Does this article propagate idolatry?

[Ransom]

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.

Most of these are purely subjective, and none of them are infallible, except for the Holy Spirit, and he is experienced through dreams, visions, feelings, etc. which also may not be infallible.

How, then, are these authoritative? Can you convey to me infallibly any authoritative teachings from your dreams or experience or revelation through the created order?

Does it encourage us to love God and love others?

I can tell you to love God and love others. Does that make me a God-breathed, authoritative source of revelation? Incidentally, where did I get the idea that we are to love God and love our neighbours?

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.)

In other words . . . do these subjective sources of authority agree with Scripture or with the community of faith, which presumably also is subject to Scripture?

See, it all comes back down to the one, objective, infallible God-breathed revelation we have. Explain to me why we need dreams and visions again?

Acceptable canon, to bring up a point that others have discussed.

I'll concede that point: the canon does not include its infallible table of contents, but the consensus of the universal church that these books are indeed God-breathed; as R. C. Sproul puts it, it's a fallible list of infallible books.

However, that's one thing. A certain saying about the exception that proves the rule seems in order here . . .

How eternal principles would look in a modern context. (Sometimes) how to handle the "grey" areas in Scripture.

Except that isn't an authoritative teaching not found in Scripture. It's a subjective extrapolation based on thoughtful study of the authoritative teachings found in Scripture. If two Christians come to opposite conclusions about the correct application of a given passage, how will you decide which one is the authoritative one? Both can't be.

 

[Castor Muscular]

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.

"I believe the 66 Book canon is the word of God containing all attributes of Gods Word."

That is your assertion.

"If you disagree, you are disagreeing with the Bible."

Your argument thus asserts that the Bible says that "the 66 Book canon is the word of God containing all attributes of Gods Word." 

So either you're saying the Bible says, "the 66 Book canon is the word of God containing all attributes of Gods Word", or you need to revise your argument.

 

[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.

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?

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?[/quote]

It doesn't. It's very odd that you would attribute such a belief to me since I've explicitly stated that God can reveal Himself in a number of ways. In fact, I've also stated that I believe Scripture is one way in which He has chosen to do so.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I didn't ever say the Bible makes a claim for a 66 book canon.[/quote]

Actually, you did. You may not have meant that, but you did.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I said the Bible makes a claim for an innerrant, infallible, God breathed Word.[/quote]

You have stated this in other places. And, depending on how you define those terms, I would possibly agree with you. But you didn't say that here. You said 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 author=Tarheel Baptist]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?[/quote]

In Scripture, possibly in dreams, definitely in the good parts of life. See, I believe all the Bible, not just selected parts, and there are plenty of places where it states that we learn about God from creation.

 

[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.

"I believe the 66 Book canon is the word of God containing all attributes of Gods Word."

That is your assertion.

"If you disagree, you are disagreeing with the Bible."

Your argument thus asserts that the Bible says that "the 66 Book canon is the word of God containing all attributes of Gods Word." 

So either you're saying the Bible says, "the 66 Book canon is the word of God containing all attributes of Gods Word", or you need to revise your argument.

I said I believe the 66 book canon is the Word of God.
I said I attribute the characteristics of God's word to the 66 book canon.
I said if you don't agree with what's written in the 66 book canon, you disagree with the Bible (which I define as the 66 book canon). That was in response to your asking 'if I disagree with the Bible do I disagree with God'?
If you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, then the rest is semantics...

 

[rsc2a]

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.

Most of these are purely subjective, and none of them are infallible, except for the Holy Spirit, and he is experienced through dreams, visions, feelings, etc. which also may not be infallible.

Kind of like having an fallible canon of infallible Scripture.

[quote author=Ransom]How, then, are these authoritative? Can you convey to me infallibly any authoritative teachings from your dreams or experience or revelation through the created order?[/quote]

The same way Scripture is. Because God has chosen to speak to us through these means and, insomuch as God is speaking, these teachings are infallible.

[quote author=Ransom]

Does it encourage us to love God and love others?

I can tell you to love God and love others. Does that make me a God-breathed, authoritative source of revelation? Incidentally, where did I get the idea that we are to love God and love our neighbours? [/quote]

It might. And lots of places.

[quote author=Ransom]

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.)

In other words . . . do these subjective sources of authority agree with Scripture or with the community of faith, which presumably also is subject to Scripture?[/quote]

Yes. I would completely agree here. I just wouldn't limit it to Scripture...while keeping in mind that every revelation of God is true and therefore must be in agreement.

[quote author=Ransom]See, it all comes back down to the one, objective, infallible God-breathed revelation we have. Explain to me why we need dreams and visions again? [/quote]

The Spirit?

Need? We don't need them...well, we need God to speak to us. He has chosen a variety of methods.

[quote author=Ransom]

Acceptable canon, to bring up a point that others have discussed.

I'll concede that point: the canon does not include its infallible table of contents, but the consensus of the universal church that these books are indeed God-breathed; as R. C. Sproul puts it, it's a fallible list of infallible books.[/quote]

i.e. "the community of faith"

[quote author=Ransom]However, that's one thing. A certain saying about the exception that proves the rule seems in order here . . .[/quote]

Except that it doesn't apply when people are making absolute claims.

