now, fallible?  Is the current choice of the 66 books infallible? 

When someone says "you aren't disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with God" and then quotes scripture, they are making (their interpretation of) the Bible equal to God.

I believe the 66 Book canon is the word of God containing all attributes of Gods Word. If you disagree, you are disagreeing with the Bible.
The Bible says every man will give an account of HIMSELF to God.
I'm good with that....

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I believe the 66 Book canon is the word of God containing all attributes of Gods Word. If you disagree, you are disagreeing with the Bible. [/quote]

So I'll ask what many of us have asked many, many times yet again...

Where does the Bible claim that only the books contained therein are the correct canon and all books contained therein are, likewise, to be considered canonical?

You just explicitly stated that the Bible makes a claim for canonicity regarding what was ultimately accepted and what was ultimately rejected as authoritative. What text are you going to use to support that claim?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I believe the 66 Book canon is the word of God containing all attributes of Gods Word. If you disagree, you are disagreeing with the Bible.

So I'll ask what many of us have asked many, many times yet again...

Where does the Bible claim that only the books contained therein are the correct canon and all books contained therein are, likewise, to be considered canonical?

You just explicitly stated that the Bible makes a claim for canonicity regarding what was ultimately accepted and what was ultimately rejected as authoritative. What text are you going to use to support that claim?
[/quote]

I'll ask you a question I asked before....

Where does the Bible say, claim or intimate God wouldn't or couldn't reveal Himself in a 66 book canon?

I didn't ever say the Bible makes a claim for a 66 book canon.
I said the Bible makes a claim for an innerrant, infallible, God breathed Word.
I think we have it in the canon.....you think your dreams, sex with your wife and a ham sandwich are credible words from God. Don't you?

 

[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.

And to make a canon an authority instead of or equal to God, well...

Again, are you dense or purposely putting words into our collective mouths? So much softer than calling you a liar.

The Bible is how God revealed Himself to us. It is our guide in faith and practice toward our worship. As opposed to whatever you decide is right....

Don't you get it already?  The way to see more clearly is to walk in a fog.

You're a gnostic.