[quote author=Ransom]

How eternal principles would look in a modern context. (Sometimes) how to handle the "grey" areas in Scripture.

Except that isn't an authoritative teaching not found in Scripture. It's a subjective extrapolation based on thoughtful study of the authoritative teachings found in Scripture. If two Christians come to opposite conclusions about the correct application of a given passage, how will you decide which one is the authoritative one? Both can't be.[/quote]

Sure it can be, and perhaps they both are. I'm more concerned with why they come to that conclusion than what the conclusion ultimately is.

 

[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?

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?

It doesn't. It's very odd that you would attribute such a belief to me since I've explicitly stated that God can reveal Himself in a number of ways. In fact, I've also stated that I believe Scripture is one way in which He has chosen to do so.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I didn't ever say the Bible makes a claim for a 66 book canon.[/quote]

Actually, you did. You may not have meant that, but you did.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I said the Bible makes a claim for an innerrant, infallible, God breathed Word.[/quote]

You have stated this in other places. And, depending on how you define those terms, I would possibly agree with you. But you didn't say that here. You said 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 author=Tarheel Baptist]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?[/quote]

In Scripture, possibly in dreams, definitely in the good parts of life. See, I believe all the Bible, not just selected parts, and there are plenty of places where it states that we learn about God from creation.
[/quote]

You miss the point.

No, I didn't claim the Bible claims a 66 book canon.

Whether you agree with me or not, makes no difference in what I believe and the truth is true whether or not either of us believe it.

Your dreams, visions, sex and sandwich argument is laughable!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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.

Most of these are purely subjective, and none of them are infallible, except for the Holy Spirit, and he is experienced through dreams, visions, feelings, etc. which also may not be infallible.

Kind of like having an fallible canon of infallible Scripture.

[quote author=Ransom]How, then, are these authoritative? Can you convey to me infallibly any authoritative teachings from your dreams or experience or revelation through the created order?

The same way Scripture is. Because God has chosen to speak to us through these means and, insomuch as God is speaking, these teachings are infallible.

[quote author=Ransom]

Does it encourage us to love God and love others?

I can tell you to love God and love others. Does that make me a God-breathed, authoritative source of revelation? Incidentally, where did I get the idea that we are to love God and love our neighbours? [/quote]

It might. And lots of places.

[quote author=Ransom]

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.)

In other words . . . do these subjective sources of authority agree with Scripture or with the community of faith, which presumably also is subject to Scripture?[/quote]

Yes. I would completely agree here. I just wouldn't limit it to Scripture...while keeping in mind that every revelation of God is true and therefore must be in agreement.

[quote author=Ransom]See, it all comes back down to the one, objective, infallible God-breathed revelation we have. Explain to me why we need dreams and visions again? [/quote]

The Spirit?

Need? We don't need them...well, we need God to speak to us. He has chosen a variety of methods.

[quote author=Ransom]

Acceptable canon, to bring up a point that others have discussed.

I'll concede that point: the canon does not include its infallible table of contents, but the consensus of the universal church that these books are indeed God-breathed; as R. C. Sproul puts it, it's a fallible list of infallible books.[/quote]

i.e. "the community of faith"

[quote author=Ransom]However, that's one thing. A certain saying about the exception that proves the rule seems in order here . . .[/quote]

Except that it doesn't apply when people are making absolute claims.

[quote author=Ransom]

How eternal principles would look in a modern context. (Sometimes) how to handle the "grey" areas in Scripture.

Except that isn't an authoritative teaching not found in Scripture. It's a subjective extrapolation based on thoughtful study of the authoritative teachings found in Scripture. If two Christians come to opposite conclusions about the correct application of a given passage, how will you decide which one is the authoritative one? Both can't be.[/quote]

Sure it can be, and perhaps they both are. I'm more concerned with why they come to that conclusion than what the conclusion ultimately is.
[/quote]


Whistle on past the graveyard.......

 

[christundivided]

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.

Its interesting to note that Luke's Gospel and the Book of Acts were likely one work and later separated. I personally have reservation about the inclusion of genealogies in the book of Luke. I tend to believe that the genealogies were added later.

 

[Ransom]

Sure it can be, and perhaps they both are. I'm more concerned with why they come to that conclusion than what the conclusion ultimately is.

Well, there you have it. You don't need the law of non-contradiction if you have the Holy Spirit.

Enjoy your personal, subjective religion of unreason.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]You miss the point.

No, I didn't claim the Bible claims a 66 book canon.[/quote]

No. By the rules of logic, you did as both CM and I have pointed out. You might not have meant that, but that is the claim that you made.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Your dreams, visions, sex and sandwich argument is laughable![/quote]

I know...it's clearly laughable to believe what the Bible has to teach about God's self-revelation.

 

[rsc2a]

Sure it can be, and perhaps they both are. I'm more concerned with why they come to that conclusion than what the conclusion ultimately is.

Well, there you have it. You don't need the law of non-contradiction if you have the Holy Spirit.

Enjoy your personal, subjective religion of unreason.

So tell me...is drug use always bad? Is it always wrong to strike another person? Are all incidents of intercourse between married partners equally proper? Is it always wrong to eat meat offered to idols?

I mean if it's so black and white...

 

[Ransom]

So tell me...is drug use always bad?

Drug use in what context?

Is it always wrong to strike another person?

Strike him in what context?

Are all incidents of intercourse between married partners equally proper?

In what context?

Is it always wrong to eat meat offered to idols?

I mean if it's so black and white...

Being intentionally vague does not create contradiction . . . only frustration and annoyance that you can't give a straight answer.

 

[Ransom]

So tell me...is drug use always bad?

How about you tell me:

One Christian says that based on his study of the Scripture and the still small voice of the Holy Spirit, he believes that recreational use of marijuana is wrong. Another Christian says that it is permissible. Are they both correct?

Is it always wrong to strike another person?

One Christian says the Holy Spirit has led him to believe that no believer should join in the military and run the risk of having to shoot another human being in anger. Another Christian claims the Holy Spirit has led him to believe that Christians should serve in the military. Are they both correct?

Are all incidents of intercourse between married partners equally proper?

One Christian says he is led by the Spirit to believe that God permits only procreative sexual intercourse between husband and wife. Another says that the Spirit has revealed to him that anything goes in the marriage bed. Can they both be correct?

Is it always wrong to eat meat offered to idols?

After prayer and study and listening to the inner voice of God in his soul, one Christian has the conviction that he should eat no meat because it might be associated with idols. The Christian next door believes that God has taught him there is nothing intrinsically defiled about meat sold in the open market.  Are both these views true?

I mean, if there are so many shades of grey, let's at least start by eliminating the vagaries so we know we're comparing apples to apples.

 

[rsc2a]

So tell me...is drug use always bad?

Drug use in what context?

Is it always wrong to strike another person?

Strike him in what context?

Are all incidents of intercourse between married partners equally proper?

In what context?

Is it always wrong to eat meat offered to idols?

I mean if it's so black and white...

Being intentionally vague does not create contradiction . . . only frustration and annoyance that you can't give a straight answer.

You mean the why is more important than the what? 

 

[rsc2a]

So tell me...is drug use always bad?

How about you tell me:

One Christian says that based on his study of the Scripture and the still small voice of the Holy Spirit, he believes that recreational use of marijuana is wrong. Another Christian says that it is permissible. Are they both correct?

Possibly.

“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience—I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. (1 Corinthians 10:23-33, ESV)

[quote author=Ransom]

Is it always wrong to strike another person?

One Christian says the Holy Spirit has led him to believe that no believer should join in the military and run the risk of having to shoot another human being in anger. Another Christian claims the Holy Spirit has led him to believe that Christians can should serve in the military. Are they both correct?[/quote]

Possibly. (See above verses.)

[quote author=Ransom]

Are all incidents of intercourse between married partners equally proper?

One Christian says he is led by the Spirit to believe that God permits only procreative sexual intercourse between husband and wife. Another says that the Spirit has revealed to him that anything goes in the marriage bed. Can they both be correct?[/quote]

Possibly. (See above verses.)

[quote author=Ransom]

Is it always wrong to eat meat offered to idols?

After prayer and study and listening to the inner voice of God in his soul, one Christian has the conviction that he should eat no meat because it might be associated with idols. The Christian next door believes that God has taught him there is nothing intrinsically defiled about meat sold in the open market.  Are both these views true?[/quote]

Possibly. (See above verses.)

[quote author=Ransom]I mean, if there are so many shades of grey, let's at least start by eliminating the vagaries so we know we're comparing apples to apples.[/quote]

Just admitting that there are shades of grey is a start. Just admitting that what is permissible for one might not be permissible for another is a start.

 

[Ransom]

Possibly. . . .
Possibly. . . .
Possibly. . . .
Possibly. . . .

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, there is no profit in attempting to reason with someone who denies the most fundamental law of logic. No point in listening any further, really.

 

[rsc2a]

Possibly. . . .
Possibly. . . .
Possibly. . . .
Possibly. . . .

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, there is no profit in attempting to reason with someone who denies the most fundamental law of logic. No point in listening any further, really.

I know...that Apostle Paul was one crazy bird.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I said I believe the 66 book canon is the Word of God.
I said I attribute the characteristics of God's word to the 66 book canon.
I said if you don't agree with what's written in the 66 book canon, you disagree with the Bible (which I define as the 66 book canon). That was in response to your asking 'if I disagree with the Bible do I disagree with God'?
If you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, then the rest is semantics...

Here, let me just fix it for you in a simple way.

"I believe the 66 Book canon is the word of God containing all attributes of Gods Word. If you disagree, you are disagreeing with me."

FIFY

 

[Ransom]

I know...that Apostle Paul was one crazy bird.

Well, you're not him.

 

[rsc2a]

That Ransom guy seems to have made similar statements before also:

"Should they?" is the wrong question. Depends on the situation. - Ransom

The conclusion of the context is not "don't eat." It's "sometimes eat, sometimes don't, depending on the circumstances."- Ransom